2026 - M-Layer ML for Science Learning
Thomas, Jyrki, (Lab)
The Topic
Newton said gravity is a force; Einstein said gravity is the curvature of spacetime
Does Newton's Gal(3) invariant still hold at the galactic scale?
- Negative samples cannot be arbitrarily noiseed: The position cannot be changed arbitrarily while maintaining the original acceleration, because arbitrarily adding noise would break the Gal(3) invariant, and the classifier would learn not the physical symmetry breaking, but noise
We only show SO(2) and SO(1,1),SO(3), SE(3), SO(3,1) for 3D galaxies and general relativity is future work
Foundation of ML
Mercer's theorem guarantees that we do not need to explicitly write out or calculate the high-dimensional feature phi(x). We can directly calculate the scalar function k(x, x'), which is mathematically 100% equivalent to building a linear model in a certain feature space
End Goals
- Pretty visuals
- M-Layer for verifying symmetries induced by scientific laws in
high-dimensional observationspace. - What might be missed in current Theoretical Laws?
Experiment test
- Can the model determine whether X=(q,v,a) is a valid physical state?
Other Topics
- 📍
Unifying fermions and bosons new gravitational-wave- Incorporating Maxwell’s Equations that describe the electromagnetic field into the Dirac Equation has been a long-term goal in physics to unify quantum electrodynamics (QED) and general relativity
Path to M²-Layer
Core Concept: M²-Layer = exp(Mb) * exp(Ma)
-
Observe and define the physical state. In the current experiment, each observation is a Lorentz-state pair $x = (v, E)$. The physical manifold is defined by: \(E^2(1 - v^2) = 1\) with $y = 0$ denoting physical samples and $y = 1$ denoting non-physical samples. The model therefore acts as a physical-law verifier rather than a full dynamical simulator.
-
Learn the original M-Layer generator. The current M-Layer constructs a state-dependent matrix: \(M_\theta(x) = \sum_i x_i T_i\) and evaluates a matrix-exponential score: \(r_\theta(x) = \mathrm{Tr}(\exp(M_\theta(x))S)\) The physical law is represented as an implicit zero set $r_\theta(x) = 0$. Thus, the current model is an algebraic physical-law verifier, not yet a one-step ODE/PDE flow map.
-
Upgrade to a composed M²-Layer. The next architecture should not square the matrix literally as $\exp(M^2)$. Instead, it should compose two learned M-Layer flows: \(g_\theta(x) = \exp(M_b(x))\exp(M_a(x))\) By the Baker–Campbell–Hausdorff expansion: \(\exp(M_b)\exp(M_a) = \exp\left(M_a + M_b + \frac{1}{2}[M_b, M_a] + \dots\right)\) where: \([M_b, M_a] = M_b M_a - M_a M_b\) The commutator term introduces curvature and non-commutative interactions that a single exponential generator cannot express. This is the natural next step suggested by the hard-negative failure in the current ablation.
Three Key Metrics
- ROC-AUC
- Does the learned score separate physical from unphysical samples across thresholds?
- Poincaré section consistency
- Recover the same phase-space section geometry as the true dynamical system.
- Zero-shot / Systematic Generalization / (Out-of-Distribution (OOD) Generalization Ability)
Lorentz data
- 1D
gamma / energy
^
| /
| /
| /
| /
| /
| __/
| __/
|______/________________________> beta = v/c
0 0.5 0.9 1
- 2D
beta_y
^
| high gamma near boundary
| ***********************
| *** ***
| ** low gamma **
| ** near center **
| *** ***
| ***********************
+-------------------------------> beta_x
When Choose Which Structure
| Space Type | Example | Original M-Layer | M²-Layer |
|---|---|---|---|
| Algebraic constraint space | ((v,E)), ((p,E)) | Enough | Optional |
| Simple state space | ((q,v,a)) one law | Often enough | Optional |
| Phase space | ((q,p)) with multiple invariants | May fail | Useful |
| Function space | (u(t,x)) PDE field | Limited | Useful |
| Operator / Hilbert space | quantum (H_a,H_b) | Limited | Very useful |
| Gauge / curvature space | field connection, commutator curvature | Not enough | Needed |
What Else Can be Verified?
