1

General Science / Re: How does ChatGPT work?

« on: 26/12/2024 05:09:10 »

some of the learning was human supervised

I (mostly) retired recently; since then I have seen several job offers to help with human supervision of AI training.
- There is apparently some training of the humans involved before supervising the AI
- Given my background, one of the offers specifically mentioned reviewing and improving results in mathematics
- I haven't investigated any of these job offers, so I don't know any details (and probably could not reveal anything if I did take one up!)

It is incapable of learning

"Conversational" AI can consider additional input from users during a conversation, but ignores previous input when you start a new conversation.
- Inputs from users don't affect the structure of the current AI, but can be used to train the next version of the AI
- I imagine that scanning through conversation logs for users saying "that's wrong" or the AI saying "I'm sorry" would be a good guide for areas to include in the training data for the next version.

Why do They not provide IT with Sensors?

Self-driving cars are AI systems with multiple sensors.
- The relatively simple "driver assist" function on my car (3 years old) takes input from a camera in the windscreen and radar on the front grille, and uses it to nudge the throttle and steering.

2

New Theories / Re: Origin of magnetic force

« on: 25/12/2024 12:51:57 »

I owe Hamdani an apology, I completely missed his correct post #408, re interpretation of the magnetic field as an electric field.

3

New Theories / Re: Origin of magnetic force

« on: 22/12/2024 09:25:47 »

What do I have to do to patent my invention?

Your national patent office should have a simple online form for filing a provisional patent. If not, use the UKPO. The important thing is to establish priority of invention in the broadest possible terms, and a provisional filed in any country does that. Then decide whether you are going to make any money from it. Talk to a prospective manufacturer under an NDA (use an online form or get a solicitor to draft one for you). If it looks profitable, get a patent attorney to draft and submit it, if it is your first patent - not cheap, but you will learn a lot from the PA.

Your national patent office website is the best source of information, not a chatbot.

4

New Theories / Re: Origin of magnetic force

« on: 21/12/2024 06:09:12 »

Hi.

    I think I can see what you ( @paul cotter ) are saying and yes, you do seem to have the right idea.

I can only assume a relativistic effect of the movement of + and- charges in the conductor produces an electric field with force on the charge

Yes.
In post #406 I said the following:

....the same force and overall effect should appear.   However, it doesn't have to appear as a magnetic force and in this case it will be partly a force due to an electric field....

  In this situation described by @hamdani yusuf ,  the velocity of the test particle became 0 exactly and so we have the most extreme case.    Using the Lorentz force law and putting v=0 we would have that   F = q(E + v x B)  =  qE  =  a force entirely due to an Electric field.
This was mentioned in reply #408 by Hamdani:

In the reference frame where the test particle is stationary, v is 0. Thus special theory of relativity interpretes that the force is purely electric.

     In this frame of reference, the distance between the -ve charges (the free electrons) and between the +ve charges (the metal atoms in the lattice) has been affected (by length contraction under SR) such that the wire had an overall +ve charge of exactly the right magnitude to repel the positive test charge as required.   Although a B field would still be there circling the wire, it plays no part in exerting a force on the particle (in this frame).

---------
Minor notes:    You said the following (with red text added by me):

and as the (test)  charge is moving in this frame it also produces a magnetic field...

.
    Yes that's actually completely true  BUT  you are over-thinking this. 
     We were just considering it as a test charge.   They do not create or alter the field(s) around them, they just experience the field(s) created by other things    https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Test_particle .       
     In the real world, any moving charge would create a magnetic field in the space around it and this would combine with the magnetic field from the wire  -  but  we're talking about 1 small charge  (maybe just a proton) compared to billions  (~10²⁴ atoms per cm³)  of free electrons and metal ions in the wire.   The alteration in the magnetic (or electric) field caused by our little postive charge is utterly insignificant and we can consider it as an idealised test charge.
   
Best Wishes.

5

New Theories / Re: Origin of magnetic force

« on: 19/12/2024 03:16:05 »

Hi.

Let me simplify the question. A long straight metal wire moves to the right at speed 1 m/s relative to the lab. Electrons in the wire move to the left 1 m/s relative to the lab. A positively charged test particle is stationary relative to the lab, 1 cm below the moving wire. Will it experience a force by the wire? Which way?

