Dhillon1724X

I am not asking to ban,i just wanted to discuss.

A idea without Mathematics is just idea or worst fantasy. Add mathematics if you want your idea to truly survive. Even if your idea manages to survive critiques,it cant be taken seriously without mathematics. Some major problems of this paper- Repeated phrases like “particle clusters,” “energy saturation,” “escaping particles” are used vaguely. No equations, no symbolic expressions, no measurable quantities — common in AI text meant to sound scientific. Phrases like “The universe has no perfect spherical clusters” and “Heat is not vibration, but fleeing particles” are grand claims with no physical rigor. This style is common in AI-generated texts trained on mix of science + philosophical writing. Its all pointing that its AI generated.If you used AI as assistant then prove it.

I moved past the graviton idea not because I was escaping critique — but because I critiqued it myself until it collapsed. What emerged underneath was more fundamental. Not because I wanted a new name, but because I needed a new truth. The core idea is same,but now not just words. Science isn’t about clinging to terms — it’s about cutting deeper every time your own theory breaks. Thank you very much sir. Maybe it is a dead-end road. But I want to forge until I find the end — whether it leads to a new theory, or just another lesson that sharpens the next idea. Either way, I don't lose.

I will be honest Sir due to school,i am unable to even follow my normal routine.I cant even train. I didnt get time to learn it,as when i start i end it. Sir, I will make sure to fully learn the foundational concepts that I currently lack. I said those words because I’m not focused on just one field—I’m also training to become a powerlifter. Alongside that, I plan to pursue advanced web development, having already learned the basics. I’m also exploring software development, game development, and if my prototype succeeds, I intend to step into the tech industry as well.

Ok Sir,i will remeber that.

Update! As @joigus once said "Most such ideas are eventually discarded or shelved. But some persist and may become obsessions. Occassionally an obsession does finally turn out to be something good." It became a obsession when you all supported me and now its on verge to become something good. Now i can reveal that i wasnt working on gravitons,but something else. I understand. I will publish my work and then show you,i will accept if it have any problem. I am still learning and if you think that i dont even know basic things in GR,Thermodynamics,QM etc,then you are wrong.

I asked you something else and you are replying with something else. Is it translation error or it is a Leg pulling?

Sorry I did a silly mistake,I wanted to ask how old are you or what is your age? 抱歉，我犯了一个愚蠢的错误，我想问一下您多大了或者您的年龄是多少？

Can i know what academic achievements you have?If you dont mind then your age?

You're right that school teaches us how to study, not just what to study—and there’s value in that. But not everyone learns the same way. Some memorize, some repeat, and some, like me, prefer to go deep and understand the root of things. So while I agree there’s wisdom in learning how to study, I think real growth happens when we also discover our own pattern—how our mind connects with knowledge. That’s not self-deception; it’s self-discovery. I understand your point—and honestly, I might’ve agreed with you if I were still at the first stage of this idea. But a lot has changed since then. What started as a small idea has evolved into something bigger. I’ve built it step by step—adding proper mathematical structure, deriving results from known physics, and ensuring consistency with general relativity and quantum field theory. I'm not ignoring existing theories; I'm building on top of them, and in some areas, proposing meaningful extensions. Of course, I still have a long way to go, and I’m learning every day. But at this stage, what I’m doing is no longer “making stuff up”—it’s becoming a serious model worth debating. I’ll be happy to share the current version soon, and I welcome any critique rooted in the science itself. sorry if i disappointed you,i didnt want to do it. I am implementing what you all said,i am starting to learn calculus soon too. I will show you my work as a proof that how much i have developed. Maybe you cant see any change in conversation but believe me i always take your and other seniors advice seriously. I am seeing that i am losing some reputation here,I will get it back with my work as proof of my progression.

I dont need to consider you AI,what i lack is a person with whom i can openly discuss my ideas I know its not my idea,but what i am doing is mine. Maybe i dont know qm or gr,thats why i am here,"To fail and learn"

Do you have any observable evidences or proof and Mathematical proofs? 1).Photons aren’t streams of particles. In real physics, they’re single quantum objects with spin-1, not many particles moving together. 2).Saying light needs atoms to collide ignores real emission processes like electron transitions. 3).Again,there's no math or testable predictions.

But gravity is weakest force. Your model ignores the structure of spacetime, doesn’t reproduce quantum behavior like energy quantization or wave-particle duality, and uses gravity in regimes where it's 10⁴⁰ times too weak to explain observed atomic interactions. Without incorporating general relativity or quantum mechanics, your model cannot replace the current framework — especially not for light, heat, or structure formation

As i said earlier,i am doing this because of my curiosity and some goals. I will learn all of the things you said but not from college or university,however as i said i learn when i need. i will learn calculus when i will work on thing related to it. I will be theoretical physicist but not by getting a Phd or a degree,i will become one with my knowledge and theories.

