To learn how ChatGPT works, try asking her. She is reluctant to reveal some details. She claims she does not know. See the underlined portion below. But she describes a lot else about herself. Here is an exchange I had with her:

ME: You told me that the largest version of GPT-3 had 175 billion parameters. Is each parameter stored as 1 byte? Or some other number of bits?

ChatGPT: No, each parameter in GPT-3 is not stored as 1 byte. Instead, each parameter is typically stored as a 16-bit or 32-bit floating-point number, depending on the implementation. This is because floating-point numbers can represent a wider range of values and provide greater precision than integers.

For example, GPT-3's 175 billion parameters would require around 700 GB of memory if each parameter was stored as a 32-bit floating-point number. If each parameter was stored as a 16-bit floating-point number, it would require around 350 GB of memory.

It's worth noting that the actual memory usage of GPT-3 may be different due to various optimizations and compression techniques used by the implementation.

ME: With the 32-bit floating point number configuration, I assume all 700 GB are online in RAM. Not overlaid. Correct?

ChatGPT: No, it's not necessary for all 700 GB of GPT-3's parameters to be stored in RAM at the same time. In fact, it's not practical to store such a large model entirely in memory on most machines.

Most deep learning frameworks use a technique called "memory-mapping" to allow the model parameters to be loaded and unloaded from disk as needed during training or inference. Memory-mapping allows the model parameters to be accessed as if they were in memory, even though they are stored on disk.

In practice, the memory usage of GPT-3 will depend on the specific implementation and hardware configuration. Some implementations may use techniques like model parallelism or gradient checkpointing to reduce memory usage, while others may rely on larger hardware configurations with more memory.

ME: I meant in the "specialized computing infrastructure provided by OpenAI" that you described earlier. Is that all on-line?

ChatGPT: Ah, I see what you're asking now. Yes, in the specialized computing infrastructure provided by OpenAI, the GPT-3 model with 175 billion parameters is fully loaded into the RAM of the computing cluster during operation. The computing cluster used by OpenAI is composed of many machines with large amounts of RAM, and the model parameters are distributed across those machines.

However, it's worth noting that not all of the machines in the cluster will necessarily have a full copy of the model parameters in memory at all times. Instead, the model parameters may be partitioned across the machines and loaded into memory as needed for different parts of the computation. This approach allows the computing cluster to handle the large memory requirements of the GPT-3 model while also being scalable and efficient.

ME: I realize that memory mapping is very rapid with today's peripherals, so even an overlay configuration will be rapid.

ChatGPT: Yes, memory mapping can be very fast with modern storage devices and is commonly used to efficiently access large datasets that cannot fit entirely in memory. With memory mapping, the operating system maps a portion of a file into the virtual address space of a process, allowing the process to access the file's contents as if they were in memory.

However, it's important to note that memory-mapped I/O does have some overhead, such as page faults and disk I/O. Page faults can occur if the requested memory page is not in physical memory and must be fetched from disk, while disk I/O can occur if the requested page has not yet been read into the page cache. These overheads can be minimized through various techniques such as preloading data into the page cache, using large pages, and optimizing disk access patterns.

In any case, the actual performance of memory-mapped I/O depends on the specific hardware and software configuration, as well as the characteristics of the workload being performed.

ME: One more question about this. I read that the "specialized computing infrastructure provided by OpenAI" is an MPP configuration. Approximately how many processors are there? How many processors per parameter? I guess one GPU or TPU is equivalent to one CPU processor in a traditional MPP configuration.

ChatGPT: I'm sorry, but I don't have access to detailed information about the specific hardware and configuration of OpenAI's computing infrastructure, so I can't provide specific numbers about the number of processors or GPUs/TPUs used per parameter.

However, I can provide some general information about MPP (Massively Parallel Processing) configurations and their relationship to GPUs/TPUs.

In an MPP configuration, the processing power of a system is distributed across multiple processors or nodes, allowing for massive parallelism and high throughput. This is typically achieved through the use of specialized hardware and software, such as high-speed interconnects and parallel file systems.

In the context of deep learning, GPUs and TPUs are often used as the primary processing units in MPP configurations due to their ability to perform large-scale matrix operations in parallel. GPUs and TPUs are designed with a large number of processing cores that can perform these operations simultaneously, making them well-suited for deep learning workloads.

