joigus

I'd guess the bot is trying to guess the --statistically-- next-to-best solution...

AI is brute force on steroids. I wouldn't expect it to be particularly good at recognizing context, shades of meaning, wrong premises, weak premises, etc. I think we all are familiar with an experience like this: You're working on a problem and suddenly realise there's something wrong. It doesn't make any sense. You pause and go back. Re-read the premises. You realise you mis-interpreted a word, which was the cause of all your trouble. This ability of retracing your steps and projecting some kind of 'skepticism' on your own thinking. That's what I miss most about AI, this logically contortionist ability of the mind to turn on itself, which allows one to go somewhere else, not implied by your previous logic.

Both. Society as we know it unravels itself as having a high content of tempestuous teapots. "Attention wanted" seems to be the name of the game.

Oh, ok. I do that from time to time. Cheers!

Gluons are dressed with effective mass. They appear as massless in the Lagrangian (if I remember correctly, some people call them 'Lagrangian gluons'), but as soon as they 'get real' ( ) they acquire a mass. The reason is the non-Abelian character of QCD. Because gluons have QCD charge, they polarise the QCD vacuum. This doesn't happen for photons. Maybe it doesn't for gravitons either, but I don't know that anybody has calculated vacuum polarisation with quantum gravity, really. The way things normally work in QFT, an interaction with infinite range is effectively mediated by massless particles. Similar comments apply to W and Z for the weak interaction. But in that case masses appear also because of the Higgs mechanism. Hardly ever is Eise wrong, if at all.

Zero is not a concept that hunter-gatherers would have been familiar with. Primitive languages didn't have a word for zero. It took many centuries to be introduced by Indian mathematicians.

Sorry, you have to be more specific: https://www.acronymfinder.com/GOD.html Very fond of the good old days and the great out doors myself.

Photons are nothing like bullets.

I don't think it's that weird. Human language has developed mainly out of inter-human interactions and immediate relations with the natural world. Why would Nature's 'deepest' rules be amenable to description by a code developed in order to talk about concepts such as food, warm and cold, mother in law, etc? What good is 'zero' to a hunter-gatherer?

I did notice, and I did wonder if it had any relation to that. It didn't look to me like there was a connection, but I don't remember why. Overall, I think his contributions were more on the side of being very much appreciated around here.

You should avoid identifying common notions like "emptiness" with mathematical ones ("zero") too glibly. You would think, eg, that "nothing" or "emptiness" (the vacuum perhaps?) corresponds to the zero state vector in quantum mechanics, when what the theory tells you is that the zero vector is non-physical. All physical states have measure one.

I don't know about "real" or "artificial." I do know that in classical dynamics or quantum mechanics, energy is a parameter that gets fixed by the initial conditions. You take, eg, one pendulum of a given mass and length. That's your system. You chose the magnitude of either an initial kick, displacement, or combination of kick and displacement. That determines the history. The situation of the parametrics in GR is completely different. You don't fix one energy and get a subsequent evolution. The theory tells you that the energy --the Hamiltonian, as we call it if we hold any hope that the theory will be made consistent with quantum mechanics-- must be identically zero. This is a common feature of all theories that are "insensitive to deformations of the coordinates," otherwise known as "diffeomorphism invariant." It's kinda puzzling, I know. I encourage you to look up: "diffeomorphism invariant theories have zero hamiltonian" on Google search. And there you go: https://arnold-neumaier.at/physfaq/topics/diff.html

Energy conservation is not universal. Energy conservation only holds if 1) The system can be described by a Lagrangian; and 2) The system has time-translation symmetry. This means that the Lagrangian changes only by a surface term when we apply a time translation. As another member has pointed out before: Also, I see no reason why a universe that's just popping up into existence --from a purely physical POV-- should be time-translation symmetric. Conservation of energy for mechanical systems can help you solve the equations of motion. Conservation of energy in GR, OTOH, comes from some kind of tautological consistency condition. You can call it a conservation law, if you want, but it doesn't play by the same rules. This "energy" no longer is our trusty old mechanical energy, but a related construct that includes dynamical, geometric, and vacuum terms. All the terms must add up to zero by definition. Not sure it can be used as any kind of predictive tool.

There is no such thing as an all-encompassing scientific argument. Sure. I think many of us here are familiar with the fact that some extremely unscientific disciplines are very difficult to dismiss completely.

That's a fair point, although the words "in principle" are essential here. Garden-variety BHs would destroy in-falling observers with their terrible tidal forces, accretion disks, etc. Also, I see as an essential part of science, particularly when it comes to testing, the possibility of reporting your results to other scientists. It remains possible, for example, that there is an afterlife, and that most people that ever existed know about it already. This kind of discourse, while logically tenable, does not constitute experimental science IMO. There are very good questions that are not scientific questions. They belong to what I like to call the world of the tantalising.

Indeed! I also have concerns having to do with operationalism. I don't think ideas like this and the like (is there a universe in an electron?) can be tested.

I've been wondering for a while too.

No, no.

Photons make things visible, but cannot be seen themselves. They are neither here nor there, although they make detectors go 'click' here or there, and they cannot be thought of in any intuitive way. 'Touching' makes no sense for photons either, since they easily go through each other, unless at so high an energy that non-linear effects of quantum electrodynamics appear, and then they would start scattering off each other. The expression 'lit photons' makes no sense.

Your issue is a non-issue. You don't make any sense. You never do, nor do you seem to care. Having an infinite element (in a particular sense that in the case of natural numbers is clear, and identifiable with a norm) or having infinitely many elements in a set (cardinality), or having a measure of a set are different things. You are --deliberately or not, I don't know-- confusing whether an element is finite (norm?) with how many elements there are in a set (cardinal?), or perhaps a measure (some concept of "extension" or "volume"). One way or another, several members are trying to help you grope towards these important concepts in mathematics, but you don't seem to care, and keep demanding them to address your silly "analogies." BTW, @wtf's last comments go in the direction of your pretence confusion.

Exactly.

Conservation of charge, baryonic number and leptonic number insist that it be so. There are no quarks with charge +1, lepton number -1, and baryon number 0.

That should be your first clue. Usually, the more I look into anything, the less strange and complicated it seems. And that's how it should be. Don't you think?

At the root of it all, I think, is @Boltzmannbrain's remarkable inability --or stubbornness to not recognise-- the limit operation, which in common language is captured by the words "and so on." That is, 1 1, 2 1, 2, 3 and so on. Don't look now BB, but these are the words you're having a problem with. Embrace infinity.

I think they go very much in the direction I was suggesting...