When AI solves problems that 99.99999% of the population cannot the usual response it must have had access to the information during the learning process.
This doesn't seem to be case in this particular example.
Upvote
0
Starting today August 7th, 2024, in order to post in the Married Couples, Courting Couples, or Singles forums, you will not be allowed to post if you have your Marital status designated as private. Announcements will be made in the respective forums as well but please note that if yours is currently listed as Private, you will need to submit a ticket in the Support Area to have yours changed.
When AI solves problems that 99.99999% of the population cannot the usual response it must have had access to the information during the learning process.More seriously though, my penchant for speaking on behalf of human minds, finds all this quite disturbing.
There's a fairly broad distribution of different types of human minds though .. This one is clearly several standard deviations from the norm .. but still human, I think(?) That latest Chinese AI you've been talking to has blown my mind and has seriously made me wonder about about my own claims about how to test for the presence of other conscious human minds .. hmm .. (?)
I'm known/clinically professionally diagnosed as a Schizophrenic, but am reasonably decently functioning, or fairly high functioning compared to most of the other Schizophrenics out there, etc. I take meds, go to counseling, and all of that, etc. So, yeah, sometimes I color outside of the lines, etc, which is pretty much the same as/with my mind also, etc, lol.More seriously though, my penchant for speaking on behalf of human minds, finds all this quite disturbing.
There's a fairly broad distribution of different types of human minds though .. This one is clearly several standard deviations from the norm .. but still human, I think(?) That latest Chinese AI you've been talking to has blown my mind and has seriously made me wonder about about my own claims about how to test for the presence of other conscious human minds .. hmm .. (?)
Its fine by me for you to be you ... and even to continue as being you .. no offence intended in my latest comments. Your rapid fire repeats of the same questions is a bit overwhelming, for me.Hey now, be nice, ok. I'm a curious sort that likes to ask a lot of questions, etc.
And you guys should probably also read the reply I just now made to @Hans Blaster just now as well.
Really though, I thank you guys for putting up with me though, etc. I promise I'm going to put a lot more thought and energy and effort and time and research into this and also try not to rehash some of the same old things/questions in the meantime, ok.
Take Care/God Bless.
Thanks man.Its fine by me for you to be you ... and even to continue as being you .. no offence intended in my latest comments. Your rapid fire repeats of the same questions is a bit overwhelming, for me.
As indicated in my last post to @sjastro, I'm also just curious about how other folks' minds work and from that, I learn about my own is working too. That's obviously my particular 'bent'.
Cheers
It wasn't meant to be an insult, being outside the light cones is a very privileged position.Hey now, be nice, ok. I'm a curious sort that likes to ask a lot of questions, etc.
And you guys should probably also read the reply I just now made to @Hans Blaster just now as well.
Really though, I thank you guys for putting up with me though, etc. I promise I'm going to put a lot more thought and energy and effort and time and research into this and also try not to rehash some of the same old things/questions in the meantime, ok.
Take Care/God Bless.
Fascinating how he's tracked the amount of time it takes to go away and 'think' about the various problems it has to solve in order to solve the overall challenge.When AI solves problems that 99.99999% of the population cannot the usual response it must have had access to the information during the learning process.
This doesn't seem to be case in this particular example.
Then I will take these as compliments sir, and I thank you very much for them.It wasn't meant to be an insult, being outside the light cones is a very privileged position.
Gamma is the factor that keeps showing up in the relativistic formulae. It arises from the Lorentz transform between inertial reference frames. Mathematically it looks like this:Could you maybe be so kind as to very shortly and succinctly tell me with just a few words what this "gamma" factor is maybe? Or maybe a way I could look it up if you can't put it that way maybe? (I'm exposing myself to a few new to me things online right now and am trying to inform myself better about it or this/these subjects, or all of this so far in this thread, etc, as I have also been going back and re-reading some of the posts so far in this thread while I am doing this as well, etc)
Thanks.
Take Care.
