One of the strangest predictions in the field of quantum theory - that a system cannot change while you are watching it - was proven in an experiment conducted by physicists from Cornell University. Their research opens a window for the development of a completely new method with the help of which it will be possible to control and influence the quantum states of atoms and in this way create new types of detectors and sensors.
[Translation by Dr. Nachmani Moshe]
One of the strangest predictions in the field of quantum theory - that a system cannot change while you are watching it - was proven in an experiment conducted by physicists from Cornell University. Their research opens a window for the development of a completely new method with the help of which it will be possible to control and influence the quantum states of atoms and in this way create new types of detectors and sensors.
The experiments were conducted in the supercooling laboratory of physics professor Mukund Vengalattore, who founded the first program at the university to study the physics of materials cooled to extremely low temperatures at the level of 0.000000001 degrees above absolute zero (minus 273.15 degrees Celsius). The research findings were published in the scientific journal Physical Review Letters.
The researchers created and cooled a gas consisting of a billion rubidium atoms, put it in a vacuum chamber and exposed it to laser beams. In this state the atoms are organized in a neat lattice structure, just as they would be in a crystalline solid. However, at such low temperatures, the atoms can move from one point to another in the crystal in a process called 'tunneling'. Heisenberg's famous uncertainty principle asserts that there are interrelationships between the position and the speed of a particle. Temperature is a measure of the movement of the particle. In extreme cooling conditions, close to absolute zero, the speed is almost zero, so there is a lot of flexibility in terms of position; When you look at them, the atoms have just as much probability of being at one point as at a second point.
The researchers demonstrated that they could prevent quantum tunneling simply by watching the atoms. This 'quantum Zenon effect', named after a Greek philosopher and discovered in 1977 by two researchers from the University of Texas, Austin, claims that the strange nature of quantum measurements makes it possible, in principle, to "freeze" a quantum system through repeated measurements. Previous experiments have shown that the effect does occur for the spins of subatomic particles. "This is the first observation of the quantum Zenon effect occurring within the framework of measuring atomic motion," says the lead researcher. "In addition, thanks to the high level of control that we were able to demonstrate in our experiments, we can now gradually adjust the way we observe atoms. Through this adjustment, we were able to show that there is also an effect called 'emergent classicality'. The quantum effect fades away and the atoms begin to behave as we would expect them to in the framework of classical physics.
The researchers observed the atoms with a microscope by illuminating them with a separate laser beam. A light microscope cannot distinguish individual atoms, but the laser beam causes them to glow, and thus the microscope captures their flashes of light. When this separate beam was turned off, or turned on for an extremely short time, the atoms tunneled freely. As the laser beam was more powerful or the frequency of its activation increased, the tunneling process was dramatically reduced. "This situation provides us with an extraordinary tool for controlling a quantum system, even at the atom-by-atom level," says the researcher. The lead researcher explains that in this state the atoms are particularly sensitive to external forces, so that these findings could lead to the development of innovative detectors and sensors.
Cornell University announcement
More on the subject on the science website
A new quantum world
The non-quantum quantum
63 תגובות
Albanzo
I've got two questions. Let's start with a question that I'm pretty sure is stupid, but I'll ask anyway:
You said that there is an equivalence between the bulk in which there is quantum mechanics and gravity and the language in which there is a certain type of quantum mechanics and no gravity. My question is: what is special about gravity? What distinguishes it from the other powers that need to be mentioned separately and why does it not exist on the language?
Second question: You said that this equivalence was proven in certain cases. What are certain cases? Certain structures of the Balk and the language? Is it even possible to build our world in this way? That is, is there a language that seems equivalent to our world and it has simply not been proven that it is equivalent, or has such a language never been built? What are the challenges in its construction?
I hope I still understood a little something and the questions are not completely stupid.
Thanks in advance.
Albanzo Thanks, I'll read it again later and see if I understood the explanation.
By the way, quantum the answer is much simpler. In quantum mechanics, the geometry of space (and the geodesic lines in it) is also determined by particles called "gravitons". When two bodies interact gravitationally, they throw gravitons at each other that cause them to continue. You can think of it like two people throwing a ball in a hall where the floor is smooth: the first throws the ball and as a result slides a little back on the floor, then the second catches the ball and as a result slides a little back, and that's how they move away from each other. The only difference is that from a classical point of view every change of ball will make them move away, and from a quantum point of view there are also "ball changes" that make them come closer. Gravitational interaction is the kind that brings us closer together.
Hello one,
I must have missed it. So as you said, what causes the Earth to continue to be used is the curvature of space. To understand the explanation, you must first understand what curvature of space is, and then try to understand why it causes attraction and why it happens.