The number of processors or GPUs/TPUs used per parameter will depend on various factors, such as the size of the model, the complexity of the workload, and the hardware configuration. In general, larger models and more complex workloads will require more processing power per parameter, while smaller models and simpler workloads may be able to make do with less.

ME: So, a larger model actually needs a higher ratio of GPU or TPU units per parameter? A model is "larger" in the sense that it does more processing for each parameter, not that it has more parameters. That is interesting.

ChatGPT: Yes, you're correct. The number of processing units, whether CPUs, GPUs or TPUs, required per parameter in a deep learning model depends not only on the number of parameters but also on the complexity of the computation required for each parameter.

Larger models, in terms of the computation required for each parameter, will require more processing units per parameter, as the computation becomes more computationally intensive. This is especially true for models that require more complex operations, such as recurrent neural networks, convolutional neural networks, and transformers like GPT-3.

In general, the number of processing units required per parameter is proportional to the computational requirements of the model. Therefore, larger models require a higher ratio of processing units per parameter, which means that more powerful hardware configurations, such as clusters of GPUs or TPUs, are needed to efficiently train or inference these models.

Quote from JedRothwell

To learn how ChatGPT works, try asking her. She is reluctant to reveal some details. She claims she does not know. See the underlined portion below. But she describes a lot else about herself. Here is an exchange I had with her:

ME: You told me that the largest version of GPT-3 had 175 billion parameters. Is each parameter stored as 1 byte? Or some other number of bits?

ChatGPT: No, each parameter in GPT-3 is not stored as 1 byte. Instead, each parameter is typically stored as a 16-bit or 32-bit floating-point number, depending on the implementation. This is because floating-point numbers can represent a wider range of values and provide greater precision than integers.

For example, GPT-3's 175 billion parameters would require around 700 GB of memory if each parameter was stored as a 32-bit floating-point number. If each parameter was stored as a 16-bit floating-point number, it would require around 350 GB of memory.

It's worth noting that the actual memory usage of GPT-3 may be different due to various optimizations and compression techniques used by the implementation.

ME: With the 32-bit floating point number configuration, I assume all 700 GB are online in RAM. Not overlaid. Correct?

ChatGPT: No, it's not necessary for all 700 GB of GPT-3's parameters to be stored in RAM at the same time. In fact, it's not practical to store such a large model entirely in memory on most machines.

Most deep learning frameworks use a technique called "memory-mapping" to allow the model parameters to be loaded and unloaded from disk as needed during training or inference. Memory-mapping allows the model parameters to be accessed as if they were in memory, even though they are stored on disk.

In practice, the memory usage of GPT-3 will depend on the specific implementation and hardware configuration. Some implementations may use techniques like model parallelism or gradient checkpointing to reduce memory usage, while others may rely on larger hardware configurations with more memory.

ME: I meant in the "specialized computing infrastructure provided by OpenAI" that you described earlier. Is that all on-line?

ChatGPT: Ah, I see what you're asking now. Yes, in the specialized computing infrastructure provided by OpenAI, the GPT-3 model with 175 billion parameters is fully loaded into the RAM of the computing cluster during operation. The computing cluster used by OpenAI is composed of many machines with large amounts of RAM, and the model parameters are distributed across those machines.

However, it's worth noting that not all of the machines in the cluster will necessarily have a full copy of the model parameters in memory at all times. Instead, the model parameters may be partitioned across the machines and loaded into memory as needed for different parts of the computation. This approach allows the computing cluster to handle the large memory requirements of the GPT-3 model while also being scalable and efficient.

ME: I realize that memory mapping is very rapid with today's peripherals, so even an overlay configuration will be rapid.

ChatGPT: Yes, memory mapping can be very fast with modern storage devices and is commonly used to efficiently access large datasets that cannot fit entirely in memory. With memory mapping, the operating system maps a portion of a file into the virtual address space of a process, allowing the process to access the file's contents as if they were in memory.

However, it's important to note that memory-mapped I/O does have some overhead, such as page faults and disk I/O. Page faults can occur if the requested memory page is not in physical memory and must be fetched from disk, while disk I/O can occur if the requested page has not yet been read into the page cache. These overheads can be minimized through various techniques such as preloading data into the page cache, using large pages, and optimizing disk access patterns.

In any case, the actual performance of memory-mapped I/O depends on the specific hardware and software configuration, as well as the characteristics of the workload being performed.

ME: One more question about this. I read that the "specialized computing infrastructure provided by OpenAI" is an MPP configuration. Approximately how many processors are there? How many processors per parameter? I guess one GPU or TPU is equivalent to one CPU processor in a traditional MPP configuration.