I thank you for that, and for explaining that, and I have just one more question that probably any of you can answer for me here right now?Gamma is the factor that keeps showing up in the relativistic formulae. It arises from the Lorentz transform between inertial reference frames. Mathematically it looks like this:
gamma = 1/√(1-v²/c²)
It appears all over special relativity. If a non-moving observer measures a moving object with rest mass m and velocity v, in Newtonian mechanics the momemtum is:
p = mv
In special relativity:
p = gamma*mv
When we say the mass is higher for a moving object, we mean if we define
M= gamma * m as the "relativistic mass" for the non-moving observer, we can write the momentum as
p = Mv in a form that looks like the Newtonian form (p=mv).
When the non-moving observer measures the mass the get the relativistic mass, M, but if the object could measure itself (or if it was measured by someone moving with the object, it would be the rest mass, m). (I am going to write rest quantities m, l, t with lower case letters, and relativistic quantities with upper case letters, M, L, T.)
The kinetic energy, KE, in Newtonian mechanics is:
KE = 1/2 mv^2 (one-half m times v squared)
The reletivistic kinetic energy is:
KE = 1/2 gamma * mv^2 = 1/2 Mv^2
As v gets closer and close to c (the speed of light) , gamma gets bigger and bigger and so do momentum and kinetic energy.
Gamma also comes into the time dilation and length contraction.
If an object zooms by you at near the speed of light and you measure the length, L, it will appear shorter by gamma than if measured at stand still with length l.
L = l/gamma
To the outside (inertial) observer clocks on moving object tick slower, if we go back to the muon example, the "clock" on the muon is its lifetime (t=2.2 us), but for a fast moving muon with a gamma = 100 it appears to live 100 times longer, T=gamma*t which is 220 us and plenty of time to pass through the whole atmosphere and strike the ground.
There is traditional notation often found in textbooks, but there aren't enough letters to reserve letters for even all of the most commonly used quantities. If I had full notation available to me easily, I would have used lower case gamma [imagine actual Greek letter here]. In some usage, an upper case gamma [big Gamma] is used (often for "bulk gamma" of astrophysical jets), and people working in general relativity often use W for the Lorentz factor. I've used [gamma] for an angle (and [alpha] and [beta] and of course [theta] and [phi]). The famous E for energy in Einstein's E=mc^2 wasn't originally E when Einstein first wrote the expression. E is used for lots of "energy" things (as is e and the Greek [epsilon]) and E is also the standard symbol for electric field strength. Lower case e is not only used for energy things, but it is also the charge of an electron (a fundamental constant of the Universe) and the base of the natural logarithm, e=2.71...I thank you for that, and for explaining that, and I have just one more question that probably any of you can answer for me here right now?
When one is using letters/symbols for things in equations or mathematical expressions in physics, are they always the same, or are there universal ones for certain ones, or do you sometimes get to make them up and place them in yourself, or just what exactly? Because I'm starting to learn some of them and was just wondering that?
As for the rest, thanks, and thank you very much, but I don't have any more questions right now (and I need to get some rest at some point) and I'm also going to try and learn a little bit more first before I ask or try to ask any more questions probably, etc.
Take Care.
Ok, thanks.There is traditional notation often found in textbooks, but there aren't enough letters to reserve letters for even all of the most commonly used quantities. If I had full notation available to me easily, I would have used lower case gamma . In some usage, an upper case gamma is used (often for "bulk gamma" of astrophysical jets), and people working in general relativity often use W for the Lorentz factor. I've use for an angle (and and and of course and ). The famous E for energy in Einstein's E=mc^2 wasn't originally E when Einstein first wrote the expression and E is used for lots of "energy" things (as is e and the Greek ) and the electric field strength. Lower case e is not only used for energy things, but it is also the charge of an electron (a fundamental constant of the Universe) and the base of the natural logarithm, e=2.71...
Well, I'm not trying to one up anybody, as I certainly have a lot to learn, and there is still a lot I don't yet know about yet, etc. And like I said in another post, even if I have to go back to school, and take a few classes, then that's what I'm going to do if I have to to learn a lot of it, etc. I have a great thirst for knowledge, and I only wish there was enough time in this lifetime for me left to know everything I want to know or learn in this lifetime, etc.
