2 minutes ago, studiot said:

So how much calculus do you actually know ??

I can make good use of this knowledge in deciding how to reply (as with the curve sketching).

Do you know for instance that there are many 'calculuses' in Maths ? - It isn't just one thing.

Sir i dont know that much as i learn a thing when i need.Currently i need it but dont have time.
I know there are different type of calculus,majorly two types and there are advanced types too.

Conclusion-You can reply me like i know nothing ,as learning from a person directly is far better.

Just now, Dhillon1724X said:

Sir i dont know that much as i learn a thing when i need

You don't need to only learn, you need to take account in relation to your own ideas, not least you you can express them to others using the appropriate language.

11 minutes ago, studiot said:

You don't need to only learn, you need to take account in relation to your own ideas, not least you you can express them to others using the appropriate language.

I will do it for sure.

Just now, Dhillon1724X said:

I will do it for sure.

😄

3 minutes ago, studiot said:

😄

thanks for your support.

I was able to learn only this much in month which i learnt while exploring the universe.I will make sure to publish v2,its name might be changed as its not about just gravity anymore and its more deeper now ,and about using AI,i dont use it to guide me anymore not even about words.i did it in Version 1 which resulted in bad explaining.But i still use AI to refine.

To overcome my current weakness,the so called mathematics,i use AI to refine my equations and express my logic.Now some of V2 equations are completely mine.

I am trying to open a door and i will enter room after overcoming my weakness.

As i said i made all this and learnt this in month,however i knew some basics from a long time.
I tried to be better but i am just a average student,who achieved nothing.

Edited July 11Jul 11 by Dhillon1724X
minor correction

@studiot

Hlo Sir,
once you asked me about what mechanism i purpose about graviton formation or something like that.I have added some maths help of that AI,but i kept your words in mind and confirmed everything.

Can i know what i exactly need?

Maybe my theory is bad theory as @joigus said and cant be fixed.But if i started then i atleast have to finish this.I will continue working on it until its complete failure or a good theory.

8 minutes ago, Dhillon1724X said:

@studiot

Hlo Sir,
once you asked me about what mechanism i purpose about graviton formation or something like that.I have added some maths help of that AI,but i kept your words in mind and confirmed everything.

Can i know what i exactly need?

Maybe my theory is bad theory as @joigus said and cant be fixed.But if i started then i atleast have to finish this.I will continue working on it until its complete failure or a good theory.

You have passion and your whole life is ahead of you. And you strike me as an intelligent person. Don't give up. But let me repeat something I told you on a parallel thread:

Real understanding doesn't come from strong ideas. Strong ideas are born out of real understanding.

Very common mistake.

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.

I can do no better than to repeat what I said.

And let me repeat words from one of the greatest physicist of the 20^th Century that I think have the potential to replenish your courage:

"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."

-- C. N. Yang talking about an idea that he first had as a student and that he kept coming back to year after year

C. N. Yang, Selected Papers 1945-1980 with Commentary, p. 19.

Just now, joigus said:

Keep going up the ladder to the great unifying principles:

Up the ladder is good because you perhaps don't subscribe to this modern trend to teach unifying principles too eary.

In my opinion students will come to these when they are ready and not before.

In Mathematics teaching 'basic set theory'; 'basic number theory'; or basic anything turns many off as it is too abstract.

After all what can they do with it ?

It is a well observed phenomenon that lads who say they are rubbish at maths (by which they mean formal arithmetic) can without hesitation tell exactly what targets they need to finish of a darts game (of 301 etc).

They can tell in an instant that if last score was 3 triple tops, you need a bull, a bull and triple seven, and if your last score was triple top, bull, double top you need triple 17 bull, bull or triple seventeen double toip , triple top.

Yet ask them to tell you the average weight of an apple if 6 apples weigh 684 grams and they will freeze.

Just now, Dhillon1724X said:

once you asked me about what mechanism i purpose about graviton formation or something like that.I have added some maths help of that AI,but i kept your words in mind and confirmed everything.

Can i know what i exactly need?

Have a look at this summary.

https://mmerevise.co.uk/a-level-physics-revision/forces-and-exchange-particles/

Gravitons are the supposed exchange particles for the 'force' of gravity.

They have been proposed to copy the exchange particles for the other three 'fundamental' forces.

However General Relativity does not regard these other three forces in the same way as it regards gravity.

It is only man's excessive tidyness that wants all four forces to follow the same pattern, even though we observe that they don't.

