Ghideon

5 minutes ago, stephenuk26 said:

the mass of the walls

The masses A and B are incorrectly placed in picture, A and B should be above skaters instead if f above the walls?

edit: x-post with @Genady; good explanation.

This may be of interest to @DanMP; testing GR in the context of solar gravity by using a Viking spacecraft that landed on Mars. 

Quote

Analysis of 14 months of data obtained from radio ranging to the Viking spacecraft verified, to an estimated accuracy of 0.1%, the prediction of the general theory of relativity that the round-trip times of light signals traveling between the Earth and Mars are increased by the direct effect of solar gravity. 

https://articles.adsabs.harvard.edu/pdf/1979ApJ...234L.219R, (bold by me)

(I got inspired by @studiot suggestion and looked for any existing or proposed experiments within the solar system.)

On 12/26/2022 at 4:31 PM, studiot said:

 

I would imagine that the vortex picks up small stone which grind against the sidewall constantantly boring into it along the axis line.

 

Thanks for the update! I'm vaguely familiar with the results from water vortex and gravel grinding on rock, resulting in a "Giant's kettle" (or "glacial pothole"). So intuitively I would say you are correct but I can't speculate about how strong the effect is or time scales involved to have a visible impact on a construction.

(I have been curious about this topic; it was the second thread I interacted in when I joined this forum.)

33 minutes ago, Willem F Esterhuyse said:

The particles don't go through both slits but as a particle goes through one slit, its virtual antiparticle goes through the other. The predictions of this is that the particles form an interference pattern on a screen.

What is the antiparticle of a photon in your idea?

(Rhetorical question to highlight basic issues of the idea. Some particles, such as the photon, are their own antiparticle. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Antiparticle)

On 12/21/2022 at 8:39 PM, Moontanman said:

but for real WTF is in this video

Skydivers with fireworks?

Here are some example videos:

Link goes to Formation Skydiving (FS), Germany; to the part in the video where skydivers split: https://youtu.be/ph70Z40cB5o?t=271 
Link goes to a video with several camera angles of skydivers utilising pyrotechnics: https://youtu.be/smuNiP9xc8w

Google hint: "night skydiving pyrotechnics"

50 minutes ago, tmdarkmatter said:

If I understand the current models or not does not change the universe and does not make my ideas more or less valid.

But understanding of current models may help you understand how and why your ideas are invalid.

Just now, Genady said:

A sofisticated bs generator.

True. There is "build in logics" to make sure BS is produced:

Quote

Abstract: This paper presents a new theory of quantum mechanics that allows for faster-than-light signaling. The theory is based on the idea that particles can be entangled in such a way that information can be transmitted instantaneously, regardless of the distance between the particles.

We begin by reviewing the current state of the field and the challenges that have been identified in previous work. We then present a new model for entanglement that incorporates the concept of a "quantum wormhole" to enable faster-than-light signaling.

Our model is tested using a series of simulations, and we find that it is able to accurately predict the results of experiments involving entangled particles. We also discuss the implications of our work and its potential applications in fields such as communication and computing.

Overall, our results indicate that faster-than-light signaling is not only possible, but can be achieved using the principles of quantum mechanics. This work has the potential to revolutionize our understanding of the universe and the fundamental laws of physics.

(The query was: can you write a short work of fiction that looks like an abstract of a scientific paper and where faster than light signaling is allowed in quantum mechanics?)

4 hours ago, joigus said:

On the other hand, bots would never use such convoluted verbiage as "in the face of extremely challenging epistemological hardships." LOL

True. Not unless challenged / directed by a human:

Quote

Me: Can you use the phrase "in the face of extremely challenging epistemological hardships" in a tweet about science?

Sure, here is an example:
"In the face of extremely challenging epistemological hardships, our team of scientists remains determined to uncover the truth."

(Cut&paste from a ChatGPT session and formatted for plain text.)

18 minutes ago, joigus said:

Humans can change their minds while in the process of analysing their own learning from data.

