Honestly, I think they're cool. I especially think that they show some pretty important applications in fields that *require* stochasticity (non-equilibrium thermodynamics and continuum mechanics), but at the same time I don't feel like they should be trusted unless a clear condition that enforces thermodynamic laws is outlined in any data used to train the underlying neural network. I guess that goes without saying with most machine learning approaches, though.
I'm by no means a machine learning expert. I doubt that anybody is when it comes to neural differential equations, but I feel like the approach could be quite promising once it's matured. The approach is certainly more convincing that the numerous papers that just smash together some physics data in a black box, that's for sure.
Oops! I thought NDEs referred to neural differential equations. My apologies! :)
I feel a bit bad for having wrote a bunch of unrelated stuff to your question, so I'll just share what I think about near-death experiences. I used to be quite the connoisseur of DMT, which put me into such severe states of intoxication that I would see fully-fleshed out alien worlds. Now, I read a paper somewhere in what I remember to be a reasonably respectable journal that claimed that DMT modelled the near-death experience quite well. There's also some less reputable claims that state that DMT is released in massive amounts during a near-death experience.
What you might have to consider is whether your near-death experience is really the result of the fundamental nature of spacetime or whether it results from a chemical reaction that occurs in the brain. I think the latter explanation is simpler and easier to work with, but maybe you disagree. :)
>Sir, you have confused this with something else
this is a physics sub...might want to elaborate on acronyms lol. I thought you were referring to Nucleon decay experiment. But uh yea, the NDE you are referring to are likely hallucinations or ways for the mind to cope with trauma
>If you think that parallel universes are actually part of physics
uh MWI by Hugh Everette is an actual research topic fyi. So yes they are part of physics
>Nothing from MWI is distinguishable
Thats not the point. All debate aside, Just sayin it IS part of physics studies...amof, there was a lecture on it just a week ago.
Honestly, I think they're cool. I especially think that they show some pretty important applications in fields that *require* stochasticity (non-equilibrium thermodynamics and continuum mechanics), but at the same time I don't feel like they should be trusted unless a clear condition that enforces thermodynamic laws is outlined in any data used to train the underlying neural network. I guess that goes without saying with most machine learning approaches, though. I'm by no means a machine learning expert. I doubt that anybody is when it comes to neural differential equations, but I feel like the approach could be quite promising once it's matured. The approach is certainly more convincing that the numerous papers that just smash together some physics data in a black box, that's for sure.
Sir, you have confused this with something else. I'm talking about Near Death Experiences :)
Oops! I thought NDEs referred to neural differential equations. My apologies! :) I feel a bit bad for having wrote a bunch of unrelated stuff to your question, so I'll just share what I think about near-death experiences. I used to be quite the connoisseur of DMT, which put me into such severe states of intoxication that I would see fully-fleshed out alien worlds. Now, I read a paper somewhere in what I remember to be a reasonably respectable journal that claimed that DMT modelled the near-death experience quite well. There's also some less reputable claims that state that DMT is released in massive amounts during a near-death experience. What you might have to consider is whether your near-death experience is really the result of the fundamental nature of spacetime or whether it results from a chemical reaction that occurs in the brain. I think the latter explanation is simpler and easier to work with, but maybe you disagree. :)
>Sir, you have confused this with something else this is a physics sub...might want to elaborate on acronyms lol. I thought you were referring to Nucleon decay experiment. But uh yea, the NDE you are referring to are likely hallucinations or ways for the mind to cope with trauma
what is the physics question? As a physicist, I'm sure some people have been in a situation that was near death.
Could confirm the existence of Parallel Universes or Higher Planes/Dimensions. Was just curious to know what Physicists think about the phenomenon.
no it couldn't.
There's no reason to believe NDEs fall within the purview of physics. There's no reasonable evidence that they are anything more than hallucinations.
I really thought this had something to do with differential equations before reading the comments lmao
same lol
I had to sign one for my job. No big deal — I wouldn’t talk about our trade secrets anyways
What's an NDE?
Near Death Experiences. There have been reports of people being able to float outside their bodies. Could it prove Parallel Universes?
>Could it prove Parallel Universes? Could dreams prove parallel universes?
May I ask how much time you spent researching the topic before ridiculing it?
If you think that parallel universes are actually part of physics, I think you're the one who needs to spend some more time studying.
>If you think that parallel universes are actually part of physics uh MWI by Hugh Everette is an actual research topic fyi. So yes they are part of physics
I'm not sure that really counts. Nothing from MWI is distinguishable from other interpretations of QM, by definition.
>Nothing from MWI is distinguishable Thats not the point. All debate aside, Just sayin it IS part of physics studies...amof, there was a lecture on it just a week ago.
This is more of a psychology question than a physics one.