joigus

I propose to remove the "work" bit from anything speculative coming from AI. It would be just a "frame". That is, the "framework" without the "work". "I've been given a frame to talk about this" would be at least honest.

Ditto.

I didn't say anything was or wasn't intended to set our future plans. I quite intentionally kept things quite unintentional. I said something else. Please take some time to read what I did say, or this is gonna take forever with you talking past me, instead of we talking past each other., as you claim

As @studiot pointed out, (1): This is not classical physics. And (2): "nextness" depends on the number system. There is a next number in the naturals, the integers, all the finite arithmetics, etc. There isn't in the reals or the rationals. The question of whether there is a "next point" in physical space is equivalent to whether space is discrete. Is that what you mean, @Farid ?

I don't see how setting our future goals is a religious aspiration. Religion is more about inevitability and submission. Not a whole lot to do with changing your future. Religion has no tools at all, as praying and lamenting are not tools.

The boundary conditions it would require (not just for gravitational waves, but for any full-fledged macroscopic waves of any kind to exist) would be waves starting at spatial infinity in phase. They are unphysical. And yes, the reason is entropic in nature. We need to solve the arrow-of-time problem before we can answer that question. In the famous Wheeler-Feynman problem of electrodynamics as a half-advanced, half-retarded field, the boundary conditions were totally ad hoc, as the authors were keenly aware of, that there was a perfect EM absorber at spatial infinity. It is my intuition that it would cause serious problems with causality too (what would have caused that identical physical condition infinitely far apart in the first place?), but that a story for another day. All of this IIRC.

It doesn't. Understanding whether the human species has been taming itself for the last hundred thousand years is one thing. Setting our future goals, ethically, pragmatically; and acting in such a way that those goals are achieved, is a very different one. As different as studying the history of a city and doing urban planning for that city.

I don't think so. Science would help us understand in what direction we're going as a species in the ballpark of 10⁴-10⁵ years. Understanding, however roughly, in what direction we're going doesn't depend on what direction we wish to go.

Let alone a "theory of everything". The world of patents would come crashing down, as everything would already be subject of a patent forever and ever.

I concur with the argument shared by many here that science generally gives us a better understanding of Nature. In a nutshell, and as said before, how we use that is rather a matter of scientific, engineering, etc ethics. Perhaps however it's worth pointing out that there is a hypothesis currently undergoing study in anthropology and peripheral sciences that posits the possibility that a slow adaptive process of self-taming has been going on for a long time (in terms of human evolution, so think 10⁴-10⁵ years). This is known as the self-taming hypothesis or self domestication. Were it confirmed at some point, that would mean that the answers to those problems the OP mentions are subject to some kind of self-correcting adaptive process that science itself can study, confirm, or falsify. That would mean science can even help us understand whether or not we're going (or likely to be going) in the direction the OP hopes for.

It's "divergence", not "diversion". And that only accounts for half the nature of light. The other half is: "The four-dimensional divergence of the dual of the previous tensor is the 4-current of electric charge". The second one account for the sources of light. In other words, \[ dF=0 \] \[ d^{*}F=\mu_{0}j \] (Not only light, I must say, but every other electromagnetic phenomenon, like the properties of capacitors). Not very droll, I know...

A similar question would be, "is space point-like?" We prefer to say, "is time a continuum, or is it discrete (ie, made up of little 'jolts' of time)"? @geordief , IMO, asked the right question. It is perhaps telling that the HUP doesn't allow us to "see" this point-like structure of time, provided it makes any sense.

Again: What time symmetry? I'm not asking what it is about, but which particular transformation you are thinking of. Eg, Lorentz transformations are about space and time, but they are a very specific type of symmetry. We need you to be more specific.

The best way I know of overcoming gravity is to jump in a vacuum in the field of a massive object. Automobiles don't usually do that. Generally you must get as far away from a road as it's possible to get. Special planes do, and spaceships. Like this: The flight that brings space weightlessness to EarthYou don’t have to go to space to feel the weightlessness of orbit. Sue Nelson joins a special flight that puts its passengers into zero gravity – at least for a few seconds.You're mixing up overcoming gravity with opposing gravity. Very different. @studiot is right. You don't sound like an engineer at all.

Do you mean that the no-communication theorem would be violated and signaling between distant factors of an entangled state would be possible? If that were the case, I wouldn't call it a "communication theorem". It would simply be that the no-communication theorem doesn't hold. Eg, we don't have a theorem that says 7-body systems exist. The context of the quantum NCT I think is very different. If I remember correctly, communication back and forth through the ER bridge is not possible. All of this is, of course, just theoretical speculation, but if I had to bet, I'd say "no, it doesn't happen".

What time symmetry? Translational? Reparametrisations? Inversions? Combinations of some/all/a few of those? You see, "time symmetry" doesn't mean anything in and of itself.

I must say I haven't leafed through many of those, but I get the picture... YT thumbnails can be pretty awful. But Veritasium's content is worth the aesthetic displeasure.

I've been saying this for several years on these forums (also others like @MigL or @swansont, and probably others still). My words then were "energy is only a useful concept in small patches of ST": For the benefit of OP, here's a nice video by Veritasium explaining it: Long times are also "big patches of space-time", which fits the leading example by Veritasium. Very, very, very misunderstood concept, that of energy. Sigh! Only when the system is Lagrangian and the context is time-independent does something like an energy arise. Otherwise... not.

Agreed. What's the matter? 🤭

Thank you for adding more context. May I ask you what particular problem led you to this integral?

Space pre-exists to what exactly? Matter?

In none of the standard formulations of QM is the uncertainty principle presented as a postulate. It can be proved as a theorem from the relation between observables, states, and probabilities defined in the postulates. It is also confirmed in its statistical sense from experiments. Furthermore, it has explanatory power in that particular sense in a wide range of phenomena, from Josephson junctions to polarisers, etc. It's nothing to do with a winding number, but indeed refers to statistical frequencies. If space-time coordinates are maximally determined, energy-momentum is minimally determined, how could space-time be energy? You seem to be using some kind of LLM or chatbot to generate what feels like a linguistic version of the shell game.

Among other things already pointed out to you, there are robust quantum mechanical reasons why E=ST cannot make sense. Such variables are complementary in quantum mechanics (canonically conjugate). Meaning: when one of them is precisely determined, the other becomes "infinitely fuzzy". Only that consideration should be enough to make you cease and desist on the whole thing. So..., again, no.

You're waxing esoteric now. Honestly, I can't get past your spacetime \( \equiv \) energy mathematical nonsense.

Complex logarithms are marvelous beasts, but they're sharp-toothed. They have something called "branch cuts", which come from "branch points", meaning loci where the function becomes discontinuous in a very non-trivial way, giving rise to so-called Riemann surfaces (the complex plane splitting into infinitely many copies of it, each for one prescription of the polar angle in the argument that the function accepts). Trying to perform a definite integral involving a product of logs with branch points in different places on the complex plane would be hard enough. These integrals normally involve integration paths that need to be extended to closed loops involving infinity in order to be able to use Cauchy's theorem and thus make sense of them just numerically. You need to start with things like \( \int_{-\infty}^{\infty} \) or \( \int_{0}^{\infty} \) and then analitically continue (so-said) the path to go through infinity. I shudder to think what kind of an ill-defined mess trying to propose them as functions (indefinite integrals) would lead us to. For starters, there are the best reasons to expect them to adopt infinitely many functional values. Think about it: Numerical methods are really really advanced today. If you've found a mathematical object that resists analysis by using them, it's probably because of some fundamental theoretical reason. I hope that was helpful. I'm sorry I can't help you with your Fortran.