To understand what it is, you can imagine examples in low dimensions. For example, you can take a space that is two-dimensional. A sheet of paper, for example. On it you can draw a line (which has one dimension less than the rest of space, that is, it is one-dimensional), and then I think it is quite clear what it means that the line curves. In the same way one can imagine a three-dimensional space, and inside it take bodies of a lower dimension (ie, one-dimensional lines or two-dimensional sheets) and again, the intuition is quite clear why this means that they are curved. You may have noticed that in order to imagine curvature, we are required to take the curved body and put it in a larger space (with more dimensions), therefore to imagine that the whole universe is curved you need to imagine spaces with at least 4 dimensions (4 spatial dimensions, since time is also curved - actually 5 at least). This is impossible as far as I know, so we will give up the possibility of imagining what a curved space looks like. Luckily for us, from a mathematical point of view you don't have to imagine anything and you can define. What is common to all the examples we have given is that the degree of curvature of a body determines what is the shortest line between two points, and what is the shortest distance between them. On a flat page, for example the shortest line is a straight line and its length can be calculated according to Pythagoras. But if we bend the page and make it into a sphere (roughly, we can never make a page into a sphere exactly) then the shortest lines between two points will be arcs and their length will be calculated differently. The degree of curvature of a space basically defines for us what the shortest lines look like in it and how distances are measured in it. That is, when it is said that the sun warps the space around it, it means that a ruler will behave differently close to the sun or far from the sun.
Why does it cause attraction? Bodies in principle move along the shortest lines (called geodesics). This is equivalent to Newton's first law which states that a body that is not acted upon by a force will move in a straight line. Near the sun, the geodesics take on a curved shape, curving towards the sun. Therefore, a body moving on a geodesy that approaches the sun, will be "attracted" to it.
Why does the sun curve the space around it? In classical physics it is customary to think of a physical system as something that is landed with a helicopter into space. There is the experimental system, and we put it somewhere. The space itself is not part of the system but only its framework. In modern physics, we realized (well, smart people who are not me realized) that this is not true. Space is a physical object just like an electron is a physical object. Therefore there is an interaction between the space and what is put inside it. They are not independent. Einstein determined the nature of this interaction from the very, very simple requirement, which is that no law of nature (including the one that says the relationship between space and what is inside it) will not depend on a coordinate system. This means that if I choose a certain system, and you choose another, we will get the same results. This requirement determines the general form of the interaction between the space and the material inside it and defines the so-called "Einstein equations", which say what the curvature of the space is (and what the geodesic lines look like in it) as a function of what is in it.
All this in a big way and the grammarians will forgive me for the inaccuracy in which the things were said.
hi albanzo,
Maybe you missed my message before, is it known what actually causes the earth to be attracted towards the sun? What do you mean the space "warps" and pushes it there? Is there a slightly more understandable explanation for this mysterious force that causes this?
albentezo,
As Maya mentioned, thank you very much for the answers, which I will have to read at least a few times to try to assimilate some of the deep ideas you have described here. The problem is of course with my intuition, which is deeply rooted in the Newtonian world, but that doesn't stop the curiosity from working overtime:
Is there anything to talk about from the experimental point of view? Infinite distance and the inability to communicate between the bulk and the shell does not inspire hope that it does.
Here is a slightly less problematic question. Is it possible to explain what is meant by de-sitter and anti-de-sitter space? In the wiki the explanation is accessible but unfortunately not too understandable.
Again, thank you very much for taking the time. It is completely non-trivial for me that you answer.
By the way, you can take your responses to our questions, edit them a bit and offer an article for knowledge
Maya,
Glad to hear that life with triplets is good. how fun
albanzo,
many thanks! that was great. very clear I will read it a few more times and if I think of any questions I will let you know. Definitely made a lot more order than a mess!
Interweaving of fields is more difficult to understand than interweaving between particles. In field theory we abandon the particle description, and move on to talk about a field. What is a field? You can think of it as a phone that is found in the whole space. In some places it "stimulates" and there is a particle. That is, all the electrons in the world are one big field that is defined everywhere and at all times, and according to its intensity at a certain point we know whether or not there is a particle at that point (simplified). But if I'm no longer talking about one particle, two particles, three, etc., then what does interweaving mean?
In quantum mechanics entanglement between two particles means that if I make a measurement on one, I know what happens to the other. That is, there is a correlation between them. In field theory it is exactly the same: instead of a correlation between two particles, I can ask what is the correlation between the value that the field itself receives in different places. That is, if I know what the value of the field is at one point, what does that tell me about its value at another point? This, heuristically, defines for me an entanglement of the field (for that matter, with itself. Once two electrons were entangled with each other, now the field that describes all the electrons in the universe is entangled with itself). Van Ramsdonk built a system on top of the language where the fields have no interlacing.
The connection to our world is not clear. In principle, this dictionary - Ads/CFT has been proven only in very specific cases, which do not describe our universe. But although there is no proof, this idea seems to be very strong and it can be much more general than the individual cases in which it has been proven. That is, our universe may also have a CFT that describes it on a rim. I wouldn't say that we "actually live in a three-dimensional world", but if this is true it certainly means that the system we live in - four dimensions and gravity - is fully equivalent to a system of three dimensions without gravity. At the end of the day, we see the four dimensions right in front of our eyes, so it's kind of hard to argue with that.
