“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”

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

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

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/

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.

I noticed that fluid mechanics is almost never taught in any physics program, why is that? Isn't it weird and awkward that someone holding a bachelor degree in physics doesn't know anything about fluids, their properties and whatnot?

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?!

So I have a BS in physics graduated in 2022 and i really want to go back and study physics and start from the consuptual ideas i stopped at when i graduated 4 years ago ( i had reached the level of elementary particles and QED <we touched on it) the math was soo complex (i was good at integrals and calculs at that time now i am kinda rusty) but it is not a big deal math can be learned again but the problem is that i want to buy academic and scinece books that help me self study: general realitivity, string theory and M theory. But not sure what to buy... i searched a little and found these but not sure if it is well be good ( i love David grifiths writing style btw) what u think? I dont mind maths but what i really want is to understand conceptual and math i am not looking for a book that is all maths with no conceptual explaining

- Dr David tong "string theory" writin lectures

- space time and geomatry by sean Carroll

- the elegant universe by brian Greene

Are those good start?

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?

If I recall correctly, the professor said that to prove the 3 laws of motion we use the theorem of variation of quantity of motion

And to prove the latter, we use the principle of the least action

Do you have any good resources (books , lectures...) for understanding these proofs.

Thank you!

I have been trying to understand electromagnetic waves, but I am unable to connect the mathematical representation with what actually happens in real life.

As far as I understand, EM waves don't really have a visible “look,” but there should be some physical orientation of the electric and magnetic fields in space, which we represent using sine and cosine functions. What I don't understand is why a wave is represented by a sine function in the first place. Why does it vary like that, and what is actually happening physically?

For example, the electric field produced by a charge decreases as we move farther away from it. So, shouldn't the graph show a decreasing curve as the distance increases? How does a sine function fit into this picture?

In another video, I saw that the sine function represents the strength of the electric or magnetic field. For example, if we consider a time interval from 0 to 2, during the positive half-cycle, the field goes from zero to a maximum value and then returns to zero. During the negative half-cycle, the same thing happens, but in the opposite direction.

If this is correct, does it mean that a charged particle placed at a fixed point experiences an increasing force as the field approaches its peak, followed by a decreasing force, and then a reversal in direction during the negative half-cycle?

But then, why does the field vary like this in the first place? If the source is at a fixed location, shouldn't the field simply decrease as we move farther away from it? I think I might be confusing the variation of the field with time and its variation with distance, but I'm not able to understand the difference intuitively.

What I really want to understand is how an electromagnetic wave actually travels through space. If it travels in a sinusoidal form, what is the physical intuition behind that? Is the sine curve just a way of representing how the field changes, or is there a reason the field naturally varies in this particular way?

I know these might sound like basic questions, but I don't want to just learn the equations without understanding what they actually mean physically.

Hello, I would like to know how much my frequency affects my conversion efficiency and my matching phase temperature, and how I could calculate it, because today I have a 0.9 nm offset and an efficiency of 2.6%/W instead of 3.8%/W

Laser CW

Let me preface this by saying that I’m a 14 year old from Manchester England. my question is this. As described in specific relativity “E=mc squared” so how come we can only convert from mass to energy and not from energy to mass. In other words why, with enough energ, can we not synthesise mass? Personally, from my limited knowledge, I see no reason we shouldn’t be able to. Even in string theory I see no reason that vibration should not be able to translate from the energy dimension to the mass dimension. Any help with my query would be greatly appreciated

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

Chinese Physical Society fall meeting

We know from Penrose's paper 'Gravitational Collapse and Space-Time Singularities' that space time ends at the singularity.

Bit if we take Hawking radiation, black holes evaporate and we know the rate to an external observer - roughly. In some way the singularity has a clock.

So at the end of that, the space time restarts at the singularity.

What's the current thinking on this issue?

The values a field takes on need to transform in a consistent way under rotations. This means there needs to be an action of SO(3) on whatever space the field is valued in. If you drop the requirement that rotating 360 degrees gets you back to your starting point, you can generalize that to an action of SU(2) on the field values.

Typically it's just sort of assumed that the field is valued in a vector space. With this assumption, you automatically get that your field is valued in a direct sum of irreps of SU(2). Since irreps of SU(2) are defined by their spin, one for each nonnegative half-integer, that gives you an automatic well-defined notion of spin for every vector-valued field.

As far as I know, there's nothing forcing us to consider only vector-valued fields though. The natural first generalization would be to also allow for fields valued in manifolds.

In this context, the natural spin classification of possible fields stops being as obvious, since representation theory doesn't work automatically.

I still wonder though, is there any natural extension of the field notion of spin to manifolds? Among other things, I believe smooth SU(2) actions on manifolds can always be embedded into a representation of SU(2), so using that embedding seems like it could give a natural notion of spin? However, I'm not sure if there are canonical or minimal such embeddings that it would make sense to label manifolds with.

Does anyone know more about this subject, or have places I could look into this?

Btw, I'm not really looking for things like the Wigner classification of particles, since the spins of particles don't necessarily line up with the spins of their fields. I'm also not really looking for a perturbative version of spin, where we only consider the SU(2) action on the tangent space at some point (unless that leads to a global nonperturbative definition I guess).

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?

Is the sun itself white or does it look like a ball of fire?

Hello all,

I’m going to be taking calc I in the spring and then physics I shortly after. I want to self-study between now and when I take physics I, which is anywhere from 8-10 months of time. I’m studying engineering, however, I’m considering the switch to physics.

Throughout the last 2 months and the remaining time of this semester, I have relearned math from pre-algebra, algebra I, algebra II, and precalc w/trig. So that I’m really prepared for calc I advanced algebra & trig. Knowing that physics is very abstract, I wanted to know along my studies of how should i approach math? What procedure should I try to answer math questions in a way that resembles trying to solve physics problems. I want to start the habits that will make me great at solving physics problems now so that when I actually take physics I, I am more than prepared. I feel as if mastering word problems alongside frequent advanced algebra & trig may be the best way to go. I have a whole workbook on algebraic word problems and I would reason that since word problems require you to really deeply think about what the givens are, what you have, what you need, and the steps you need to solve for x. I believe this closely resembles physics problems, but correct me if I’m wrong, I’m prob just naive.

Anyways, I have an algebra-based Giancoli textbook which was the recommendation from my schools physics department given that is what they use. I also am very interested in the MIT open courseware Classical Mechanics course. I find that it’s easier for me to understand math/science through lecture rather textbook. I think doing the MIT course over the next semester and then perhaps Giancoli physics alongside it for extra practice or just start Giancoli after I complete the course is a solid plan.

I’m really excited to learn, struggle, and continue to learn physics. Any advice would be really helpful. Thank you! 🙏🏾