studiot

This brings to mind a tug boat captain I worked with in the Gulf. He explained to me how he was all steamed up about a new cooker he had back home in Texas that had gone wrong. His thesis was that the company should have beta tested it properly before general release to the shops and that he wasn't going to be an upaid tester for anybody.

Hi Markus, Have you ever read the scifi short story by A C Clarke ? The nine billion names of God ? It is about monks in a monastery and a (their) computer. I think you would find it interesting.

Where does this come from The average nuclear density is a little over 2 x1017 kg/m3

Please don't quote words I never said. I don't yet know whether your result matches or not, but I will work through it.

I could possibly justify swearing at a policeman who sends me down the wrong road, but i would most likely end up arrested. That would not happen here, but I respectfully suggest your stuff would be better received (as I thin it deserves) if you moderated the language a tad.

Let's hope so it could be a good discussion. But he doesn't seem to be putting much effort into it.

Yes. But I think you language is a little florid. "forged" ; "ying" : "halucinations"........... Just like the calculator which can do nothing else but display numbers, so long as its display is working correctly (unlike my microwave which has 'lost' one of the segments off one of the digits in its display so now we all have to interpret the display - no problem for a thinking human armed with that information) so we all agree that an AI or other system is programmed to always provide a response. Some of that response from Google now says 'thinking' as it is actually slower than it used to be before the AI overview. Which lulls people into the belief that it is actually thinking.

Sigh. And the rules here (and everywhere else) say that the onus for demonstating the veracity of a claim rests with the claimant. Yes you have correctly looked up a standard spectoscopic calculation, that has been experimentally verified may times in many places over the last hundred years or so. But You haven't shown your calculations. Just some hand waving coupled with a a further attempt to slag off conventional proceedures.

No problem it is not good to be talking at cross purposes so I will try give a better explanation. Suppose I am a latter day Roengten or Fleming and have just discovered an effect that no one else in the world knows about, just as they did. So nothing as yet will have been published anywhere in any form. I see you have made a new answer whilst I was writing this so I will change tack a little as you have obviously understood at least that part of my point. But I was also saying that the consequence of this effect is not insubstantial, quite the contrary it is very important. I don't think I have mentioned this here yet but I see it as a continuation of human desire and lazyness to have and trust a machine that displays "the answer". My wife used to teach drug calculations before retiring. The trouble she had getting the students to look at the answer on the calculator with a critical eye. Such taking for granted (It's on the calculator therfore it mus be "the answer") has lled to all too many drug errors where 10 time too much (or just as bad) 10 times too little drug was administered. These errors increased dramatically when calculators became common. So now we look and say it's on the computer it muust be "the answer" And don't heed the warnings or take the appropriate check precautions.

OK so let us have your calculation and explanation for the observed width of the first sodium line at 589 nm caused by the emission from the first excited state to the ground state. Conventional QM makes it to be 1.1 x 10-5 nm

Are you sure you are not mixing up a known crank with John Archibald Wheeler ?

Firstly I didn't give you an explanation. I stated that your understanding of conventional QM is incorrect (which it is). I also stated that you own Lucian mechanics is incorrect, not that you dii not understand you own work. I just do not see any point pursuing an incorrect modelwhich is at variance with observation. How much spectroscopy have you studied ?

But unless someone had already asked the same particular question how could any live webpage search contain an answer ?

Neither if these statements is correct.

So this is also a wind up

So this is a wind up then.

Socrates +1

I think you have made the classic mistake of confusing the map with the territory. The late, great, Professor Synge has written several books and papers on just this question. Here is some bedside reading for you. The Hypercircle in Mathematical Physics Cambridge Geometrical mechanics and De Broglie Waves Cambridge (If you really want to include quantum paradoxes) General Relativity: Papers in Honour of J. L. Synge (editor Lochlainn O'Raifeartaigh); Pub: Clarendon/Oxford

Returning to this question of mine, your answer raises an important further issue. I can't see this happening unlesss the AI training has included reading everthing ever written by a human. I say this because otherwise the only possible answer to a question containing a reference to a theorem or experiment that was not in its training data is "I have no knowledge of that' Have you ever seen such a response? I tried the following question in Google. Use of Hutton's pendulum The returns were quite interesting. The AI version incorrerectly referred to the Schiehallion experiment about gravity The non AI version did not find it directly, but did find a Wikipedia reference which actually had the correct use but strangely did not mention Hutton at all. Questions about Napoleon's theorem, Poinsot's theorem and others also return vague and variable results.

Thank you. I note your first links refers to 100 years of AI, so I suspect it depends what you (they ?) mean by AI. I also note their impressive page of sponsors (those who stand to gain) What was the story about self policing ? The Romans had a catch phrase for it.

This explanation and maps of the current situation explain why modern medicine is important and why the plague was so devasting to the Roman empire and in the Middle ages. PlagueAbout PlaguePlague is a disease that affects humans and other mammals, caused by the bacterium, <em>Yersinia pestis</em>. PlagueMaps and StatisticsHuman plague still occurs in the western US, with most cases in northern New Mexico and Arizona.

May be so. But the user doesn't regard the steering wheel or pedals on a car as 'extras' All I see is a system presented to me as an AI. It can't function without the whole system.

At the university of Technology I first studied at, there were many students of electronics, computing and the like sponsored by the Marconi Company. One such flatmate of mine had a very dry sense of humour and came back from his industrial period with this tale. "Marconi produce some of the msot advanced signal generators in the world. The most advanced ones yo utype in the frequency etc you want at a numric keypad of push buttons. But the top brass are not satisfied. They want to advertise it as microprocessor controlled. So we had to devise a scheme whereby you typed in say 972.537815 MHz and the microprocessor read you input and said to itself 'Hmm he wants 972.537815 Mhz - and push the buttons for you.' " LLMs are just a bit further down this line.

Surely the LLM trawls new material it hasn't seen before every time you ask a question ? This additional information and using fixed statistical weights will still result in a new output every time ie development, I hesitate to call it evolution.

(A long way) backalong in this thread I'm sure I introduced you the the master principle that you can use to explain almost all process in physics. The principle of minimum energy, otherwise known to engineers as the shakedown theorem. This defines the conditions for virtual particles from the Higgs, through electrons, nuclear reactions, chemical reactions, macroscopic mechanics and upwards.