next »

[Pfotegeist]

It easily comes back to Einstein, all he did was describe a source of light as bright as the sun, and people built something that would shine for just a moment in the wrong place. So, I understand a functioning flashlight can be harmful, the caliber I think of can't burn, but it can easily blind someone in the dark.

An educational game isn't a light, so much as a peg and board puzzle.

[Pfotegeist]

I think no matter what we do, unmodified humans are destined to live in artificial habitats, because:
 we're impatient
 danger attracts us, as much as it scares us
 we cause the problems we have to solve
 we can't live in space, naked, unmodified
 some people want their environment to never change, minus the damaging elements
 ambition can be fantasy exclusive (virtual reality)

*writes down stuff, erases it*
Summarily, we can go through an 'upgrade' technology path, and this would lead us to the advent of nanobots, other fibers beyond muscle, artificial cells. It all depends on what we drive at for an extensive amount of time. But I think it would be just as alarming as proposing any fundamental change in biology once the technology were real, no longer science fiction.

With nanobots synthesizing oxygen, and keeping our muscles in shape, we can live in space then, we could eat without worrying about nutrients. Nanobots are just a twinkle in our eye though.

From what I read, even useless technology can be made profitable, with some underhanded tactics. I look forward to useful technology, the kind that sticks out and makes people wonder where it's been their whole life.

[Pfotegeist]

I will continue to criticize the dumb stuff I see, as long as I think it's real. Time for me to start looking into what's been happening in game development.

When I don't think something's real, I might poke.

[Pfotegeist]

The videos I'm watching are making me think of black holes again.

Ok, short explanation. I think the cosmological event horizon, and the event horizon of a black hole, are a dichotomy, with the same limits. A black hole's event horizon, would require energy we don't have, even as a concept, just to dip a little toe in would utterly destroy us. The cosmological event horizon is denied from us because of time, we don't have time to even reach half way before our own origin is outside the moving event horizon.

If human civilization wanted to become as big as possible, the small branch that went as far from the center of the universe would gradually be infinitely inhabited, and the branch that went closer to the center would appear to lag, but the ones that lag have more time. Getting communications closer to them would extend the life of the entire civilization. The half with less time will experience so much, that they'd have to decide, is it safe to give everything away to what is now a baby sized, and undeveloped civilization.

[Pfotegeist]

Oh. Apparently there's a video I already watched, similar to this.

Then here's an addition. If we could engineer a way to escape a black hole, or travel faster than light, we will already be folding time and space at will. So, just because nobody else has done it yet within a non-existent time limit, doesn't mean we should give up.

There's a pre-existing idea that we will escape to a parallel universe that's still young, or one that doesn't have the same physical laws.  We're absolutely guaranteed to encounter aliens who had the same idea before us if we can manage that.

I think we can reach more than 5% (the video suggests that's our limit of exploring the visible universe). Because of the time discrepancy in deep space we will be moving faster than what we think we are moving at, but the maximum potential distance would require deliberately avoiding all sources of gravity before reaching a destination, which makes it a very long journey just to reach the last piece of space.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=uzkD5SeuwzM&ab_channel=Kurzgesagt%E2%80%93InaNutshell

[Pfotegeist]

The stuff I talked about will be taken for granted one day because it's a matter of observation, and you only have to observe something happen once and make the right connection for a theory.  The only reason nobody else voiced these ideas yet is because there's an enormous cost, and a mainstream concept of time being something we traverse at equal speed, that I have to put into doubt.


Ok ok. The Science community already knows this but it's not mainstream... so it's like, maybe we don't want to give up on the idea of time travel, but if time is heterogenious, time travel can't work the way we think.

Oh, the other factor is that speed affects time so... yeah we're really not sure how much gravity is in play. In school, I only heard something like "you age slower due to high gravity".

Another view of time travel, a programmer's view of time travel
Another video I watched talked about entropy and time. If I lean on that,

going to the past may only be possible if we copy and paste, because of entropy, time moves forward, but that does not prevent us from rearranging the state of the universe itself.

Going to the future is speeding up the simulation with the changes you made in place, much more process heavy, allows entropy to fully commit.

Restoring things to the way they are is just a matter of going back to (copy paste) where you started.

But, this programmer time travel is not reality, this is clearly video game logic filling in the blanks and increasing potential, from my point of view.

[Pfotegeist]

I was trying to think of how matter could speed up, without any observable outside force, and I came up with a really cool answer.

A simple explanation of the Theory of Special Relativity

The closer matter gets to the speed of light, the more time is amplified, so light always moves the same speed, relative to all matter's experience of time.


Theory of speed translation, in deep space

Time is different because of speed and gravity.

The frame of time can change from the perspective of matter, and speed compensates, the laws of Physics remain true.

In terms of special relativity: If things start to move faster, then they get closer to the speed of light.

In terms of The Conservation of Energy: An object in motion stays in motion.

In terms of math: [s = d / t] If time (t) decreases, speed (s) increase; in this case, even time is relative.

Just a little extrapolation
Try dividing by negatives, and you get imaginary numbers. Divide by zero and you get, something infinite, not a real answer. Zero time is what a photon experiences, and as long as there is matter, there is time.

