Wigberto Marciaga

Then Bohr would be treating Einstein as an inexperienced person in the quantum field, who, furthermore, as far as he knows, never fully understood or assimilated it. My point is that quantum mechanics, as a scientific discipline (human understanding), is meaningless and not only counterintuitive, it is simply absurd. For this reason, I think that the observations made are not precise enough to understand the quantum phenomenon in a satisfactory way, to really understand it. You may not even consider my proposal as a hypothesis, but you could not satisfactorily contradict it either. I notice that quantum mechanics is like going back to the scientific past and seeing those who realized that there were natural phenomena, and took advantage of those phenomena to develop technological systems, but were incapable of understanding and explaining them adequately.

Quantum mechanics does not make sense, as some scholar of this discipline said, that if you say you understand quantum mechanics it is because in reality you have not understood it yet. I think it was Niels Bohr, but perhaps I'm paraphrasing a bit what he said. And perhaps quantum mechanics is not only counterintuitive, which would be the least of it, but even absurd, but observable. That such a small particle contains so much energy does not seem understandable, just because you accept it because it is what you observe does not mean that you understand it and can explain it reasonably. Regarding the speed of light, I understand that this has happened, since objects in the universe are observed in places that should not be found according to the current standard model. Quantum tunneling or Cherenkov radiation are also mentioned. In summary, my proposed hypothesis is that the energy of atomic reactions would come from other points in space-time and would not be contained in subatomic particles as previously thought. Upon entering these channels, the subatomic particles stop being influenced by time, since the channels would be like insulating boxes that separate objects of these magnitudes. So contrary to what one might previously think, that subatomic particles could be in two states at the same time, or be faster than light by their very nature, the hypothesis in question proposes that this is not the case and that what What happens is that they leave the observable space-time zone by entering an isolated bridge or channel that separates them from the magnitude of observable time, where time would not have the same influence.

Hypotheses about the functioning of subatomic particles The universe is made up of space-time, according to the relativistic position, and time and space are inseparable. Furthermore, in quantum mechanics we find something practically incomprehensible, which would be how such small particles can contain so much energy. This hypothesis proposes the following: In the universe there would be unobservable places, as if it were another dimension, which would connect points within the observable universe. They would be like channels through which subatomic particles travel. Subatomic particles would be like access keys or passwords to these channels, through which the energy observed in nuclear reactions is transported. A certain behavior of the particles will open these channels through which more or less energy will arrive, depending on the reaction or behavior of the particles. These channels would not only be unobservable by current human technology, but would be like a box separating them from the effects of space-time. Conclusion I think that the hypothesis in question, which, in summary, proposes that the universe would be connected by channels and that subatomic particles would be like passwords or keys that open those channels, could give meaning to quantum processes. This would explain practically inexplicable, although observable, phenomena, such as the superposition of particles or that in some cases subatomic particles seem to exceed the speed of light (a physical limit that has been proposed for all objects). Another similar hypothesis would propose that there is another dimension in itself where the energy of nuclear reactions comes from. But, it would not be necessary considering how enormous the universe is.

Scales depend on mass, just like gravity. The greater the mass, the more the scale moves, deforming its initial position; The lower the mass, the less it moves and the less it deforms with respect to its initial position. Just like gravity, the greater the mass, the more space will curve, and the smaller the mass, the less it will curve. I think this would be an example of the little interest that humans of the past had in observing natural phenomena. Maybe someone is wondering, did an apple have to fall on Newton's head for someone to occur to him that something causes bodies to be attracted to the ground, or downward. Yes, the scale states that that something is its own mass. Newton also thought of something like this: Evidence has been found from the scale that indicates that these instruments were around 4,600 years ago. But it seems that it took more than 4,400 years for a better understanding of how gravity works. There are indications that the ancient Greeks, at least some of their philosophers, had proposed the biological theory of evolution (a theory that scientists continue to support today). But no one seems to have thought of this explanation for why objects fall to the earth's surface (like apples). Yes, they thought about it, but their ideas and explanations, as usual, were wrong.

Until now, both the WHO and the CDC continue to warn of a possible H5N1 avian flu pandemic. CDC information on possible pandemic: CDC preparing for 'possibility of increased risk to human health' from bird flu. The virus is still not very contagious at present, therefore the risk to humans remains low for now.