   Yes, it should do.  It will be a force pushing the charged test particle directly away from the wire.

   Why?   Translate to the more typical frame of reference.    So we'll have the wire stationary, so we can assume the positively charged atoms of it are stationary.   Adjust the velocities of everything else appropriately.
    The free electrons of the metal now move with velocity 2 m/s to the left   ( my left direction is    < ---   ).   Actually slightly less if we use the the velocity addition of special relativity but  2 m/s will be OK.
     By conventional electromagnetism stuff, we have a magnetic field around the wire.   Conventional current is going  to the right  ( ---> that way ),   right hand rule shows the B field circles around the wire.
    The test charge, in this frame, is now moving at  1 m/s   (  <-- that way), or more importantly in the oppositie direction to the current.   A moving charge does feel force in a magnetic field,  we use the other right hand rule   for  F  = q  v x B.    We see the test charge is accelerated downwards,  i.e. directly away from the wire   (if I twisted my hands around in all the right directions).

    In the atypical frame where your situation applies   ( the wire moves ---> that way),   the same force and overall effect should appear.   However, it doesn't have to appear as a magnetic force and in this case it will be partly a force due to an electric field.
    We could draw the diagrams and do the maths - to show that due to relativisitic effects,  the average distance between charges has altered and the wire is no longer of overall neutral charge as far your test particle is concerned.

    The smart person would then ask a follow up question:   Aren't the electrons and positively charged ions affected equally?   Aren't the distances between +ve charges and between -ve charges equally contracted and the charge does remain overall neutral?    Indeed, in your original situation where the test paticle was at rest, it does seem that both the positively charged ions and the electrons are moving with equal speed, albeit in opposing directions.
    That's a good question.   The answer tends to be that the free electrons are not like the positively charged atoms in the metal wire.   The free electrons are, as in their name, "free",  while the metal atoms are much more locked in place in the crytsal lattice of the overall structure.
      An approximation is made here.   Here's the step-by-step reasoning:
1.   It does seem that when a current is passed along a wire, the free electrons do start drifting. 
2.   So there would be a corresponding length contraction for the distance between them, which would make the density of negative charges exceed the density of positive charges in the lab frame.
3.    However, the electrons are free to move.   This is the important approximation step.    By electrostatics, they will re-distribute themselves and the wire remains overall neutral in the lab frame, to a good approximation.    Note that the metal atoms could NOT do this, they are not like the free electrons.   We know that a static test charge placed next to this wire which has a current in it, doesn't seem to experience any force, that's the experimental evidence that we've got.  So it seems that the wire has remained overall neutral in charge, even when a current is made to pass through it.     

    One consequence of this is that the wire cannot be of overall neutral charge in other frames of reference.   In other frames, there must be length contraction as usual.   So, the easiest one to consider is where we move to a frame where the electrons are stationary and the metal atoms were the things moving with (the negative or direction reversal of)  the electron drift velocity.   In this frame, the electrons are not moving, while they were in the first frame, so the average distance between electrons is now bigger,   -ve charge density is therefore lower.   Meanwhile, the metal atoms are now moving whereas they were stationary, so the average distance between them has decreased,  hence positive charge density has increased.   So overall,  the positive charge density now exceeds the -ve charge density and the wire has a net positive charge.

    So the irritating and relentless person may then ask - but the electrons are still "free" in this new frame, why don't they just re-distribute themselves again?   Why isn't a current carrying wire of overall neutral charge in any arbitrary frame I wish to use?
One half of that we can answer well:   Since the electrons do drift when there's a current in the wire, it is just not possible for the wire to be of overall neutral charge in every frame.   Do the maths carefully, there is only one frame where that can apply.    The second half... well I don't have a satisfactory answer for it.... 
    For some reason the frame of reference where the wire is overall neutrally charged is the usual one, the one where the wire (the positive metal atoms in it rather than the free electrons) is stationary.  You can try and dig up a few reasons, for example a current just does not flow unless there's a cell (a battery) or something that is maintaining a potential difference across the wire.  You can attempt to argue that as part of that setting up procedure,  just the right number of electrons are initially pulled out of the wire at the +ve terminal of this battery,  so the slight over-density of -ve charges that should appear in the wire when the electrons do start drifting along does not emerge.  However, we can't make too much speculation.   Let's just leave it as  "for some reason" the frame where the current carrying wire is overall neutrally charged is the one where the wire is stationary.