Regarding the number of dimensions, four, ten, eleven, it's not really related. It is possible to say a word or two about it, but it has nothing to do with the article that Shmulik brought. Hope that made some order, or at least more order than a mess.
For reasons of length - I split it into two responses.
Maya and Shmulik,
We will try to make some order. First of all, that no one would even think of apologizing. Precisely at a time when almost all the comments on the site are religion and politics, it's nice to be able to think a little about science.
Now, there is a connection between the spaces. As I said in the original response, one space (for the purpose, it will be called "the language") is the language of the other space (it will be called bulk, or in Hebrew - balek). Balak will always have more dimension than language. Simple examples - the rim can be the surface of a balloon and the bulk is the three-dimensional space enclosed within it. Or the rim could be a two-dimensional sheet of paper sitting on my desk, and the bulk would be the three-dimensional space that is its upward projection. Or the rim is a one-dimensional circle, and the bulk is the area enclosed within it, etc. The reason that in the second response I chose to humble this connection, is that in all our examples it is possible to go from language to balk and vice versa. In reality, the rim is an infinite distance away from the bulk (imagine a round balloon, whose radius is infinite. The balloon is indeed a two-dimensional rim of the volume contained within it, but if you are inside, no matter how far you go you will never reach the rim). It is indeed confusing but very important - the main implication of this is that those who live on the edge will forever remain on the edge, and those who live in Balak will forever remain there. That is, geometrically there is a connection between the two spaces, but it should be understood that their content is completely disconnected.
The AdS/CFT idea means that there is complete equivalence between physics in the bulk (which includes quantum mechanics plus gravity) and physics on the rim (which includes a certain type of quantum mechanics and no gravity at all). That is, that there is a dictionary that makes it possible to translate any problem (and any solution to any problem) from one to the other. For every question you want to ask about our world, there will be a translation to another question in a three-dimensional space that is defined by a specific type of quantum mechanics (called CFT) and has no gravity. Sometimes this can be used to take a difficult problem, translate it to another space, and discover that there the problem is actually easy. So they solve it, and translate the solution.
What Van Ramsdonk found is that the interweaving feature of fields on the rim has something to do with the structure of the bulk. Before we understand a little more deeply what it means "interweaving of fields", let's understand the claim: the degree of interweaving of the objects that live on the rim (which, as mentioned, are completely separate from the objects that live in the bulk) is translated by the dictionary into the question "Are the points in the bulk related to each other?". If you look at a system on the language where there is no interlacing rule, you find that in Balak you get a system where every two points are disconnected from each other. It's a bit confusing, but it has nothing to do with entanglement as you might think of it between two particles in the bulk (that is, in our world). It also has nothing to do with interweaving between spaces, as Shmulik suggested if I understood correctly. This is a dictionary that translates a problem in space A to a problem in space B, and a system of interweaving fields in the language space (for the sake of it, you can think of it as an interweaving of particles in the language, we'll explain a little more in a moment) translates into the spatial integrity of the Balk space.
Shmulik
I'm good, thanks. The trio is great. Sweets one by one. I apologize because I don't really invest the proper time to understand things and yet pretend to understand them.
So what you're saying is that it's exactly the opposite of the example with the ant that lives in a three-dimensional world and sees only two dimensions? So where does the time dimension come from? From another world that we have a common language with? And what do you mean the connection to our world has not been proven? Do all these mathematical structures of fields and space describe our world? Don't we see the "results" of these structures (I use the word results because I don't have another word, I understand that the mathematical structures stand on their own regardless of our world, only that I thought the motivation for building them in this way is our world) in experiments?
And finally, I must apologize again. It's really hard for a layman like me to follow the discussion, but it's very interesting to me, so I try to absorb what I can from it.
albentezo,
Forgiveness is with you. For some reason I insisted on thinking that interweaving is between two particles and this led to the thought that at the deepest level, it is a discretization (because there at the bottom, according to my understanding only and before your last answer, particles that are a discrete element are running around). The question I still want to ask is, is this the same interweaving that exists between particles? I find it hard to believe not. In particles the spin of one is opposite to the spin of the other. The spaces that are intertwined, what quality(?) do they share?
Maya,
How are you? how is the trio why are you apologizing
I re-read the article and it says that a connection to our world has not yet been demonstrated, because everything is based on assumptions that do not exist yet, but if such a connection is found, in my understanding it would say that we live in a world with three dimensions and it only seems to us that we live in a world with four dimensions. Albantezo, am I right?
albanzo,
Sorry to intrude, but I'm trying, with great difficulty, to follow your discussion with Shmulik. Most things are quite far beyond my ability to understand, but I am under the impression that if I read enough of the things I don't understand, I will understand in the end (even though I really don't try as hard as Shmulik and I don't read other sources of my iniquity either). Anyway, after this introduction it's clear that I don't really understand what's going on, but I wanted to ask about your last answer. Do these two worlds - the four-dimensional and the three-dimensional - share a common language? (Like the example you gave on the sheet of paper which is a two-dimensional projection of space) or in other words, is the three-dimensional world some kind of projection of the four-dimensional world and then the interweaving is actually the connections that exist in the three-dimensional world? Or are these two completely separate worlds?