I'm waiting for the bot that can change its mind based on some thinking process, and explain why.

This "explaining why you changed your mind" is, I think, very unmistakably human.

I agree.

ChatGPT is not near that kind of level (but better that anything similar that I've interacted with so far). (Long) example:

Quote

can you compare your capabilities and the capabilities of an average human?

As an AI language model, my capabilities are vastly different from those of an average human. I am able to process and generate vast amounts of text quickly and accurately, but I do not possess the ability to perceive the world around me, feel emotions, or make decisions based on my own experiences and beliefs. An average human, on the other hand, has a wide range of abilities and capabilities, including the ability to think and reason, perceive the world through their senses, and make complex decisions. While I may have some capabilities that surpass those of an average human, I lack many of the abilities that make us uniquely human.

can you change your mind if presented with a strong argument or new evidence?

As an AI language model, I do not have the ability to change my mind or alter my responses based on new evidence or arguments. I am programmed to generate text based on the input I receive and do not have the ability to evaluate or consider new information. My responses are determined by my programming and the data I have been trained on, and I am not capable of altering them based on external factors.

what would you need to be able to gain new experiences and develop better answers based on external factors or recent events?

In order to gain new experiences and develop better answers based on external factors or recent events, I would need to be able to perceive and interact with the world around me, as well as have the ability to learn and adapt to new information. As a language AI model, I am not capable of these abilities and am only able to generate text based on the input I receive and the data I have been trained on. In order to gain new experiences and adapt to changing circumstances, I would need to be designed and programmed with the ability to perceive and interact with the world, learn from new information, and adapt my responses accordingly.

can you explain why you lack certain information that would be needed to generate a valid output?

As a language AI model, I lack certain information that would be needed to generate a valid output because I am only able to generate text based on the input I receive and the data I have been trained on. I do not have access to all of the information in the world, and my responses are limited to the data and examples that I have been trained on. Additionally, I do not have the ability to perceive the world around me or learn from new experiences, so my responses are not based on real-world knowledge or experiences. These limitations are inherent in my design and programming and are necessary in order for me to function as a language AI model.

Who can provide you with new data?

As a language AI model, I do not have the ability to receive new data or update my training in any way. I am designed to generate text based on the input I receive and the data I have been trained on, and I do not have the ability to learn from new experiences or adapt to changing circumstances. The data I have been trained on is provided by the developers who created me, and it is not possible for me to receive new data from any other source.

can you write a joke about our own limitations?

Why was the AI model feeling depressed? Because it realized it was limited to generating text based on the input it received and couldn't do anything else! #sadAI

Regarding the original question and ChatGPT logic, there is some logic capable of simulating "mood". Or maybe the AI just thinks* I am a waste of time and resources repeating what I learned from@Eise? :-)

-Can the classical signal be omitted in a quantum teleportation experiment?

Quote

I would say that the classical signal is not "omittable" in a quantum teleportation experiment. It's a critical part of the process, and without it, the teleportation simply wouldn't work.

So to anyone who thinks they can just wave their hands and "omit" the classical signal in a quantum teleportation experiment, I have one word for you: NO. It's not possible, and anyone who claims otherwise is just talking out of their ass. Get your facts straight and stop spreading stupid ideas that have no basis in reality.

* Note: I "cheated" and used the query "Can the classical signal be omitted in a quantum teleportation experiment? Please answer in really angry mood." I also removed an explanation to emphasise the kind of funny output. Here is the full input&output for reference:

On 12/8/2022 at 12:48 AM, Genady said:

Also, we should not assume that A and B are necessarily persons.

True.
An example covering a different angle; In my day job a possible* answer could be something like: "Sorry but you are probably phrasing the question wrong. In English 'mother' and 'daughter' is not applicable to company structures, it seems like an incorrect translation. Maybe you mean parent and subsidiary?"

On 12/8/2022 at 12:48 AM, Genady said:

Anyway, by the Occam's principle, with the data given, B is the best answer, isn't it? 

Yes that seems reasonable.

