1

General Science / Re: [Asking ChatGPT] Why would LED ligths in cargo ship is a good idea?

« on: Yesterday at 16:15:06 »

Hi.

There doesn't seem to be any further comments from the OP  (remotemass),   I'm not sure what the original question or issue was supposed to be.

Nevermind,  let's just look on one thing.   ChatGPT can answer some questions without a user needing to use a forum.     "Why is the sky blue?",   "Why do dogs have tails?"  -  various small questions that people may have otherwise put on a science forum like this one. It will actually give good answers to sensible short questions like that.   So that's most of the main sections of the forum sorted out.

   Also, there's no need for people to spend some hours creating a new theory to post in the new theories section.   ChatGPT can easily produce a 1000 word essay (or more) on just about anything:  "Write 1000 words describing a new theory of gravity which contains the phrase 'quantum hyper loop' ".    Best of all, the replies can be generated by someone copy-and-pasting the article straight back into ChatGPT and just asking it to critically review that text.

   So, it's not all bad:   ChatGPT is capable of making forum users (including moderators) completely obsolete.
Just for demonstration I have fed ChatGPT with this instruction....
   "Please critically review the following article:    "    (and then copy-and-pasted the recent thread located here:
 https://www.thenakedscientists.com/forum/index.php?topic=86209.0 ).

The reply has been copied to that thread - I've specifically marked where ChatGPT took over,  you could easily imagine that this could have been the only reply required.   I have spent some time to write my own reply first just because it seems rude to leave the original creator of that thread with nothing but an automated response.

Best Wishes.

2

New Theories / Re: Gravitoelectroweak Hypothesis?

« on: Yesterday at 16:14:06 »

Hi.

   I hope you are well and I can see that you have spent a lot of time working on this article.  One of the things I noticed is that, according to your model, a particle seems to need electrons before it can be a source of gravity.  Similarly, a particle must have protons to experience gravity.   I'm not aware of any such requirements:  Mass seems to be the only parameter responsible for causing gravity and the only parameter important for experiencing gravity.   According to experimental tests the exact composition of a particle doesn't seem to matter.  You should be able to strip electrons and/or protons out of some particle and it wouldn't affect the gravity it creates or experiences (nothing beyond a change in mass that may have resulted from removing those electrons or protons anyway).
   Example:  an electron can experience gravity, just like any other particle of the same mass, even though an electron shouldn't have any protons in it at all.

   I hope you won't find this comment offensive, it's meant to be useful.  There are some experimental observations that don't seem to support the hypothesis you present, that's all.   It's not a personal attack,  just something you may like to consider.

   I've also spent the time to feed your article to a sophisticated computer system that uses Machine Learning and A.I. techniques to generate a response.   It has been trained on the entire contents of the internet and in the limited tests that I have run on it, it is extremely competent and well informed of current developments in physics.  I asked it to critically review your article, the report appears below.

Best Wishes.

- - - - - - - - -
Review by ChatGPT

This article presents a hypothesis about the unification of the weak nuclear force, electromagnetism, and gravity. However, the hypothesis lacks any experimental evidence and relies solely on theoretical assumptions. Additionally, some of the claims made in the article are not supported by current scientific knowledge.

The article proposes that the gravitoelectroweak interaction would manifest as the exchange of W+ and W- particles between bodies consisting of atomic material with tunneling electrons in the background. These background electrons would form something akin to the spin foams (or spin networks) of loop quantum gravity and would lead to a Dirac Sea permeating space. However, the existence of such a Dirac Sea has not been proven, and it is unclear how it would relate to the proposed gravitoelectroweak interaction.

Furthermore, the article suggests that the exchange of W+ and W- particles between a proton and a gravitational electron would create a massless, spin-2 gauge field in the interstitial space between the electron and proton. However, this gauge field would exist only for the briefest of moments at an incredibly small length scale (never greater than the electroweak range). While this claim is intriguing, it lacks empirical support.