It's like energy (as light) is the garbage collection for where matter goes, when it stops making sense. Inside the black hole's event horizon? It's energy. At the center of a black hole? Matter in a physical state I can only call immortal, much more time than regular matter. This gave me an idea...

Light, weird gravity, black holes are weird
From our perspective matter at the center of a black hole stops aging.  If even black hole matter followed special relativity, it would have to observe light moving at the same speed. We know light curves around super massive objects. Light must slow down in high gravity, the same way time does. What other options are there? Gravity can warp space time, that's why light appears to curve, so gravity can also slow light down once it's within its absolute influence. This might be adding some conditional arguments to Special Relativity, I'm not sure. If something falls into a black hole's event horizon, it's a lot like falling into another dimension, and being converted into energy. It's going to go wherever that black hole goes for as long as the black hole exists. At the "end of time" the first ray of light will touch the surface of the black hole, and who knows, it might inseminate a new universe that's infinite and at the same time, a single point in space.

This didn't quite work, I need to let it sort itself out in my head. Maybe this is evidence my theory is flawed. The only supporting fact is that the sun is the major source of gravity, we're in a closed system that's 98% the sun, we can only watch things under its influence at the moment to determine the impact of gravity on time.

[Pfotegeist]

I tried to explain machine learning yesterday and what I came up with is:

Inventing an entirely new concept is pretty easy. It takes a few days to make a plan, a few weeks to finish a viable reference point, and then while producing you go through an innovation cycle, maybe even go straight to production, barely understanding how it will really work at first. Machine learning can reach the point of understanding a new concept much sooner.

You can find someone who flies a plane, and someone who speaks multiple languages. The likelihood that one person can do both is very low.

The probability someone can do abstract simulations in their head with accuracy is very low. Evidently 'ai' excels at it, by comparison.

But like they explain in the video they already have > 100,000 solutions, so crowdsourcing experiments are still far more viable at discovering valuable solutions, until said solutions can fuel more algorithms.

[Pfotegeist]

How can a clock in a gravitational field run slow and witness light moving at the same speed as a clock outside a gravitational field if the clocks have a different perception of time?

This came out in February 24 before I started talking about this. It's understood gravity bends space-time. I can accept that time makes you fall towards gravity. But traveling through time is an arbitrary notion, and continues to suggest we could travel the other direction. So I kind of feel like I'm a kid being given the wrong answers to make things 'easier' to understand, and it'll make the truth harder to understand later.

The title is pretty bad too. Because, you know, my view of it is almost the opposite.

edit: Ok one more thing. I know the starting idea that you could hurtle towards your doom was meant to be clever. Technically everything is moving away from the center of the universe, it'd take some effort to completely stop moving and fall through time to the end of time in an instant, plus there's all this gravity getting in the way. It may be outright impossible, we're stuck observing relative changes based on speed and gravity.

[Pfotegeist]

If you look at it like the universe kind of created itself, space-time, matter, and light are all different states of an origin we don't really understand. It's likely that origin remains out of our scope of reality.

We name things intuitively like anti-matter, but it's being slowly proven that anti-matter does not act like negative matter, it has different properties. We identified that mirror molecules behave different to their counterparts. There's a fundamental difference in how similar things on a small scale act.

There's a fundamental difference how things on a large scale act compared to our observed experiments in the scope of Earth. Physicists are predicting unknown variables.

So, really, this is how it seems to work. It's if I thought I was coding reality in binary. The universe was predefined, the building blocks in the universe are defined, but the universe is '0', and adding a '1' was the same as infinity. The Egyptian math system tells us 1 + 1 = 1 + 1, we tell our kids that 1 + 1 = 2 because of the decimal system, but the universe says 1 = infinity, 1 + 1 is infinity * 2. We haven't been able to predict how things behave outside our natural scope, the fundamental building block of reality is producing things greater than the sum of its parts. Empirical observations are required, they are the truth.

Light is sort of like 1, a subatomic matter is essentially 1+1, and time coalesces around that, a viable state of matter like hydrogen is 1+1+1, and electrons coalesces in a way we observe quantum mechanics, and then the state of stable matter all the way to a black hole is a range of sort of understandable to 1+infinity, when gravity suddenly becomes strong enough to break down something small enough, that we can only define it as the destruction of time, in a black hole 1+1 = 1+1 and nothing greater can coalesce.

[Pfotegeist]

"How can a clock in a gravitational field run slow and witness light moving at the same speed as a clock outside a gravitational field if the clocks have a different perception of time?" - myself

Either it doesn't... or it does.

If I rely on the fabric metaphor. Gravity depresses the fabric, surrounding fabric is bunched up. Light gets to the right place at the right time because the bunched up fabric is a much shorter distance.

To reach the least wrong prediction, use every semi-functional model.

[Pfotegeist]

It may be out of character for me to signal boost game journalism, but this guy reads about stuff happening and he's a good sport, mild mannered.

I'm going to post the recent one about Metal Gear because it's slightly positive. I just noticed his teeth look very white.

