Towards a Physics Foundation Model
Posted4 months agoActive4 months ago
arxiv.orgResearchstory
calmpositive
Debate
40/100
PhysicsAIMachine LearningScientific Modeling
Key topics
Physics
AI
Machine Learning
Scientific Modeling
Researchers propose a 'Physics Foundation Model' that uses a transformer-based architecture to learn and predict the dynamics of diverse physical systems, sparking discussion on its potential and limitations.
Snapshot generated from the HN discussion
Discussion Activity
Moderate engagementFirst comment
1h
Peak period
9
0-3h
Avg / period
2.7
Comment distribution30 data points
Loading chart...
Based on 30 loaded comments
Key moments
- 01Story posted
Sep 17, 2025 at 11:06 PM EDT
4 months ago
Step 01 - 02First comment
Sep 18, 2025 at 12:29 AM EDT
1h after posting
Step 02 - 03Peak activity
9 comments in 0-3h
Hottest window of the conversation
Step 03 - 04Latest activity
Sep 19, 2025 at 1:00 PM EDT
4 months ago
Step 04
Generating AI Summary...
Analyzing up to 500 comments to identify key contributors and discussion patterns
ID: 45284766Type: storyLast synced: 11/20/2025, 8:37:21 PM
Want the full context?
Jump to the original sources
Read the primary article or dive into the live Hacker News thread when you're ready.
GP was asking about conservation laws but in gravity you don't even have energy-momentum conservation.
I think one of the reasons it is important to preserve conservation laws is that, at the very least, you can be confident that your solution satisfies whatever physical laws your PDE relies on, even if it's almost certainly not the "actual" solution to the PDE. You actually can ensure that a numerical solver will approximately satisfy conservation laws. Then at the very least, even if your solution diverges from the "actual" PDEs solution, you can have some confidence that it's still a useful exploration of possible states. If conservation laws are not preserved AND your solution diverges from the "actual" PDE solution, then you probably cannot be confident about the model's utility.
Perhaps, we will encounter the bitter lesson again and a well trained model will solve this. But as I said, we are also looking at hybrid models
Perhaps, we will encounter the bitter lesson again and a well trained model will solve this. But as I said, we are also looking at hybrid models
Wow, I didn't think this would HN. I actually planned to do the advertisement rounds only after the final ICLR submission.
This is our attempt at creating a model which understands multiple physics, which is in contrast to PINNs and Neural Operators, which focus on much more narrow systems.
Obviously, the biggest issue is still data (3D and real-world problems), but I think we and a few other groups make significant progress here.
Off the top of your head, are you aware of any similar general-multiphysics NN work that's been applied to electromagnetics problems? In particular, some colleagues in my lab are investigating imaging via acoustic waves which are induced by microwave absorptive heating (in liquids, biological tissues, etc.); this approach is most commonly known as RF-induced thermoacoustic imaging [1]. It's very tricky to model this phenomenon in simulation, doubly so to measure it experimentally.
Most in my lab (myself included) are leery of throwing NNs at problems and seeing what sticks, but sometimes I wonder whether a model like yours might help us skip past the boring details to get at the novel technical stuff, or else extend simulations to more complicated boundary conditions.
[1] https://ieeexplore.ieee.org/abstract/document/6248685
In your chase, with such specific systems, a model trained only on your data might make more sense, though
Whatever happened to that? Vapourware?
> We have demonstrated that a single transformer-based model can effectively learn and predict the dynamics of diverse physical systems without explicit physics-specific features, marking a significant step toward true Physics Foundation Models. GPhyT not only outperforms specialized architectures on known physics by up to an order of magnitude but, more importantly, exhibits emergent in-context learning capabilities—inferring new boundary conditions and even entirely novel physical phenomena from input prompts alone.
Because those two things are very different. You can have models that make accurate predictions without having accurate models of "the world" (your environment, not necessarily the actual world)[0]. We can't meaningful call something a physics model (or a world model) without that counterfactual recovery (you don't need the exact laws of physics but you need something reasonable). After all, our physics equations are the most compressed forms or representing the information we're after.
I ask because this is a weird thing that happens in a lot of ML papers when approaching world models. But just looking at results isn't enough to conclude if a world is being modeled. Doesn't even tell you if that's self consistent, let alone counterfactual.
[0] classic example is the geocentric model. They made accurate predictions, which is why it stayed around for so long. It's not like the heliocentric model didn't present new problems. There was reason for legitimate scientific debate at the time but that context is easily lost to history.
On a tangent, we cannot prove that LLMs actually know language, yet they can be incredibly useful. Of course, a true world model would be much nicer to have, I agree with that!
Read my example. People will care if you have a more complicated geocentric model. Geocentric was quite useful, but also quite wrong, distracting, and made many bad predictions as well as good ones.
The point is that it is wrong and this always bounds your model to being wrong. The big difference is if you don't extract the rules your model derived then you won't know when or how your model is wrong.
So yes, the user cares. Because the user cares about the results. This is all about the results...
We or you? Those are very different things. Is it a black box because you can't look inside out because you didn't look inside? Because I think you'll find some works that do exactly what we're talking about here. And if you're going to make big talk about PINNs then you need to know their actual purpose. Like come on man, you're claiming a physics model. How can you claim a physics model without the physics?