The article also introduces the concept of primary and secondary electron densities to separate the electrons forming the gravitational field from those whose influence is canceled by the presence of a nuclear proton. However, it is not clear how this concept contributes to the understanding of the proposed gravitoelectroweak interaction.

In summary, while the idea of a unification of fundamental forces is an active area of research, the hypothesis presented in this article lacks experimental support and is not based on current scientific knowledge.

- - - - - - - -

3

New Theories / Re: Gravitoelectroweak Hypothesis?

« on: 29/03/2023 21:33:56 »

That is how it works. As for Kryptid's comments, yes I made up a thing to explain a thing, it's called an original idea, or 'hypothesis' in physics, a science in which this is the standard way of going about doing science. We see phenomena and come up with ideas to explain them.

That's not really what you've done. When confronted with something that completely prevents your model from working (by many, many, many, many orders of magnitude), you come up with something for which (1) there is no evidence and (2) doesn't even have a decent description. Your only statement about it is that it's a "special rule/principle". With that kind of reasoning, you can come up with an idea that goes against any observed phenomenon. For example, I could have a model where cells are powered by nuclear fusion. The immediate response to that is that cells are nowhere near hot enough for fusion to occur. Then I handwave that by saying there is a "special rule/principle" that allows it to occur in cells at low temperatures and pressure, despite there being zero evidence for this rule and no mechanism describing how it works.

You also haven't provided a reference where W bosons are observed to create an attractive force. Every time I've gone looking, I've found no references to the weak nuclear force being either attractive or repulsive.

There's also another problem: quantum tunneling only allows particles to travel to locations that are equal to or less than the energy level that they were originally at (otherwise, the first law of thermodynamics is violated). In order for an electron to tunnel up and out of the Earth, it would have to travel up against a gravitational potential. The only way that can happen would be if there was some location beyond Earth where the potential energy of the electron could be less than it is on Earth (in the Sun, for example). It could not tunnel, for instance, into me. My own gravitational field is far too weak and thus the tunneling electron would have to gain potential energy in order to do that (which is forbidden).

Then comes the question of how things that are neither electrons or protons experience gravitational attraction. Neutron drop experiments have been performed and they are observed to free fall. How does that happen in your model?

4

New Theories / Re: Gravitoelectroweak Hypothesis?

« on: 29/03/2023 17:44:10 »

You're using free electrons here as opposed to electrons in their bound state around atomic nuclei, aren't you?

How does that make any significant difference?

There would have to be some special rule/principle governing the behaviour of electrons in orbit around a nucleus allowing them to tunnel to far great distances

Sounds like something you made up in order to avoid having your model falsified by the available data.

or it might be that aspects of quantum theory are incorrect.

What's your evidence for that?

The explanatory power of this model is too great for me to simply put aside, unfortunately.

I don't see how. Your model doesn't seem to make quantifiable predictions. Can you do the math showing what the strength of gravity should be in your model? Can you do the same thing in terms of prediction the value of gravitational lensing of light?

Do you have a reference for the exchange of W bosons creating an attractive force?

I think, also, string theory more or less also made the admission that gravitational fields are formed of quanta (particles) of the electrical field (i.e. electrons).

Do you have a citation for this?

5

Just Chat! / Re: If Religion Wants To Survive...

« on: 29/03/2023 15:39:11 »

Religion provides the Choice of Celibacy, unhelpful?

...and the Sin of contraception. But buggering choirboys is OK if you are a celibate.

6

New Theories / Re: Global worming theory

« on: 29/03/2023 09:26:20 »

Sorry Zero, I was being facetious, I actually have no interest in nematodes, cestodes, trematodes or any other 'odes. My warped sense of humour.

7

Science Experiments / Re: What phenomena can be demonstrated by a cheap high voltage generator?

« on: 29/03/2023 03:49:14 »

why is it called Generator?

Perhaps for marketing purpose. That's the title of the device if you buy it online.

Does it Generate, which i feel is similar to Create?

Or does it simply just Convert, hence a Converter/Transformer?