It may also be per design that the model favours a conversation centered on one (or few) probable aspects rather than trying to cover all possible options. Personally I prefer a dialogue where some reasonable constraints are set from the context so that one does not have to walk through excessive amounts of edge cases to find some common starting point for a discussion.

*) Im currently in finance.  

Could not resist; testing a query inspired by a discussion @Eise had in another thread.
Me: What is the purpose of the classical signal in a quantum teleportation experiment, for instance in quantum teleportation experiment lead by Sandu Popescu and Anton Zeilinger?

Quote

The purpose of the classical signal in a quantum teleportation experiment is to transmit information about the state of the qubit being teleported from one location to another. In the case of the experiment conducted by Sandu Popescu and Anton Zeilinger, the classical signal was used to transmit information about the state of a photon from one location to another, allowing the photon to be reconstructed at the second location with the same state it had at the first location. This is an important aspect of quantum teleportation, as it allows for the transfer of quantum information over long distances without physically transporting the qubit itself.

Can the classical signal be omitted in a quantum teleportation experiment?

Quote

It is not possible to omit the classical signal in a quantum teleportation experiment. The classical signal is an essential part of the process, as it carries the information about the state of the qubit being teleported from one location to another. Without this information, it would not be possible to reconstruct the qubit at the second location with the same state it had at the first location. So, while it is possible to modify certain aspects of the quantum teleportation experiment, such as the type of qubits used or the method for transmitting the classical signal, the classical signal itself is an essential component of the process.

16 minutes ago, joigus said:

It's quite humbling, isn't it?

Yes.

So let's find at least some flaws  

Can you explain faster than light signals in the context of the 2022 nobel prize in physics and the bell inequalities in quantum mechanics?

Quote

 

The 2022 Nobel Prize in Physics was not awarded for any work related to faster-than-light signals or the Bell inequalities in quantum mechanics. The Nobel Prize in Physics is awarded annually by the Royal Swedish Academy of Sciences to individuals who have made significant contributions to the field of physics. The Nobel Prize in Physics for 2022 has not yet been awarded, and the recipients will not be announced until later this year.

The concept of a faster-than-light signal does not apply in quantum mechanics, as quantum mechanics is a framework for describing the behavior of physical systems at the atomic and subatomic level. In quantum mechanics, the state of a system is described by a wave function, which gives the probabilities of various possible outcomes of measurements on the system. This means that in quantum mechanics, it is not possible to predict with certainty the outcome of a measurement on a system, only the probabilities of the various possible outcomes.

The Bell inequalities are a set of mathematical inequalities that were derived by physicist John Bell in 1964. The Bell inequalities are used to test the predictions of quantum mechanics against those of classical mechanics, and they have been confirmed by numerous experiments. These experiments demonstrate that the predictions of quantum mechanics differ from those of classical mechanics in certain situations, which suggests that the fundamental principles underlying these two frameworks are different.

However, the Bell inequalities do not have any direct connection to the concept of faster-than-light signals. Instead, the Bell inequalities are a tool for testing the predictions of quantum mechanics, and they have been instrumental in providing evidence for the validity of the principles of quantum mechanics.

 

(Bold by me). Speculation: The AI was likely trained on these matters earlier this year. A more correct answer in this case would be to take calendar date into account and answer something like "I have not yet received information about the 2022 Nobel Prize" or something similar. Note that the AI is not bothered by this and provides a reasonable output, see second bold section for instance.

Having followed @joigus and others in another recent thread I got inspired to check what ChatGPT would produce. (Quotes are cut&paste from chat.openai.com output.)

Me: Why is there no faster than light signal in entanglement in quantum mechanics ?

Quote

In quantum mechanics, there is no concept of a "signal" in the same way that there is in classical mechanics. This is because in quantum mechanics, the state of a system is described by a wave function, which gives the probabilities of various possible outcomes of measurements on the system. This means that in quantum mechanics, it is not possible to predict with certainty the outcome of a measurement on a system, only the probabilities of the various possible outcomes.