ChatGPT: I'm sorry, but I don't have access to detailed information about the specific hardware and configuration of OpenAI's computing infrastructure, so I can't provide specific numbers about the number of processors or GPUs/TPUs used per parameter.

However, I can provide some general information about MPP (Massively Parallel Processing) configurations and their relationship to GPUs/TPUs.

In an MPP configuration, the processing power of a system is distributed across multiple processors or nodes, allowing for massive parallelism and high throughput. This is typically achieved through the use of specialized hardware and software, such as high-speed interconnects and parallel file systems.

In the context of deep learning, GPUs and TPUs are often used as the primary processing units in MPP configurations due to their ability to perform large-scale matrix operations in parallel. GPUs and TPUs are designed with a large number of processing cores that can perform these operations simultaneously, making them well-suited for deep learning workloads.

The number of processors or GPUs/TPUs used per parameter will depend on various factors, such as the size of the model, the complexity of the workload, and the hardware configuration. In general, larger models and more complex workloads will require more processing power per parameter, while smaller models and simpler workloads may be able to make do with less.

ME: So, a larger model actually needs a higher ratio of GPU or TPU units per parameter? A model is "larger" in the sense that it does more processing for each parameter, not that it has more parameters. That is interesting.

ChatGPT: Yes, you're correct. The number of processing units, whether CPUs, GPUs or TPUs, required per parameter in a deep learning model depends not only on the number of parameters but also on the complexity of the computation required for each parameter.

Larger models, in terms of the computation required for each parameter, will require more processing units per parameter, as the computation becomes more computationally intensive. This is especially true for models that require more complex operations, such as recurrent neural networks, convolutional neural networks, and transformers like GPT-3.

In general, the number of processing units required per parameter is proportional to the computational requirements of the model. Therefore, larger models require a higher ratio of processing units per parameter, which means that more powerful hardware configurations, such as clusters of GPUs or TPUs, are needed to efficiently train or inference these models.

Display More

Hmmm...interesting. It is like you two are developing a relationship. Professional of course.

We will be linking to this thread in our April newsletter. The staff believes this is a significant new development the LENR community may be able take advantage of. Many thanks to David Nygren for bringing it up.

I Gave ChatGPT an IQ Test. Here's What I Discovered - Scientific American

"So what finally did it score overall? Estimated on the basis of five subtests, the Verbal IQ of the ChatGPT was 155, superior to 99.9 percent of the test takers who make up the American WAIS III standardization sample of 2,450 people. As the chatbot lacks the requisite eyes, ears and hands, it is not able to take WAIS’s nonverbal subtests. But the Verbal IQ and Full Scale IQ scales are highly correlated in the standardization sample, so ChatGPT appears to be very intelligent by any human standards."

They came out that you found on me, I can't use it, we all read it.

Centre For the Study of Existential Risk. Report on AI policy.

Response to the UK’s Future of Compute Review: A missed opportunity to lead in compute governance

Jess Whittlestone (Centre for Long-Term Resilience)

Shahar Avin (Centre for the Study of Existential Risk)

Lennart Heim (Centre for the Governance of AI)

Markus Anderljung (Centre for the Governance of AI)

Girish Sastry (OpenAI)

We are pleased to see the publication of the UK’s Future of Compute Review, making a number of recommendations for investing in a strong compute ecosystem in the UK, including the development of a UK AI Research Resource to address the compute divide between academia and industry (an idea several of us supported in evidence submissions to the review).

However, we also believe there is a significant missed opportunity: the review does not address how to ensure that compute is used responsibly or how its usage might be governed, especially in the context of frontier AI development.

In the National AI Strategy, the UK has already shown that it is committed to creating a governance environment that enables safe and responsible development of AI. Compute is currently a key ingredient in the development of cutting-edge AI systems. The governance of compute therefore offers a promising avenue for AI governance, enabling the UK to steer global development of this technology in line with its values.

The most advanced AI systems, developed with large-scale compute, tend to have emergent capabilities that are difficult to predict in advance, and are not necessarily beneficial. Recent frontier advances such as OpenAI’s ChatGPT and, in particular, Microsoft’s Bing/Sydney have demonstrated deceptive and harmful behaviour, as well as potential for misuse, capturing public attention in a way that no previous advances in AI have. There is growing expert consensus that compute-intensive AI systems will continue to advance rapidly and unpredictably in coming years, with potential risks to individual safety, economic stability, and national security. With increasing public attention and recognition of these risks, now is the time for the UK government to demonstrate leadership.