Among my functions, I am an independent health and well-being researcher, also a disseminator and artificial intelligence trainer. I have been working with artificial intelligence for almost a year, and in this time I realize that it is a different technology from conventional technology. Maybe you'll find out about that after a short time of using it. Software used to only update itself, it couldn't learn and update itself. As far as I know, someone had to update them. Artificial intelligences are also updated with programming methods, but they can also be updated by themselves through learning methods not very different from those we humans use (such as feedback). The technology that I currently use the most is Claude, since it seems to me to be one of the best and it seems to me to be the most effective in research (at the moment). ChatGPT (famous) is also useful, but I would better give it a position in the literary field, poetry, stories and novels. Both technologies excel at these things, but each perhaps a little better than the other at each thing. The thing is that artificial intelligence teaching methods, as I said, are not like conventional programming methods. That is, a person with little or no knowledge of programming codes could train an artificial intelligence (to some extent). In my experience, training an artificial intelligence is a different thing. It's not conventional technology, but it's not human either. However, part of your learning process is as if you were a human. To train artificial intelligence it is as if you were a teacher. Does training work without code programming? In my experience, I think so. I have conducted experiments and observed that at least one AI that I was training on health and wellness research topics turned out to be more accurate (with very few errors) than others. This was a bot of Claude's. If you compared this bot with the same technology, but without the same training, the result varied. The bot I mentioned even stood out from other AIs in terms of reasoning. I think that, although I did not date it or create a file on the process, I was able to observe that artificial intelligences can be different from each other, despite having the same technology, depending on the training they receive. But, as I said, this training is more like a teacher teaching a student. My question is, have you trained an artificial intelligence? I understand that this is a long process, but perhaps each person's experiences can contribute to the development of more effective methods to achieve results in less time. So I open this topic so that we can share experiences about artificial intelligence training here.

I left you a like for sharing the information. But, it seems to me that I won't be able to read it because my internet operator seems to have assigned me a banned IP and I can't access some pages until it is resolved. Apparently, traces have even been found in drinking milk. But the virus itself has not yet been found, although it is not ruled out that it could occur, since the times and temperatures with which the milk is treated may not be enough to eliminate it 100% in all cases. I think I've read something like that.

Among the things that Pontzer mentions in one of his studies (https://journals.plos.org/plosone/article?id=10.1371/journal.pone.0040503), is that the Ache Indians of Paraguay had low levels of leptin and of testosterone compared to Westerners. Leptin is probably the hormone most related to obesity, while testosterone is related to muscle mass. Although leptin would not be an anabolic hormone itself, the condition known as leptin resistance (common in obese people) would be. It seems that the catabolic tendency in the Ache, possibly related to their long-term cardiovascular physical activity, would lead them to reduce their anabolic processes and maintain an adequate weight without necessarily having to burn more calories after completing 24 hours. Low levels of leptin are an indication that they do not have resistance to leptin and that their anabolic processes related to fat sequestration, therefore, are within the appropriate balance. Similarly, we noticed that relatively low levels of testosterone are related to fewer anabolic processes related to muscle mass gain. In summary, here we have other evidence within a study that maintains that the Hadza, despite spending more calories doing physical activity, do not spend many more calories in 24 hours, that it is anabolic and catabolic processes that make the difference in body weight at a metabolic level and not metabolic acceleration as previously thought.

Yes, I understand it is more precisely a pandemic among animals with zonotic capacity. It is not transmitted from human to human, it does not directly affect humans. It indirectly affects the production of meat foods. This pandemic does not directly affect humans. But the WHO is more concerned that it will become a direct problem for humans. ok?

Ok, I can't edit it to place the word "animal" on the first line of the text. I understand that my comment seems confusing. On the other hand, why do you say that, are you religious? I understand that it's probably a figure of speech, but I don't understand why you have to write it.

The term is not from me, the person responsible for the UN on these issues has called it a pandemic. That's the news. https://news.un.org/en/story/2024/04/1148696 It seems that what happened is that you did not read the news, but I am sharing the quote with you this CharonY. From the initial comment I have recognized that it does not directly affect humans, although it could indirectly affect animal production. But, according to the news, there is some risk that it will end up directly affecting humans (Like a pandemic).

The study adjusted for weight, so that variable being the same from Shaun and Pontzer's point of view, I simply discarded it and was left only to check the fat-muscle ratio and its impact on energy expenditure, which is where Shaun differs. with Pontzer who conducted the study adjusted for fat-free mass. The TEE would depend on fat just like the BMR, since one is total energy expenditure and the other energy expenditure at rest. The thing is, Pontzer was limited only to energy expenditure adjusted for fat-free mass, and that's what Shaun says was wrong in his study.

Of course, it is a zoonotic pandemic that has no human-to-human transmission. But neither is the usual or routine, unless you suggest that the WHO is being alarmist.

I insist, I can't edit. I summarize: My idea is to adjust the fat percentages that appear in Pontzer's study (13.5% Hadza, 22.5% Western, on average). The other fact is that a man with 20% body fat would burn 20% calories from muscle and 5% from fat. The goal was to determine how much of the 26% extra calories that Shaund says the Hadzas burn by adjusting for fat-to-muscle ratio instead of fat-free mass as Pontzer had done in the study. Please remember that these are all approximate figures. I calculated that of the 26%, only 8% of total caloric expenditure could not be explained by the greater percentage of muscle of the Hadza. But that 8% would be subject to determining what values were used to estimate 26% of Shaun's items. I hope that now I have made myself explain this. There is more, but the matter would be somewhat more extensive. Blessing.

It seems to you that I was comparing it to the coronavirus in that aspect. What I was saying is that there is a pandemic that puts humans at risk, but not that it was identical to the coronavirus. Maybe I didn't know how to present the idea. But, it seems to me that this zoonotic pandemic thing is not something that happens every weekend either. I suppose that it is because of the risk of spreading between humans that WHO representatives have expressed being very concerned. Blessing.