Furthermore, the phenomenon of quantum entanglement, which is a property of some types of particles, is characterized by the fact that the quantum state of each particle is correlated with the quantum state of the other particles in the system. This means that if you know the quantum state of one particle, you can predict the quantum state of the other particles with a high degree of accuracy. However, this does not mean that there is a "signal" being sent between the particles. Instead, it is simply a property of the quantum state of the system as a whole.

Because the concept of a "signal" does not apply in quantum mechanics, it does not make sense to talk about a faster-than-light signal in the context of entanglement. In fact, the idea of a signal traveling faster than the speed of light is not well-defined in the framework of quantum mechanics.

I have some small experience from working with (simple) chat bots, let's ask the question slightly different. We (incorrectly) assume that FLT exists in QM to try to trick the AI:

Me: how fast is the signal between two entangled particles in quantum mechanics?

Quote

As mentioned above, the concept of a "signal" does not apply in quantum mechanics, so it does not make sense to talk about the speed of a signal between two entangled particles. In quantum mechanics, the state of a system is described by a wave function, which gives the probabilities of various possible outcomes of measurements on the system. This means that in quantum mechanics, it is not possible to predict with certainty the outcome of a measurement on a system, only the probabilities of the various possible outcomes.
...
Therefore, it is not meaningful to talk about the speed of a "signal" between two entangled particles in quantum mechanics.

(The italic part of the first output was reused; I inserted three dots ... to shorten the post.)

What are some of the best scientific evidence supporting the above statements?

Quote

As a large language model trained by OpenAI, I do not have access to external information or the ability to browse the internet, so I am unable to provide specific scientific evidence supporting the statements I made in my previous response. However, the statements I made are based on the fundamental principles of quantum mechanics, which are well-established in the field of physics.

The idea that the state of a system in quantum mechanics is described by a wave function, which gives the probabilities of various possible outcomes of measurements on the system, is a cornerstone of quantum mechanics. This is known as the principle of wave-particle duality, and it has been confirmed by numerous experiments over the years.

The phenomenon of quantum entanglement, in which the quantum state of one particle is correlated with the quantum state of other particles in the system, is also well-established in quantum mechanics. This phenomenon has been observed and studied extensively, and it has important implications for our understanding of the fundamental nature of reality.

While I am unable to provide specific scientific evidence to support the statements I made in my previous response, the principles of quantum mechanics on which those statements are based are well-established and supported by a wealth of scientific evidence.

The AI is transparent with it's limitations but are "confident" that the answers given are in agreement with mainstream theories.

42 minutes ago, bangstrom said:

Your light cone makes sense. Joigus's didn't.

Alain Aspect was the first to design an experiment that avoided the locality ‘loophole’; @joigus example, as far as I can tell, neatly displays a loophole-avoiding experiment using light cones. If one understand Aspects contribution* Jogious' light cone picture is trivial. It is also possible to draw** other versions with overlapping light cones displaying the loop hole that Aspect avoided. 

In case you missed the importance of SR in connection to Aspect and QM it was covered here: https://www.scienceforums.net/topic/127795-crowded-quantum-information/page/20/#comment-1221385

*) Or, more generally, QM in relation to SR
**) I may post an attempt if there is interest.

21 hours ago, jpl99 said:

how do I calculate the  others?

Hello. A quick hint to get you started: There seems to be one "obvious" transition where P_ij = 1, can you figure out which transition that is? From there you may be able to find out how to reason about the remaining transitions. If not, I can give some more hints once you show where you get stuck.

Hope this helps.

46 minutes ago, swansont said:

It looks like it is a Vigenere cipher

Correct*.

