On 7/14/2025 at 8:19 AM, Dhillon1724X said:

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.

It seems there may be a misunderstanding about how generative AI works? It does not infer; it predicts tokens based on statistical correlation, not on causal understanding. Adding a phrase like “be brutally honest” may change the tone of the response but it doesn’t make the output more scientifically valid or rigorous.

An analogy may help to illustrate:
Imagine someone is unaware of the laws of thermodynamics and they interact with ChatGPT to develop equations for usage in physics. The resulting equations may be mathematically correct but when applied to physics the equations could describe perpetual-motion machine ("over-unity" device). Since the user has not studied thermodynamics they can neither include relevant constraints in their prompts nor identify issues in the output. ChatGPT, in turn, is not guaranteed to flag such issues even if it has seen training material stating that perpetual motion is impossible. Prompting it to be “brutally honest” won’t fix this.

Now, scale up: "quantum gravity" or "Photon Collapse as the Origin of Gravitons" is orders of magnitude harder. Neither you nor ChatGPT have the necessary understanding of what a valid graviton theory would look like. ChatGPT may produce superficially plausible equations but you can't tell if they're meaningful or nonsense.

(That said, using generative AI in combination with other metods and sources can probably be helpful when studying, but locating scientific papers and discussing such aspects of AI usage is probably better in a separate thread)

Edited July 15Jul 15 by Ghideon
unclear sentence

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.

11 hours ago, Ghideon said:

It seems there may be a misunderstanding about how generative AI works? It does not infer; it predicts tokens based on statistical correlation, not on causal understanding. Adding a phrase like “be brutally honest” may change the tone of the response but it doesn’t make the output more scientifically valid or rigorous.

An analogy may help to illustrate:
Imagine someone is unaware of the laws of thermodynamics and they interact with ChatGPT to develop equations for usage in physics. The resulting equations may be mathematically correct but when applied to physics the equations could describe perpetual-motion machine ("over-unity" device). Since the user has not studied thermodynamics they can neither include relevant constraints in their prompts nor identify issues in the output. ChatGPT, in turn, is not guaranteed to flag such issues even if it has seen training material stating that perpetual motion is impossible. Prompting it to be “brutally honest” won’t fix this.

Now, scale up: "quantum gravity" or "Photon Collapse as the Origin of Gravitons" is orders of magnitude harder. Neither you nor ChatGPT have the necessary understanding of what a valid graviton theory would look like. ChatGPT may produce superficially plausible equations but you can't tell if they're meaningful or nonsense.

(That said, using generative AI in combination with other metods and sources can probably be helpful when studying, but locating scientific papers and discussing such aspects of AI usage is probably better in a separate thread)

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.

1 hour ago, Dhillon1724X said:

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 don't think anyone has suggested that. The point about LLMs is they are "stochastic parrots", that cannot reason, but instead simply report results based on the statistically most widespread opinions they have encountered in their training data set. So you cannot rely on LLMs to do maths or make deductions.

17 minutes ago, exchemist said:

I don't think anyone has suggested that. The point about LLMs is they are "stochastic parrots", that cannot reason, but instead simply report results based on the statistically most widespread opinions they have encountered in their training data set. So you cannot rely on LLMs to do maths or make deductions.

Ok Sir,i will remember that.

Edited July 16Jul 16 by Dhillon1724X

22 hours ago, Dhillon1724X said:

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.

What I find disappointing is the lack of feedback (other than saying things like I am implementing it) about how you are getting on.

Feedback helps develop proffered advice., but for instance all you have said about my curve sketching suggestion is that is is good advice.

So have you looked at it and if so what have you found ?

The message that you should have received on all sides here now is that you are missing some basics, apparantly because you only look at things when you need them (your words).

Further you do not want to go into academe but into business.

That is a fine ambition but will easily fail if the basics are ignored or worse unkown because of the old saying

You do not know 'what you do not know'.

In business and life this translates from philosophy and science to

Look after the pennies and the pounds will look after themselves.

Here is a modern free resource you might like to look at, to help with your maths

GeoGebra

GeoGebra - the world’s favorite, free math tools used by...

Free digital tools for class activities, graphing, geometry, collaborative whiteboard and more

But please remember my invocation and tell us how you got on.

1 hour ago, studiot said:

So have you looked at it and if so what have you found ?

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.

1 hour ago, studiot said:

The message that you should have received on all sides here now is that you are missing some basics, apparantly because you only look at things when you need them (your words).

Further you do not want to go into academe but into business.

That is a fine ambition but will easily fail if the basics are ignored or worse unkown because of the old saying

You do not know 'what you do not know'.

In business and life this translates from philosophy and science to

Look after the pennies and the pounds will look after themselves

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.

I noticed you gave some excellent critique and advice to another poster presenting an outlandish idea in another thread.
And I thought "great, He's starting to think critically about presented ideas based on whether they correlate with accepted science".

But it seems, other than platitudes about advice, you keep forging ahead ( down a dead end road ) and conveniently moving goal posts from a graviton theory ( about which little is known by anyone ) to a possible new particle ( about which nothing is known by anyone ).

For what it's worth ... Good luck.

14 minutes ago, MigL said:

But it seems, other than platitudes about advice, you keep forging ahead ( down a dead end road ) and conveniently moving goal posts from a graviton theory ( about which little is known by anyone ) to a possible new particle ( about which nothing is known by anyone ).

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.

19 minutes ago, MigL said:

For what it's worth ... Good luck.

Thank you very much sir.