Best Wishes.

6

Physics, Astronomy & Cosmology / Re: What is the exact cause of the time dilation of the twin?

« on: 06/12/2024 15:25:33 »

"Einstein based special relativity on the idea that the speed of light is the same for all observers.

That it is the same relative to any inertial frame. It is not true relative to non-inertial frames, and there is no mention of observers in the premises.

That's because a space-time distance that is zero for one observer is zero for all observers.

It's called an interval, not a distance, and any interval (zero or otherwise) between two events or along any worldline is frame independent. Again, observers play no role in this.

So this speed, c, is an invariant speed.

You make it sound like frame invariant light speed is derived from this zero interval, rather than the frame invariant interval (of any value) being derived from the fixed light speed postulate.

You then only move into the time-like direction, and in this direction, you move with the speed of light.

That's like saying that a school bus is parked in my driveway (our reference frame), front bumper against my garage door. 20 ns later the rear bumper is 10 meters away at the street?  Did the bus move at faster than c? No. It's just a different part of an extended object and the thing isn't moving at all. Likewise, you are a worldline, an extended object that is present at both events delimiting the measurement. You don't move from one event to the other, it's just different parts of you that are present at each event, just like the bumpers being different parts of one bus. It isn't motion.

All that said, yes, different definitions are used, and it is commonplace to express motion through spacetime as taking place at c, expressed as a four-velocity, not a normal velocity.

7

New Theories / Re: Where does quantization of energy of electromagnetic radiation come from?

« on: 30/11/2024 23:22:57 »

I can generate any frequency of radio waves, continuously, for as long as I like, by an entirely linear and continuous process.

Yes, but the process is continuous because you don't get to see individual, long-wavelength photons. Emission of photons by charged particles is still a hot topic in research labs.

We're talking about the electromagnetic field as if it's fully understood, done and dusted. It's not true, yet.

8

New Theories / Re: what is temperature?

« on: 26/11/2024 14:55:18 »

Following up on the test tube with water being heated, here is something NOT to do and I repeat NOT. Faced with a dirty pyrex boiling tube which resisted cleaning I added water to a depth of about 2 inches and added conc sulphuric acid to a depth of about 1 inch and applied vigorous heating at the base. Some time later I was surprised that boiling had not ensued and I gave the tube a slight shake and whoosh, the entire contents of hot acid and boiling water exploded out of the tube. The acid had not mixed significantly with the water and with a boiling point in the region of 300c it was not going to boil for quite some time and shaking the tube led to mixing and a subsequent runaway reaction.  My mistake was a failure to thoroughly mix acid and water before heating.

9

Just Chat! / Re: What's your advice on writing a series of story?

« on: 14/11/2024 19:26:17 »

Hemingway's sentences are short, and so are the words he uses. The UK civil service style manuals tell you to use the Anglo-Saxon word rather than the Norman French word wherever you have a choice - they advocate against sesquipedalianism!

Also worth studying Steinbeck. His background was journalism, so he knew how to tell a story with impact, and he also worked with the legendary "Doc": "The Log from the Sea of Cortez"  is a brilliant blend of scientific reporting (a marine biology expedition) and beautifully descriptive writing, with an underlying adventure almost as exciting as his war reports.

10

General Science / Re: What's 0^0 ?

« on: 24/10/2024 21:23:23 »

If you think logically 2x0 is a non function, this sort of sum can cause all sorts of problems.  Even though the sum above does infact give the answer of zero it is not arrived at in the conventional sense of 2x0, that is 2x0=0, it is a non function that gives an answer of zero through its non function status. Zero being zero is neither positive nor negative. Therefore a non functon zero from 0^0 must be true.

11

General Science / Re: Is There A Pattern In The Number Pi?

« on: 30/09/2024 06:28:47 »

Pi can be represented by a very simple pattern:
π/4 = 1 - 1/3 + 1/5 - 1/7 + etc

This series is very slow to converge, so it's not of any practical use to calculate π

But it does illustrate some important aspects:
- 1/1000001 is zero in the first 6 decimal places
- So any pattern that you might detect in the first 6 decimal places will be destroyed by adding in this factor which does not affect the first 6 decimal places.
- The series continues forever, so it will destroy any other pattern you detect in the decimal expansion

It is necessary that the digits of π (or any transcendental number) do not form a repeating pattern
- But it is not sufficient

If you want to represent π, you could use the infinite series, or adopt the standard mathematical shorthand, and just write "π".

https://www.forbes.com/sites/kevinknudson/2016/04/18/everything-you-wanted-to-know-about-pi-part-4-infinite-series/

12

Just Chat! / Re: Where do I get my confidence to challenge established theories?