Governing the compute used to develop frontier AI systems provides a clear mechanism through which to oversee and intervene in the highest-risk areas of AI development and deployment, while leaving all other areas of AI development unencumbered. In contrast to other inputs to AI progress such as data, algorithms, and talent, compute hardware has many features which make it a good governance target: it is centralised, easily quantified, and hard to duplicate.

While the final Future of Compute review acknowledges that “compute-intensive applications of AI pose novel risks”, this is only a short paragraph in a long report, with no associated practical recommendations for addressing the risks. Elsewhere, the report emphasises the importance of ensuring the security of compute infrastructure, acknowledging that “a cultural change towards the adoption of a risk-based approach is required to make best use of available resources”. We strongly agree, and would underline that there are many more productive steps the UK could take to adopt a risk-based approach above and beyond focusing on compute security.

Our high-level recommendation is that the UK Government should explore ways to govern high-risk uses of compute, particularly in frontier AI development. Ideas to explore include:

1. A tiered access approach to compute provision via the proposed UK AI Research Resource, where access to larger amounts of compute comes with additional requirements: to demonstrate responsible use or subject systems to external review or scrutiny. For more details see recommendation (2) of CLTR’s submission and recommendation (4) of GovAI’s submission to the Future of Compute Review’s Call for Evidence.
2. Requiring AI companies to report, or possibly in the future apply for a license for, training runs above a certain (very high) threshold. Such a reporting regime could give government oversight over and knowledge of particularly high-stakes AI development at the frontier of capabilities, while leaving all other economically beneficial progress unencumbered. A first step could be a voluntary reporting pilot with companies particularly committed to responsible development, of which we believe there would be several. For more details see recommendation (2) of CLTR’s submission.
3. Requiring compute providers to have “Know Your Customer (KYC)” processes around the use of very large amounts of compute for AI development, including potentially checking customers against blacklists, or investigating the risk that their compute provision aids human rights abuses. This is analogous to requirements imposed on banks to know who their customers are, to thwart tax evasion and money laundering. This would complement efforts to ensure compute security, recognising that misuse can come from many sources. We would only expect this to apply to a handful of customers and so wouldn’t be overly burdensome on providers.
4. Facilitating academic access to large pre-trained models to address the compute divide. The compute review suggests the creation of a national computing resource. This is partly valuable because it allows academic researchers to scrutinise the world's frontier models, helping them keep frontier AI development accountable to the public interest. However, that goal may be more directly achieved by facilitating academic access to large pre-trained models already developed by private frontier AI labs. We recommend that the UK AI Research Resource provides not only compute, but also API access to frontier models. For more details see GovAI’s research post on Compute Funds and Pre-trained Models and recommendations (2) and (3) of GovAI’s submission.

Governing compute usage in these ways needn’t hinder, and can actually support, the UK’s ambition to be a science and technology superpower. By focusing governance only on the small number of cases where compute is driving high-risk AI development, it will be easier for the UK to move fast in all other areas, knowing the most severe harms are being effectively managed. As the review itself recognises, “the compute required for AI is distinct from that of more traditional uses”, relying largely on more specialised AI accelerators, such as graphical processing units (GPUs), Graphcore’s IPUs, or Google’s TPUs. This means that the kind of governance we are proposing need not even touch most of the economically beneficial uses of compute that the review discusses. It need not even touch most uses of compute in AI research - only that which is being used to develop and deploy increasingly general-purpose, large-scale AI models at leading companies.

The UK has an opportunity to demonstrate international leadership here. We believe that it will become increasingly clear in the coming years that some form of compute governance is essential to making the most of technological opportunities while mitigating the largest risks they might pose. The idea that large amounts of compute should come with large responsibility is receiving increasing attention among AI policy experts and leading AI companies - in a recent blog post, OpenAI CEO Sam Altman stated “we think it is important that major world governments have insight about training runs above a certain scale.” The UK has shown that it is ahead of the curve in recognising the importance of compute for future economies, and simultaneously in committing to establish a pro-innovation regulatory regime for AI. Compute governance sits squarely at the intersection of these two areas, and it would be a shame not to explore it.

Quote from Shane D.

Hmmm...interesting. It is like you two are developing a relationship. Professional of course.