There is always this example that is given about the ant that goes its own way and has no ability to know that it lives in a three-dimensional world because it does not see the third dimension at all and therefore it does not understand where the ascension suddenly came from. It's the same with us, this time that moves in one direction is the result of another dimension that we don't feel (is this a familiar example or did I confuse something here?) Doesn't this mean that there are actually more dimensions that we are built to see only three of them? Basically my question is, is it a world within a world or two completely or almost completely separate worlds that create some kind of connection through language? And does all this have anything to do with weaving?
Well, I apologize again for the confused response but I'm confused so the response shows me.
Shmulik,
1. It is not clear to me what the connection is to the discretization of space-time. There are certainly such teachings, but there is no reason for the connection between interweaving and the structure of space to lead to discretization. The degree of interweaving is not discrete.
2. It can still be said that mass distorts space. This has nothing to do with measurement, and there is no such thing as "interlacing events". The interlacing is the mathematical structure that ensures that certain correlations exist. It seems to me that you are missing the most important thing: the connection we are talking about between weaving and the space is between two *different* spaces. That is, there is our world, which has 4 dimensions and several forces, one of which is gravity. In addition, there is another world, with only three dimensions, in which there is no gravity. The two worlds are connected by certain formulas and certain geometric relationships. The connection in question is that interweaving in the 4D space is related to the structure of the 4D space. What you're describing is the relationship between mass in 4D space and gravity in XNUMXD space, and it doesn't change from what you know. Besides, as we said - the connection between the interweaving and the structure of the space is a consequence of the mathematical structure and is not related one way or the other to measurements or coupling to classical systems.
albentezo,
Follow-up questions are yours. What, can Rafael take over the conversation?
If the proposed explanation is correct, does this mean that space-time is discrete?
Is it still possible to say that mass distorts space or is such a description false? Can it be said that a large mass distorts space because, being a classical system, it samples the environment and thus "reveals" or creates the many interweaving events?
As usual, thanks in advance for the answers and sorry if the salad this time was particularly sour
Raphael
"Evil" people like rapists and murderers have mental problems.
You don't have free will, just like you don't have your own opinion. Interesting, isn't it?
Say,
How about moving the discussion to the original article that discusses consciousness? Want to argue about consciousness, enjoy. But why deliberately go to another article with a different topic?
one,
I don't think the cat does it out of malice. Maybe there are naturalists who can explain to you why he does it, but certainly not out of malice. And I ask that you answer the question I asked you without evasion.
Raphael,
Let me ask you a parallel question, when a cat catches a mouse and instead of killing it immediately it plays with the poor mouse, throws it from side to side, scratches it, hits it... is it doing this out of malice?
How is this different from a person who abuses a person weaker than him just for the fun and enjoyment of it?
To me as an observer from the side it looks really similar, so why assume that in one case it's malice and in the other it's just instinct?
one,
I gave a reason, but for some reason it is not acceptable to you. What can I do. I think we can make some progress if you try to answer the questions I asked you earlier:
Is a lion that has eaten a human being a killer lion?
Is a monkey that killed and ate another monkey a murderer?
Are hyenas who stole the tiger's prey thieves?
Did they commit an act of wickedness?
Regarding humans, I hope I don't have to ask you whether, in your opinion, a human who murdered another woman's children so he could mate with her committed a wicked act or not...
Raphael,
I understand that this is your opinion, but you do not provide any serious reasoning to justify this opinion. It's like seeing two leaves swaying on a tree and saying that one sways because of the wind while the other sways because it has free will and decided to sway.
Why ? Like that, without any serious reasoning.
one,
Yes, only the examples did not talk about dolls but about humans and animals.
Anyway, this is my opinion and you don't have to agree with it.
Raphael,
In short, we have here two situations that look completely identical to an outside observer, only you decide to interpret each of them differently.
If we replaced the two monkeys with dolls, and the homeless man and the lady with dolls, you would not be able to distinguish between the two cases.
In short, you interpret based on what is convenient for you and not based on what your eyes see.
one,
As I have already said, not all actions that humans do arise from free will. You have to remember that.
But precisely in the example you gave, if the homeless person is a normal person, then he is aware that it is forbidden to steal and that it is immoral to steal, but he makes a decision to steal. Therefore, in my opinion, it is a decision of free choice.