Its so time consuming to read whole thing,i mean its good when you know whats the wholething about,whats new in it and how its supported. I will suggest to write a abstract.

Yes, you're right — we have to study physics, and it’s mandatory. I do study physics, but I don’t have access to a lab, a mentor, or a professor to discuss ideas with or take advice from. My current weakness is math, and that’s exactly why I use AI. I use ChatGPT, and as AI adapts to the user over time, it has adapted to me. I usually give it rough equations, or equations I want to modify or derive from existing ones — that’s how I work with it. The key to getting truthful, direct, and scientific answers from AI — without sugarcoating — is by using the phrase “be brutally honest.” That forces it to respond directly and critically, which helps me a lot. I don’t use Deep Research or anything like that. AI isn’t training me on new models — it’s just a tool that supports what I already do. Advanced tools for calculation are common now, and I don’t let the AI apply math on its own. It works based on my knowledge. Right now, I’m in 10th grade and studying advanced topics, but I’ve been held back by mathematics. Now I understand why: I study all other subjects in my own way, but I tried to study math like everyone else does — and that’s exactly why I struggle with it. Sir, I’ll keep your words in mind. I need your advice — the particle I’m working on doesn’t seem to match the idea of a classical graviton. I’m starting to think I should change its name. I could say that this is what we thought the graviton was, but it’s actually something else. The way gravitons are believed to create gravity doesn’t seem ideal to me, and it probably doesn’t fit well with General Relativity either. But what I’m working on does something bigger — it actually connects General Relativity and Quantum Mechanics. After thinking deeply, I’ve come to the conclusion that maybe gravitons, as we imagined them, don’t exist at all — or at least we misunderstood them

Hello everyone, I was reading different posts.I saw many which were fully AI generated or just a imagination.They had no formal paper,mathematics or anything scientific,but they had very high level science terms and words,which points toward using AI.The common thing they say or have in Topic name is Bear with me.Is this some kind of trend or LLM pattern?

They have years of experience,if they say something then you should atleast think about it and try to learn from it. They are not hating,its how science works.A true physicist seeks critiques,if theres none then he might have made something perfect or a thing which isnt even worth discussing.If you have idea then go build a theory.

This technology is very good and maybe very time saving.I wonder what if we have 3d printers which print metal in future.It will need high temperature to sustain the liquid state of metal like iron,and it must be built from a material which have higher melting point.To instantly change state of metal(i.e cool it down) we will need some sort of mechanism,as its crucial to make a good structure.It can be possible but with advanced technology.

Its being very mysterious now,i think the final report will reveal everything.

A theory without mathematics is not physics. It's philosophy — or worse, fantasy. I can clearly see its AI,but if you have core idea and know what are you saying then tell me in your own words. But a important thing is that AI is tool,dont believe whatever it says.

Gravitons might exist — but what we called gravitons were a misinterpretation. Should I change name and say this is what we call gravitons. The major difference is that gravitons mediate in space as quanta of gravity but my theory is bridging QM and GR now. (I got a wierd equation which derives c and explains it.The results are pretty accurate when measured with earths curvature but when we try somewhere else it’s pointing at something deeper.It can be my future work.)

Please give me advice @studiot @joigus @MigL

Fair point. The idea isn’t just AI-generated math. Photon collapse to gravitons in my theory comes from: Real photon-photon scattering (seen at LHC & RHIC) Spin coupling rules: 1⊗1 = 0⊕1⊕2 → spin-2 possible Planck-scale energy density acting as a quantum threshold I modeled it as a non-perturbative transition: when ∑Eγ ≥ Ep in V ≤ Vp, a graviton forms — not as a bound state, but as a new quantum excitation. It's still theoretical, but it's rooted in known physics and matches redshift behavior and GR limits.(I am talking about new verson) neither photons, quarks, nor black holes were seen when first proposed. They became "good theories" because they explained phenomena and made testable predictions. That’s exactly what I’m working toward. Dismissing it now is like saying quantum theory was pointless before the double-slit experiment.

A major update! While working on V2, I created an equation that stands independently and expands on General Relativity. It does not depend on the rest of my theory and can be tested easily.(My theory gives it deeper meaning) I will test it more, but it is already a huge accomplishment(atleast for me) It’s something that could lead to even greater discoveries in the future. Its AI free but ai made a minor help in last which was that i forgot to put the square root on it,even a teacher or friend will do this much help.So i can say its AI FREE. There are few more equation in my paper like this too.