studiot

If you have done all that in the few years your stated age has allowed, I am not suprised you have not had time for both physics and maths and even other sciences. However Einstein once said something like - I can't remember the exact quote - Get the Physics right and the Maths will follow. And the Physics here refers to principles not maths. What do you understand are the conditions for quantisation to occur of anything ? I am pushing you, because you may have worked this out for yourself. If so I want to give you credit for it. If not I will help with an explanation.

Thank you. I, at least will bear that in mind. But you still haven't answered my question about the role of fields in any quantisation theory.

The article claims that China has installed enough alternative energy generation for carbon dioxide emissions to be falling and will continue to do so. BBC NewsChina's emissions may be falling - here's what you should...Experts are divided if the drop over really means China has reached the peak of its emissions.

MiGL is a respected physicist, now retired, as are several of those responding to your posts. But this did not answer my question as the connection between quantisation and fields is fundamental. Any new theory must acknowledge this fact and take it into full account. But I don't think any AI understands it. By the way, is English your first language ? - It helps us to know and amke allowance for those who are communicating via translators

Well it is correct that that a lable is not that which is labelled. But what does this have to do with the topic of this thread ?

But nobody said they were part of quantum electrodynamics or quantum chromodynamics. Do you understand the point behind quantum field theories ?

How much more off topic preaching do we have to endure.

Which just goes to prove how poor your AI is at maths. You have just managed to demonstrat @joigus ' point about a circular argument. I you are deriving something the something to be derived is the last thing stated except of course the famous QED or Quod erat demonstrandum

The thing is that if you actually know what you are talking about then it should be the simplest thing in the world to produce a (short) derivation of just one of the several claims you have made that you can prdecit/calculate. Let us say Newton's Law of Universal Gravitation. Then I would have more confidence in following this thread further.

Methinks this whole thing is a giant leg pull.

This is a complete non answer. Further it is your hypothesis not mine so it is up to you to make it work. Observer ? what observer ? Are you saying that the universe and its host computer are not all there is ? Is 'the observer' part of the computer or the universe ? You claim speed is important. So demonstrate a calculation where this is so. TheVat obviously understood both points clearly. I have tried to explain my second point with a simple example. Have you ever designed a circuit board or do you know anything about them ? You need to consider all of my questions, not just a selected few to demonstrate that you hypothetical computer is even theoretically feasible under ideal conditions, let alone a practicality. I asked you how big is it. Therefore how far apart are the first and last cells holding the data ? Therefore how long does it take for the 'ready' or other clock signal to propagate from one to the other ? You can't just say "A computer can calculate it" any more than you can say "A six digit calculator can calculate Pi accurately to sixty places"

In the UK we call the combination of Chemistry and Engineering - Materials Science. But it is up to sweepysheep to tell us more detail and us to encourage that.

It is a valid question and the you, as the OP, should be prepared to address it. Relativity of simultaneity has nothing to do with speed. If you don't understand this please ask. You clearly have some idea since you mention 'common simulation speed'. Since my earlier reply I have also thought about a non relativistic point in relation to this issue. A simple internal combustion engine has to be fed oil. water , fuel, air and sparks at the appropriate times and in the appropriate order or it will either not run well or maybe even not at all. Even today's computers are now facing similar, but much greater, requirements so that designers have to correct for the time propagation time differences between the various connection pins of a chip. Contemplating a computer capable of calculating every action in the universe begs the question. How big is that computer and what does that mean for data transit times ?

Although I don't accept the premise, it is an interesting idea that is not untrue either. However you have several thousand years of catching up to do since most religions already have a pecking order of Gods.

Excellent question +1 I don't see a response that pzkpfw's excellent question. We do, howevr, definitely see much experimental evidence of the effect he describes. This would have a dramatic effect on any simulation hypothesis.

Did you ever meet a farmer that wasn't always moaning about the weather ?

My apologies that poor Author is Henry Gee, not just Henry.

There's lots of help available here, but it would be a good idea to tell us where you are coming from since Engineering Science is a very large subject. Do you have any specific questions in mind?

Here is a plug for cyanobacteria and stromatolites as they have spanned the entire geolical epochs from the biginning of life to the present day. Source Henry (Ed nature) A (very) Short History of Life on Earth

Sure that's true it just depends upon your simulation algorithm

I think it is worthlooking more deeply into the words superposition, entanglement ,collapse and measurement The key to this is understanding how these work and the fact that the maths contains solutions that are always there but are not or can never be implemented. Comparison with non quantum superposition is also helpful.

Unfortunately that is not a good answer. Blaming a phenomenon on 'the big bang' is really no different from saying God did it, or that our model doesn't explain it or simply we don't know. If you are going to propose gravity as an emergent phenomenon you need to offer the mechanism (and maths) to say how this conversion occurs. You can't just pull in myhtical event ant woo because you hypothesis doesn't work without them.

If the energy is not gravitational, where does it come from ?

Interesting POV. +1

Agrreed in that there is a self reinforcing aspect. The LLM returns something as an answer Others then quote the LLM So the next time a similar question is asked the LLM weighs into account a quote of its previous statement. Und So Weiter.