19 minutes ago, MigL said:

you keep forging ahead ( down a dead end road )

It may turn out to be a dead-end. But I choose to walk it until the end shows itself — whether that end is a deeper theory, or a lesson that clears the path for something better. I’m not afraid of failure — only of standing still.

Edited July 16Jul 16 by Dhillon1724X

7 hours ago, Dhillon1724X said:

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.

That was the pep-talkish part of what I said, because I thought it would lighten up your spirit a little bit. I'm glad you liked the quote. That's not me, it's C. N. Yang, as I already said.

The advise that's actually genuinely mine is (again):

Learn mechanics, electricity, thermodynamics, gravity, optics, quantum mechanics. Understand why all this gives rise to chemistry, biology, and the almost unending variety of the world.

Keep going up the ladder to the great unifying principles: Symmetries, the principle of least action, entropy, etc. As you do this you will lose focus of many details, but you will gain the ability to synthesize.

Learn your maths: Calculus, complex numbers and functions, complex calculus (really a revelation!), geometry, algebra. You don't have to be a mathematical genius, just understand it and know how to use it.

The hard way is the only way.

1 minute ago, joigus said:

That's not me, it's C. N. Yang, as I already said.

sorry for that.

1 minute ago, joigus said:

Learn mechanics, electricity, thermodynamics, gravity, optics, quantum mechanics. Understand why all this gives rise to chemistry, biology, and the almost unending variety of the world.

Keep going up the ladder to the great unifying principles: Symmetries, the principle of least action, entropy, etc. As you do this you will lose focus of many details, but you will gain the ability to synthesize.

Learn your maths: Calculus, complex numbers and functions, complex calculus (really a revelation!), geometry, algebra. You don't have to be a mathematical genius, just understand it and know how to use it

Ok sir.

Just now, Dhillon1724X said:

sorry for that.

It's OK. If anything, it's flattering.

1 hour ago, Dhillon1724X said:

Sir due to school,i am unable to even follow my normal routine.I cant even train.

I take it that you didn't bother to look at the resource I offered you.

Pity as it might well help you get on better with school maths and also be useful into the future beyond that.

6 hours ago, studiot said:

I take it that you didn't bother to look at the resource I offered you.

Pity as it might well help you get on better with school maths and also be useful into the future beyond that.

Sir I am using resources which you told like geomaths etc.I looked at everything you told me.Soon I will give feedback.

On 7/16/2025 at 10:11 AM, Dhillon1724X said:

if you think that i dont even know basic things in GR,Thermodynamics,QM etc,then you are wrong.

I do not think that, sorry if you got that impression from my post.

On 7/16/2025 at 10:11 AM, Dhillon1724X said:

I will publish my work and then show you

If you share what you have got so far I may comment on AI aspects of the progress.

10 hours ago, Ghideon said:

I do not think that, sorry if you got that impression from my post.

If you share what you have got so far I may comment on AI aspects of the progress.

I will be happy to share.

@studiot
The Curve sketching is helping me,I am starting to learn it as i need it in my new framework.
I have completed 70+ pages paper,it will be ready in few more days.

Just now, Dhillon1724X said:

@studiot
The Curve sketching is helping me,I am starting to learn it as i need it in my new framework.
I have completed 70+ pages paper,it will be ready in few more days.

Glad to hear it. +1

The moral of this is that you can't be expected to know all the tricks at once or without a lot of practice, so if you need help ask a question about what you wish to achieve.

46 minutes ago, studiot said:

Glad to hear it. +1

The moral of this is that you can't be expected to know all the tricks at once or without a lot of practice, so if you need help ask a question about what you wish to achieve.

Ok sir.
As i said once that now i know why i am bad at maths,i studied in my own way and now i am improving.
Now i understand what @joigus meant when he said "You don't have to be a mathematical genius, just understand it and know how to use it".

Thanks for your support.

I had a question?

Should i add visuals too,as per my view they are not that important.
I am going to add graphs anyways,so should i include visuals.

Just now, Dhillon1724X said:

I had a question?

Should i add visuals too,as per my view they are not that important.
I am going to add graphs anyways,so should i include visuals.

Depends what you mean by visuals.

And also why you are 'adding' them.

4 hours ago, studiot said:

Depends what you mean by visuals.

And also why you are 'adding' them.

By visuals i mean a imaginative image of unseen.
I was asking if i need them,i dont like adding imagination like that.

Just now, Dhillon1724X said:

By visuals i mean a imaginative image of unseen.
I was asking if i need them,i dont like adding imagination like that.

Diagrams can be very useful and informative.

Do you mean portrayals of real world things like an internal combustion engines and abstract concepts like the carbon cycle or the hydrological cycle ?

videos have their uses but still graphics can be studied more easily.

I myself post a lot of sketches compared to some.

Edited July 19Jul 19 by studiot

8 hours ago, studiot said:

Diagrams can be very useful and informative.

Do you mean portrayals of real world things like an internal combustion engines and abstract concepts like the carbon cycle or the hydrological cycle ?

videos have their uses but still graphics can be studied more easily.

I myself post a lot of sketches compared to some.

Then I will add diagrams,probably after it survives critiques.

Good News!
I have published Quantum Chorton Framework on Zenodo.
Soon i will make a post

I will suggest to discuss further on new post,i am open to any refinement and critiques.

DOI:https://doi.org/10.5281/zenodo.16198064

(is it okay to paste the DOI)

This theory is now Forged into Quantum Chorton Framework(QCF).