The circuit diagram shown at 6:50 shows that it consists of an oscillator, step up transformer, and voltage multiplier.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Voltage_multiplier

Even "real" generators merely produce electricity by converting from other forms of energy.

8

Just Chat! / Re: If Religion Wants To Survive...

« on: 29/03/2023 03:37:44 »

In Life...Growing Old is a Compulsion, while Growing Up is mostly Optional.

I expect that in not so distant future, growing old will be just numbers, and detached from degenerative processes or physical and mental dysfunctions.

9

New Theories / Re: Gravitoelectroweak Hypothesis?

« on: 28/03/2023 15:40:52 »

The test of a hypothesis is the accuracy of its predictions. I don't see any.

10

General Science / Re: [Asking ChatGPT] Why would LED ligths in cargo ship is a good idea?

« on: 28/03/2023 11:45:58 »

The answer is simple. Music is made by animals, for communication. Noise is made by machines, because there's something wrong.

11

New Theories / Re: How close are we from building a virtual universe?

« on: 28/03/2023 10:58:20 »

AI is Evolving Faster Than You Think [GPT-4 and beyond]

In this episode, we take a deep look at the two weeks that changed the world. From GPT-4 to Google Bard, Midjourney v5 and even talk of AGI from Microsoft, it’s all right here.

Correction at 16:20: Upon taking a closer re-reading of the the statement it seems like the internal red team were more trying to cover their backs incase something goes wrong, not so much flat out saying they advise against release. Privately they could feel either way, wanted to just note that!

The problem of goal alignment is getting more urgent to solve and be trained to the AI as soon as possible.

12

New Theories / Re: How close are we from building a virtual universe?

« on: 28/03/2023 04:40:38 »

Hi.

IMO, physics is about discovering basic building blocks of the universe.....

   Maybe but maybe those building blocks were not there and did not exist at all.
Example:   We have built and continue to build a lot of Physics on the idea of particles existing.   Maybe they don't, it could all be waves and oscillations in some underlying field.

   Regardless of whether these basic building blocks (particles or any other sort of thing) exist, we seem able to build effective theroies from them.    So Physics could be less about discovering basic building blocks of the universe and more about building models that just make sense to a human being.   It doesn't matter if we give some imagined or nominal reality to things that never really existed,  all that matters is that this provides some model with which we can understand something and especially if we can make predictions about things that have not happened yet.

Another example:   Energy -  generally assumed to be thing that exists.   However, it is just a numerical quantity that is conserved in systems with time translation invariance, systems without that symmetery have no quantity like energy.   Our Universe, where space is assumed to be expanding, is one of those things where a conserved quantity like Energy should NOT exist.    None the less, Energy is a very useful concept, much more than just a rough approximation - and we have a built a lot of physics using the concept.

Maybe science is an inherently human activity, let's take your (Hamdani) next paragraph as an example:

AGI will be able to continue the process automatically, and reveal much deeper and complex relationships much faster....

    Maybe... but it could also be that AI is not doing "Science" and will not produce anything you can recognise as Science.    AI based on neural networks has no need to make any attempt to explain something in a way useful for human understanding.  Indeed, analysing neural networks which have been quite successful at predicting some small stock market changes or diagnosing patients with some illness, has often been extremely uninformative for a human being.   There may be no shorter algorithm you could follow (shorter than just doing exactly what the neural network did), or interim structures that the neural network calculated resembling anything like the objects in models of econonomics or human physiology that we currently use.   The network just mashed signals together and a useful final output was obtained.   So you could make the human beings do exactly the same but you couldn't, for example, tell them why it worked or which bits resemble someting we already know about.
      In a time where memory capacity is almost limitless it's also irrelevant to a computer system how many different algorithms, neural networks (or whatever) it has to predict weather in 10 places in the world.   All that matters is that they work.   For a human being, however, it is automatic to both assume that there will be some similarity and to try and identify bits of those algorithms that are common or can be explained by some shared objects that seem to exist  (like pressure and temperature).   It is human to identify and develop the science of meterology which might include providing some imagined existence to structures like "weather fronts",   for a computer it's irrelevant.     Why would an AI system develop a new science of (for example)  Astro-Meteorology?   If it became important for an AI to predict gas flow, radiation and the equivalent of "weather" in space, it can just start a neural network, give it plenty of inputs and continue to train it until it works.   If it went somehwere else in space, it can just do the same with a new neural network.   If processing speed is fast enough, that would be superior to attempting to "understand" space weather in any way that we (human beings) use the word "understand".

