HN Reader

Not the "foundational model" of physics I was expecting, but this is still great to see!

Anyone remember that one time, a year or so ago, when some company teased a physics based generative model which showcased a drop of water sliding down a beer bottle and the model could display the forces acting on it?

Whatever happened to that? Vapourware?

How do they prove their model preserves conservation principles? I looked in the paper & didn't find any evidence of how they verify that whatever their "trained" model is doing is actually physically plausible & maintains the relevant invariants like mass, energy, momentum, etc.

Author here,

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.

ITAR will be quite a surprise to some when it suddenly makes an appearance.