Two mathematician/physicist friends of mine have worked on YM for the last few months and made substantial progress. Due to OpenAI's claim, they have decided to publicize their results. They have a vision of community-generated math that makes a lot of sense to me in post-AI mathematics. I consider that part just as interesting as the result itself so I am helping share their claims around.

They worked with small budget (~$500) and made substantial progress toward YM existence, building on Bałaban as I understand it, just as OpenAI did in their statement. Their work is human-guided with AI doing substantial specified work. Both Claude and ChatGPT were substantial contributors.

This github has their work in it, with timestamped commits starting from a few days ago when they decided to release. They have a vision of a community-generated mathematics, wherein the open internet can contribute towards a full solution using any tools at their disposal, starting for now through this github. It's a new modality of math that to me seems positive/to look forward to. Nobody loses substantial time from being scooped by an unknown competitor because progress is visible live, with more honest attribution than a traditional paper. As they are completed, proofs can be formalized and published in a traditional manner to reach fully accepted status. I understand it as an experiment on how math can be done as much as an important partial result. (yes, community math has been done before, the difference is that now it is a more logical modality than ever in the past)

https://github.com/MathePhysics/4D_Wilson_Loop_RG

https://x.com/MathePhysical/status/2115040756226474115

“When we are satisfied with the quality and correctness of the proofs, we will provide our assessment together with the full 1147-page LLM proofs”

I am a final year medical student with a passion for physics. I used to do physics olympiads in high school, and continued to self study physics during med school and have already co-authored two biomedicine papers that are physics based, with me being responsible for the theoretical physical part (it is much less impressive than it sounds), under the supervision of a physicist mentor. I am interested in cardiology and want to use my passion for physics in medical research. That is why i got the ambition to apply for a physics PhD after i finish med school, with a biophysical topic.

However, with all the stuff in the news about AI making breakthroughs in the highest tiers of math and physics, i cannot help but wonder what is the point of me getting that PhD. I will never be able to reach the knowledge or creativity in physics that AI can. Don't get me wrong, i take all of these news with a HUGE grain of salt, but i also don't want to fool myself. The thing that mostly drove me into physics was the problem solving and elegance of describing the natural world with equations and finding clever solutions, and i wondered if i could apply the same thing to disease or medical imaging. But the problem solving is precisely what AI seems to be excelling at the most.

The only "comfort" that i may give myself right now, which i realized as i was typing this, is that i can always be the one to ask the right questions, and just use the LLM as a tool to reach the answer, which i can also later verify. But i need also some word of advice from people within the physics community.

I would only ask you in advance to be respectful and not passive-aggresively make me look like an idiot for posing such a question. I think we are here gathered for our mutual love for physics and there is no need to make fools of the ones that know less than yourself.

Edit: thanks for the responses so far. I feel like i should clarify, i am interested in theoretical/computational biophysics/biomechanics. I feel like working as a clinical cardiologist would make incorporating lab work in my academic life impossible. Besides, the theoretical part is what interests me, stuff like creating models from first principles.

Edit 2: please don't downvote the post just because you might not like the question i am asking. I am just a person trying to get around in the world, just like anyone else.

To clarify I’m an undergraduate math and physics student with autism + adhd and I’d like to ask anyone struggling with adhd how they got through or are handling their undergraduate experience. The random bursts of productivity over consistency is fuel to a fire when it comes to higher level math/physics. Much appreciated

Not even a technical question (sorry), but how would YOU personally feel, if say OpenAI came out saying they had, with collaboration of some world leading physicist, completed non-perturbative M-theory, and that it removed the landscape problem. That is, that they not only got M-theory, but found that indeed the standard model (us) are uniquely recovered by M-theory.

If you want to, it might be useful to think about 1) the AI part, as in "wow an AI helped??", 2) the AI company part - "is this a Navier Stokes repeat?", 3) the profound reality of the result

Also, if you are curious, I ask since, well to me, this is THE "goal" of fundamental physics, but that doesn't mean it is what we do in the daily, so it's interesting to consider how we'd feel about that.

-Physics formal theory PhD student

Starting positions of the two balls are perfectly point-symmetric around the center. If both balls were identical, their trajectories would stay mirror images of each other forever. But blue is attracted to pink 20% more than pink is attracted to blue...

Interestingly, energy should be conserved in this system, but you can see the speed increases over time. This is because the simulation isn't perfect: it advances physics in small discrete time steps rather than solving gravity exactly. That works fine most of the time, but whenever the two balls swing close past each other, gravity spikes very sharply over a very brief moment. Each close pass gets a little under-resolved, and the resulting error doesn't cancel out, it tends to add energy. These small errors never settle into a repeating pattern that would cancel out, they compound and the total energy (and so the speed) visibly runs away within a few minutes.

Hear interview with applied mathematician/physicist Mike Evans on the unapologetic mathematicians podcast. He talks about his research, his journey as an academic, and his life outside of work.

https://rss.com/podcasts/unapologetic-mathematicians/3271558/

Hi I graduated this year with a First Class BSc in Physics and I’m considering applying for funded physics/astrophysics PhDs in the UK.

I haven’t done a master’s, but I do have research experience from my final-year project in computational astrophysics, involving simulations and data analysis. Since graduating, I’ve continued working with my supervisor and extended the research beyond the scope of the original project. We’re currently writing a paper based on this work, which we expect to submit soon.

My supervisor has encouraged me to apply, although he also stressed that PhD positions are very competitive. I’m worried about how I’d compare with applicants who have an MSc or an integrated master’s.

I’m also struggling to find a graduate job at the moment, which has knocked my confidence generally. It’s making it difficult to feel optimistic about my chances with PhD applications, even with my supervisor’s encouragement.

Has anyone here gone directly from a BSc into a funded physics PhD in the UK? How much weight can relevant research experience and a research paper carry without a master’s?

Hi guys, I'm thinking about whether to take physics or biology for my subject combination.

Here is my physics syllabus if I take physics:

1. Measurements

2. Kinematics

3. Dynamics (Forces)

4. Moments and Stability

5. Pressure

6. Work, Energy and Power

7. Thermal Properties of Matter

8. Waves

9. Light

10. Electrostatics

11. Current Electricity and D.C. Circuits

12. Magnetism

13. Electromagnetism

14. Electromagnetic Induction

15. Radiation

Do you recommend me taking physics, and on what condition?

Physics students, how do you study for physics to score well?!

Saw the topic on Jeopardy last night and looked into it and some seem to say the point of the experiment is "The cat could be either alive or dead and you don't know until you look" whereas a minority say "It has to do with superposition and radiation and wave forms" and I still don't get it. If it's just that the cat COULD be alive or dead ​then why the radiation and poison in the question. Not a phycisist. Is the cat both alive and dead literally?

What is the easiest path to apply for master in physics without ba Courses or something