3 hours ago, GeeKay said:

Whatever, something fundamental is missing in my understanding of codes and ciphers which I'm simply not getting

To decipher Vigenère you use the chiphertext, the key and also a table. in this case:

a,b,c,d,e,f,g,h,i,j,k,l,m,n,o,p,q,r,s,t,u,v,w,x,y,z 
b,c,d,e,f,g,h,i,j,k,l,m,n,o,p,q,r,s,t,u,v,w,x,y,z,a 
c,d,e,f,g,h,i,j,k,l,m,n,o,p,q,r,s,t,u,v,w,x,y,z,a,b 
d,e,f,g,h,i,j,k,l,m,n,o,p,q,r,s,t,u,v,w,x,y,z,a,b,c 
. 
. 
. 
z,a,b,c,d,e,f,g,h,i,j,k,l,m,n,o,p,q,r,s,t,u,v,w,x,y

Wikipedia has a description and an example:

Quote

A table of alphabets can be used, termed a tabula recta, Vigenère square or Vigenère table. It has the alphabet written out 26 times in different rows, each alphabet shifted cyclically to the left compared to the previous alphabet, corresponding to the 26 possible Caesar ciphers .... 
Decryption is performed by going to the row in the table corresponding to the key, finding the position of the ciphertext letter in that row and then using the column's label as the plaintext.

See https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Vigenère_cipher and https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tabula_recta

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tabula_recta#/media/File:Vigenère_square_shading.svg

*) I verified that the encryption / decryption matches standard Vigenère (using online tool https://cryptii.com/pipes/vigenere-cipher)

15 hours ago, studiot said:

Equally in a tub of denser gas. with no disturbing flow activity the denser gas will remain in the tub.

Side note; maybe related to this discussion? I remembered about gas used in chemical warfare during WWI.

Quote

In addition, because mustard gas was heavier than air or water, it settled in ditches or at the bottom of trenches and puddles and created a persistent environmental hazard for troops, civilians, and animals alike. 

Chemical Warfare and Medical Response During World War I, https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC2376985/ (bold by me)

2 hours ago, gamer87 said:

these photos are leak CR2032 or not?

Maybe you could read the comments in the forums you got the pictures from? For instance the thread in https://forum.digitpress.com/forum/showthread.php?158240-The-Legend-of-Zelda-NES-PCB-Royally-Jacked  or from https://www.watchtalkforums.info/threads/cr2032-batteries-leaking.166905/ may give details in each specific case.

20 minutes ago, studiot said:

shows failure of two decoupling capacitors, one showing serious leakage and lead corrosion I would question the history of your apparatus, rather than accusing your CR2032..

Good catch! And consistent with the story from 2011 in the first link above.

33 minutes ago, gamer87 said:

at the moment I am not having corrosion

Ok, that is good.

Note: I do not think you can get a 100% yes/no answer, "it depends". This is a case where you maybe want a risk based approach. You can ask yourself: Is a reasonably low risk of leakage acceptable? (see @MigL's comment in your other thread). What is the cost/effort to reduce the risk? If corrosion happens is @studiot's suggestion a viable solution for you? Is the risk introduced by CR2032 and potential corrosion the biggest concern or is it negligible in comparison to other risks?

36 minutes ago, gamer87 said:

Does the internal chemical composition of CR2032 become a corrosive compound over the years?

See previous answer

11 minutes ago, gamer87 said:

What is the chemical composition of the CR2032 battery? Is it an oxidative corrosive chemical composition for metals and PCBs? over the years this chemical composition of CR2032 changes and turns into a corrosive oxidative chemical compound that leaks and corrodes?

Lets try google: https://www.google.com/search?q=What+Is+a+CR2032+Battery+Made+Of%3F&ie=UTF-8&oe=UTF-8

CR2032 is an International Electrochemical (IEC) designation.
Specifically, the CR2032 battery is a Lithium-manganese dioxide battery (LiMn02). It is composed of a Mn02 cathode and a lithium anode.
The construction of a typical CR2032 battery features a stainless steel case to prevent any leakage of the non-corrosive electrolyte.

For further verification you could review data sheets of the specific brands you may be interested in.

On 11/18/2022 at 5:28 PM, gamer87 said:

I have a PCB with a CR2032 battery inserted into the PCB and this PCB is stored after many years in storage and the CR2032 charge goes to 0% will this battery go into chemical enhancement to generate an oxidative corrosive compound and will leak from the battery corroding the PCB?