Best Wishes.

13

New Theories / Re: How close are we from building a virtual universe?

« on: 27/03/2023 09:51:03 »

'Sparks of AGI' - Bombshell GPT-4 Paper: Fully Read w/ 15 Revelations

Less than 24 hours ago a paper was released that will echo around the world. I read all 154 pages in one sitting. The paper suggests GPT 4 has ‘sparks of Artificial General Intelligence’. This is not just hype, I go through 15 examples detailing just what exactly the unrestrained GPT 4 is capable of.

Insane highlights include the monumental ability to use tools effectively – this is an emergent capability not found in ChatGPT. I detail the kind of tools it has already demonstrated it can use, from using external APIs to being a true personal assistant, from a Fermi answerer to a Mathlete and a handyman. This paper may well change your thoughts on the state of AGI.

That is just touching on the multitude of implications of this bombshell paper, which was originally titled 'First Contact'...

14

Physiology & Medicine / Re: Can taking a pint of blood off the body reduce your blood pressure?

« on: 26/03/2023 16:47:25 »

Sadly, no. Blood pressure is the pressure required to maintain the required volume flow through a system of elastic vessels which can expand and contract in response to chemical and physical triggers. When substantial quantities of blood are lost, some (mostly peripheral) vessels constrict in order to maintain sufficient oxygen to the "more vital" areas.  Chemical intervention is required to reduce blood pressure to prevent further damage in the case of stroke.

15

New Theories / Re: What makes Riemann's Hypothesis Hard to Prove?

« on: 26/03/2023 06:27:05 »

https://youtube.com/playlist?list=PLbaA3qJlbE93DiTYMzl0XKnLn5df_QWqY
This YouTube playlist is a good starting point. A critical information there is about analytic continuation.

16

New Theories / Re: New theory of evolution

« on: 25/03/2023 15:48:59 »

Were it not for the fall of the meteorite 66 million years ago, intelligent reptiles would control the Earth now or in the future

That of course is wild speculation, based on the mistaken belief that evolution 'wants' to produce intelligent beings.  Dinosaurs were around for 165 million years (230 million years if we include the avian dinosaurs) without evolving towards an advanced intelligence.  Mammals have been on earth for 175 million years and it is only in the last 2 to 3 million years have they shown any advanced intelligence.  It seems that animals with advanced intelligence is more of a fluke than a norm.

17

New Theories / Re: Global worming theory

« on: 24/03/2023 18:25:38 »

There may be a small spelling mistake in the title of this thread.   

Hence my comment about parasitic helminths. It's more fun than climate change, though worms do have a lot of impact on that too.

18

New Theories / Re: Global worming theory

« on: 24/03/2023 16:32:45 »

Hi.

There may be a small spelling mistake in the title of this thread.   @vdblnkr34  , you might be able to edit that or ask a moderator to do it.   It's not vital but people may find the thread more easily.

Best Wishes.

19

New Theories / Re: New theory of evolution

« on: 24/03/2023 15:58:21 »

I would add that since intelligent beings of the homo sapiens type have appeared on our planet, it can be expected that also other beings of this type will appear on other planets.

Non seq.

20

Just Chat! / Re: Dissertation Help services for PhD and masters students

« on: 23/03/2023 16:51:23 »

Actually, AI won't help- at least in a scientific PhD.The whole point of a research degree is to discover or elucidate something that nobody else has seen or explained, so combing the internet for existing knowledge won't answer the question.