pavel_lishin
5 hours ago
Based on your pre-previous post, this is nothing.
albert_roca
4 hours ago
Your contribution is the opposite of "something".
Is the Standard Model overfitting or am I curve-fitting?
3 pointsposted 5 hours ago
by albert_rocaItem id: 46386102
21 Comments
rolph
4 hours ago
a much more revelatory exercise would be to compare these derived values with measured values, then construct testable hypotheses regarding disparities.
albert_roca
4 hours ago
That's precisely what the numbers show. "Pred:", predicted value. "Exp:", experimental value. "Diff", difference.
rolph
3 hours ago
the next step is, why?
what assumptions does your current model make. what could change that would eliminate disparity. What plausible mechanisms explain [Diff]?
albert_roca
2 hours ago
The model shows that the surface and volume of an object scale with mass such that electrostatic and gravitational acceleration can be explained through this scaling relationship. This is considered a geometric or structural cost:
C_s ~ m^(1/3) + m^(-2/3)
a_i ~ m^(1/3) + m^(-5/3)
This allows drawing an intrinsic acceleration curve for objects with homogeneous density, and the minimum point of this curve is identified at:
m_ϕ ≈ 4.157 × 10^−9 kg
The geometric logic of the model allows establishing a geometric or informational saturation limit that eliminates GR singularities. At the same time, fundamental particles are not treated as dimensionless points but as polyhedral objects, which also eliminates the quantum gravity problem. The concept of infinity is considered, within the model, physically implausible.
From here, the model allows making the derivations included in this post, which I have not presented categorically, but as a proposal that seems at least statistically very unlikely to be achieved by chance.
The model does not question the precision of the Standard Model but postulates that the particle zoo represents not a collection of fundamental building blocks, but the result of proton fragmentation into purely geometric entities. The fact that these entities are not observed spontaneously in nature, but only as a consequence of forced interactions, seems to support this idea.
user
4 hours ago
[deleted]
bigyabai
5 hours ago
If you have to ask people whether or not your preprint resembles curve-fitting, you have just self-reported that you are an AI user with no academic background.
Good luck with the peer review, you're gonna need it.
albert_roca
4 hours ago
I have reported nothing but numerical results. Making assumptions about me instead of looking at the numbers says more about your background than it does about mine.
yuuu
4 hours ago
From the manuscript linked in your profile:
> The author declares the intensive and extensive use of Gemini 2.5 Flash and Gemini 3.0 Pro (Google) and sincerely thanks its unlimited interlocution capacity. The author declares as their own responsibility the abstract formulation of the research, the conceptual guidance, and the decision-making in case of intellectual dilemma. The AI performed the mathematical verification of the multiple hypotheses considered throughout the process, but the author is solely responsible for the final content of this article. The prompts are not declared because they number in the thousands, because they are not entirely preserved, and because they contain elements that are part of the author’s privacy.
albert_roca
4 hours ago
This seems properly copied and pasted. Good job. I guess we agree that AI is already playing a central role in science, and physics is no exception.
yuuu
3 hours ago
> AI performed the mathematical verification
That should be done by the human writing the manuscript, i.e., you.
albert_roca
3 hours ago
Absolutely not. Results don't depend on who performed the calculation or how it was done. Can you solve 12,672 Feynman diagrams by hand?
user
3 hours ago
[deleted]
rolph
2 hours ago
i can. and i will take longer than you.
i will take longer, because at each step the process of lateral association occurs, this will foster imaginative variation of schema, and result in inspiration, an internally generated drive to pursue a goal, and experience the results.
i will not only complete the task, but will understand the many outcomes of task corruption as they relate to the components of the task.
you will obtain a set of right answers, i will discover the rules that govern the process.
albert_roca
2 hours ago
Fair enough. However, it is practically impossible to complete such a task in a human lifetime. But even if it were possible, the main point stands: using computers to perform calcualtions is standard scientific practice. Discrediting a proposal solely because it uses AI is retrograde per se. It contradicts the history of technological progress and excludes potentially valid results based on intellectual prejudice.
rolph
an hour ago
who discredited your proposal?
albert_roca
41 minutes ago
I am referring to other comments in this thread that dismissed the proposal purely based on the use of AI tools. My comment about prejudice was not directed at you.
rolph
17 minutes ago
consider the conceptual model of particle as a polyhedral structure.
consider further, the [pred] values are an average, or a centroid of sort, related to a dynamic process, as a result, the straight edges, and faces of the polyhedron dont exist, they are virtual. what is actual is the variation of "curvature" as the object oscillates, further consider that [diff] is a measure of deviation that is in line with [exp] values.
bigyabai
4 hours ago
I have done nothing but associate your "numerical results" with other numberslop I see from LLMs. Again, you're self-reporting.
albert_roca
4 hours ago
Can you share the results of your analysis by association? Or was it an instant mental calculation?