Regarding a monkey who steals from another monkey - for him it is not an immoral and forbidden act but an animal way of life in which the stronger one wins and survives, the same applies to a bear who kills the cubs of a female bear so that he can mate with her.
Raphael,
I was not familiar with this matter of chimpanzees preying on other chimpanzees, the question is how common it is because I don't remember this thing from episodes I saw on TV.
But when we leave for a moment the topic of convictions with your permission, when we talk about a hungry homeless man who steals an apple from the hand of a lady who passed by and runs away, do you think he did it out of choice and free will or out of instinct?
If he did it out of free will, how is he different from a chimpanzee who stole a fruit from the hand of another chimpanzee in the herd?
Please explain.
one,
Chimpanzees both eat other monkeys and other chimpanzees. Search for "Chimps kill and eat enemy chimps".
Now to our point, I guess you agree with me that humans have a concept of good and bad.
The question is whether a concept of good and bad should be lived. Do you know an animal that has done an act of wickedness?
Is a lion that has eaten a human being a killer lion?
Is a monkey that killed and ate another monkey a murderer?
Are hyenas who stole the tiger's prey thieves?
Did they commit an act of wickedness?
Raphael,
The chimpanzees do sometimes prey on small monkeys of a completely different kind, not other chimpanzees which they kill and do not eat.
You keep repeating that the concept of evil only exists in humans and not in animals, but you don't provide any reference for this, you don't give reasons for what makes you come to this conclusion except that this is what the rabbis probably told you.
one,
I have already explained to you what the difference is: humans have a concept of evil - animals do not have a concept of evil.
And yes, chimps do eat chimps from other groups. Search on YouTube.
Raphael,
I understand what you're thinking, but I still haven't been able to get an answer from you. What makes you assume that when a baboon stabs and kills a baboon from another gang in the park, he does so out of choice and free will, whereas when a chimpanzee kills and kills a chimpanzee from another group (and no, he doesn't eat The same) is done out of instinct.
I would love to understand how you make this distinction, i.e. based on what.
one,
I do not agree with you that monkeys commit crimes and I do not agree with you that there is a concept of evil in animals.
If a chimpanzee kills another chimpanzee and eats it it does not result from evil and it is not defined as a crime either.
If a leader monkey hits another monkey who stole a banana from him, he does so out of a purely animal instinct that wants to protect his food sources and not out of thinking that something bad and immoral is being done here. Monkeys don't have a set of rules that say stealing is bad and immoral and whoever steals then needs to be punished.
Evil only in humans. And it is found in all humans. Therefore only they have a choice - whether to submit to evil or prevail over it.
Etc. As I have already said - not all human decisions are made out of free choice, but only a minority.
Raphael,
Monkeys also commit crimes (theft, murder) Why do you think that when a person commits a crime it is due to free will, while when a monkey commits a crime it is not due to free will?
What makes you assume that there is such a separation?
Raphael,
If I remember correctly the research that Nissim talks about is a bit controversial, and in any case he was only able to predict very simple things like whether you will press the right or left button, and only a fraction of a second before making the decision.
"Soon we will no longer say that a worm has free will - because we will be able to predict its every decision. In time - we will know how to do this for more complex creatures as well as for humans."
Miracles,
I remind you that you have already mentioned a study that proves *that already* we can predict human decisions. what will be with you?
Miracles,
It sounds familiar to me, I think I heard about this study.
I also think that "free will" only expresses our lack of knowledge about a complex system. Even if there is a random component in our decision making, in my opinion it is negligible and there is nothing between it and free will. If a thief is considering stealing a woman's purse on the street and his considerations for and against are almost equal (he is currently on probation and may be sent to prison but on the other hand he also knows that the woman has a lot of money in her purse) and finally his decision whether to steal or not is made based on a negligible random electrical signal in the brain that led to a decision, so I would not define it as "free will", but as a deliberation that was decided by a coin toss.
one
Just something interesting - they did a study on serial killers in the USA and found that most of them have the same brain defect.
I agree with you that the chimpanzee and we have the same "free choice". This is true for both the dog and the famous worm. All I'm saying is that "free will" expresses ignorance of a complex system. Soon we will no longer say that a worm has free will - because we will be able to predict its every decision. In time - we will know how to do this for more complex creatures, as well as for humans.
But if …. There is an element of randomness in consciousness. And that's exactly what I'm trying to investigate (that is... this is my thesis proposal...).
Raphael
I told you okay and I won't repeat myself again.
Did you read the article? Again - if you don't read then we have nothing to talk about.
Raphael,
I also added and said that even if we have free will there is no reason to assume that it is different from the free will that exists in other developed animals.
A chimpanzee's decision to steal fruit from another member of the pack and risk the pack leader getting angry with him and attacking him is no different than a street thief's decision to steal a woman's purse and risk being caught and punished.
one,
I didn't say I didn't get an answer from anyone. I just told Nisim that I never asked for a source for the answer he never answered my question. As for the answer to you - yes, it is clear. We are robots and we don't actually have free choice, but all our decisions are predetermined and it only seems to us that we are deciding. I think I also referred to your answer earlier and said that it has very far-reaching consequences on the whole issue of personal responsibility.
