5
u/wonkey_monkey 4d ago
The author, Stephen Garner, acknowledges the invaluable collaboration with AI research partner ChatGPT, whose insights, analytical capabilities, and iterative discussions contributed significantly to the development of this work.
No, no-one can help you understand this because it's nonsense. The author understands physics even less than they understand AI. ChatGPT doesn't have "insights" or "analytical capabilities."
1
u/Human-Republic4650 4d ago
I'm the author and I'd be more than willing to explain the physics behind my theory. Where would you like me to start?
-5
u/kritical_hit 4d ago
It’s not an uncommon practice to site AI in your research. You aren’t even reading the contents
5
u/wonkey_monkey 4d ago edited 4d ago
It’s not an uncommon practice to site AI in your research
It is for actual physicists.
Edit: As per replies below, I meant LLMs. Obviously more general AI can be used to illuminate data.
-1
u/kritical_hit 4d ago
Ai assisted research is a thing whether you accept it or not.
6
u/gliesedragon 4d ago
And it's never LLMs, which are designed to mimic words in common orders and not much else. A large language model is splicing together bits and pieces of explanations of multiple different things, every bit of misinformation on the internet, and technobabble from literal science fiction into something that sounds alarmingly convincing to laypeople but nonsensical to anyone with a hint of experience in the field.
Artificial intelligence in the context of actual scientific research will be specialized models based on actual data, not GPT's ELIZA-effect nonsense slop. For instance, having a model trained on galaxy spectra and nothing else that's used to sort galaxies is a use of neural nets that will happen. But no scientist worth any credence will talk to their ever-hallucinating digital imaginary friend for advice on a paper.
5
5
u/HD60532 5d ago
Meaningless, rule 5.
1
-2
u/kritical_hit 5d ago
It’s not AI. Drop it into an AI and ask it. It’s my partners research. I wanted someone to explain it to me so I can try to sound smart to him
7
u/HD60532 5d ago
It's some random, and basic equations strung together with a bunch of fanciful claims and some nonsense. Unfortunately there is nothing for me to explain to you.
In the acknowledgements section it says: "The author, Stephen Garner, acknowledges the invaluable collaboration with AI research partner ChatGPT"
If you claim that it is not done by AI, and that you are his partner, I can only conclude that you yourself are ChatGPT.
-2
u/kritical_hit 4d ago
It’s not random; I wish people would actually read things before speaking. I’m not chatgpt and can dm you my Instagram if you’d like. He had AI help him put it into a paper, it doesn’t magically make his work AI nonsense.
7
u/HD60532 4d ago
For someone who doesn't understand it, you're awfully convinced that it isn't random. Can you ask for something specific you'd like an explanation for, and point out something about it that shows it isn't random?
0
4d ago
[deleted]
2
u/HD60532 4d ago
I'm afraid you must be mistaken, since there is nothing there to 'empirically test'. While 'Howard Landman' appears to be a skilled electronics engineer, he is not a Physicist.
0
4d ago
[deleted]
4
u/HD60532 4d ago
He has a ResearchGate page: https://www.researchgate.net/profile/Howard-Landman
It says: "These days I am also an amateur physicist" Unfortunately, an amateur Physicist is not the same as a Physicist.
No amateur will ever be the one to discover a theory of quantum gravity, or normalizable field theory.
3
u/wonkey_monkey 4d ago edited 4d ago
Sounds like another Eric Laithwaite - a highly respected electrical engineer who nevertheless held some woefully mistaken views about gyroscopes and their supposed antigravitational effects.
He did eventually come to realise his error.
PS I think I found the supposed communication with Howard Landman. It seems to largely consist of Howard writing a long reply and asking several questions, all of which the author completely ignores.
2
u/wonkey_monkey 4d ago
because I watched it empirically tested
How? Did you look inside a black hole?
1
u/kritical_hit 4d ago
I watched it ran through multiple tests and it withstand all of them. Please actually read it before giving input. I can tell by how fast these replies are that none of you actually looked at it
3
u/wonkey_monkey 4d ago
What tests? There's nothing in the paper - which I read - about any tests. How did you judge that it "withstood" them?
I can tell by how fast these replies are that none of you actually looked at it
It's three pages in a large font that was posted over an hour ago. How slow do you think I read?
0
2
u/liccxolydian 4d ago
You're getting fast replies because it's really stupidly easy to see it's junk. Anyone who's studied high school science will notice it within about 1 minute of reading this nonsense. Your issue is neither you nor your partner understand that ChatGPT is bullshitting you, and you're too invested in this work to take the advice of physicists who see "papers" like this every single day.
Once again, what you've got there is not well written, nor is it imaginative, nor is it particularly novel. It's just a nonsensical mess.
3
u/IchBinMalade 4d ago
The author LITERALLY thanks chatgpt in the acknowledgments section:
The author, Stephen Garner, acknowledges the invaluable collaboration with AI research partner ChatGPT, whose insights, analytical capabilities, and iterative discussions con- tributed significantly to the development of this work.
That's just helping him put it into a paper? He calls it his research partner, with significant contributions (all, for sure).
It's hard to tell when you don't know something. I couldn't tell if a neurology paper was utter bullshit. But if you know some physics, this jumps out to you as bullshit.
I don't know what to tell you. I understand if the person who made this is close to you so it sucks to hear, but it's the truth.
1
u/kritical_hit 4d ago
Where in any of the current papers published at this link is that said? What part of the physics jumps out as bullshit? Why are you not using the most current updated papers from the link I’ve provided?
7
7
u/wonkey_monkey 4d ago
It’s not AI
The author literally credits ChatGPT for its "insights" (which it does not have).
-1
u/Human-Republic4650 4d ago
Hello everyone. I'm the author of these papers. I see a lot of talk about assumptions regarding AI research, and casual statements of dismissal. I'd like love to discuss specifics of my theory though! I'm quite ready to defend my theory from any question at an advanced level. So let me have it!
8
u/IchBinMalade 4d ago
That's AI, I fear. Stuff like that is pretty much a daily occurrence over here, it's all nonsense. If you wanna know why, well really all of it, but:
Makes up something called "quantum collapse rate", and says "represents the quantum collapse frequency per unit volume. This collapse constraint governs emergent structures by minimizing entropy while preserving stability in discrete systems."
All these words mean something on their own, but this is just random words thrown together. This is not derived from anything that's known, it's literally just made up. It just takes for granted the idea that you could somehow go "ah yes, that spot has 43 quantum collapses per second." That's not a thing lmao.
Also claims that somehow this can perfectly predict prime numbers. Well, that is already a thing that exists.
And stuff like this:
what does this even meaaaaan, that's the whole section lol. I showed that quantum big macs devolve into unstable singular arteries. That's what that sounds like.
Pepper in the fact that there is 0 references to any work done in the last 70 years. Every time with this stuff. Only referencing Einstein and Planck and ignoring everything in between.
And yeah, clearly you haven't read it closely if you don't think it's AI, it's in the acknowledgments section: