Re: Type II/Type III Civilization Search Finds Nothing

[Tomasz Rola]

On Tue, May 02, 2023 at 08:13:39AM -0400, John Clark wrote:
> On Mon, May 1, 2023 at 8:30 PM Tomasz Rola  wrote:
> 
> >
> >> The radiant electromagnetic energy output of a star with a Dyson
> >> >> Sphere around it would be exactly the same as it was before the Dyson
> >> >> Sphere was built, the only difference is the energy would have been
> >> put to
> >> >> work and thus the low entropy visible and ultraviolet photons would
> >> have
> >> > been converted to high entropy infrared photons that contain a equal
> >> amount
> >> > >of energy.
> >
> >
> > >*This is how theory describes it.*
> 
> 
> That is how the Second Law Of Thermodynamics describes it, and this is how
> Arthur Eddington described the second law:
> 
> *“The law that entropy always increases holds, I think, the supreme
> position among the laws of Nature. If someone points out to you that your
> pet theory of the universe is in disagreement with Maxwell's equations -
> then so much the worse for Maxwell's equations. If it is found to be
> contradicted by observation - well, these experimentalists do bungle things
> sometimes. But if your theory is found to be against the Second Law of
> Thermodynamics I can give you no hope; there is nothing for it to collapse
> in deepest humiliation.”*

Yeah. If you ever try to boil water on a gas stove, then you probably
will observe that a lot of hot air goes around the pot and out the
roof. The book will allow you to calculate how much gas needs to be
burned in order to boil this much water. The book may or may not
mention that when using real gas stove in real life kitchen you would
need about twice as much gas (caveat: I have not measured, but I have
made some observations in my kitchen).

Heat transfer is tricky because pesky heat does not go when an
engineer wants it to go. Ask people who build steam engines, battle
tanks, or who try to remove heat from inside of supercomputer and they
will probably agree.

Dyson sphere is purely theoretical concept. Was there even a small
model built and tried? Something like ten meters in diameter, for
example? Was there any material proposed for building the big one
around the Sun? I understand that nope and nope. 

I expect there will be bigger than expected heat accumulation. Maybe
enough to boil eggs left inside. Maybe not. If I had to assume, I
would assume eggs boiled hard. And oh yes, the sphere will also glow
in infrared.

> > Why in hell would they want to destroy a brain on another star?!
> >
> 
> 
> I noticed that you never answered my question even though it's central to
> your proposed solution to the Fermi Paradox.

I think I have already given this answer. I may try to be more
explicit.

The dispute about Fermi Paradox is, in my opinion, a bit flawed,
because many people assume that space faring civilization has to do it
in certain way. So far, the results are this:

1. There was no observation of Type3 and Type2 civilization. Type3 is,
for me, better called as Expansionist Exponential Locusts (EEL). It is
very good none had been observed, because they would want to screw us
and eat our future. They would have to eat us, being exponential - eat
and procreate at our cost. I would also say, it is very rude to send
von Neumann probe into somebody's backyard. Of course impoliteness
will be met with equal and adverse impoliteness, or at least this is
what I expect when I try to emulate adult.

2. There was no observation of Dyson Sphere or other
megastructures. This might mean that nobody needs such constructs. Or
that those who might want will have no means to built it. Like humans
- we have very slim chance to make it to the point when building DS
becomes engineering possibility. In my opinion we are right now eating
from our own future. The whole talk about us sending vN probes or
building DSpheres is just EEL dreams.

So, EELs are not going to make it into Type2 territory, because they
misuse the resources while they have them. After that, collapse. After
collapse, maybe some small scale exploration of planets like Mars. You
should know about it, because this is simple ecological model -
rabbits on the island, eating all grass and collapsing. Rabbits too
stupid, grass never regrows to precollapse levels.

Thus EELs cannot be observed - they never come to the point of
producing signature big enough. They never come to the point of
sending vN probes, either. If they did, we would know. Or rather,
there would be no "us".

So much about Fermi Paradox, for now. Chance is, I might think some
more conclusions from the obs data collected. Maybe later.

Of course, there might be neighbours who do not go the way of EEL -
I understand obs data does not contradict the idea.

Now, what is required to observe them?

> > * >The total luminosity of Sun is estimated as 3.828*10^26 watts. If we
> > divide it among ten billion people, this gives ca. 4*10^16 watts, or 4
> > terawatts per head, or ca. 4000 times whole Earth energy production for
> > every and 

conversation with GPT-4 on black hole QM

[Lawrence Crowell]

I had this conservation with GPT-4 on aspects of black hole quantum 
mechanics. I kept it largely non-mathematical. This is interesting, and it 
suggests a level of processing that is complex. An AI system was fed 
ephemeris data on the appearance of the sun, moon and planets in the sky 
and it deduced Kepler's laws. Holy Sh*t Batman --- the world is changing.


Einstein advanced the equivalence principle. In there it is 1) not possible 
to distinguish between an inertial frame in flat spacetime from a 
sufficiently local inertial frame falling in a gravity field, and 2) the 
accelerated frame in flat spacetime is equivalent to the surface 
acceleration against gravity on a planet or hard gravitating body. Can it 
then be said that two entangled particles in spacetime, whether flat or 
with a curvature have that entanglement conserved?