« on: 11/08/2024 13:15:42 »

Totally get where you're coming from. Sharing the backstory really helps people connect with and understand the context behind your theories. It makes the discussion more engaging and relatable. Plus, personal insights and real-life experiences add a layer of depth that raw data alone can?t provide.

13

Just Chat! / Re: Where do I get my confidence to challenge established theories?

« on: 04/08/2024 18:07:54 »

Non-mainstream ideas are less likely to get public funding.

One of the great flaws of public funding, alas. Your brilliant hypothesis and amazingly simple experiment will be judged by lesser minds who prefer to sit on committees rather than get their hands dirty.

The way to get research funding is to find a private company with a problem whose solution will make money. 

14

New Theories / Re: Could quantum mechanics be wrong?

« on: 12/07/2024 17:49:47 »

description of Quantum Parallelism:

What's the source of the paragraph that you quoted? Who are "we" there?

https://arxiv.org/abs/2405.07222

15

Science Experiments / Re: How to build DIY lasers?

« on: 06/07/2024 15:43:10 »

Can it show destructive and constructive interference?

Yes.
Longitudinal Modes
https://www.experimental-engineering.co.uk/helium-neon-lasers/theory-modes-coherence/

16

Just Chat! / Re: Is there a universal moral standard?

« on: 15/06/2024 20:47:52 »

Best estimate is my 84th birthday, by hypothermia (winter birthday) or nitrogen hypoxia.

I started many years ago with a guess as to when life would become intolerable. It's subject to continuous review but actually hasn't changed much, though this week's consultation with a cardiologist gives me cause to consider extending by a couple of years.

Not that the date matters anyway. My family and friends are fully aware of my intention so a day's notice will suffice to get someone to look after the dog when I've gone, and they can take their time selling the piano.

17

Physics, Astronomy & Cosmology / Re: why do a lot of people confuse between interference and diffraction?

« on: 16/05/2024 09:30:53 »

Ghatak is as wrong as Feynman! He seems to base his definition of diffraction on diffraction gratings  (devices that exploit diffraction) rather than the single edge case (which is the underlying phenomenon) and an implicit belief that Huygens is a fact rather than a model.

18

New Theories / Re: How does light propagate? By what means does light get from Point A To Point B?

« on: 14/04/2024 17:38:38 »

If we insist that speed of light in vacuum is constant while also accepting that space is stretching, it implies that we also need to stretch the time by the same amount. So far, I haven't found any source for the latter.

That doesn't follow. It takes light one second to travel 299,792,458 meters. Of course, over the course of one second, a portion of space of that distance will expand to be ever-so-slightly longer than 299,792,458 meters. As such, it will take ever-so-slightly longer than one second for light to travel that distance because it can only travel 299,792,458 meters in one second.

19

New Theories / Re: How does light propagate? By what means does light get from Point A To Point B?

« on: 05/04/2024 04:00:24 »

Galileo summed up the argument very neatly: eppur si muove.

                           But it moves!  and also: "In questions of science the authority of a thousand is not worth the humble reasoning of a single individual." - Nelle questioni scientifiche l'autorit? di mille non vale l'umile ragionamento di un solo individuo

20

New Theories / Re: How does light propagate? By what means does light get from Point A To Point B?

« on: 03/04/2024 19:59:08 »

@McQueen

I think i get the gist of what you are tryin to say, i might be misunderstanding, but still...

The official " Speed of Light " in a vacuum keeps changing every Century.

Perhaps, a hundred years from now, it won't be what it is today.
Obviously, the ' Speed ' is not changing in Reality, just our instrumentations are getting more precise n accurate n averaging becomes better.

But if all we have are hypothetical models to describe Reality, hence if our Theories change, then so do our Realities!
(gotcha)

ps - @Eternal
Thanks for the replies, always a Treat!
Still, a little shorter, a little less sweet,
Well help me in avoiding DiabeteeZ!