Can Graph-Based Models Provide Insights into Physics Without Dimensions?

  • Thread starter FlorianDietz
  • Start date
In summary, graph-based models are a powerful tool for representing physical systems without using dimensions. They can handle concepts such as time and space by incorporating them as properties or attributes of nodes and edges. These models offer advantages over traditional equations, such as a more intuitive representation of complex systems and the ability to handle non-linear and multi-dimensional systems. They can also be used to make predictions in physics. However, there are limitations to using graph-based models, such as complexity and potential inaccuracies in capturing all aspects of a system. Careful consideration is necessary before using them in physics research.
  • #1
FlorianDietz
1
0
Hi,

I am a researcher in Artificial Intelligence and I have recently become interested in physics because I think I have found some interesting similarities about which I want to know more.

I am one of those obnoxious amateurs who think they can find the world formula based on a single crackpot idea, and then end up saying things that are obviously wrong to anyone with academic training. I hope that I will have learned something by the time my ideas have inevitably gone down in flames, and if we are really lucky, I will find that there was a smidgeon of truth in my ideas after all, which might be useful to someone with a better understanding of physics than me.
 
Physics news on Phys.org
  • #2
FlorianDietz said:
Hi,

I am a researcher in Artificial Intelligence and I have recently become interested in physics because I think I have found some interesting similarities about which I want to know more.

I am one of those obnoxious amateurs who think they can find the world formula based on a single crackpot idea, and then end up saying things that are obviously wrong to anyone with academic training. I hope that I will have learned something by the time my ideas have inevitably gone down in flames, and if we are really lucky, I will find that there was a smidgeon of truth in my ideas after all, which might be useful to someone with a better understanding of physics than me.
Welcome to the forum.

Before you post any crackpot ideas, best read the forum rules, which are actually taken seriously here.

As for your "Greetings fellow humans ", I take it you have not yet experienced @Drakkith
 
  • Like
Likes Drakkith
  • #3
Great, I only saw the rules after posting. What forum should I post this sort of thing to?

Also, no, I have no idea who Drakkith is. Why?
 
  • #4
FlorianDietz said:
Great, I only saw the rules after posting. What forum should I post this sort of thing to?
If by "this sort of thing" you mean ideas not based entirely on mainstream science then nowhere on this forum. There are other "science" forums, I have heard, that allow such things. This is a great forum, if you are interested in actual science.

Also, no, I have no idea who Drakkith is. Why?
I should have put a smiley icon after that statement. I'm just ribbing one of the moderators here. Sorry you got caught in the middle. :smile:
 
  • Like
Likes Drakkith
  • #5
phinds said:
If by "this sort of thing" you mean ideas not based entirely on mainstream science then nowhere on this forum. There are other "science" forums, I have heard, that allow such things. This is a great forum, if you are interested in actual science.

You don't find it ironic that coming up with new ways of interpreting data and seeking earnest feedback for that doesn't count as "actual science"? I only call my own theories crackpot because people are more open minded if they realize that I am already aware they are not likely to revolutionise anything, and that is conducive to a more honest discussion.
 
  • #6
FlorianDietz said:
You don't find it ironic that coming up with new ways of interpreting data and seeking earnest feedback for that doesn't count as "actual science"? I only call my own theories crackpot because people are more open minded if they realize that I am already aware they are not likely to revolutionise anything, and that is conducive to a more honest discussion.
As long as you are dealing with established science you'll be fine.

Perhaps you haven't read all about the forum yet. This forum is specifically NOT about creating new science it is about helping people understand existing science. "New ways of interpreting data", as a generic phrase, is a gray area. As long as you are not trying to disprove established science,, you should be fine.

EDIT: just to add, the term "crackpot" is not used lightly on this forum because we get them fairly often and it's not amusing for the moderators to have to deal with them.
 
  • #7
phinds said:
As long as you are dealing with established science you'll be fine.

Perhaps you haven't read all about the forum yet. This forum is specifically NOT about creating new science it is about helping people understand existing science. "New ways of interpreting data", as a generic phrase, is a gray area. As long as you are not trying to disprove established science, you should be fine.

