turing test is designed to see if an AI can pass for human in a conversation.
I'm pretty sure that I could ask a human that question in a normal conversation.
The idea of the Turing test was to have a way of telling humans and computers apart. It is NOT meant for putting some kind of 'certified' badge on that computer, and ...
That's not what LLMs are for.
...and you can't cry 'foul' if I decide to use a question for which your computer was not programmed :-)
I would suggest, instead, that "Classical Physics" is created by entanglement:
the non-quantum reality at our scale is just what happens, when everything is entangled, to the point of clogging-up-the-works of quantumness, as it were..
.: you get things like .. as you scale up from quantum-level .. the everything-is-discontinuous/everything-is-turbulence .. turns into, once enough entanglement is happening, "laminar flow" in fluid-dynamics, even-though NOTHING in QM is laminar-flow, so there's simply no basis for "laminar flow" at the lower-level...
It absolutely does depend on your reference frame. I remember one of my physics 3 test problems was a ship in it's own reference frame was a standard 3 4 5 right triangle. We had to calculate what the observed lengths and angles from a reference frame where it was moving at .96c.
I would be careful of confusing "reality" (whatever that is) with our model of reality. Relativity, which treats time as a dimension, is a good model that fits well with most of our observations. It's not perfect, though, and it doesn't fit well with some other observations. That's how we know that it doesn't fully match reality, and why we're looking for a new model.
Paraphrasing the old saying: all models of the universe are wrong, but some are useful.
What effect does the distinction between that and "the best way we have for our minds to think about it" have on it?
Also, unless i remember it wrong, I thought it was relativity that showed the flaws explanation quantum physics' had for time and not the other way round. I mean, I might be but that's my understanding of it right now.
If I interpret your question correctly, you are basically asking what the practical difference is between interpreting a model as a reflection of reality and interpreting a model as merely a mathematical tool.
A mathematical model, at its core, is used to allow us to make testable predictions about our observations. Interpretations of that model into some kind of explanation about the fundamental nature of reality is more the realm of philosophy. That philosophy can loop back into producing more mathematical models, but the models themselves only describe behavior, not nature.
A model by nature is an analogy, and analogies are always reductionist. Like any analogy, if you poke it hard enough, it starts to fall apart. They make assumptions, they do their best to plug holes, they try to come as close as they can to mirroring the behavior of our observations, but they always fall short somewhere. Relativity and Quantum Chromodynamics are both good examples. Both are very, very good at describing behavior within certain boundaries, but fall completely apart when you step outside of them. (Both, to expand on the example, use constants that are impericaly determined, but we have no idea where they come from.)
The danger is in when you start to assume that a model of reality is reality itself, and you forget that it's just a best guess of behaviors. Then you get statements like you first made. "Relativity assumes time is a dimension. The model for that works. Therefore time must be a dimension in reality. That must mean that not treating time as a dimension anywhere must be wrong." That line of thinking, though, forgets that a model is only correct within the scope of the model itself. As soon as you introduce a new model, any assumptions made by other models are no longer relevant. That will pigeonhole your thinking and lead you to incorrect conclusions due to mixed analogies.
That is how you get statements like your first one. "Model A treats time like an illusion, but model B treats time like a dimension. Ergo, all dimensions are illusions ." That is mixing analogies.
Interesting, I appreciate it thanks. I see what you're saying and I think you're right. Its not right to the exclusion of something else. That was too far. I must have gotten way too excited lol.
You know what it is? I just straight up dont like it. Its about time people started calling out time on its bullshit.
This is the original paper https://arxiv.org/pdf/2310.13386
I, uh, studied quantum physics at the undergraduate level several years ago and can confidently say that I am thoroughly lost trying to understand what they are talking about.
I consider myself a science enthusiast, having studied it a bit and following the news. I'm not at all an expert, and don't contribute to science, but I like to think I know about science. I thought I understood quantum entanglement, but I'm lost when they start talking about measuring the particles without entangling with them.
The best I can come up with is that this new theory suggests that what we perceive as time is just our observation that things change state in a way that seems like a linear progression but the state change observed is due to particles being entangled/interconnected (?) and not as a consequence of time as some sort of force. Then and now are illusory mechanisms of coping with non-illusory change of our surroundings but that coping mechanism/perception isn't a physical thing that is an underlying cause of the change we observe (because it's being caused by subatomic particles being instantly affected by their entangled partner particles elsewhere in physical space)?
I am in a car driving 100km at an average of 50km/h and get to my destination having experienced 2 hours of time. I am in a car driving the same 100km in the opposite direction at a average of 100km/h and get to my destination having experienced 1 hour of time. The same trip driving slower means my experience is more time passing across the same distance (time passes at an accelerated rate for me, comparatively), and driving faster means I experience less time passing across the same distance (time passes at a decelerated rate for me, comparatively) - given that both things are taking place in the same place, obviously it isn't time that is changing to cause my differing experiences of how much time passes, it's my physical actions that explain my differing experiences of how much time passes. I think they're saying that this holds true for entangled particles anywhere - what is perceived as relative time differences is actually just an observation of things behaving comparatively differently in the physical sense?
