International Children's Day is an opportunity to discuss the unfortunate decision of the High Court of Justice not to require ultra-Orthodox yeshiva students to take core studies. This is not paternalism. This is important for their future and ours. The articles in this section are opinion pieces.
On the occasion of International Children's Day, it is worth repeating the fact that the pool of possible candidates for higher studies in the fields of science is dwindling. The core studies that are supposed to give all children an equal basis to start life, especially in this period of loss of professions, and are not a luxury. Forcing them is not paternalism but an essential move for the future of the State of Israel
There are many who rise up, Efsio listened to them. The reason for this is that in September 2014 the Supreme Court ruled in its session as the High Court of Justice that forcing core studies on ultra-Orthodox students is a paternalistic move. In 2010, Professor Amnon Rubinstein, Professor Uriel Reichman and Major General Elazar Stern filed a petition in which they sought to establish that the law enacted in 2008 which allows ultra-Orthodox educational institutions that teach boys from the XNUMXth grade onwards in small ultra-Orthodox yeshiva (Orthodox yeshiva for high school boys, in which no studying special professions), to be exempt from the core program which obligates all Israeli students - is illegal. "This is an unusual petition, in which a third party requests that we oblige the state to behave paternalistically towards others," Grunis wrote. "Although it is possible that a demand from the state to act paternalistically towards a third party may be accepted in extreme cases, it is clear that our case is not one of them. Another unique feature of the petition is that, in fact, it is a petition that seeks to promote a broad public interest, at the cost of violating rights (which may which are constitutional) of others".
rope. The judges of the High Court could understand that a fight against the sweeping action of the ultra-orthodox politicians against the core studies, is not a political fight but a fight for the very existence of the State of Israel as a modern country in twenty-thirty years. There are plenty of studies. Here is one of them:
Prof. Dan Ben David "The Startup State and the Threat from Beit", noted in the chapter "Education and Demography" in his article included in the Taub Institute's "State of the State Report - Society, Economy and Policy 2011-2012" study that core studies become a rare commodity precisely when they are especially needed.
"Slightly more than half of the elementary school students (52 percent) attended state and state-religious schools. The average achievements of these children in mathematics, science and reading are below the average achievements in each of the 25 relevant OECD countries (Ben-David, 2111 )."
"The education provided to Arab-Israeli children - who are 28 percent of elementary school students - yields achievements that are below many third world countries."
"21 percent of the elementary school students in Israel belong to the ultra-orthodox education system. In this system, the core studies for boys do not continue past the eighth grade, and what is learned until then is minimal at best; the vast majority of boys do not learn science or English, and mathematics is taught at a level that does not come close to that that children of similar ages study in other Western countries. The situation for some girls is better to some extent, but it is far from reflecting the picture for all of them."
"In light of the fact that already today about half of the children are Arab or ultra-Orthodox, and in light of their very low achievements in the core areas - which reach the level of the third world or below - the current demographic changes reflect a socio-economic development that will not be sustainable when these children grow up" writes Ben- uncle.
Nobel laureate Dan Shechtman also addressed the issue many times, including during his run for president. At the "Pedagogy in the Age of Education" conference, shortly after it was announced that he had won the Nobel Prize, which shows the importance he attaches to the issue of education. "There are many holes in the education system. He compared the system to the fiscal phenomenon of percolation where, even though iron has holes, it conducts electricity until the moment when it stops conducting electricity. Likewise in the education system, one day everything will stop "There are big holes in the education system, not small ones. Half of the students in the State of Israel do not study core subjects such as mathematics, physics, biology, chemistry and English. This is a huge hole and a problem that the Israeli government must recognize. This injustice must be righted. Just as a parent who does not send his children to school must sit in prison."
Winner of the Israel Prize in the field of chemistry and physics research for 2014 - Prof. Mordechai Segev He said with his election in an interview with the science website Because he seeks to advance two goals for Israeli science, "First, we must strengthen science in Israel and bring back to Israel as many of the young scientists who are abroad as possible. The second goal he wants to promote is increasing the pool from which those who excel in science and technology will come - the ultra-Orthodox sector: "Reiterating the words of Nobel laureate Prof. Dan Shechtman, who called not to give up on the ultra-Orthodox and to introduce core studies in the law - mathematics and science, and any school that does not respect this should not Not only to stop the funding but also to prosecute its managers, it is not possible for a single child to grow up in Israel who does not know mathematics."
