Path: ...!weretis.net!feeder8.news.weretis.net!feeder1-2.proxad.net!proxad.net!feeder1-1.proxad.net!cleanfeed2-b.proxad.net!nnrp2-2.free.fr!not-for-mail
Newsgroups: sci.physics.relativity
Subject: Re: Fun with ChatGPT: Relativity is a lucky pseudoscience that fails at atomiic level.
From: nospam@de-ster.demon.nl (J. J. Lodder)
Reply-To: jjlxa31@xs4all.nl (J. J. Lodder)
Date: Tue, 28 Jan 2025 22:21:07 +0100
References: <0d509b1635259917c7b4407251adcf31@www.novabbs.com> <3a42db544af628ec3969d6b80f1122b7@www.novabbs.com> <e613885e553df4e05738929b0c9eb9a9@www.novabbs.com> <99a0b6f82daafa4c7f7db42b177c6415@www.novabbs.com>
Organization: De Ster
Mail-Copies-To: nobody
User-Agent: MacSOUP/2.8.5 (ea919cf118) (Mac OS 10.12.6)
Lines: 86
Message-ID: <67994a44$0$407$426a34cc@news.free.fr>
NNTP-Posting-Date: 28 Jan 2025 22:21:09 CET
NNTP-Posting-Host: 213.10.137.58
X-Trace: 1738099269 news-4.free.fr 407 213.10.137.58:61559
X-Complaints-To: abuse@proxad.net
Bytes: 4443

rhertz <hertz778@gmail.com> wrote:

> I just tried DeepSeek with the same question that I did to ChatGPT:
> 
> QUESTION: Does relativity breaks down at atomic level?
> 
> Even when Deepseek is fed with information available through Internet,
> the differences with ChatGPT were shocking.
> 
> Regarding Special Relativity, DeepSeek agreed that non-relativistic
> quantum mechanics is MUCH MORE RELEVANT than the Dirac's model.
> Schrodinger's theory reigns in most cases and is much more simple to use
> than Dirac's.

Correct, to lowest order.

> Quantum effects are much more relevant than relativistic effects and,
> for this, SR is not relevant at quantum level in the majority of cases.

Correct again,
relativity enters only when you need to consider the fine-structure.
(and hyperfine structure)
Spin can be handled by Pauli. (to lowest order)
You don't solve it all in one go from first principles.
(corrections in orders of v/c or \alpha are done successively)

> According to DeepSeek, SR is useful only with heavier atoms due to the
> "allegations" that low level electrons orbit at speed closer to c in
> heavier atoms (gold, lead,..). Hyperfine states are more accurate
> defined using Dirac instead of Schrodinger QM.

Correct again. No allegiations about it.

> When I questioned it how physics managed "statistical orbitals" to apply
> relativity, being that in QM electrons don't have a neat, well-defined
> orbitals and that Heisenberg's uncertainty principle collided with the
> pseudo-classic SR,
> DeepSeek crashed and asked me to try again later, as the servers were
> busy.

Not surprising.
 
> Regarding GR, it started to mumble shit about quantum spacetime and
> Planck's lengths and times, to later accept that IT'S BELIEVED that GR
> has to have a role in atom's behavior, but immediately it added that
> such area is under heavy study by several researches, and that such
> influence of GR on atom's behavior IS FAR FROM BEING KNOWN BY NOW.

Ask a stupid question, get a stupid answer.

> Also, added that efforts to incorporate quantum spacetime in atomic
> theory have been made in the last decades without results (string
> theory, quantum loop gravity, etc.). Additionally, added that a
> completely new theory is needed, but there are no indications that
> current proposals are going to succeed.

Correct again.

> I left the chat with the impression that DeepSeek is much less BIASED
> about the influence of relativity in the quantum world than ChatGPT
> (Altman) engine.
> 
> It's a refreshing feeling to learn that Chinese are MUCH LESS CRAZY
> about relativity than Western science, even when AI engines access to
> the same reservoir of information.

Indeed, it is far more clever about it than you are.
 
> I noticed that DeepSeek don't glorify Einstein and relativity, but don't
> deny it as a theory.

Good for it. The atom was Bohr's at first, and later Schroedinger's.
And anyway, this whole concept of 'glorificating' in science
exists mostly in your perverted mental hang-ups.

> Only uses examples of its applications IN A
> RATIONAL WAY. Relativity seems to be a marginal theory for Chinese,
> which only have rational applications on the limits of time and space,
> when velocities are close to c.
> 
> I only maintained a 5 minutes session, but it's promising.

Indeed, for an AI,

Jan