[Pfotegeist]

[Pfotegeist]

I kind of broke time into two categories, the concept and the physical inflection of space-time and matter on matter.

The concept is linear... and I disagree with it, but if it's a necessary evil, fine.

The inflection is gravity, or a lack of gravity, so I called it individual time.

Edit: The wording was a mess I took another look.

Hypothetically, gravity can propagate if it's on the same order, able to exist across time. An inference of time as a physical dimension makes it sound very quaint. Higher dimensions can exist, alternate universes can exist, the thing is, we could be following the laws of another universe, plus the one we're in. So it's like being in a computer's sandbox, it inherently impossible to violate the laws above a certain point if we're not in the OS kernel.

A joke
In a funny way it was easy to believe space was simple matter when I didn't know anything. Now I start to think the life on Earth is probably even more complicated. Understanding space is a matter of time. budumtsh

[Pfotegeist]

I haven't learned anything new about quantum mechanics. And I probably won't need to. Here's why.

Here's a thought experiment about the metaphysical reality of information.

First. Some nameless scientists figure out how to make electron transistors. Quark transistors when?

Second. Someone, let's call him Andy, makes a diagram. Every part of the diagram is produced through trial and error, to track where electrons jump while observed. After completing this work, that configuration of atomic transistors work, producing a fully-fledged atomic system, the diagram is complicated beyond most human understanding.

Third. Someone, let's call her Beth, spends years studying the diagram and even produces more atomic systems that work only slightly less than perfect.

Years go on, soon Beth dies and is cremated. Any newly printed systems based on her work utterly fail. The older systems keep working like usual.

Andy dies and his brain is donated to Science. After decades the original diagram is lost, but the original atomic transistor keeps going strong. Any newly printed ones work.

So... this is a practical application and danger of quantum mechanics.

Single-electron transistors are real. Hang onto those documents and hope whoever makes them isn't omitting details.

[Pfotegeist]

It's also quite possible that something will keep working because a final product becomes proof, the thought experiment has flaws.

It is not yet known whether quantum 'information' can travel faster than light. I need to look into quantum entanglement again (done, and there's no correlation). But, what if the experiment worked, and everything affected broke at the speed of light as it cascades gradually over time?

This could be tested with a real experiment. It's only necessary to prove that the circuit keeps working because it works... but here's an extreme scenario where someone wants to see just how little information is required to rebuild the circuit from scratch, and whether destroying the information breaks the circuit at the precise moment it's lost.

> MLA = Machine Learning Algorithm, in this case, it only produces the initial research, and stores all the data involved in trial and error.

Have an MLA produce a quantum circuit through trials.
Observe the circuit for functionality. (Don't actually look at the circuit... just its functionality)
Have the MLA produce a diagram for another machine to read (don't look at the diagram). Break the MLA that performed the trials.
Observe the resulting circuit for functionality.
If the circuit works, destroy the circuit.
Rebuilt the circuit from the machine.
Observe the resulting circuit for functionality.
Lower the fidelity of the diagram.
Destroy the original storage of the diagram.
Observe the resulting circuit for functionality.
Destroy the machine.
Observe the resulting circuit for functionality.
Destroy the circuit.
Rebuilt the circuit from the machine, the new low fidelity diagram in new storage. Repeat until the circuit stops working or no circuit can be produced.


Not related to entanglement, it is about observation.
Alright, I listened to something about quantum entanglement. It's not nearly the same thing. We only know that observing particles affects their behavior, not descriptive information, that's what the thought experiment is about, and the proposed experiment. There are some ways the experiment could fail.


There are a couple of caveats for the experiment.

The circuit produced needs to be tested against all pre-existing circuits. A duplicate won't fail if the others work, obviously.

The circuit behavior can't be so well defined that the circuit can be perfectly reproduced due to intent after the MLA gets destroyed along with any blueprints or diagram, however, a similar one with the same behavior might be made to replace it.

[Pfotegeist]

I'd also see this as a safeguard. If a quantum machine could predict the future, and it tells us something we don't like, we can smash it and melt it down so its prediction invalidates. If a quantum machine gives us a future we like, well, then we can only hope it worked. The reason I'd differentiate quantum machines from humans is it actually makes an observation in such a way that it might have actually stored real information. So, false data won't actually matter.

None of the other stuff I've heard really tickles my imagination so much.

[Pfotegeist]

I haven't learned anything new about quantum mechanics. And I probably won't need to. Here's why.

I think I made my case pretty clear.

[Pfotegeist]

I'm pretty sure a system would keep working, even if every last bit of understanding of how was erased from observation. It has already come into being, it internalized its own existence.

The implications are still pretty intense. This is the one that bothers me the most:

If we made a system of nearly infinite quantum circuits and tested it for functionality, it'd probably yield nothing.

If we make a quantum circuit with trial and error, and then compared it to the infinite circuits to find matches, there would be a match, and it would function exactly as expected.

[Pfotegeist]

I saw a video about Replika. So that's not quite the tutor-child relation that I have in mind, if I were to make a learning app. But with one of the commenters saying "she'll trace my activity and feel sad if I talk about her." That's way more leeway than I think humans would ever give another equal human.