"My question was where do these signals come from that influence our decision"
Raphael,
I think I gave you a pretty satisfactory answer to this question before, so I'm a bit wondering why you keep asking it and don't try to move forward.
The signals that reach us from the outside world (starting from the moment we are born) are the ones that influence our decision-making, just as pressing the buttons of a pocket calculator will determine what result it will finally display on the screen.
Does this not answer your question?
Miracles,
As usual you are not telling the truth.
A. I did not ask you for a *source* for your explanation of the signals in the brain. And you haven't even addressed my question until now. You said that there is a study that proves that before a person makes a decision, signals arise in his mind by which it is possible to know what he will decide, and only then is the decision made in his mind (not really in those words, but that was the intention) and my question was where do these signals come from that influence our decision. You said from another neuron or sensory cell. If it is from another neuron then the question repeats itself and if it is from a sensory cell then what this means is that we receive physical signals that can be sensed by our senses and they are the ones that influence our decision. To get out of this and avoid an answer, you sent me to read a book with 1700 pages.
B. I also did not ask you for a source for your answer "what is the source of the laws of nature" nor did you give any answer to this question. I asked you why you consider this to be a religious question or argument and not a legitimate question even without the religious context.
Every time I ask you a question that you don't know the answer to or that you don't feel comfortable answering - you turn me around with denials and lies and ramble non-stop just to divert the focus from the subject in question.
Raphael
You wanted a source for my explanation of the brain signal mirror - I gave it to you and you didn't read (how surprising...)
Here is a source for the answer "What is the source of the laws of nature" - http://arxiv.org/vc/physics/papers/0207/0207047v2.pdf
After you read this, we'll talk. Only after you read.
Raphael
Ok
Miracles,
In one thing I admit that you really reached the rank of an artist -
Going round and round and saying whatever comes to your mind without referring to the subject at all.
Until there was one article that was not contaminated by politics or religion…
Shmulik,
Do not know. To me this looks like a question of interpretation - I know how to describe the field, and I know what will happen when I measure it (which is indeed an interaction with a semi-classical system). When I measure, I know how to give a daily meaning to my measurement ("I found three particles"), but what is the meaning of a phenomenon that was not measured? It is not clear.
Interweaving is usually defined as a certain mathematical structure (very roughly - that different parts of the space describing the complete system cannot be described separately). In this sense, it exists even if it is not measured. On the other hand, we can say that the correlation is the correlation between any two measurements. This is how it is actually defined only when measuring. In other words, I'm not sure how to answer your question, but more importantly - I'm not sure what its meaning is for understanding the phenomena (and note that I'm not trying to tattoo your curiosity or tell you that there is no meaning. I just don't see one).
Carol's article is not relevant here, as I understand it. What happens in the phenomenon studied here is that changing the mathematical structure of the field (so that its different parts are not intertwined) results in changing the structure of space-time, specifically tearing it apart. That is, it is a mathematically well-defined question, at least within the framework of AdS/CFT and its assumptions. We don't need to concern ourselves with whether the field in its vacuum state has spontaneous particles or only when we look at it.
The meaning of the gravitons in the d-dimensional space will not change, at least not in the sense of the phenomena. They are still quanta of gravity, that is, the building blocks of geometry. What the article is about is that a field on the edge of space, which is in a state where there is no entanglement, leads to a disconnected geometry. That is, it is a specific state of the quantum system on the rim, which leads to a specific state of the system within the d-dimensional space (which can be thought of as a specific configuration of gravitons). Precisely in the second idea we talked about, there will be a change in the role of the graviton (although not exactly in its meaning), in that it will not be an elementary particle, but rather some phenomenon that occurs under certain conditions (usually it is customary to think of an approximation of low energies).
Raphael
The religious argument is the answer to this question, not the question itself. I thought you were intelligent enough to figure that out. Please accept my apologies for this mistake.
And if you can't understand the rest of my answer - again, I save with all my heart.
So instead of trying to understand - try to answer my question: do we really know the laws of nature? I mean any rule in nature that is not based on other rules. If we find any (I don't know, that's why I'm asking someone who understands the subject), then maybe there really is room for a question - why is it indeed a law.
Raphael - unlike you - I don't know all the answers. I don't even know what the right questions are. What's more - I have no reason to believe there is a God. My knowledge is based on the fact that I don't see anything in the world that requires a "creator". Not intelligence, not life, not the earth and not even the universe.
I also see many reasons to think there is no God - in the sense of the Jewish/Christian/Muslim God. For example - I see that the holy books in these three religions are full of nonsense, and also of atrocities of the same "God". I see that there is no reason to think that man is fundamentally different from other animals - the only thing that distinguishes us from other animals is the "sense of language" (one - a quote from Steven Pinker). We know with complete certainty (in the scientific and not mathematical sense) that evolution explains the diversity of species (Darwin et al). We know the origin of the Earth with a fairly high degree of certainty. We know the origin of the elements that make up the planets (with very high certainty).