 

GPT-4 answer: The equivalence principle in general relativity states that 
the effects of gravity are indistinguishable from the effects of 
acceleration. It does not make any specific statement about the 
conservation of entanglement between two particles in spacetime, whether in 
flat or curved spacetime.

Entanglement is a quantum mechanical phenomenon that describes the 
correlation between two or more particles, even when they are separated by 
large distances. The conservation of entanglement is a fundamental property 
of quantum mechanics, which holds true regardless of the presence of 
gravity or the curvature of spacetime.

Therefore, it can be said that entanglement between two particles is 
conserved in both flat and curved spacetime, as long as there is no 
external interaction that disturbs or breaks the entanglement. The effects 
of gravity, as described by the equivalence principle, do not affect the 
conservation of entanglement between two particles.

 

Good, this is what I concluded as well. Then to take this further. Given an 
EPR pair, where Bob remains far from the black hole and Alice is in a 
freely falling frame into the black hole, there are then two 
interpretations of events. Alice will consider the entanglement with Bob as 
continuing. Bob on the other hand will, due to red-shifting on tortoise 
coordinates and that Alice’s time is dilated asymptotically to a crawl, 
that his EPR pair is entangled with the black hole. The two perspectives 
are effectively equivalent to each other.

 

GPT-4 ans:
Yes, you are correct. According to the equivalence principle, there is no 
difference between a uniform acceleration and being in a gravitational 
field. Therefore, for Bob, who is far away from the black hole, the 
entanglement between his particle and Alice's particle will be affected by 
the gravitational field of the black hole. This will cause the entangled 
state to evolve differently than it would in a flat spacetime.

On the other hand, for Alice, who is in a freely falling frame into the 
black hole, there is no gravitational force acting on her. From her 
perspective, the entanglement between her particle and Bob's particle will 
continue to evolve according to the laws of quantum mechanics.

These two perspectives are indeed equivalent, even though they appear to be 
different. Bob's observations can be explained by the effects of the 
gravitational field on his particle's evolution, while Alice's observations 
can be explained by the absence of a gravitational force on her particle's 
evolution.

It is worth noting that the details of the evolution of the entangled state 
in this scenario are highly dependent on the specific setup and initial 
conditions. Therefore, the specific outcomes of the two perspectives may 
differ in different situations. However, the equivalence principle ensures 
that both perspectives are equally valid and consistent with the laws of 
physics.

 

This then means that Bob and Alice have different subjective 
interpretations of the same physics. Alice observes no apparent difference 
with standard quantum mechanics. Bob on the other hand is uncertain of the 
status of the entangled state. The tortoise coordinates with t’ = t – 2m 
log|r – 2m|, and the associated red-shifting means that Bob sees this 
bipartite entanglement dissolve into an entanglement with all the entangled 
states on the Planck region above the event horizon.

 

GPT-4 ans: Yes, that's correct. Bob and Alice have different subjective 
interpretations of the same physics due to their different perspectives in 
the presence of the black hole. From Alice's perspective, the entangled 
state between her particle and Bob's particle continues to evolve according 
to standard quantum mechanics. However, from Bob's perspective, the 
entangled state appears to dissolve into an entanglement with the black 
hole itself.

As you mentioned, the redshift factor associated with Bob's perspective 
causes the entangled state to evolve in a way that appears to dissolve the 
entanglement between Alice's particle and Bob's particle. This can be 
thought of as an 

GPT-4 hits the IQ ceiling (Theory of Mind, Mensa, Asimov)

[John Clark]

I know this won't stop some people from continuing to whistle past the
graveyard. but this is one of the most interesting videos I've watched in a
long time. The gist of it is that GPT-4 is getting so smart that it's very
difficult to find human beings who are smart enough to write IQ test
questions to measure just how intelligent it really is; and we need to
worry less about what's going to happen in the next two decades and worry
more about what's going to happen in the next two months.

GPT-4 hits the IQ ceiling (Theory of Mind, Mensa, Asimov)


John K ClarkSee what's on my new list at  Extropolis

ioz

-- 
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups 
"Everything List" group.
To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email 
to everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com.
To view this discussion on the web visit 
https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/everything-list/CAJPayv1NyUOzT39wLyP8GDWuLR95W4wk-TB92qd9beQz0uFDkw%40mail.gmail.com.

Schrödinger cat states of a 16-microgram mechanical oscillator

[John Clark]

The April 20, 2023 issue of the journal Science reports that researchers
have been able to put 10^17 atoms with a mass of 1.62*10^-8 kilograms
(about the mass of a grain of sand ) into a Schrodinger Cat State. It is by
far the most massive object ever put into that bizarre state. I found it
particularly interesting because it's coming very close to the Planck Mass
of 2.18*10^-8 kilograms, and Roger Penrose claims that, due to
gravitational effects, that is the dividing line between the classical
physics world and the quantum physics world, he says that for everything
more massive than the Planck Mass quantum mechanics will need to be
modified. However so far there is no hint of that.

Schrodinger’s cats, kittens, and lions


John K ClarkSee what's on my new list at  Extropolis

scs

-- 
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups 
"Everything List" group.
To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email 
to everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com.
To view this discussion on the web visit 
https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/everything-list/CAJPayv2SrkcsSnrJZUrQdXUFzL%2BXT7dOEGV9q5ToMNUKB%2B6-CQ%40mail.gmail.com.