Welcome to DU! The truly grassroots left-of-center political community where regular people, not algorithms, drive the discussions and set the standards. Join the community: Create a free account Support DU (and get rid of ads!): Become a Star Member Latest Breaking News Editorials & Other Articles General Discussion The DU Lounge All Forums Issue Forums Culture Forums Alliance Forums Region Forums Support Forums Help & Search

ProfessorGAC

(76,237 posts)
11. I'm Going To Say No
Fri Feb 13, 2026, 04:37 PM
Friday

I see a big difference between the likelihood of occupying the exact same spot at 2 times & a cosmological prohibition of doing so.
We agree on the extremely low probability, especially given our inability to traverse interstellar distances.
But, there is nothing in astrophysics that say we cannot do it if we had a ST style warp drive.
The theory does, in fact, prohibit the opposite, because it would require the creation of mass (which hasn't happened since shortly after the Big Band), with the same quantum properties. The former is not possible; the latter stupendous improbable. (Heisenberg and all that)
So, we're on the same page that it would be extraordinarily difficult to occupy the same space at more than one time, but there is nothing in the theory that absolutely prevents it.
I'm not a cosmologist, but I've been an avid student/obersver of that field and the math is not terribly different than that used in quantum chemistry, which I do know.
On board?

Recommendations

0 members have recommended this reply (displayed in chronological order):

Thx to you & Goonch SheltieLover Friday #1
Lol for fun I asked an AI the reason for the discrepancy and gave it the passage from your post AZJonnie Friday #2
Not sure what you mean. It quoted one of my replies in that Science Fiction thread, or it quoted highplainsdem Friday #4
I mean it literally sourced from this very thread AZJonnie Friday #7
Claude is clueless. There is an actual story. I posted links about it in the earlier thread I linked to. There highplainsdem Friday #9
It's not surprising that it got confused, this entire discussion is extremely circular AZJonnie Friday #13
I would've expected any bot to at least follow the links in both threads, which would have shown that highplainsdem Friday #15
Claude would have seen this bit, in Goonch's follow-up, which said this: AZJonnie Friday #17
And, The Chatbot Is Still Wrong ProfessorGAC Friday #3
+1. It's patent nonsense dalton99a Friday #5
I don't know about that one, Professor :) AZJonnie Friday #8
I'm Going To Say No ProfessorGAC Friday #11
Obviously I know I don't know nearly as much on this topic as you do, so I generally defer, Sir :) AZJonnie Friday #14
Pretty Much ProfessorGAC Friday #16
These tools don't just fabricate fiction. They fabricate citations in law and science pieces. RockRaven Friday #6
Yes. I mentioned that in the earlier thread I linked to. I've posted lots of warnings here over the last few years highplainsdem Friday #10
+1. AI is essentially a smooth-talking buzzword-spewing bullshitter with an unlimited capacity for plagiarism dalton99a Friday #12
Latest Discussions»General Discussion»You've probably heard tha...»Reply #11