In my opinion, those who resort to paternalism are the ultra-orthodox businessmen who prevent the children from integrating into the world and continue more and more generations of dependence on state funds. The situation is even worse when you take into account the report of the National Economic Council according to which About a third of the professions will disappear in the next twenty years. Computer systems will be able to do every process that clerks and even managers do - such as bookkeepers and accountants, advertising people, procurement clerks, customer service receipt and accounts and most importantly - millions of professional drivers may lose their livelihood with the development of the driverless car. In this cruel world there is no place for those ignorant of practical matters. It's not for us, it's for them. Deliberately keeping any people ignorant is an unforgivable sin, perhaps even a religious sin.
1,135 תגובות
No one is telling you not to study Torah. The core studies are a means of integration into society and the economy for the benefit of the ultra-Orthodox themselves. The incitement against core studies and certainly the mobilization of anti-Semitism is a huge self-goal.
To publish the comment you will need a lot of courage which I don't think you have
Maybe you will decide to publish because no one will read... well, well
At least you see her
Come and learn a little something, like you, there were enemies of the people of Israel throughout the years, the Romans also decreed no study, even Stalin and even Hitler did not like Jews and said they were not productive
So everyone left and here we are, we will continue to study another Gemara and another one and another one and another one and finally another one and then another one and then another one and another one well you understand... (I hope)
Now go drink a glass of water
Miracles
I'm running to poker now, but I don't have a better explanation than what you'll find on the wiki. The explanation does not satisfy me, and I have also raised the question several times here and on other blogs.
Here is a variation that is relevant to our purposes:
An electrically charged body in acceleration emits electromagnetic radiation, right?
So what happens to a charged body in free fall?
According to Newton, it is accelerating. According to Einstein, no, actually a body at rest on the table is accelerating.
But what about radiation? You can measure it and determine who is right, right?
Another interesting experiment worth doing.
When I return, I will try to give a more detailed answer to your previous question.
Israel
And how does a photon hitting a magnet cause attraction?
Israel
photons? What is their frequency? And if I have two loaded bullets? Is it photons here too?
Miracles
Of course, an electromagnetic force that passes between the magnets by means of photons.
You have 100 pairs of gloves that have been separated and one glove from each pair has been sent to the moon.
Is there a correlation between the gloves? Yes.
Is there a physical or non-physical connection between them? No.
You have 100 pairs of entangled photons.
Are there correlations between them? Yes. Is there a physical relationship? I say yes. It is the connection that transfers the polarization information between them.
Israel
You use the term "physical contact" as if this term has a known meaning. I have two magnets and I feel a pull when I bring them together. Is there a physical relationship between them?
Miracles
"Correlations" can mean a statistical relationship, not a physical one.
If I understood the claims here, there is no physical connection between the intertwined particles. I claim there is.
"A virtual photon can move at any speed, then of course it has mass" I believe you meant momentum, but it seems to me that we agree that something physical - in this case a photon with momentum - can move at all speeds and certainly faster than light.
Summer trials, starting at:
https://www.hayadan.org.il/take-a-photo-of-schrodingers-cat-0108149/comment-page-6/#comment-559154
Working.
Israel
I think everyone agrees there is something. Only death and their name is certain...
I won't use the word "physical" because I don't know how to define it. There is a connection, but I cannot see anything passing between the particles, but only feel the results.
I have no way of seeing the vegetable particles. I (not me personally...) know how to make calculations and predict the results of experiments with their help. To me, it is similar to the core of the earth, or the big bang...
And yes, as far as I understand a virtual photon can move at any speed, then of course it has mass. I don't understand it beyond that.
I don't know what experiment you did with a laser in the summer.
Miracles
Everyone agrees that there is something that connects the particles? Are you sure everyone agrees?
And this relationship is physical in your opinion? Can a relationship be non-physical?
What about the virtual particles that move at all speeds? Are they physical or not?
Because if they are not physical, then what does it mean that a quantum particle - a physical object - does not have a defined position before the collapse of the wave function? If I turned on a flashlight at instant 0 and after a second the photon could be a light year away from me (since it has no definite location and can be at any point in space) - doesn't this mean that it moves faster than light?
Do you now understand the laser beam cutting experiment I conducted in the summer?
Do you understand the question about the position of the photon and uncertainty principle?
Israel
I don't understand what the argument is about. Everyone agrees that there is something that connects the particles. You call it "unknown information". I call it "situation".
What next?
controller
Why do I know?
But it's always good to ask, maybe I missed something.
Actually the references I received were good, only in my opinion they show what I claim, namely that information passes between the particles, but information cannot be sent through interweaving, see the example of the spinnerets with the internal radio.
On the other hand, a sentence like "You argue about facts because the fact is that information does not pass and you claim that it does" sounds a bit like "You argue about facts because the fact is that everything is in his mouth and you claim that it is not", which shows that it really is probably time to rest.