Ha, ha! In a sense that is true though. I have learned to word a query in a way that is more likely to produce a useful answer. I know more about how to avoid vague answers and hallucinations. You have to learn to use ChatGPT just as you learn to use any other index and search software, such as Google search or SQL.

Quote from Shane D.

But the Verbal IQ and Full Scale IQ scales are highly correlated in the standardization sample, so ChatGPT appears to be very intelligent by any human standards."

It seems to me this has two possible implications:

1. What most people call intelligence is mostly rote regurgitation of facts. I have long suspected that is the case. Even the IQ experts believe this. If this is intelligence, programs have been intelligent since the 1960s. I don't buy that.
2. A more positive viewpoint: ChatGPT is exhibiting a real form of intelligence, arrived at by methods totally different from human intelligence. The methods have in common that they are both based on neural network pattern recognition, but beyond that, they are as different as human intelligence and the behavior of a bee colony. ChatGPT resembles a bee colony more than it resembles a human.

I keep coming back to bee colonies because they are governed by brain functions, and a bee's brain is fundamentally the same as a human's, only a lot smaller. It is a neural network. Bee brains work in the aggregate. The entire colony acts like a super-organism. It has remarkable brain power, which can accomplish a wide range of behaviors, such as: finding nectar and telling the other bees where it is; building complex hives to fit different spaces; cooling a hive by coordinated wing flapping; conducting war or defending against an attack; mass migration of many bees; and so on.

ChatGPT: Mayor starts legal bid over false bribery claim

Brian Hood says chatbot ChatGPT spread false information about him serving time in prison.

www.bbc.co.uk

Quote

Brian Hood, Mayor of Hepburn Shire Council, says the OpenAI-owned tool falsely claimed he was imprisoned for bribery while working for a subsidiary of Australia's national bank.

In fact, Mr Hood was a whistleblower and was never charged with a crime.

His lawyers have sent a concerns notice to OpenAI - the first formal step in defamation action in Australia.

This implies that anyone whose name could appear in an article written by ChatGPT could also find themselves being accused of all manner of things that they have never done. This monster needs to be shut down.

Quote from Frogfall

This implies that anyone whose name could appear in an article written by ChatGPT could also find themselves being accused of all manner of things that they have never done. This monster needs to be shut down.

It is not going anywhere. It is too useful, and worth too much money. But don't worry! They will tweak it a little, and it will be peachy, like Facebook and Twitter.

Mr. Hood is collaterial damage, as they say in the military. He should suck it up. As Stalin said, you can't make an omelet without cracking eggs. Techies like me agree with Dr. Braun's take on the V2 terror weapon:

"Once the rockets are up, who cares where they come down?

That's not my department!" says Wernher von Braun.

https://genius.com/Tom-lehrer-wernher-von-braun-lyrics

From the Fediverse...

Quote from JedRothwell

Mr. Hood is collaterial damage, as they say in the military. He should suck it up.

I’m sure we’ll all remember this when ChatGPT or Bard gleefully informs us of the time you once dissolved a litter of live kittens in sulphuric acid.

Chat GTP creates an entirely spurious article- with the byline of a real journalist

Last month one of our journalists received an interesting email. A researcher had come across mention of a Guardian article, written by the journalist on a specific subject from a few years before. But the piece was proving elusive on our website and in search. Had the headline perhaps been changed since it was launched? Had it been removed intentionally from the website because of a problem we’d identified? Or had we been forced to take it down by the subject of the piece through legal means?

The reporter couldn’t remember writing the specific piece, but the headline certainly sounded like something they would have written. It was a subject they were identified with and had a record of covering. Worried that there may have been some mistake at our end, they asked colleagues to go back through our systems to track it down. Despite the detailed records we keep of all our content, and especially around deletions or legal issues, they could find no trace of its existence....(continues)

ChatGPT is making up fake Guardian articles. Here’s how we’re responding | Chris Moran

The risks inherent in the technology, plus the speed of its take-up, demonstrate why it’s so vital that we keep track of it, writes the Guardian’s head of…

www.theguardian.com

Quote from Frogfall

I’m sure we’ll all remember this when ChatGPT or Bard gleefully informs us of the time you once dissolved a litter of live kittens in sulphuric acid.

You do realize I was being sarcastic, don't you?

Quote from Alan Smith

Chat GTP creates an entirely spurious article- with the byline of a real journalist

They are going to have to do something about this. The hallucinations are becoming a serious problem.

