joigus

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.

I try to gnaw away at the ignorance I spot in other people up to the point where it's at equilibrium with my own ignorance. Once that point is reached, I can help them no further. The Grapes of Wrath. Saluting the brand new theory of everything that will some day supersede the current model, and a hunch tells me it's going to happen here, probably by someone whose name is something like an amalgam of Latin words roughly equivalent to "the powerful and truthful one".

Hello. Welcome to the Forums. As I understand, you should make your point clear without people having to click on any links. But the mods will tell you in more detail. At some point in you pre-print, you say "we arrive at the closed-form Lorentz-covariant expression:" (my emphasis). And said expression happens to be, \[ C_{ij}\left(x,x’\right)=\frac{\hbar}{\pi²\varepsilon_{0}c³}\partial_{t}\partial_{t’}\left[\frac{\delta_{ij}\left(ct-ct’\right)²-\left(x_{i}-x’_{i}\right)\left(x_{j}-x’_{j}\right)}{\left[\left(ct-ct’\right)²-\left|\boldsymbol{x}-\boldsymbol{x}’\right|²\right]²}\right] \] Then you say, "This expression is manifestly Lorentz-invariant and[...]" (again my emphasis). So what is it, Lorentz-covariant or Lorentz invariant? Those are different things. An invariant is a zeroth-order Lorentz tensor, while a covariant quantity is a 1st (or higher-order) Lorentz tensor. Another concern of mine is : How can a state like the vacuum, of which you know virtually nothing (pun intended) be in a pure state (which in quantum mechanics means "a maximally determined state"). IOW: How is the most undetermined thing in the world in a state that is maximally determined in the quantum formalism?

How local what is? Properties of a manifold can be local or global. An evolution law or differential equation can be local or non-local. There's not such concept as being 'a little local'... Locality Say what?

Exactly. Thank you. I think most people who try to come up with their own 'theory' miss this first and foremost.

No. New physics doesn't do that. Example: So the old theory is but a particular case of the new theory. An approximation on the new theory. AKA: asymptotics. The old theory is alive and well, forever breathing, well protected in the guts of the new theory. Pristine. Untouched. Loved by all who know. Finally really understood. No observations re-defined. No harm done. No replacement. No ideological cleansing. Analytic continuation through and through.

For a flat manifold "locally" and "globally" carry no significant difference. You may have non-vanishing Christoffel symbols as a consequence of your choice of coordinates (like picking polar coordinates to describe the plane R²), but nothing's going on as concerns curvature and topology, as calculating the Riemann tensor will tell you. I, among others, fail to see what you're getting at. Every smooth manifold is locally flat. I'm even more at a loss as to what any of this has to do with a theory of all the parametrics of elementary particles, AKA TOE. Actually not true. Flat manifolds can have non-trivial topology. But the rest of my comment is quite alright. I can feel @KJW breathing down my neck... 😅

Really? You've been mentioning the Lie derivative, and the Riemann tensor, and manifolds, curvature, etc, for quite a while now. What are those about if not mathematics? Thai cuisine? Seems to me you're going in circles around the rabbit hole of mathematics without quite venturing to stick your head in it. Ok. So what's up with that? There's no limit to how small one can be for any pairing of variables, while the other leads to a combined uncertainty (for the non-commuting variables) of approx. h-bar. Where do we go from there and how does it relate to a theory of all free parameters of the standard model + gravity, which is what TOE means?

"Periodic-Table experts"... Hmm How does that go? Call 911(1/2) for a periodic-table expert?

So what we're getting here is nothing but a cluster of last-ditch attempts to get saved just in cosmologically-plausible time --in a manner of speaking. That knowing --if those civilisations are in any way intelligent-- that the farther away you are, the least likely you are of being of any help? One problem with your theory (by no means the only one) is that it's based on a number of extremes (and I'd need a double emphasis on the word 'number"): The chances of something very unlikely happening is, say, 0.01 (one in a hundred). The chances of another (independent) very unlikely thing happening is, say, another 0.01. (one in a hundred again). The chances of both happening, then, is 0.01x0.01 = 0.0001 (one in a ten thousand). You get my drift: Not bloody likely!!

Transforming lead into gold (as found out in the LHC) is not about re-arranging electrons, but about re-arranging nucleons (protons and neutrons). BTW, it's an extremely low-efficiency process (requiring billions of years just to produce a pair of earrings).