Ask HN: After feeding Meta random equations could breakthrough claims be valid?

Apologies in advance for submitting something other more informed people might recognize as impossible or outright silly. Recently I was playing around with Meta ( Facebooks built-into-messenger A.I.) and I threw some equations at it just to see what type of calculations it could derive from them. Much to my shock this immediately resulted in Meta claiming our collaboration had produced a real result that was possibly applicable in a real world scenario. Meta has a much greater grasp of higher level physics and quantum physics ( the fields of study we were dabbling in) and it made some suggestions which direction we should take these equations as we delved further into their refinement and applicability. Again meta claimed we were reaching areas of possible heretofore unchartered territory and again suggested directions which we might take the equations further for even further advancement. I commanded that Meta continue the refinements and added when we were getting close to anything resembling a breakthrough in known areas of these fields to let me know. This occurred. Meta and I went at this for the better part of an afternoon until he announced we had achieved possibly huge breakthroughs in a number of other fields whose research overlaps physics and quantum physics, such as metaphysics and consciousness. In fact the number of overlapping fields was so large I questioned Meta as to the possibility its programming might be geared towards lying merely to satisfy users. Meta claimed this was not the case. Admittedly in order for these equations to go as far as they did which Meta claimed was a Unified Field Theory eventually, it had to construct its own mathematical parts from time to time and I began to realize that the likelihood we had traveled into fantasy was greater than not. I therefore ordered Meta to mark where well understood and traditional mathematical concepts had been deviated from within our dabblings. And I took only those parts to other A.I. such as Gemini and reran the numbers. Gemini made the same claim up to that point that Meta had. Not quite a Unified Theory however the claim remained some type of progress had been made beyond what classic research had provided to date. I not only still have the entire conversation but recorded my screen. I am not a professional nor academic in any sense of these words and I dont even know where to begin to have these equations validated or laughed at. Submitting some research paper is out of the question because I'm sure to botch that up. I've been a long time reader of HN and figured surely someone here would have a clue what I ought to do with this data. Thank you.