Markus Hanke

I think euthanising a living being for no good reason other than that is “unwanted” is ethically problematic. If you can’t or don’t want to keep your pet any longer, there are more appropriate options available. Also, keeping animals locked up in zoos just so we can gawk at them, is likewise ethically questionable.

Thanks for the recommendation! I haven’t heard of this story, but I do like Clarke in general, so I’ll try to find it somehow :)

Yes, and I still do. Well, what is “it” that you think is “going” someplace? I don’t know, it’s not something I’ve thought about much (and I haven’t been following developments in AI too closely) - but this is a good question. In my tradition, and at this point, it plays no role at all, and probably never will; but it may be different in other religions.

I’m not yet that old, but yes, I’ve found my way in life. That didn’t happen over night though, and took some doing.

It’s generally unwise to disclose too much personal information on social media, so I can’t comment on these.

Yes, I live in a small forest monastery together with some other monastics.

Because I’m an ordained monastic, and in our contemplative tradition we (the individual monks and nuns) live entirely without owning or handling money. Thus, accessing things that aren’t free is complicated for me.

I have not been following developments in this area, so I’m wondering, what AI’s that are specifically designed for symbolic maths (other than Wolfram Alpha) are freely available (ie no payments) out there?

This is not a valid tensor equation.

Because it’s pretty much standard textbook material, and thus already well known. There’s simply not a lot to discuss here.

You can’t start with “photons” and “collapse” processes at all, since these are meaningless concepts in the absence of an already well defined spacetime. As I said, you’d need to start with something that does not itself require any notions of space or time, so particles or any kind of “process” are out of the question.

“Lightlike”, “frequency”, and “pulse” are likewise concepts that are meaningless unless you already have a notion of spacetime. The problem is that you’re using concepts that intrinsically require space and/or time to be defined, and then claim that they give rise to an emergent spacetime, which of course doesn’t work. What you need to do is start with some system that is not itself reliant on notions of space or time, and then use its dynamics to show how classical causal structure and geometry emerge from this in the appropriate limit. Also, your answer reads as if it’s pretty much 100% AI-generated.

This doesn’t make sense to me. Concepts such as particles, spin, excitations, energy etc all already presuppose the existence of spacetime; you can’t meaningfully have any of those things without some notion of spacetime. Therefore, spacetime somehow emerging from some dynamics involving photons etc doesn’t make much physical sense.

The forum rules expressly forbid the hijacking of threads located in the mainstream sections with personal theories. Please keep it to “Speculations”.

Sure, there’s quite a large number of alternative theories of gravity that have been and still are being explored; it’s an active research topic. Have a look here for example: https://emis.de/journals/LRG/Articles/lrr-2013-9/articlese2.html Note that that is by no means an exhaustive list.

To make a long story really short - GR is a purely classical theory (by design), whereas the HUP concerns observables of quantum systems. Thus the HUP does not apply to GR, or to any other classical theory, for that matter.

If that’s the case, then… …is necessarily wrong. There can’t be global energy-momentum conservation in the presence of curvature.

That’s interesting, I didn’t know that. I find it a bit surprising actually, since there are some definite advantages to divorcing writing from phonetics.

I would argue that whichever framework provides the best fit with all (!) available observational and experimental data is always the preferable one. But for this you need a proper mathematical framework, or else you can’t compare the model to real-world data. However, you haven’t provided any framework or model, just a loose collection of thoughts and claims in verbal form, most of which don’t make much sense from a physics perspective. For example, assuming global conservation of the energy-momentum tensor necessarily implies a vanishing Riemann tensor. Thus you need to show mathematically that whatever scaling mechanism you propose is able to fully reproduce all degrees of freedom of gravity without recourse to curvature. You haven’t done this; just verbally claiming that this is so isn’t enough.

It would be a superposition of ordinary passwords, of course :)

It was never intended to replace characters, it was just meant as a means to transcribe their phonetic value where and when this is needed (language learning, typing, foreign publications etc). That being said, I’m sure it would be possible to come up with a system that could capture both phonetic value and distinctions in meaning, ie provides a 1-1 map between character and transcription. But such a system would likely be rather cryptic and require just as much effort to learn than the characters themselves, so I don’t see an advantage. On the contrary, it would make communication between peoples of different ethnicities and/or regional dialects more difficult; in China, that’s an important consideration too. Funny that no one talks about the opposite - replacing the alphabets in European languages with a logographic writing system, supplemented by some kind of syllabary to capture morphological elements such as endings etc, like is done in Japanese.

The trouble is that, in general, one pīnyīn syllable - including tone markers - will correspond to several, sometimes even a substantial number of, characters. For example, if you were to look up the pīnyīn syllable jì in a standard dictionary, you will find listed 39 characters that have this reading and tone, each with a different meaning. Of course, when given within a whole sentence, the meaning is often clear from context, but not always; ambiguities would be too frequent to make this really viable.

I’m re-learning my Chinese at the moment (having lived in China 25+ years ago, and having forgotten most of it through lack of practice), and I can attest to this being a real issue. Visually recognising a character is much easier than writing it down from memory, and if one does not regularly practice writing, one often finds oneself unable to do it, even with relatively frequent and well-known characters. In the case of Chinese at least that would be pretty much impossible, due to the large number of homophones. Also, Chinese people are very proud of their writing system (and rightly so), they would never accept its abolishing in favour of romanisation.

Gravitational effects on those scales are trivial only under ordinary energies, ie isolated atoms, or as parts of ordinary matter at ordinary pressures and temperatures. However, if you increase energy levels sufficiently - eg by forcing a very large amount of matter into a very small volume under extreme pressure and temperature - there comes a point where gravity and its hypothetical quantum properties can no longer be ignored even at small scales.

I don’t really get this either. Not all EM fields oscillate, and neither do mass distributions (usually). So the frequency of what are you referring to, exactly?