swansont

https://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-10346933/China-develops-AI-prosecutor-press-charges-97-accuracy.html What does "an artificial intelligence prosecutor that can charge people with crimes with more than 97 per cent accuracy" even mean? That the AI finds the right crime(s) to charge you with, given a certain amount of evidence? Or that you're likely to be guilty if it "decides" to charge you? "It was 'trained' using 17,000 real life cases from 2015 to 2020 and is able to identify and press charges for the eight most common crimes in Shanghai. These include 'provoking trouble' - a term used to stifle dissent in China, credit card fraud, gambling crimes, dangerous driving, theft, fraud, intentional injury and obstructing official duties." If you're pulled over for doing 120 km/hr in a 60 zone, do you really need an AI to decide if that's dangerous driving? Is the "AI" doing anything more than an algorithmic lookup of what the threshold is for dangerous driving? If it's predicting guilt, one has to wonder about the bias present in an authoritarian regime that might be able to just decide that you're guilty.

Are they a physicist? I looked at reference [2] and don't see much in the way of physics discussion; they all seem to be citing each other without anything in the way of rigorous physics analysis. There are no equations, at least in the first several papers of [2]. That strikes me as odd for QED discussion. They all seem to be stating certain physics premises and then proceeding as if they are true, rather than establishing them as true. I am not reassured by the citation of cold fusion in the first article in that reference, nor by the incorrect description of paramagnetism in the original article.

It’s more like springs than rubber bands; these represent the electrostatic force present in bonds. So they are there for pushing and pulling, and it does take some time for these to propagate through a material, as you note.

What if there are two observers, at rest with respect to each other? Do they each see acceleration toward them?

Acceleration is not relative.

Then show the math that demonstrates a net acceleration on a particular mass if you have a uniform distribution of mass in the background. I did not make any claim about expansion.

You’re mis-applying the principle here. The shell theorem applies to spherical symmetry, but you don’t have a finite sphere in this case. You have to have all the mass enclosed within R to apply it. You can look at translational symmetry, too. If you have a uniform distribution of mass, you can choose any origin you want and get the same answer, so there can’t be an acceleration toward any point.

This makes no sense. There’s nothing to “add up” and there is only one R, which encompasses the universe.

I wouldn’t go so far as to say this makes sense. Does he offer up any testable predictions and experimental support? The bit I read looks very hand-wavy.

But there is no “outside” when considering the universe. You just need to make R bigger, and there is no effect.

Just a few days ago you claimed the opposite (“Yes, it would cause a net gravitational attraction and that would cause slowing of the universe expansion.”)

There’s no way to make an assessment without seeing the work and the comments

! Moderator Note Threads merged. One per topic, please.

It’s your link. If you’re offering it as support you should understand it. And is the crux if the issue here. You are throwing around equations without understanding the physics.

But then what of an observer some distance away? Everything must accelerate toward them, because the choice of the origin is arbitrary. Which can’t be true unless the acceleration is zero.

This is contradictory. If the accelerations cancel, there is net scceleration. We don’t have a sphere, and there is no center. The premise is we have mass uniformly distributed over all space.

A single plate would feel no force. Symmetry tells you this, but also there’s no exclusion of any of the QM modes.

How? It would all cancel.

AFAICT this is proposing to use the same calculational approach for the cosmological constant as for the casimir effect, in terms of dealing with infinities, i.e. the renormalization.

Perhaps not. It wouldn’t cause lensing or any net gravitational attraction.

It appears clumped? If it was clumping easily it would be at the center. Who claimed it was perfectly uniformly distributed?

Top Google hit for daily covid cases is the New York Times, and it gives a graph of daily cases, along with the 7-day average

AFAIK that’s why. If the only channel is gravitational radiation, then the dissipation is very, very weak. All collisions would be basically elastic.

Super-earths are not the same as earth-like So they would be visiting the solar system, and we would be able to detect them if they weren’t hiding.

I don’t think complete reflection is physically possible. Reflection requires a momentum transfer, since the momentum of the light changes, and thus energy transfer. So if energy is lost from the incoming light, the reflection can’t be complete.