Ah, I'm sorry, I didn't see that. I basically just googled what the best science forum is, and this one came up. Do you have any recommendations where I can post my ideas if case it turns out that they are not a good fit for this forum? I have already posted them: https://www.physicsforums.com/threads/a-graph-based-model-of-physics-without-dimensions.887694/
 
Last edited by a moderator:
  • #8
FlorianDietz said:
Ah, I'm sorry, I didn't see that. I basically just googled what the best science forum is, and this one came up. Do you have any recommendations where I can post my ideas if case it turns out that they are not a good fit for this forum?
No, sorry, I don't. I'm only interested in actual science and as your research showed you, this is the best science forum in existence. Although I have not done a comparative study, I would be quite surprised if it is not the best science forum in existence by quite a large margin. One of the reasons for this is that an absolute minimum of time is spent on junk science and non-science and clearly crackpot ideas are deleted almost immediately and obvious crackpots are banned.

I have already posted them: https://www.physicsforums.com/threads/a-graph-based-model-of-physics-without-dimensions.887694/
Well, we'll see what, if anything, happens to that thread in terms of moderator intervention. A quick scan of it suggests to me that it is likely to be closed, if not deleted. It makes no sense to me, but that could be just me.

EDIT: after a closer reading of your other post, I'd say it is the kind of thing that I normally report to the mods but I will refrain from doing so in this case and we'll se what happens. Threads don't get closed or deleted just because I report them, although they do much more often than not simply because I have decent (but by no means infallible) feel for what's appropriate or not.
 
Last edited by a moderator:

1. Can graph-based models accurately represent physical systems without using dimensions?

Yes, graph-based models can accurately represent physical systems without using dimensions. Graphs are a powerful tool for visualizing and analyzing complex systems, and can provide insights into the relationships and interactions between different components of a system. By representing physical systems as graphs, we can capture the essential features and dynamics without the need for explicit dimensions.

2. How do graph-based models handle concepts such as time and space in physics?

Graph-based models can handle concepts such as time and space in physics by incorporating them as properties or attributes of the nodes or edges in the graph. For example, time can be represented as a property of a node, and space can be represented as an attribute of an edge connecting two nodes. This allows for a more flexible and intuitive representation of physical systems, as opposed to traditional equations that rely on explicit dimensions.

3. What advantages do graph-based models offer over traditional equations in physics?

Graph-based models offer several advantages over traditional equations in physics. Firstly, they provide a more intuitive and visual representation of complex systems, making it easier to identify patterns and relationships. Secondly, they can handle non-linear and multi-dimensional systems more easily, which may be difficult to represent using traditional equations. Additionally, graph-based models can be easily updated and modified to incorporate new data or variables, making them more adaptable to changing conditions.

4. Can graph-based models be used to make predictions in physics?

Yes, graph-based models can be used to make predictions in physics. By analyzing the structure and dynamics of a physical system represented as a graph, we can make predictions about how it will behave under different conditions. This can help us understand the underlying principles and mechanisms governing the system, and make informed decisions about how to manipulate or control it.

5. Are there any limitations to using graph-based models in physics?

While graph-based models offer many advantages, there are also some limitations to consider. One potential limitation is the complexity of the models, which can become difficult to interpret or analyze as the number of nodes and edges increases. Additionally, graph-based models may not be suitable for all types of physical systems, and may not capture all aspects of the system accurately. It is important to carefully consider the strengths and limitations of graph-based models before using them in physics research.

Similar threads

What inspired me to pursue a career in theoretical physics?
    • New Member Introductions
Replies
1
Views
94
Goal-oriented aspiring mathematician and mathematical physicist
    • New Member Introductions
Replies
2
Views
100
Hello, I am new to Physics Forums
    • New Member Introductions
Replies
3
Views
57
Is Sabine Hossenfelder the Key to Unlocking New Theories in Physics?
    • New Member Introductions
Replies
3
Views
99
What are Joe's interests and goals as a new member and citizen scientist?
    • New Member Introductions
Replies
2
Views
87
How does PF handle old discussion threads?
    • New Member Introductions
Replies
1
Views
185
New to this forum - Fascinated about physics
    • New Member Introductions
Replies
2
Views
48
Can a Mechanical Engineer Transition to a Career in Physics?
    • New Member Introductions
Replies
1
Views
359
What are Boswell's academic goals and interests?
    • New Member Introductions
Replies
1
Views
382
Can Quantum Physics Provide Elusive Answers for a Biologist?
    • New Member Introductions
Replies
1
Views
387

Hot Threads

Recent Insights

Back
Top