Recent content by Dale

You are unambiguously proposing a new theory. We do not evaluate new theories. However, in addition to this being a new theory, your premise is incorrect: This is simply not true. Many particles decay. In doing so they cease being themselves and become something else. For the particles that...

For a radio wave and a gamma ray propagating in the same spatial direction, the ##k^\mu## vectors are pointing in the same direction in spacetime.

Nothing.

Oops, sorry I missed this earlier. This is a Bayesian updating approach. I used a uniform prior which is a conjugate prior. So after observing ##w## wins out of ##g## games for a given strategy ##\text{door}=d,\ \text{switch}=s## the posterior is a beta distribution ##p(d,s) \sim...

Because if you do not disclose it then that is deceptive (plagairsim). Because if you do disclose it other people may not bother reading it. Because a lot of people don't want to communicate with AI. Because you might want to improve your own writing skills. Because it sounds generic to others...

It is forbidden specifically at ##x=2##. Elsewhere it is not forbidden.

Personally, my view was more that it wasn’t a good way to test the history concept that you were interested in.

That is a good question. It seems like a more natural business approach. Find small clearly defined problems whose solution is clear but difficult to program. Make an AI that does that and sell it. In that light a chatbot seems like a solution in search of a problem. Writing chat responses is...

I wonder if it is possible to have a disagreement where people don’t exaggerate the argument they are addressing.

OK, so the test you are proposing is actually not a strong test of this. If you want to test for “apparatus history” you would want the maximum possible history effect, not the minimum. So you would want to use a single detector as long as possible. Then you would bin the collected counts into...

Hallucination in this context is a technical term. AI does hallucinate in this technical sense. Nevertheless, that is the word that is used. Very often technical terms mean something different from the non-technical word that is used.

That is not at all my experience. The vast majority of the AI generated physics posts of this nature are word salad. I believe AI can do decent summaries, we have trialed that among the mentors and my view of the summaries was positive. But not analysis or argument.

Or because the outputs are a highly non-linear function of the inputs. I don’t think “more than the sum of its parts” is equivalent to “alive”.

I do notice that as you scroll back the display can get slower. That must be related.

The dark style works well on both my laptop and my mobile.