Source of the post
Not that I know of. A way that dark matter could be evident in particle accelerator experiments may actually be not by a direct detection of the particles, but by mass/energy not being conserved in certain collisions in a consistent way, as the dark matter particles carry it away undetected. Over many experiments, this could pin down the mass of the dark matter particles. So far, experiments have only been able to rule out certain ranges of masses that the dark matter particles can have.
From what I understand of it, dark matter cannot be replicated in a lab because it's properties are intrinsic of it's position relative to other matter and the size thereof. Laboratory conditions would not be able to replicate this, it is a matter of extrapolation. Computer programs can calculate it because within their algorithms there are no constraining physical laws that apply. Unless of course your laboratory is the size of a mass in which dark matter is measurable, like a whole galaxy.
Do you think that it'll ever be possible to physically simulate dark matter in a 'condensed' form in the lab Watsisname
? Might it not be actual dark matter, in the sense of the word, but a derivative of it accounting for the scale down? Would it's power be completely diluted by this scale-down?
Source of the post
It's quite interesting that we may be creating aritificial intelligence based on silicon- considering how similar silicon is to carbon
Most think that it's only one side of the same coin - life and it's processes (or simplifications or exaggerations thereof) are being replicated in silicone switches and lines (AI) to mirror the neural pathways of carbonaceous matter like ourselves. But it is a fairly vague difference - one that owes it's blurry differentiation to the fact that if metalloid/metallic machines that simulate sentience (or life in general) are 'artificial' and 'mechanical', with the organic bodies and sentiences of carbon being 'natural', how then does synthetic 'wet-ware'
AI or technology become classified? Would this clarification between artificial and natural, between machine and organism be a pointless effort as this line is further breached by encroaches with technology?
A paradox lies here - are machines (specifically AI, discussed in a computational context) inherently biological because we have made them to mirror the efficient biological processes of our minds? They are conceived of our minds, and thus it would seem that this bestows upon them a certain likeness to biology - since at their inception we were capable of imagining nothing else outside what our minds can think of.
Or, are biological processes inherently mechanical because each system relies on some arrangement of factors to equal its sum purpose - certainly a mechanical way of working.
Moreover though, I don't think this differentiation is relevant. Each (artificial/organic) is of the same quintessence and to make separate, arbitrary words for each and their substrates is meaningless, since both are the same, just expressed through different mediums. Each are bits of matter in this universe, motivated by ultimately united physical forces encoded in space/time.
I'm curious as to what the forum thinks of this.