We present an implementation of a recently proposed procedure for defining time, based on the description of the evolving system and its clock as noninteracting, entangled systems, according to the Page and Wootters approach. We study how the quantum dynamics transforms into a classical-like behavior when conditions related to macroscopicity are met by the clock alone, or by both the clock and the evolving system. In the description of this emerging behavior finds its place the classical notion of time, as well as that of phase-space and trajectories on it. This allows us to analyze and discuss the relations that must hold between quantities that characterize the system and clock separately, in order for the resulting overall picture to be that of a physical dynamics as we mean it.
"evolving system and its clock as noninteracting, entangled systems"
Bare with me here because I am not an expert. I think what they're getting is the same as how gravity doesn't exist. Vsauce did a great video on that, but the general notion is that because space time is curved, objects traveling in streight lines will appear to be drawn closer to one another. "Gravity" isn't fundamental, warping spacetime is. Nothing changed but our understanding of it, which does matter for some more complicated areas.
I think this is similar. Just like gravity "doesn't exisit", it's just an emergent phenomenon: they're saying so is time. They're saying time isn't fundemental, except that it's an expected phenomenon that would arise from other factors, those factors being proposed to be some entanglement crap I have zero ability to talk about.
And I'm putting some words in their mouth with "time isn't fundemental". What they're really doing is proposing a new definition that better fits observed phenomenon/models.
And still, none of this explains why we still have daylights savings time.
In the article, they show a iPhone 15 Pro, which has a 3274 mAh battery, so let's go with that. Assuming a 3.7 V battery and a 1 minute charging time, that's 3274 mAh × 3.7 V / 1 min ≈ 727 W.
It has been a common belief in philosophical circles for centuries, but not among physicists. Both Newton and Einstein thought of time as being one of the fundamental properties of the physical universe.
However, in the past decade or two, some theoretical physicists have now come back around to the idea that space and time could instead be emergent properties of a deeper, underlying reality.
If you really want to go cross-eyed, read up on the holographic principle.
This is the crux of quantum field theory, no? Where Newtonian and Einsteinian physics are all entirely emergent properties of fields that are governed by quantum principles? I’m in the cross-eyed camp so I’m way out my depth.
"Einsteinian" physics do unfortunately not arise from quantum physical principles, which is the major flaw in our current understanding of the universe. Quantum physics is very applicable to the microcosm, but cannot accurately solve for the macrocosm, while it is the opposite for gravitational theory.
In relativity time is a real dimension like space , but of a different type, and your speed in time depends on your speed in space and on your proximity to big masses, like planets. This kind of physics is necessary to keep the satellites synchronised otherwise their clocks go at a different speed from those on earth, so this is all very real and confirmed.
The problem that shows exactly how tangled the problem is, is this: accelerating is the same as gravity.
Not "they feel the same" or "We can compare them" or " They're similar in many ways" no, I mean literally. They are the same thing. This has been proven.
The force that is making you stick the planet is the same as being in a car and driving constantly faster and faster forever.
If this makes zero sense to you, that's good, it means you're human. But it also means that our vision of the universe is radically different than whatever kind of objective reality is out there, if there is one.
(What gives is time. Time is what's changing when you move through space AND when in a gravitational field. You can also study this field for decades and barely come closer to being able to visualize it. Our brains were not meant.)
But this is consistent with what i said? Not moving and no mass = frozen in spacetime. Which is why it needed big bang as external factor to spread spacetime (i.e. change to unchanging environment). Right?
You're always moving at the speed of light through time. When you accelerate, you are borrowing from your speed through time and converting it to speed through space. The faster you move through space, the slower you move through time. The faster you move through time, the slower you move through space.
Time passes more slowly for you than for an outside observer, e.g., if you are moving to some place, for someone on the outside, your journey could take decades, while for yourself only minutes pass.
Objects with no mass traveling at light speed in a vacuum don't experience time.
A photon, traveling through a vacuum for forty years, from its perspective, leaves the instant it arrives.
Likewise, if you can travel at the speed of light for forty years and came back to earth, your twin would age forty years and you wouldn't age at all.
At a much smaller scale we have to use time dilation to keep clocks in space running at the same time as clocks on Earth. Because in geosynchronous orbit they are traveling faster than objects on the ground.
That's another great question that unlocks another incredibly strange point about reality.
You're only moving faster/slower through space/time to an outside observer. Your own rate of time and your own velocity through space will always feel centered on you, and it will always look like the rest of the universe that is slowing or accelerating.
And in fact, another mind-melty point behind relativity is that if you jump out of a 20th story window, there is no action that says you're falling, instead the action is saying that you have changed your velocity (or altered Earth's velocity in respect to your acceleration) and now the rest of the world is passing you very rapidly. It would feel like Earth and the building and everything else is wooshing past you while you stand still. And that's a correct perspective. It is rushing past you, you are sitting still in space. (The problem comes when that wall of asphalt and dirt swings past and doesn't miss you.)
If you fall into a black hole where spacetime is distorted as far as we can imagine, to you nothing will feel different (at first) you will see the whole universe seem to roll into a tight ball behind you and it will look like it's in rapid-motion if you pointed a telescope into it, you would see stars being born and galaxies fading and the entire future of the universe will rush past and you will hit the singularity at the death of the back hole, some billions and billions and of years into the future. If you could magically escape right before you get pulled apart, you would find the entire universe has died outside and all the stars have gone out.
bgr.com
Hot