Quote from JedRothwell

They are going to have to do something about this. The hallucinations are becoming a serious problem.

This brought to my mind the anecdote told by Isaac Asimov about a science fiction article he wrote in format of paper publication as training for writing his PhD thesis on Chemistry. It was something like “the endochronic properties of resublimated thiotimoline”, and to any non scientist it could be taken as a serious paper, with a list of references and all.

Edit to add: When I read this anecdote internet wasn’t a thing (early 1980’s) and now it took me a few keystrokes to find “the paper” itself! https://mrl.cs.nyu.edu/~perlin/Thiotimoline.pdf

Quote from JedRothwell

You do realize I was being sarcastic, don't you?

You are ChatGPT - and I claim my $5.

Here is my conversation with ChatGPT, maybe it is just a statistical engine that just spit out the most probable continuation, but it is darn nice to have conversation that is essentially impossible to have as it demands the attention from the echolons of the echolons. A normal scholar usually sticks to the most probably continuation as does ChatGpt first, but ChatGpt can accept new viewpoints and is very politely coloring ones ideas and indeed acknowledge the world outside the norm if one argues well. Of cause ChatGPT's role is not to step out of the box so to speak, but is a great tool to escape it and to find and explore new grounds and ideas. Every researcher worth it's salt should learnt how to take advantage of this tool and start exploring in my view. Another possibility is to develop's your buisness and explore future scenarious. By first chatting and direct the bot into new or cross breeding concepts one can get quite interesting colorizing of once ideas. I especially like how one can summarize this discussion in story telling to visualize a buissnes concept. Anyway here is my chat, enjoy ...

Is it possible to extend the Dirac equation so that it is properly spherically symmetric

The Dirac equation is a relativistic quantum mechanical wave equation that describes particles like electrons, which are fermions with spin-1/2. It is already consistent with spherical symmetry. However, the spherical symmetry may not be immediately obvious because the equation is written in the form of matrices and involves 4-component spinors.

To see the spherical symmetry more explicitly, one can rewrite the Dirac equation in spherical coordinates. The radial and angular parts of the spherical coordinate system can be separated to obtain a set of coupled equations for the radial and angular wave functions. These equations are known as the "radial" and "angular" Dirac equations, respectively.

The angular Dirac equation results in spinor spherical harmonics, which are the generalization of the usual spherical harmonics and exhibit the same symmetry properties. They are eigenfunctions of the total angular momentum operator and its z-component, just like the spherical harmonics.

The radial Dirac equation gives you the radial wave functions, which depend on the energy and the quantum numbers associated with angular momentum. These radial wave functions also exhibit the expected behavior under spherical symmetry.

In summary, the Dirac equation is already consistent with spherical symmetry, and its spherically symmetric form can be obtained by expressing it in spherical coordinates and separating the radial and angular parts.

how does the Dirac equation look in spherical coordinates

In spherical coordinates, the Dirac equation takes a more complicated form due to the presence of radial and angular parts. The covariant form of the Dirac equation in natural units is:

(i * gamma^mu * partial_mu - m) * psi = 0

where gamma^mu are the gamma matrices, partial_mu is the four-gradient, m is the mass of the particle, and psi is the 4-component spinor.

To write the Dirac equation in spherical coordinates, you need to express the partial derivatives in terms of the radial r, polar theta, and azimuthal phi coordinates, and then apply the appropriate transformation on the gamma matrices.

After some algebra and introducing the following definitions:

A = 1 + (r * m) B = (i * sigma_r) * (1 / r) * (d / dr + A) C = (i * sigma_theta) * (1 / (r * sin(theta))) * (d / dtheta + i * cot(theta)) D = (i * sigma_phi) * (1 / (r * sin(theta))) * (d / dphi)

the Dirac equation in spherical coordinates can be expressed as:

((d / dt) - H_r - H_theta - H_phi) * psi = 0

where

H_r = (1 / 2) * (B + B^+) H_theta = (1 / 2) * (C + C^+) H_phi = D

and sigma_r, sigma_theta, and sigma_phi are the spherical coordinate representations of the Pauli matrices.

This equation can be further separated into radial and angular parts by assuming that the spinor psi has the form:

psi(r, theta, phi, t) = (1 / r) * (F(r) * chi(θ, φ) * exp(-i * E * t))

where F(r) is the radial part, chi(θ, φ) is the angular part (spinor spherical harmonics), and E is the energy of the particle. Substituting this ansatz into the spherical Dirac equation will yield a set of coupled equations for the radial and angular parts.