Nature is under no obligation to comply.

33 minutes ago, studiot said:

Up the ladder is good because you perhaps don't subscribe to this modern trend to teach unifying principles too early.

Thanks for understanding the subtleties implied. +1. I surmise @Dhillon1724X wants to become a theoretical physicist some day. I don't want them to waste their efforts in too premature an attempt to "understand it all", to make everything click with just one simple idea.

Also, I love physics, and I don't want students to miss on the wonderful journey of discovery that's ahead of them. Unifying all the forces before understanding the beauty of the Lensmaker's equation? Forget about it!

Thanks for so judiciously playing the good cop while I was trying to play the bad cop.

9 hours ago, joigus said:

You have passion and your whole life is ahead of you. And you strike me as an intelligent person. Don't give up. But let me repeat something I told you on a parallel thread:

Real understanding doesn't come from strong ideas. Strong ideas are born out of real understanding.

Very common mistake.

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.

I can do no better than to repeat what I said.

And let me repeat words from one of the greatest physicist of the 20^th Century that I think have the potential to replenish your courage:

"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."

-- C. N. Yang talking about an idea that he first had as a student and that he kept coming back to year after year

C. N. Yang, Selected Papers 1945-1980 with Commentary, p. 19.

Sir I will keep your words in my mind.You and @studiot gave me direction.

And I thank you and will never forget you both.

15 hours ago, studiot said:

It is a well observed phenomenon that lads who say they are rubbish at maths (by which they mean formal arithmetic) can without hesitation tell exactly what targets they need to finish of a darts game (of 301 etc).

Yes it’s pretty accurate sir.

14 hours ago, joigus said:

Thanks for so judiciously playing the good cop while I was trying to play the bad cop.

Both are important.You were not bad,you were right but had a different approach.

14 hours ago, joigus said:

I surmise @Dhillon1724X wants to become a theoretical physicist some day

Sir, I don’t plan to do this as a profession — at least not yet. I see myself more as a wanderer with goals.

I’ve been into many different things. I know I have potential — not just in thinking, but physically too. I could become a powerlifter, an MMA fighter, or a boxer. I’m confident that in the future, I’ll start my own business. I already know how and when.

I’ve always followed my curiosity. I’ve tried things like basic website development, game dev, writing, and more. I left them sometimes when I failed — but I’ve always returned stronger, when I was ready. I also have concepts for machines and technology — ranging from everyday tools to revolutionary inventions — which I plan to build in the future.

If I were to chase degrees or a PhD, it would take away my time and freedom. If I had followed the school system strictly, I’d still be stuck on laws of motion, or just learning about refraction and the dispersion of light. That’s not how I learn.

The best way I learn is by trying, failing, and learning from my mistakes.

I was able to understand this much and build this theory in about a month. Sure, I knew some basics before, but most of this came from my own exploration. I might become a theoretical physicist — but not by going through the traditional system. To be one, you need knowledge, not a degree.

I know my goals seem like dreams.
About my theory-
I’ve worked on it — improved it — and I will still publish it and show it to the world but I know it’s still a child’s scribble like my talk.

Because this is how I think: I imagine, I simulate, I visualise in my head.I get these ideas from my intuition and they fit with reality sometimes without a problem.

@studiot @joigus

In my updated framework, the particle I described as a “graviton” isn’t treated as a virtual force carrier. It emerges from photon collapse when the energy density exceeds a Planck-scale threshold(I have clarified meaning of Planck so it doesn’t create gravity to explain gravity loops). It’s a spin-2 boson, but instead of mediating force between masses, it constructs spacetime itself — essentially triggering curvature through its presence.

I’m now considering whether this should still be called a “graviton,” since it shares spin-2 behavior and relates to gravity — but has a different formation mechanism and deeper role.

Would it make sense to give it a new name, or is it still conceptually fair to classify it as a more complete or extended graviton?

Thank you in advance for any thoughts — I’m learning a lot from your replies.

Edited July 12Jul 12 by Dhillon1724X

16 hours ago, studiot said:

Gravitons are the supposed exchange particles for the 'force'

So its all hinting that i should change name as my V2 goes deeper and aligns with GR but at quantum scale.What if i was working on other particle which was not graviton,but it will prove gravitons wrong.

Now i need real advice as i have filled 25 pages by now and still working on it.I want to ask one more thing that in formal theory paper should i add visuals and section with simulation results.

The force-carrier idea doesn’t make sense for gravity — because gravity isn’t a force.(according to my theory).

