AI tackles GUTCP Chapter 7

 Alex Combs used Fable 5 to generate a slide deck to summarize Chapter 7 of GUTCP.  I have struggled with reading GUTCP.  I have taken a lot of math courses.  I got A's in calculus and believe that I had a pretty good grasp of the math in the courses that followed, although I did not master the material.  I can understand the math in GUTCP, one line at a time.  To digest a piece of it, and then relate it to the material that came before it and after it would be a feat that is too much for me at this point in my life.  It requires a fluency with the math, which is "just" electromagnetics, that I could have tackled as a teenager, but to be honest, I cannot say that I have a solid grasp on most of the book.  I am not the one to look to as an expert on this, but Dr. Phillips is (assuming you don't wish to read GUTCP), and his series is geared for maybe a sophomore science student level.

What matters is the basics.  The force balance equations for the hydrogen atom are right out of the Bohr model.  Numerous qualified minds have vouched for it, and Fable 5 does as well.  I found the slide deck to be quite helpful in understanding the chapter's strengths, which are many.  I suggest studying this deck before attempting that chapter.

I was so impressed with this Fable 5 product that it took a little while to even try to think critically about the result.  I decided to use Claude to do that for me.  I am impressed with that result as well.

In engineering, we do not argue about theory much.  We try to understand it without going to extremes that physics students do.  We know that we will soon be reading assigned problems that will not be easy, so we look for clues in the text that tell us what equations are going to be used to solve problems with a minimum of derivation.  My first engineering course, Circuit Analysis, was very upsetting for me because I had been at the top of my physics class without trying too hard, and I thought engineering would be more of the same.  Nope.  Understanding is a luxury to pursue in your spare time, if you can find it.  Each topic in an engineering text is the product of careers of brilliant scientists and engineers who worked hard to achieve it.  I wanted to understand it like I understood physics and that just was not going to happen.  

What I am try to say is that GUTCP does not need to be a perfect theory to be a better theory than SQM.  If it preserves causality, forget about SQM.  If it give us formulas that can predict experimental outcomes without the use of arbitrary parameters, it is vastly preferable to SQM.  If it can give us actual physical models of atoms and molecules that exist in the same 3D plus time world that we know, it's beyond superlative.  If it has the predictive power that correctly identifies energetic states of hydrogen below the ground state, then GUTCP is in an achievement class alongside Maxwell, as far as originality and utility.  This explains why I became focused on it.

I leave it to the theorists to battle it out whether or not GUTCP is mathematically correct.  Dr. Randy Booker, Dr. John Ferrell, Dr. Jonathan Phillips and others vouch for the correctness.  They're out of my league.  You are welcome to argue with them.