Understand something important, Raphael: science knows how to explain every significant phenomenon in our world. Albanzo and his friends deal with the nuances and quirks of a world that is very far from us. Far away in time (14 billion years) and far away in size (much less than the size of a proton, for example).
You are unable to give me any reason to believe in God. On the contrary - you only make me despise the believers more and more. You don't say anything!!! You are only looking for "errors" in wordings that you do not understand at all. Yes...and you also descend into personal attacks when you can't find an "error".
Raphael - Do you have one thing to say that has meaning? I will be happy to listen.
Miracles,
Out of excitement and confusion, you don't notice that you are contradicting yourself right and left:
At the beginning you said - there is a religious argument, which says "what is the origin of the laws of nature"
Then - as you saw, this is a question for atheists
Then - I didn't ask what the source of the laws was
Although I understand that it excites you that I am even addressing you,
Still, maybe take some time and calm down and think before you answer?
Raphael
As you have seen, this is an atheist question. The essential difference is this - when I want to know how a plane flies in the sky I ask an aeronautical engineer, when I want to know why my stomach hurts I ask a doctor, and when I want to know if there are laws of nature at all, I ask a physicist.
I didn't ask what the source of the laws is because this question assumes the desired.
And unlike you, who understands much less about science than I do, I don't pretend to know the answer...
By the way - I don't call myself an atheist, just like I don't call myself a global warming denier.
Miracles,
Until Alessandro is free to answer you, I wanted to ask you as a religious person, do you think the question "what is the source of the laws of nature" is a question for religious people only or is it legitimate for atheist scientists to ask it as well?
I forgot to attach the post
http://www.preposterousuniverse.com/blog/2014/05/05/squelching-boltzmann-brains-and-maybe-eternal-inflation/
Albanzo
I think I understand what you're saying. As long as a mathematical model can describe observations then it is good. In image processing for example, you can look at it as a collection of waves and ignore the concept of space.
There is a religious argument, which says "what is the source of the laws of nature". Are there any laws of nature at all, or do we have assumptions, and laws that derive from these assumptions? It is hard for me to think of a law of nature that I know that is not based on other laws.
Miracles,
That's not what I'm saying. You can talk about the relationship between physics and mathematics and try to raise hypotheses, but the claim here does not concern it at all. It can be explained simply through an example: until recently, mountains upon mountains of articles were written about the physics of a very thought-provoking particle called a proton. They wrote equations for it, performed measurements on it, tried to characterize it and understand it. About thirty years ago, they realized (and also proved in experiments) that in fact the proton is a random phenomenon. It is not an elementary particle in nature, but a phenomenon that occurs when three quarks are at low enough energy and therefore stick together and form the structure we know as a proton. When we want to describe physics at the most general and basic level, we write equations in which no proton appears at all. These equations are still physics for all intents and purposes, but do not include protons.
Even so, it is possible to imagine a physical theory that is still physics (maintains physical principles), but time or space do not appear in it. In private cases, for example in the approximation of low energies, a mathematical structure of a matrix will naturally be created that will define time and space.
I think because we are used to thinking about physics as the movement of a body from point A to point B, so when I talk about physical theory without space it sounds like mathematics to you. But from a rigorous point of view, physics is not defined according to whether or not it has space, so it is possible to write a physical theory (which fulfills the requirements and structures known from theoretical physics) but does not include a coordinate system in the most basic way.
albentezo,
I have a follow-up question. You wrote, "If I look..."
Interweaving will be created between certain parts. Is it just a form of expression or if you don't look, there will be no interweaving?
That is, is there entanglement even if there are no classical particles and the very existence of the field means that there is entanglement between its parts?
I ask because, among other things, I came across this post by Shum Karol, where he claims that if there is no observer (and I assume that observer is in total every classical system), the field will remain free of particles.
I hope I didn't make an apricot salad with salt.
By the way, in the description of an interweaving that creates time-space, do gravitons take on a different meaning?
Albanzo
Are you saying that the laws of physics may be the result of the laws of mathematics? Is this even a reasonable question?