Edited July 12Jul 12 by Dhillon1724X

Again thanks for support

Edited July 12Jul 12 by Dhillon1724X

Something @Dhillon1724X should keep in mind ...

These fundamental particles ( gauge bosons and fermions, virtual or otherwise ) are the Lego blocks we use to build our models.
These models act in accordance to what we observe and measure in reality, in specific areas of application, and invariably all fail outside that area of applicability.
( because reality is not composed of Lego blocks, so we will never observe a 'free' quark and may never observe a graviton )

What observations/experiments do you have that would lead you to think hi-energy photons would 'collapse' to gravitons ?
Is this just a mathematical exercise ( as verified by an AI ) unrelated to the physics ?

If so, it might be worth exploring ( without the AI ) for your own personal benefit, but it will never be a 'good' theory which models some aspect of reality.

14 minutes ago, MigL said:

What observations/experiments do you have that would lead you to think hi-energy photons would 'collapse' to gravitons ?
Is this just a mathematical exercise ( as verified by an AI ) unrelated to the physics ?

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

Its hard to explain all here

It's still theoretical, but it's rooted in known physics and matches redshift behavior and GR limits.(I am talking about new verson)

49 minutes ago, MigL said:

, but it will never be a 'good' theory which models some aspect of reality.

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.

Edited July 12Jul 12 by Dhillon1724X

Just now, Dhillon1724X said:

neither photons, quarks, nor black holes were seen when first proposed.

Actually that's not true.

The human eye can detect a single photon.

Black holes were seen but not recognised.

But yes, MigL has just told you that we can never see quarks directly.

You have spent a lot of effort trying to force the universe to conform to your idea, rahter than the other way round.

And found out how difficult that can be.

You are not the first and won't be the last.

The moral is, when you have an idea, try it out on something simple with an already known outcome first.

This is also good advice in business where it is called a pilot.

Edited July 12Jul 12 by studiot

18 hours ago, Dhillon1724X said:

In my updated framework, the particle I described as a “graviton” isn’t treated as a virtual force carrier. It emerges from photon collapse when the energy density exceeds a Planck-scale threshold(I have clarified meaning of Planck so it doesn’t create gravity to explain gravity loops). It’s a spin-2 boson, but instead of mediating force between masses, it constructs spacetime itself — essentially triggering curvature through its presence.

I’m now considering whether this should still be called a “graviton,” since it shares spin-2 behavior and relates to gravity — but has a different formation mechanism and deeper role.

Would it make sense to give it a new name, or is it still conceptually fair to classify it as a more complete or extended graviton?

Thank you in advance for any thoughts — I’m learning a lot from your replies.

Please give me advice @studiot @joigus @MigL

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.)

16 hours ago, Dhillon1724X said:

Please give me advice @studiot @joigus @MigL

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.

Mathematics is essential in all this business.

Let me give you an example of how it's rather salient technicalities of the old ideas that lead you to new ideas rather than the other way around:

When people say there are virtual particles, they're not telling you the whole truth. "Virtual particle" is a term designed to picture a piece of really sophisticated maths. Namely: The integrals that represent intermediate procesess in relativistic quantum mechanics (quantum field theory, the so-called propagator) force you to include infinitely many processes, most of which do not consistently satisfy conservation of momentum. In QFT lingo they're called "off-shell" (they violate Einstein's condition that m²c⁴ = E²-p²c²).

It's most certainly not the case that someone thought "oh, there must be virtual particles out there" and then invented the mathematics to represent that. It might have been something like that in times of the Greeks, or the birth of modern science, etc. It's definitely not the way it works today. People invented the "grasping tool" of virtual particles in order to represent these weird (from a physical POV) intermediate integrals in scattering theory.

I really hope that helps.

Regarding AI* in context of your idea

On 7/9/2025 at 9:38 AM, Dhillon1724X said:

nor is it AI-generated nonsense. It’s a developing framework grounded in real physics

What "AI" did you use? What method do you apply to distinguish nonsense from useful scientific progress?

If you use generative AI maybe you could share your prompting strategies for feedback. Since you seem to develop a novel idea, how does the model get trained on these new, and to the model, unknown concepts? Note that a "correct" output from an established language model, if it was trained on established physics, would be scepticism. Depending on the prompts the model could, similar to the experts here, question the basis of the idea. But it could also generate nonsense physics that statistically matches your input and possibly guide you in the wrong direction. If the model is a state of the art mathematics capable model it is quite possible to get mathematically sensible output that makes no sense in physics.