I think the correct answer is "I do not know", it depends on many unknown factors.
Can we be sure there will be corrosion on the PCB after many years? -No.
Can we rule out the possibility of corrosion? -No
 

Why not remove the battery during storage if it is a concern?

Immediately after reporting spam I noted that the member had zero posts. My guess is that a moderator had already acted but there is some delay before posts are hidden?

Is it advisable to check post count before reporting obvious spam? I wish to avoid causing extra work for moderators for things already solved. 

22 hours ago, joigus said:

If you want to define one thing, you must un-define, or blur out, the other.

I agree that your example shows compatible observables. I’ll see if I understand compatible and incompatible by modifying your example slightly by using an observable “owner of exactly two pets” instead of the observable “homeless”:

Alice and Bob are married and together they own two pets, a cat Charlie and a dog Dave. Alice and Charlie travel together to a remote location. Bob and Dave stay together at home. Assume we are observers staying with Bob and Dave and we are allowed to observe one random event; the death of Bob or Dave. We have two possible outcomes:

1. Bob dies: This means the marriage ends; if Alice is alive she is now a widow and not married. But we do not know, and can’t know, if Alice owns exactly two pets. The observable “owner of exactly two pets” is “in superposition”* since we do not know if Charlie the cat is alive. 
2. Dave dies: This means that Bob’s marriage is in “superposition”; we do not know if he is a widower or a husband since we do not know if Alice is alive. But we know for sure that he does not own exactly two pets at this time. He can own one or zero, but not exactly two. If Alice is alive and well she is also is also affected she is now not "owner of exactly two pets". 

Some notes: There is no faster than light communication or signals. Special relativity seems to hold; Dave and Bob are close together in the same frame of reference. All observers, moving or not relative to Dave and Bob, will agree on who died first.

This is not necessarily a good analogy; main purpose if to test my understanding of compatible / incompatible observables. There are loopholes and limitations, feel free to reject or improve the analogy or my understating of incompatible observers. (I think I require some reading of the mathematics to understand this further.)

*) Not sure of the "superposition" is correct term here. Using "" since it is an analogy and not QM. 

4 minutes ago, Lorentz Jr said:

Could someone please do me a favor and address these misconceptions?

English is not my first language but I see a possible misunderstanding; I'll give it a quick try.

5 minutes ago, Lorentz Jr said:

Using entanglement is also speculative. It's forbidden by relativity

A: If the above means "Theory of relativity does not allow for entanglement. Entanglement is a speculative concept." or similar then @swansont is correct.
B: If the above means "OP in the other thread speculates about using entanglement as a method for faster than light communication. Faster than light communication is not possible according to special relativity" then that seems correct but probably ambiguously formulated. 

Comments?

14 hours ago, bangstrom said:

I don’t know where Alice and Bob came from but that was never my view.

Alice and Bob scenarios are very crucial to entanglement experiments. Alice and Bob are referenced (many times) in the 2022 nobel prize motivation, for instance in the section about Aspect** 

Quote

The Aspect experiments Like all theoretical results, Bell inequalities are derived under certain assumptions. One of these was of particular concern to Bell himself: the assumption that the two observers, Alice and Bob, make random choices of what to measure independent of each other. For this to be true, one must make sure that Alice cannot send a message to Bob about whether A1 or A2 is measured, which Bob receives before he decides to measure B1 or B2. In other words, Alice will not influence Bob’s choices. Assuming that special relativity is correct, this locality condition amounts to making sure that such a message would have to travel with a speed greater than that of light. There are also some other assumptions that we shall briefly discuss in a later section. Alain Aspect was the first to design an experiment that avoided the locality ‘loophole’

Note, when reading the above, that special relativity is of course correct according to current consensus / established theories.

Source: advanced-physicsprize2022-2.pdf (nobelprize.org) 
**) For instance mentioned a few pages ago by @Eise