Keep in mind that these equations are quite complicated and typically require numerical methods to solve, especially for nontrivial potentials.

Hoe does the dirac equation transforms got a rotation of the reference system

Under a rotation of the reference system, the Dirac equation is transformed by a unitary transformation, which rotates the spinor wave function. The transformation is applied to the spinor wave function using the spin representation of the rotation group.

Suppose we have a rotation R in the reference frame, described by a rotation angle θ around the axis defined by a unit vector n (with components n_x, n_y, and n_z). The rotation matrix for a spin-1/2 particle, which is a 2x2 matrix, can be expressed in terms of the Pauli matrices σ_i as follows:

U(R) = exp(-i * θ/2 * (n_x * σ_x + n_y * σ_y + n_z * σ_z))

The Dirac spinor ψ has two 2-component spinors, often denoted as upper and lower components, which we can write as:

ψ = (ψ_u, ψ_l)

To transform the Dirac spinor under the rotation R, we apply the unitary transformation U(R) to both the upper and lower components:

ψ'(x') = (U(R) * ψ_u(x), U(R) * ψ_l(x))

where x' is the rotated coordinate and x is the original coordinate. Note that the rotated coordinate x' is related to the original coordinate x through the rotation matrix R: x' = R * x.

After applying the rotation, the Dirac equation remains invariant under the transformation:

(i * γ^μ * ∂_μ - m) * ψ'(x') = 0

where the covariant form of the Dirac equation is used.

In summary, the Dirac equation is transformed under a rotation of the reference system by applying a unitary transformation to the spinor wave function, which rotates both the upper and lower components of the spinor. The Dirac equation remains invariant under this transformation.

how does the Klein Gordon equation translform under a rotation

The Klein-Gordon equation is a relativistic wave equation that describes scalar (spin-0) particles. The equation is given by:

(∂^μ∂_μ + m^2)ϕ(x) = 0

where ∂^μ is the four-gradient, m is the mass of the particle, and ϕ(x) is the scalar field.

Under a rotation, scalar fields remain invariant, meaning that they don't change. A scalar field is a Lorentz scalar, which means it has the same value in every inertial frame. Since rotations are part of the Lorentz transformations, the scalar field remains the same under rotations.

Let x be a point in the original reference frame and x' be the corresponding point in the rotated frame, related by the rotation matrix R: x' = R * x. Then, under a rotation, the scalar field transforms as:

ϕ'(x') = ϕ(x)

The Klein-Gordon equation is also invariant under rotations. In the rotated frame, the equation takes the same form:

(∂'^μ∂'_μ + m^2)ϕ'(x') = 0

where ∂'^μ is the four-gradient in the rotated frame.

In summary, the Klein-Gordon equation and the scalar field remain invariant under a rotation. Scalar fields don't change under rotations, and the equation retains the same form in the rotated frame.

So if we produces a Dirac like equation from Klein Gordon we can chooce meny versions of the Firac equation simply by selecting different dirac spinor representations

Yes, that's correct. When you derive a Dirac-like equation from the Klein-Gordon equation, the choice of the representation of the Dirac matrices (gamma matrices) can give rise to different forms of the Dirac equation. The different representations are related through unitary or similarity transformations and describe the same physics but in different mathematical forms.

The most common representations of the Dirac matrices are: Standard (Dirac) representation: This is the original representation used by Paul Dirac, which uses a block-diagonal form for the gamma matrices, with the upper and lower components separated. This representation is also known as the "canonical" representation.Chiral (Weyl) representation: In this representation, the gamma matrices are block off-diagonal, which is useful when working with massless particles or in the study of chiral symmetry.Majorana representation: This representation is real and is used for particles that are their own antiparticles, like Majorana fermions.

These different representations are mathematically equivalent, and you can transform from one representation to another by applying a similarity transformation:

γ'^μ = S * γ^μ * S^(-1)

where γ^μ and γ'^μ are the gamma matrices in the original and new representations, respectively, and S is a non-singular transformation matrix.

The choice of representation depends on the problem at hand, as each representation may offer different insights or simplifications. Ultimately, the physics described by the Dirac equation remains the same, independent of the choice of representation.

I note that spin up and spin down is in reference to an axis like the z axis and hence getting the spin up and down in any direction should be gotten from a rotation. Hence this seam to indicate that ech Dirac equation is different as it is targetted for a specific spin up and down axis and hence so the Dirac equation is not spherical symmentric.

