Earliest stars

Discussion in 'Astronomy, Exobiology, & Cosmology' started by Pinball1970, Feb 17, 2024.

  1. exchemist Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    12,538
    Ah that's more like it. The second and third are off-target but the first looks as if it what I want to know. I'll follow that one up. Thanks again.
     
  2. Google AdSense Guest Advertisement



    to hide all adverts.
  3. Seattle Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    8,874
    I have Bing Chat, ChatGPT and Bravo bookmarked. Originally it was just because I found them interesting and wanted some experience with them to see what they could do, couldn't do and the best ways to use them (if at all).

    I now find them pretty useful for most situations where you would have just used a Google search in the past. With Google sometimes you don't have a lot of time, search something and it returns a few links and you have to go through so much stuff to find the relevant parts that you just put it aside for when you have more time.

    When it's just about churning through a lot of data quickly, that's where they all shine. If it's a subject matter than you are already familiar with, it's even better.

    If it's something you aren't familiar with, you read the response and if it doesn't make logical sense then you can sometimes fine tune the response with more specific queries and sometimes you can just confront "it" with the illogical parts.

    At this point it's likely to go downhill quickly since it can't really "think". It may go well if it's just a matter of it scanning a wider field but in many cases it will just basically start repeating the same stuff over and over and I just leave at that point.

    If you are trying to learn something in more detail though and you start with a basic query, it's likely to get you on the right track more quickly (for further reading) than a basic Google search.

    It's also great if you know the material but it's been a while and you just need a summary of topics that you already are pretty aware of. If you've read a book a long time ago, took a course in college,etc. you can quickly get up to speed.

    You can also just "talk" to it if you are trying to refine your pre existing political views, for example. You think you are accurate about some topic but you state your view and you'll get back pros and cons and maybe sometimes you'll find out that you were just factually wrong about something.

    Or you could have a general viewpoint that is factually based but someone raises a point that has you stumped and even though you might still be right, you'll learn something that you hadn't thought of.

    In general though, IMO, it can just be a quick way to refresh your memory since it can scan though data much quicker than you ever could.

    If you get into a situation where it is just wrong, I've learned to catch it and just not use it for that unless I'm trying to "probe" it to learn more about why it is making that specific mistake. Usually it's just because all it is doing is scanning and giving you back what it finds. Its logical skills aren't necessarily good so as with a child or a drunk, once you get to that point, don't argue, just move on.

    Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!

     
    Last edited: Feb 18, 2024
  4. Google AdSense Guest Advertisement



    to hide all adverts.
  5. exchemist Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    12,538
    So long as they give you the references they have found, so you can get back to the primary source and validate it, that's useful.

    Back on the topic, the physics stack exchange seems to talk about 2 different processes.

    One is radiation in the IR. Obviously neither H, nor H2, nor He will radiate at all in the IR as they have no dipole, whereas "metals"

    Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!

    or rather their compounds, like carbon monoxide, may have a dipole and may therefore radiate in the IR.

    The other is the electronic emission lines I was thinking of in my earlier speculations. Heavier elements have more electrons and can populate a bigger range of orbitals so you get more lines (or bands) of emission and absorption in their spectra. These can radiate over and above the general black body radiation, which, as I had thought, is the same for all matter.
     
    Pinball1970 likes this.
  6. Google AdSense Guest Advertisement



    to hide all adverts.

Share This Page