My point: Using "AI" nowadays is easy. Correctly applying AI in the context you have described is hard; you would need to study both physics and AI.

*) which is closer to my area of knowledge than particle physics

10 hours ago, Ghideon said:

What "AI" did you use? What method do you apply to distinguish nonsense from useful scientific progress?

If you use generative AI maybe you could share your prompting strategies for feedback. Since you seem to develop a novel idea, how does the model get trained on these new, and to the model, unknown concepts? Note that a "correct" output from an established language model, if it was trained on established physics, would be scepticism. Depending on the prompts the model could, similar to the experts here, question the basis of the idea. But it could also generate nonsense physics that statistically matches your input and possibly guide you in the wrong direction. If the model is a state of the art mathematics capable model it is quite possible to get mathematically sensible output that makes no sense in physics.

My point: Using "AI" nowadays is easy. Correctly applying AI in the context you have described is hard; you would need to study both physics and AI.

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.

11 hours ago, joigus said:

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.

Mathematics is essential in all this business.

Let me give you an example of how it's rather salient technicalities of the old ideas that lead you to new ideas rather than the other way around:

When people say there are virtual particles, they're not telling you the whole truth. "Virtual particle" is a term designed to picture a piece of really sophisticated maths. Namely: The integrals that represent intermediate procesess in relativistic quantum mechanics (quantum field theory, the so-called propagator) force you to include infinitely many processes, most of which do not consistently satisfy conservation of momentum. In QFT lingo they're called "off-shell" (they violate Einstein's condition that m²c⁴ = E²-p²c²).

It's most certainly not the case that someone thought "oh, there must be virtual particles out there" and then invented the mathematics to represent that. It might have been something like that in times of the Greeks, or the birth of modern science, etc. It's definitely not the way it works today. People invented the "grasping tool" of virtual particles in order to represent these weird (from a physical POV) intermediate integrals in scattering theory.

I really hope that helps.

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

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.

Just now, Dhillon1724X said:

The key to getting truthful, direct, and scientific answers from AI — without sugarcoating — is by using the phrase “be brutally honest.”

OK considering my avatar you can consider me an AI and I will be brutally honest.

Just now, Dhillon1724X said:

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.

Right the way up through the grades to the 12th grade wise teachers say that you are not there to study, you are there to learn how to study.

There is much wisdom in this and what you are learning is self deceiving.

The graviton is not your idea, and you do not know what either relativity or quantum theory is..

As regards maths, I have spent the last sixty years as an applied mathematician and upon retirement have only then begun to study what 'maths' itself is.

So you are requesting adivice.
You have received a great deal of advice from many diffirent points of view.
How much have you implemented ?

I do not see any change to either your stance or the substance of your 'ideas' as a result.
which is tantamount to saying that you consider everybody else always wrong and you are always right (despite your protestations to the contrary).

Edited July 14Jul 14 by studiot

20 hours ago, studiot said:

OK considering my avatar you can consider me an AI and I will be brutally honest

I dont need to consider you AI,what i lack is a person with whom i can openly discuss my ideas

20 hours ago, studiot said:

The graviton is not your idea, and you do not know what either relativity or quantum theory is..

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"

4 minutes ago, Dhillon1724X said:

I dont need to consider you AI,what i lack is a person with whom i can openly discuss my ideas

Can you meaningfully discuss bridge design, beyond aesthetics, without knowing the physical principles underpinning good design and the maths to describe them? You can't have a theory worth discussing until you have in-depth knowledge of the existing theories. What you are wanting to discuss is 'make stuff up' without any bearing on what is already known. You can't do that in meaningful scientific discussion.

Edited July 15Jul 15 by StringJunky

21 hours ago, studiot said:

Right the way up through the grades to the 12th grade wise teachers say that you are not there to study, you are there to learn how to study.

There is much wisdom in this and what you are learning is self deceiving.

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.

9 minutes ago, StringJunky said:

What you are wanting to discuss is 'make stuff up' without any bearing on what is already known

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.

21 hours ago, studiot said:

So you are requesting adivice.
You have received a great deal of advice from many diffirent points of view.
How much have you implemented ?

I do not see any change to either your stance or the substance of your 'ideas' as a result.
which is tantamount to saying that you consider everybody else always wrong and you are always right (despite your protestations to the contrary).

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 see that i am losing some reputation here,I will get it back with my work as proof of my progression.

Edited July 15Jul 15 by Dhillon1724X