| Frontier Problem | Core Open Question | Why | AI / M-Layer Direction |
|---|---|---|---|
| Quantum Gravity | How can general relativity and quantum mechanics be unified? | It asks what spacetime is at the Planck scale. | Learn whether observed dynamics lie on hidden constraint manifolds consistent with classical, semiclassical, or beyond-GR regimes. |
| Dark Matter | Is dark matter a particle, a field, primordial black holes, or modified gravity? | Most matter in the universe is gravitationally visible but physically unidentified. | Use high-dimensional classifiers to distinguish Newtonian gravity, dark matter halos, and modified-gravity trajectories from lensing and galaxy dynamics. |
| Dark Energy | Is cosmic acceleration caused by a cosmological constant or evolving dark energy? | Recent DESI results strengthen hints that dark energy may evolve over time. (DESI) | Learn deviations from ΛCDM as geometric constraints in cosmological trajectory space. |
| Black Hole Information Problem | Does black hole evaporation preserve quantum information? | It tests the consistency of quantum mechanics, thermodynamics, and gravity. | Use AI as a verifier for whether simulated black-hole dynamics obey conservation, entropy, and causal constraints. |
| Testing General Relativity | Does Einstein gravity remain exact in strong-field regimes? | Gravitational waves allow direct tests near merging black holes. Current LIGO-Virgo-KAGRA analyses remain consistent with GR. (aei.mpg.de) | Train physical-law verifiers on waveform manifolds to detect subtle beyond-GR deviations. |
| Gravitational-Wave Discovery | Can we extract weak, noisy, rare signals from detector data? | It opens a new observational channel for black holes, neutron stars, and early-universe physics. | AI is already used for denoising, waveform modeling, and parameter estimation in gravitational-wave pipelines. (Hep Journals) |
| Cosmic Structure Formation | How did galaxies, halos, filaments, and voids emerge from early fluctuations? | It connects gravity, dark matter, baryons, and cosmology across billions of years. | Learn compact latent laws from simulations and surveys; explainable ML has already found interpretable structure in dark-matter halo profiles. (mpa-garching.mpg.de) |
| Weak Lensing and Hidden Mass | Can we reconstruct invisible matter from distorted galaxy images? | Lensing is one of the cleanest probes of dark matter and dark energy. | Use AI-assisted simulation-based inference and constraint learning to map hidden mass fields from sparse observations. (Imperial College London) |
| Modified Gravity | Are cosmic anomalies caused by unseen matter or by a failure of GR at large scales? | It challenges the foundation of modern cosmology. | Build contrastive datasets: GR-valid trajectories vs modified-gravity trajectories, then learn the separating physical manifold. |
| From Galaxies to Cells | Can one learning principle discover lawful dynamics across scales? | It would unify scientific ML beyond domain-specific prediction. | M-Layer can be framed as a high-dimensional physical constraint learner: not predicting one trajectory, but verifying whether a system belongs to the lawful manifold. |
Physical Spaces
| Layer | Physical / Mathematical Theory | Proposed by / Historical Origin | Year / Period | Representative Space | Representative Dimension | Core State Variable | Core Law / Object | Relevance to GOES / NOAA Energetic-Particle Data | Meaning for M-Layer / Stage III |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| 1 | Euclidean physical space | Euclid | c. 300 BCE | Classical geometric space | 3D | Position $(\mathbf{x}\in\mathbb{R}^3)$ | Distance, angle, straight line | The basic spatial background for satellite position, Earth-centered coordinates, and magnetospheric geometry | The lowest-level space in which GOES occupies a point on a geostationary orbit |
| 2 | Newtonian absolute space and time | Isaac Newton | 1687 | Absolute space plus absolute time | (3+1)D | $(\mathbf{x},t)$ | $\mathbf{F}=m\mathbf{a}$, inverse-square gravity | Provides the classical orbital description of GOES around Earth | Useful for satellite ephemeris, but not sufficient for plasma-field reconstruction |
| 3 | Keplerian orbital geometry | Johannes Kepler | 1609–1619 | Conic-section orbital space | 2D orbital plane embedded in 3D | Orbital elements $(a,e,i,\Omega,\omega,M)$ | Elliptic motion, area law, harmonic law | Describes idealized satellite/planetary motion before perturbations | Gives a controlled synthetic benchmark, but not the real MHD field |
| 4 | Lagrangian mechanics | Joseph-Louis Lagrange | 1788 | Configuration manifold and tangent bundle | $n$-D configuration; $2n$-D tangent state | $(q,\dot{q})$ | Euler–Lagrange equations | Useful for formulating particles moving under electromagnetic fields | Connects observed particle motion to hidden variational structure |
