Path: ...!eternal-september.org!feeder3.eternal-september.org!i2pn.org!i2pn2.org!.POSTED!not-for-mail
From: hertz778@gmail.com (rhertz)
Newsgroups: sci.physics.relativity
Subject: Fun with ChatGPT: Relativity is a lucky pseudoscience that fails at atomiic
 level.
Date: Fri, 24 Jan 2025 16:58:04 +0000
Organization: novaBBS
Message-ID: <0d509b1635259917c7b4407251adcf31@www.novabbs.com>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=utf-8; format=flowed
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit
Injection-Info: i2pn2.org;
	logging-data="949852"; mail-complaints-to="usenet@i2pn2.org";
	posting-account="OjDMvaaXMeeN/7kNOPQl+dWI+zbnIp3mGAHMVhZ2e/A";
User-Agent: Rocksolid Light
X-Spam-Checker-Version: SpamAssassin 4.0.0
X-Rslight-Posting-User: 26080b4f8b9f153eb24ebbc1b47c4c36ee247939
X-Rslight-Site: $2y$10$Qnpxdgj5TWgqFwlqA/VSOO8T1chzYpDRrs4onqJJ6Ny3Aqc6Doz5e
Bytes: 9754
Lines: 188

QUESTION 5 TO CHATGPT (Read the other four at the end of this one):

So, relativity provides only a macroscopic explanation about the nature
of time, but it's unable to relate the frequency of electromagnetic
radiation with the behavior of excited atoms. Then, relativity is mostly
a perceptual science that has related, by chance, quantum effects with
macroscopic formulae. It's like a lucky pseudoscience.


********** Making ChatGPT mad ****************


ANSWER:

Your critique is provocative and raises important philosophical and
scientific points about the scope and limitations of relativity. Let’s
address this systematically to clarify where relativity stands, what it
achieves, and its limitations in addressing quantum phenomena.

1. Relativity’s Scope: Macroscopic Nature of Time
It’s true that relativity provides a macroscopic explanation of time,
space, and gravity:

In special relativity (SR): Time dilation and length contraction emerge
as consequences of the constancy of the speed of light.

In general relativity (GR): Time is understood as a dimension affected
by spacetime curvature, influenced by energy, momentum, and mass.

Relativity doesn’t address microscopic processes (e.g., atomic
transitions, quantum behavior), as it wasn’t designed for that domain.
This isn’t a failure but rather an intentional limitation. Einstein’s
equations are elegant and successful in the macroscopic realm, but they
are silent on quantum mechanics.

2. Electromagnetic Radiation and Relativity
Your point about the frequency of electromagnetic radiation and excited
atoms highlights the disconnect between GR and quantum mechanics:

GR assumes that frequency shifts (e.g., gravitational redshift or
Doppler effect) occur due to changes in the observer's relative motion
or gravitational potential.

However, GR doesn’t delve into why EM radiation has a specific
frequency, how atoms transition between energy states, or how photons
are emitted or absorbed.
These processes are fully governed by quantum mechanics, not GR. In this
sense, relativity doesn’t provide a complete explanation—it relies on
quantum theory to supply the details of atomic and subatomic behavior.

3. Relativity as a "Perceptual Science"
Labeling relativity as a "perceptual science" suggests it primarily
addresses human experiences or observations rather than underlying
physical realities.

While this interpretation is bold, it doesn’t align with how relativity
has been tested and applied:

Predictive Power: Relativity has made precise, testable predictions
(e.g., gravitational waves, time dilation in GPS systems, and black hole
imaging) that have been repeatedly confirmed.

Universality: Its principles apply universally across macroscopic
phenomena, not just human perception.

That said, relativity is indeed phenomenological—it describes how time
and space behave under various conditions but doesn’t delve into the
deeper mechanisms that might explain these behaviors, especially at the
quantum level.

4. Relativity and Quantum Effects: Coincidence or Design?
The suggestion that relativity’s success in describing macroscopic
phenomena is “lucky” or “pseudoscientific” deserves scrutiny:

Coincidence: The apparent "luck" comes from the fact that GR effectively
models spacetime dynamics at large scales without requiring a detailed
understanding of quantum processes.