And @sjastro and @Hans Blaster I thank you very, very much for your input, and for your time. I will probably need to study and learn some more before I can get back to you probably, but thank you guys for your time
Take Care/God Bless.
We can answer this with a practical example.I would also like to know if length contraction follows to the same degress of the same exponential curve/path as say the effects of time dilation or other factors or effects going on with it or not, etc? Is it say "times two" (or 1/2) length contraction at 87% light speed exactly like time dilation is or not, or does it follow a different exponential curvature or path, etc? Or more of like a straight line on a graph with length contraction? If it doesn't follow more of a straight line on a graph than time dilation does, then I don't think it would be enough to make the speed of light the same for all observers in their own frames of reference, etc? And OTOH, if it follows a complete straight line, then it might be too much, and time dilation might not even need be included as a factor, etc?
Take Care.
Most of what I have been looking at or looking into has the rate of length contraction being the same as the rate of time dilation at whatever percentage you are going of c? Even saying that it is due to time dilation that we get length contraction, etc. But this would make c no longer a constant for all obervers in their own frames of references wouldn't it? So just what is that rate exactly? Is maybe what I would like to know maybe, etc?We can answer this with a practical example.
γ = 1/√(1-v²/c²).
For an observer in a frame S, the time dilation interval Δt’ of an object occurs in the moving frame S’ and requires multiplication by γ.
Δt’ = γ Δt
Δt is the time interval in the frame S.
For an observer in the moving frame S’, length contraction L’ occurs and requires division by γ.
L’ = (l/γ)L
L is the length in the frame S.
The energy E of the object in the moving frame S’ is E = γmc² where mc² is the energy in frame S.
We can see how γ, t, L, and E fit together by using the LHC as an example.
In the laboratory frame S of the LHC, a proton travels at 0.99999999c at a distance of 27 km which is the circumference of the the LHC.
The rest energy of a proton is 938 MeV which equals mc² and 6.5 TeV when accelerated up to 0.99999999c
γ = E/mc² = 6,500,000/938 ≈ 6930.
In the laboratory frame S it takes 90μs to complete a single circuit, but due to time dilation it will take 90*6930 = 623,700μs.
In the proton's frame of reference, it is the LHC that is moving and the circumference of the LHC shrinks to 27,000/6930 ≈ 3.9 m in its frame of reference.
Summarizing the results.
I explained it in my post, the amount of time dilation increases by a factor γ and length contracts by the factor 1/γ.Most of what I have been looking at or looking into has the rate of length contraction being the same as the rate of time dilation at whatever percentage you are going of c? Even saying that it is due to time dilation that we get length contraction, etc. But this would make c no longer a constant for all obervers in their own frames of references wouldn't it? So just what is that rate exactly? Is maybe what I would like to know maybe, etc?
I'll maybe try something a little bit simpler, and that I can more easily get.We can answer this with a practical example.
γ = 1/√(1-v²/c²).
For an observer in a frame S, the time dilation interval Δt’ of an object occurs in the moving frame S’ and requires multiplication by γ.
Δt’ = γ Δt
Δt is the time interval in the frame S.
For an observer in the moving frame S’, length contraction L’ occurs and requires division by γ.
L’ = (l/γ)L
L is the length in the frame S.
The energy E of the object in the moving frame S’ is E = γmc² where mc² is the energy in frame S.
We can see how γ, t, L, and E fit together by using the LHC as an example.
In the laboratory frame S of the LHC, a proton travels at 0.99999999c at a distance of 27 km which is the circumference of the the LHC.
The rest energy of a proton is 938 MeV which equals mc² and 6.5 TeV when accelerated up to 0.99999999c
γ = E/mc² = 6,500,000/938 ≈ 6930.
In the laboratory frame S it takes 90μs to complete a single circuit, but due to time dilation it will take 90*6930 = 623,700μs.
In the proton's frame of reference, it is the LHC that is moving and the circumference of the LHC shrinks to 27,000/6930 ≈ 3.9 m in its frame of reference.
Summarizing the results.
I'll be working on it, but it's going to take some time.The reality is if you want to understand SR you need to understand the mathematics.
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?