Re: Fun with ChatGPT: Relativity is a lucky pseudoscience that fails at atomiic level.

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