| 5 | Hamiltonian mechanics | William Rowan Hamilton | 1833–1835 | Phase space | $2n$-D for $n$ degrees of freedom | $(q,p)$ | Hamiltonian flow $(\dot{q}=\partial H/\partial p, \dot{p}=-\partial H/\partial q)$ | Charged-particle motion in magnetic fields is naturally Hamiltonian or nearly Hamiltonian | M-Layer can be interpreted as learning a generator of flow rather than a static classifier |
| 6 | Symplectic geometry | Hamilton, Jacobi, Poincaré; modern formalization by Hermann Weyl and others | 19th–20th century | Symplectic manifold |  |  |  |  |  |
ODE
| Person / period | Year | Problem they cared about | Equation style | Essence |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Newton / Leibniz | 1660s–1670s | Motion, curves, and rates of change | $\frac{dy}{dx}=f(x,y)$ | Differential equations emerge from calculus |
| Newton | 1687 | Planetary motion and mechanics | $m\ddot{q}=F(q)$ | Physical motion as time evolution |
| Jacob Bernoulli / Leibniz | 1695–1696 | Solvable nonlinear first-order equations | $y’ + P(x)y = Q(x)y^n$ | Early named ODE family |
| Euler | 1700s, especially 1730s–1760s | Mechanics, astronomy, fluids, and variational problems | Systematic ODE methods | ODEs become a general mathematical tool |
| Cauchy | Early 1800s | Existence, uniqueness, and initial-value problems | $y(t_0)=y_0$ | Foundation of modern rigorous ODE theory |
PDE
| Person / period | Year | Problem they cared about | Equation style | Essence |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| d’Alembert | 1747 | Vibrating strings | $u_{tt}=c^2u_{xx}$ | Wave propagation |
| Euler / Daniel Bernoulli | 1740s–1750s | Strings, fluids, and continuum mechanics | Early PDE models | Motion of continuous media |
| Laplace | Late 1700s | Gravitational and electrostatic potential | $\Delta \phi=0$ | Equilibrium fields |
| Fourier | 1807 / 1822 | Heat conduction | $u_t=\kappa u_{xx}$ | Diffusion of a temperature field |
| Poisson | 1810s | Potential fields with sources | $\Delta \phi=f$ | Fields generated by matter or sources |
| Navier / Stokes | 1822 / 1845 | Viscous fluid flow | Navier–Stokes equations | Evolution of fluid velocity fields |
| Maxwell | 1861–1865 | Electricity and magnetism | Coupled PDEs for $\mathbf{E}$ and $\mathbf{B}$ fields | Electromagnetic field theory |
| Einstein | 1915 | Gravity as spacetime geometry | Einstein field equations | Dynamics of the spacetime metric field |
Simulation
trajectory generation
mission scenario
orbit propagation
lunar / deep-space transfer
navigation analysis
GMAT / Basilisk generates trajectory
→ export trajectory points
→ CesiumJS / Three.js visualizes it beautifully
Visualization
- NASA Eyes / Eyes on the Solar System
- Houdini
3D scene
+ time controller
+ camera fly-through
+ mission trajectory
+ object labels
+ information panel
Web Interaction
- NASA/mission-viz
- link
- CesiumJS / Three.js
References
- 2019 - SO(8) Supergravity and the Magic of Machine Learning
- 2023 - On backpropagating Hessians through ODEs
- 2007 - A systematic approach to multiphysics extensions of finite-element-based micromagnetic simulations: Nmag, Operator-based Abstraction
Bio process
- 1 2012, Analysis, Synthesis, and Design of Chemical Processes.
Lie Group, ODE, and Chaos
- 1 Georgi, Howard. Lie Algebras in Particle Physics. 2nd ed. Boca Raton: CRC Press, 2018.
- 📍 2 Hairer, Ernst, and Gerhard Wanner. Solving Ordinary Differential Equations II: Stiff and Differential-Algebraic Problems. 2nd rev. ed. Berlin: Springer, 2010.
- 3 Sussman, Gerald Jay, and Jack Wisdom. Structure and Interpretation of Classical Mechanics. 2nd ed. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press, 2015.
- 📍 4 Strogatz, Steven H. Nonlinear Dynamics and Chaos: With Applications to Physics, Biology, Chemistry, and Engineering. 2nd ed. Boulder: Westview Press, 2018. (Nonlinear Dynamics / Benchmark ODE)
- 5 Hall, Brian C. Lie Groups, Lie Algebras, and Representations: An Elementary Introduction. 2nd ed. Cham: Springer, 2015.
References 2
- 2026 - High-Dimensional Probability
- 2025 - Life at the boundary of chemical kinetics and program execution, physical constraints
- 1931 - Hamiltonian Systems and Transformation in Hilbert Space
- nonlinear dynamics can be represented as linear transformations on a Hilbert space of observables.
- 2024 - Soliton dynamics and multistability analysis of the Hamiltonian amplitude model
- 2026 - Paving the way for agents in biology
Other Topics
- 2026 - Geometric Signatures of Reasoning: A Spectral Perspective on Task Hardness
- 2023 - Seeing a Rose in Five Thousand Ways