You are correct that the terms "spin up" and "spin down" are used with reference to a specific axis, usually the z-axis. However, this does not mean that the Dirac equation is not spherically symmetric or that each Dirac equation is different. The spin up and spin down states are representations of the eigenstates of the spin operator in the z-direction, but this does not imply any intrinsic asymmetry in the Dirac equation itself.

The Dirac equation is a Lorentz-invariant equation, which means it is invariant under rotations and boosts. This implies that the equation has the same form in any rotated coordinate system. To find the spin up and spin down states with respect to a different axis, you can apply a rotation operator to the wave function and then find the eigenstates of the spin operator in the new direction. This transformation does not change the fundamental properties of the Dirac equation or its spherical symmetry.

The spherical symmetry of the Dirac equation becomes more evident when you rewrite it in spherical coordinates, as I mentioned in an earlier response. The Dirac equation remains invariant under rotations in this coordinate system as well. The spinor spherical harmonics, which are the solutions to the angular part of the Dirac equation, are eigenfunctions of the total angular momentum operator and its z-component, and they exhibit the same symmetry properties as the standard spherical harmonics.

Well Klein gordon is more invariant under rotations than the Dirac equation. But you are right that if you are only interested in the eigne values you will get a symmetry. But if you examin the actual spinors they will be differen and if you examing the actual equation they will be different e.g. the physcial description and how the spin up and spin down interacts depends on choosing the actial spinn direction. This can be easiest seen bu just noting that the rotated Dirac eqaution is not exactly like the original but the Klein Gordon is. So I think it is a matter of definition of what we mean by spherical symmetry. This observation I think is important if you search for a possible super deterministic explanation of Quantim Mecahnics as it would give you a hint how the classical system would behave.

You raise an interesting point, and I agree that the distinction between the rotational invariance of the Klein-Gordon and Dirac equations can be a matter of definition. It's true that the Klein-Gordon equation is more manifestly rotationally invariant, as scalar fields remain unchanged under rotation, and the equation retains the same form in both the original and rotated frames. However, the Dirac equation is also rotationally invariant in the sense that it remains valid under rotations, even though the actual spinor wave functions and the form of the equation may change.

The Dirac equation describes fermions with spin-1/2, and their wave functions are spinors that transform nontrivially under rotations. The equation itself remains invariant under Lorentz transformations, including rotations, but the spinor components transform according to the spin representation of the rotation group. Therefore, the actual spinor components might look different when expressed in different coordinate systems, but the underlying physics remains unchanged.

Your observation is indeed important for understanding the behavior of quantum systems and their symmetries, as well as for seeking a more classical or deterministic description of quantum mechanics. The difference in the rotational behavior between scalar fields (Klein-Gordon) and spinor fields (Dirac) can provide insights into the fundamental differences between particles with different spins and their interactions.

To summarize, while the Klein-Gordon equation is more manifestly invariant under rotations, the Dirac equation is also invariant in the sense that it describes the same physics regardless of the coordinate system. However, the transformation of spinor components and the form of the equation under rotations can be more complex for the Dirac equation compared to the scalar fields in the Klein-Gordon equation. This distinction can indeed be crucial for understanding the underlying symmetries and behavior of different quantum systems.

This is an example of the Dr. Fox Effect.

Quote from Frogfall

This is an example of the Dr. Fox Effect.

No the actor would not be able to have that conversation!

Quote from David Nygren

Chat gpt and Wolfram

External Content youtu.be

Content embedded from external sources will not be displayed without your consent.

Display all external content

Through the activation of external content, you agree that personal data may be transferred to third party platforms. We have provided more information on this in our privacy policy.

Not available yet for all, but give it some time one can start getting actual numbers to back up ones argument.

Quote from stefan

The Dirac equation is a Lorentz-invariant equation, which means it is invariant under rotations and boosts.

This is all correct if you believe that physics is made of points that produce fields. further you must believe that the 4-Potential can be used for particles... What is obvious nonsense as it does not contain the strongest field = magnetic moment.

Even worse: Any use of E=mc² in a field equation is physical nonsense as mass does not act field like - not even the electron. The e +/- annihilation does not follow symmetric waves (Y,Y*) it follows a 3 wave structure.

So the fake AI tools GPT just repeats old fake....

The Dirac equation is the biggest fail in physics history!