Israel
At least consider resting a little... otherwise you become like Ella Chico and Diko.. Oh sorry, Nissim and Shmulik - who chatter themselves to know.
It seems to me that you understood from the beginning that you won't get an answer from them (because they simply don't know). So it's a shame to turn the scientific discussion into kishkoshiada
Shmulik
You are wrong on one point - these are not "elected" and these are not "voting"... reminding you that "Voter's Day" is not related to elections....
Israel,
In my opinion, in the religious community, the leadership is more radical than its constituents. No proof, just my opinion.
Shmulik
The leadership is no different from the people, both among the secular and among the ultra-orthodox.
Ask Nissim if you don't believe..
Israel,
In my opinion, the majority of the ultra-Orthodox public would not be opposed to core studies, but rather they are gripped by their leadership, which is afraid of losing control, and our leadership is lax, wretched, and greedy for power, and therefore allows this situation to continue.
Shmulik
I already wrote that the argument is not with me.
Now go convince half the people that they are arguing with facts.
Israel,
I do not understand.
Anyway, do you agree that what I wrote about fact was written in the context of core studies? Isn't it a fact that today, in order to sustain the economy, industry and the military, core studies are required?
Shmulik
It seems to me that a sentence like "You argue about facts because the fact is that information does not pass and you claim that it does" illustrates everything I am saying.
Those who got it, got it.
Israel,
I have not written anywhere that there is an answer to the question raised in 1935, but since 1935 many things have been discovered that made the question an incorrect question. Albentazo wrote to you again that there is an explicit proof that information does not travel and I also wrote that an infinite speed theory of information (and then you turned it into something that is not information but physical that passes) is equivalent to my leprechauns theory. I correct, my leprechauns is a better theory because it explains how Your something knows how to get to the right place. Infinite speed alone fails to explain it.
What's the deal with taking quotes from me and twisting their meaning? I'm not arguing about facts, but at most about an interpretation of the results (you're arguing about facts because the fact is that information doesn't pass and you claim that it does and something that isn't information but physical that passes is also undefined information) and in any case this sentence was written about what should be learned in schools in order to To produce economy, industry and army. Do you dispute this fact? I would very much like to hear an explicit answer to this question and not in the form of a follow-up question. ISIS is not fully based on the seventh century. Its financing is based on the production and sale of oil. The production of oil requires extensive technological knowledge and in fact this entire complicated mechanism (from the production of oil to its sale and transportation) needs technological people (ISIS also kidnaps, extorts and what No, but oil is the main source of financing). Still want to argue about core studies?
Who decides? who is in power What should be learned? Which will allow us to survive and exist well in a competitive world. What is the minimum required? Core studies.
Do you have definitions, would you like to see "known information", "statistical" information that goes back in time, good for you?
OK, watchers, I get what you're saying. I hope you received it too 🙂
Israel Shapira
How should I address you Dr. Israel Shapira or Professor Emeritus Israel Shapira. I assume that you also received a title of nobility on behalf of the Queen and now your name will be Sir Israel Shapira. And all this for your tremendous contribution to the philosophy of science.
Israel Shapira,
If you are not sure, contact academics whose field of work it is. They will surely refer you to journals such as Science or
Scientific American you will find many articles with plenty of sources. If you don't want to do that, that says something about you. By the way, what experiments are you doing? Science experiments require a lot of money that only institutions can afford. Maybe you will contact them to finance your experiments. Home experiments do not sound serious. And maybe you're actually a retiree who wants to fill his time and pretends to be science. If this is indeed the case, you are nothing more than a tireless chatterbox.
his scouts
If this conversation is too troublesome for you, why don't you move on to other articles where your presence is urgently required? Or maybe you have no pretensions to understand in other subjects either, but you know that those who comment on them are only fooling themselves to know?
Thanks for the book offer. I have no intention of writing about something I'm not sure about, so I ask questions, exchange opinions and conduct experiments.
Israel Shapira
I have a question to you. Why don't you put your thoughts and musings in an orderly manner in writing, publish it in the form of a book and submit the writing to the academy's review? Here it will be possible to see what you are worth. It is possible that they will find in your writings things of interest and maybe there is a breakthrough discovery in them or maybe all things are nothing more than complete vanity. Listen to me, take it as a challenge.
Israel Shapira
I have no pretensions to know the subject, but I have the impression that the whole endless chain of talkbacks is a movement in loops that never end. The entire discussion could have been shortened, as honorable as it is to have a much shorter discussion. 20 or 30 talkbacks at the most and that's it. You just recycle your stuff endlessly. All this rabbi talk is rather troublesome. When will you start being businesslike?