Design: Relativity’s consistency with quantum effects (e.g., how time
dilation impacts atomic clocks) isn’t by chance. It reflects the fact
that both theories are rooted in fundamental principles like energy
conservation and the constancy of the speed of light.

Relativity doesn’t fully explain the quantum origin of these effects,
but its macroscopic descriptions are remarkably accurate, validated by
experiments and practical applications (e.g., GPS, gravitational
lensing).

5. Is Relativity a Pseudoscience?
To call relativity a "pseudoscience" is a stretch, given its:

Rigorous Mathematical Framework: GR is based on well-defined principles
(e.g., the equivalence principle, Einstein field equations) that have
been tested rigorously.

Experimental Validation: From time dilation in atomic clocks to
gravitational wave detection, GR’s predictions have been confirmed
repeatedly.

Applications: Relativity is foundational for technologies like GPS,
which account for both special and general relativistic effects.
The term "pseudoscience" implies a lack of falsifiability or empirical
basis, which doesn’t apply to relativity.

6. Relativity’s Shortcomings
Your frustration stems from relativity’s incompleteness, not its
validity. Key shortcomings include:

No Explanation of Quantum Phenomena: GR doesn’t address atomic
transitions, photon emission, or wave-particle duality. These are
entirely within the realm of quantum mechanics.
Failure at Small Scales: GR breaks down at the Planck scale (10^-35 m),
where quantum gravity effects are expected to dominate.

Lack of Unification: GR and quantum mechanics remain ununified, meaning
relativity doesn’t explain phenomena where both gravitational and
quantum effects are significant.

7. Science as an Evolving Discipline
Relativity is not a "lucky pseudoscience" but rather an incomplete
theory that excels in its domain while leaving open questions about the
quantum realm. Science is inherently a process of refinement and
discovery:

Newton’s laws were incomplete but still foundational, eventually
superseded by relativity for high-speed and high-gravity phenomena.

Similarly, relativity may one day be subsumed into a deeper, unified
theory (e.g., quantum gravity) that explains both macroscopic and
microscopic phenomena.

Final Thoughts
Relativity has been extraordinarily successful in describing macroscopic
phenomena but lacks the tools to address the quantum nature of energy,
time, and space. This incompleteness doesn’t undermine its validity but
highlights the need for further scientific progress.

Your critique underscores the importance of pursuing a unified framework
that bridges the macroscopic elegance of relativity with the microscopic
precision of quantum mechanics—a challenge that lies at the forefront of
modern physics.

*************************************************************
*************************************************************
*************************************************************



All of the above was a final reply after my questions:


QUESTION 1: This is about general relativity and Cesium-133 atomic
clocks. It's well known that "The second is the duration of 9192631770
periods of the radiation corresponding to the transition between the two
hyperfine levels of the ground state of the Cesium-133 atom.".  Such
hyperfine transition generates a microwave photon per atom, which is
said to be altered with gravity. On a GPS satellite, the change in
frequency with respect to the geoid is about 10^-10, which HAS TO be
related to changes in the energy levels of the two hyperfine states.
Then, it would imply that gravity changes the atomic structure of CS-133
atoms, making them "smaller" (narrowing the gap between hyperfine
states). How come this influence of gravity on atomic structure has not
received enough publicity?


QUESTION 2: The "perceived" gravitational time dilation in
electromagnetic energy was proposed by Einstein in 1911, when NOBODY
knew about the atomic structure and, even less, the existence of
hyperfine states in atoms or what was a microwave. All the known
proposals are derived, basically, from the Schwarzschild-Hilbert
solution to the 1915 GR equation for an universe void of matter and
energy, except for one point-like, non rotating mass at the origin. Why
such view of gravitational time dilation has not matured in 100 years,
if it's real, and why there is no theories that relate gravity with the
quantum world?

QUESTION 3: So, there is a physical limit in the depth at which
relativity start to fail, say 10^-10 meters? Beneath such depth
relativity fail to provide answers then?
========== REMAINDER OF ARTICLE TRUNCATED ==========