joigus

That would probably be considered hijacking. Maybe @AbstractDreamer could expand on their statement in a thread of their own, I suppose. Not for me to decide anyway.

I'd put it even more simply: GR was valid 5 minutes ago, but not 5 minutes from now? Quantum mechanics will be valid only after I finish my ice cream? There is no such thing in physics as "the present" (the all-pervading separator between past and future as far as human experience is concerned). What is the present, according to physics? If you have an answer, any answer, let me know. Thereby my McEnroe point.

I've had a John McEnroe moment: You cannot be serious!

I'd say it's homeopathic in the blend. Rigour of physics being the substance to be dilute to zero, and wildness of intuition being the diluent. And no mathematics...

This I remember from previous readings referred-to as "discontinuity of the fossil record", and if I remember correctly, Darwin already was very much aware of it.

It's long been known that the Dirac algebra is isomorphic to quaternions. Unfortunately, it's also been known for a long time that quaternions are insufficient to represent the properties of elementary particles. Models based on octonions have been tried with more success than those based on quaternions (Hestenes et al.). See, eg, https://pirsa.org/c21001 And ripples in space? Space is not a substance. It's more like a format.

I am. I wish I were.

There is a fine line between a numerator and a denominator. Only a fraction can make sense of this.

Let me put it this way: It's trivial. GR trivially violates QM, therefore, HUP. Is that any better? Trivial it is. You can bet your life's savings on that.

Classical GR (or any other non-quantised theory) obviously violates HUP, as coordinates and their canonical momenta commute. You need coordinates, a Lagrangian, and canonically-conjugate momenta that do not commute with the former, for the HUP to be satisfied. There is no Planck's constant, nor non-commuting operators in GR.

Hardly, as there is no such thing as a fixed metric background in general relativity. There is only an equivalence class of metrics, of which all the topological invariants are preserved, because the valid group of transformations is that of diffeomorphisms. How am I presupposing something I know to be irrelevant? I don't think you understand either standard cosmology or the principles of general relativity, as one of the departure points is that you can shuffle and reshuffle the metric at will. It's the interval that gives you the physics.

Maybe it was a really elongated object on a hypothetical orbit, rather than a hypothetical object in an elongated orbit.

I don't think the left is more scientifically-learning. I think the implication arrow would go the other way: Scientifically-learned people tend to lean left.

Actually this is a good analogy of what AI should do for us. Unfortunately many people use it as prosthetics for intelligence.

How is someone who is asking for a framing assuming any particular framing?

Thank you all for your responses. Yes, much better. Interesting... Seems like AI often has problems with what I'd call "connecting the dots". And by that I mean what @Ghideon mentions later: context. Like "probably this guy is refering to general relativity" and "probably this guy understands the question in terms of quantum field theory". After all, that's where such question is most relevant. The question whether a theory is scale-independent or not refers to the coupling constant. So yes, I meant in QFT. This could probably be understood as another instance of missing the context, but on a different level.

Has there ever been an instance when AI has given you an answer that leaves a lot to be desired? It would be an interesting exercise to ask a non-trivial question in your discipline of choice to a reputed AI engine, and see how the answer improves with time, as the case may be. In this case I've used Google's AI module, which might not be the best. Here's my question, the answer, and what I think is wrong with it (O, for "objection"): Q: Is gravity's strength scale-dependent? A: No, the strength of gravity is not scale-dependent in the way that a small object experiences significantly different gravity than a large object. Newton's law of universal gravitation states that gravity's strength depends on mass and distance, not the size or scale of the object itself. While there are theoretical considerations about scale-dependent gravity in certain contexts, the everyday experience of gravity is not significantly affected by scale. O: Ever heard of GR? Mass does not source gravity. Energy does. When I say "gravity", I expect AI to understand GR, if only as a possibility. So gravity is very strongly scale-dependent. In fact, it is the only unredeemably scale-dependent interaction as far as I know.

I totally agree. But let me just throw in a further observation: Gravity is not noticeable at kg's & meters scales. It is still not noticeable at proton-neutron scales. It becomes humongously noticeable when approaching Planck's scales... It grows uncontrollably high at small scales. But, hang on. Why do we know about gravity at all then at our scale? Only because gravity cannot be screened, it cannot be cancelled out. There are no positive and negative gravity smidgeons that can mask its effects... And, of course, no confinement for gravity. How wonderfully schizoid Nature is.

As already said by other members, no. Chromodynamics and gravity are as different as two types of interaction amenable to be treated as "fundamental" can be. As MigL points out, the so-called strong force is some kind of chromodynamic version of dipole-dipole or Van der Waals forces. It's the jittery thing that's going on between the quarks, consisting of gluons, ephimeral bound states (pion-like things) etc. Chromodynamics quite blatantly (in its mixing with weak interactions) violates left-right symmetry, depends on spin orientation, depends on position the wrong way. The scattering properties of gravity and strong force are irreconcilable with each other. Eg, gravity cannot account for jets at high energy, confinement, asymptotic freedom... And so on.

Oh boy. I forget how many times I've asked something like this: Scaling of what in terms of what? Non-linear in what against what? etc... The answer was (almost) always like the sound of the crickets against a clear summer night.

May he rest in peace. His name did ring a somewhat distant bell. The next big thing in cosmology might be based on hyperbolic functions, I sense. People have been too worried about constant things, periodic things, and exponential things. The right combination of increasing and decreasing exponentials might be the way to go. I'm sure whatever new revolution comes our way, an Indian cosmologist will be involved. They're steeped in mathematics and preoccupation for the eternal cycle of time.

That would have been my choice too, but I kind of assumed American spelling on the other end. I don't know why. 🙂

Mind you, "resume" in English doesn't mean "summarize". English "resume" is equivalent to Portuguese "retomar", or Spanish "reanudar". You probably got this wrong from well-known false friend in both Portuguese and Spanish "resumir." I think you should have written something like "Trying to Summarize Philosophers in Six Words or Less".

Are we not pure? “No, sir!” Panama’s moody Noriega brags. “It is garbage!” Irony dooms a man—a prisoner up to new era.

Are you familiar with the GIGO principle? Blaise Pascal using windmills and grain as a metaphor for mathematics and premises, then George Fuechsel rephrasing it by leaving out windmills and grain and using refuse material instead, you know?... Anyway. I'll leave you that and the huge world of AI-powered internet to figure it out.