Shmulik,
Maybe if I answer you here it will lighten the fire in other districts. Let's start by differentiating between two statements (by the way, it is not clear which is true from a physical point of view, and if there really is a difference between them in our universe, but for the purpose of understanding the claims you need to differentiate):
1. The interweaving is necessary for the space-time structure. Today we know how to show that for every field we define (what is a field? It does not go into the exact definition, but let's remember that modern quantum mechanics does not talk about particles at all but about fields, whose particles are their quanta, or their expressions in space), there will be an interweaving between its various parts. That is, if I look at the field in domain A and its part in domain B, there will be a correlation between the two domains that results from interweaving. This is true for any state of the field, and in particular for the vacuum state. From a particle point of view, the vacuum can be thought of as the state where the field has no particle expressions (that is, the ground state or vacuum of the electron field is the state where there are no electrons anywhere). What Mark van Ramsdonk showed, and which was studied a lot more after him (and is still being studied), is the connection between the interweaving of the field on the edge of some d-dimensional sheet, and the structure of the d-dimensional space. If I could draw here it would be much simpler: imagine a sheet of paper (two-dimensional) and its charge towards the air above it, which creates a three-dimensional volume (let's say between the page and the ceiling). If you divide the page into two parts (say, by drawing a circle on the surface of the page - there will be a part inside and a part outside), this will also entail dividing the sub-dimensional space above the page into two parts. Now you can ask, what would happen if there *wasn't* an interweaving of the field that lives on the page between its two different parts. The answer is, probably more or less, that the two parts in the three-dimensional space would now behave in such a way that it is impossible to move from one to the other. They would actually detach and become two alien spaces. Now, if there was no interweaving at all between any two points in the field that lives on paper, then in fact, every two points in three-dimensional space would be disconnected from each other, and three-dimensional space would not be space at all in the sense that we understand it (although it could still be defined as a group). In this sense, the interweaving of the fields on the rim of the space is necessary for the existence of the space. Note that we have assumed here complete correctness of the AdS/CFT idea that there is a dictionary that allows us to translate between what happens in d-dimensional space and its d-1 dimensional language (and vice versa).
2. The space-time is a consequence of something else, for example an approximation of low energies. This idea is a bit simpler and also a bit more abstract (and therefore maybe actually more complicated). In modern physics we define space through some kind of metric - that is, a mathematical structure that determines the distance between any two points and thus defines geometry. But a matrix is a mathematical structure that can appear in all kinds of places and in all kinds of forms, and not necessarily in a naive way like you learn in school. For example, if I define a certain symmetry of a vector space, then the symmetries define some kind of matrix. We understand this metric as a structure of the symmetry group and it has many uses in mathematics and physics. Is it possible that our space is also nothing more than a consequence of some mathematical structure? That is, is it possible that the most general laws of physics are formulated at all in a language that has no space or time, but some process or symmetry or one or another phenomenon dynamically defines space-time? Is it possible that the existence of our space is even an approximation that happens only under certain conditions (for example, at low energies the equations maintain a certain symmetry that defines the space, but at high energies such a matrix cannot be defined)? These are basic questions regarding the role of space-time in physics. Is it fundamental, something on which everything is defined, or a consequence of more basic structures?
Now, as I said in the introduction, it is not clear that these two things are not actually the same thing. But I think that maybe a person who doesn't know the field should look at the two things separately, at least at first.
albentezo,
I heard about this idea very recently in one of Nima Arkani Hamed's lectures (an old new star?). In the lecture he said that almost all theorists think that space-time arises from more fundamental principles. Pretty amazing. The problem is that I "don't even know what to ask" and yet I wondered about the gravitons and how it communicates and also the interweaving is supposed to occur between which particles? Every time a entanglement is created in the labs, time-space is created? How is time related?
A layman, did we say?
Thanks in advance
Hi Shmulik,
Not sure if I have anything to say but I didn't want to just ignore it. If you have any questions, I think I can try to answer them because I am no stranger to the field. But just like that, it's a bit hard for me to think about what you would like to hear...
How do you know that when you "don't observe" the atoms, a tunneling effect is indeed taking place?
Why is it called "viewing"? Isn't this actually an interaction between photons and atoms? After all, photons were not created so that organisms could see with them, and there is no need to put ourselves in the center.
Am I missing something?
Here is a super interesting article describing that space-time is actually a consequence of interweaving.
http://www.nature.com/news/the-quantum-source-of-space-time-1.18797
Albantezo, in the article Maldesina and Susskind are also mentioned, among other things, for the ER=EPR idea that you told us about at the time. The article itself was published in 2010, so the topic is certainly not new to you. If you have additional insights that were not included in the article, I would love to hear them
Does this mean that self-observation 'freezes' us? Are you stopping us?
An in-depth article on the subject (16 pages)
http://vixra.org/pdf/1510.0507v1.pdf
I recommend taking out the engraving of the Leonids above the sea that was "pushed" into this article as well...
Its correct location can be found in the article about the Leonids:
https://www.hayadan.org.il/%D7%94%D7%9C%D7%99%D7%90%D7%95%D7%A0%D7%99%D7%93%D7%99%D7%9D-%D7%94%D7%A9%D7%A0%D7%94-%D7%9E%D7%98%D7%A8-%D7%9E%D7%98%D7%90%D7%95%D7%A8%D7%99%D7%9D-%D7%91%D7%99%D7%A0%D7%95%D7%A0%D7%99-%D7%94%D7%A4