Dear viewer
I suppose you can explain to us barbarians how entangled particles are always in the same quantum state without information passing between them?
The world holds its breath.
If it was possible to make money from all the barbarism here, you would all be billionaires today like Bill Gates.
Albanzo
Is my understanding correct?
Albanzo
"Because for the first time you show a willingness to learn (whether genuine or feigned)"
I guess you have proof of that too?
Miracles
But isn't that what David Israel claims all the time about the photon?
Howl, Monday, Woman, Breakfast, or Nabot in the head. Bye.
Israel
Also higher than d, and e and even f…. Any speed is any speed... but again, this is what I understood.
Israel,
I'm pretty sure I've already told you about ten or thirty times that I'm not your private tutor, right? And I will not expand on the absurdity of asking me to establish a mathematical theory for you in a response on the science website. But since you are for the first time showing a willingness to learn (whether genuine or feigned), I will still help you:
http://lmgtfy.com/?q=books+about+quantum+information
Albanzo
You say "there is an unequivocal mathematical definition for information".
Can you bring a link to the definition or define it yourself?
Miracles
"If I understand correctly - a virtual particle moves at any speed"
Also higher than C?
Israel,
1. Instead of reading a line or two on Wikipedia, maybe for once you will really try to study the subject? The very fact that I referred you to the trial a quarter of an hour ago and you already have a solid opinion about it shows exactly the depth of your investigation. In short, the law does not require people to sit at both ends and try to communicate with each other. He talks about what effect the Hermitian collapse of one part of an interlaced pair has on the other part (with the possibility of performing any arbitrary unitary transformation on each of the pairs). Since in quantum mechanics all predications are Hermitian (that is, this is the only physical part of the theory), this actually teaches about the general effect in space-time that exists between the two particles within the framework of quantum mechanics.
2. You did say in the past that information is transmitted, but it is impossible to transmit known information. On those occasions it was made clear to you (at least by me personally, and I think by others as well) that "known information" and "unknown information" are things you made up. Within the field of mathematics that deals with information, there is an unequivocal mathematical definition of information (which I have urged you to learn several times and you always ignore) and the above proof shows on a mathematical level that there is no transfer of information. The distinction between known and unknown information is just something you invented so that you can continue to tell yourself that it passes information so that you don't have to deal with the fact that your intuition is simply wrong, and that certain correlations cannot be explained with information exchange (as your terms explain classical correlations). are not well defined mathematically, and they have no use in mathematics or physics. You want to claim that information of the "unknown" type passes through, you are welcome to claim that the particles also pass through chigchkook She's 2 but only on the condition that they're not crazy ok?
Israel
If I understand correctly - a virtual particle moves at any speed. But, it does not transmit information. You insist on a definition of information that is not appropriate. Something passes between the particles (so I understand), but it is not information.
Just stop calling it information…
Albanzo
I giggled. I got:
In physics, the no-communication theorem is a no-go theorem from quantum information theory which states that, during measurement of an entangled quantum state, it is not possible for one observer, by making a measurement of a subsystem of the total state, to communicate information to another observer
But on this I agree as I have already written dozens of times. for example:
"Caveat: the fact that information passes between the interlaced particles does not mean that known information can be sent through them. If we measure the polarization of the electron or the spin of the photon, we find in retrospect that they are always in the same state or always the opposite, but we cannot send the results of a football game through interlacing."
Israel,
You can find on your own. There is a series of theorems called no-communication theorems.
Albanzo
Can you link to the proof?
Miracles
And how will you deny them the right to vote?
controller
Indeed, in aggregate.
The fact that information does not pass between entangled particles is not knowledge. There is a mathematical proof. You can find fault with it, and you can reject the axioms on which mathematics is based. As long as you haven't done either of these two, you can't say it's just an opinion.
Listen Israel, their voice and that of the right is worth a little more.. 🙂
Israel
Everyone has the same rights and duties. Those who do not fulfill their obligations - their rights are violated. In this case, the right is to vote - not to do whatever you want.
But their voice is just as valuable as anyone else's, isn't it?
Israel
Yes, religious people have a tendency to deny facts. And it's clear why.
Miracles
You have no argument with me. Have you tried asking the religious the same questions? Watch the debate.
Israel
I hope there is no debate that science has tripled life expectancy. Regarding the responsibility of religion for preventing the development of medicine - this can be discussed, and there are many opinions. But there is no arguing that many religions, including Judaism, opposed, and still oppose today, autopsy after death. And you can add brokenness is not conducive to health.
Miracles
"I don't think there is any dispute about that"
Doesn't it depend a bit on who you ask?
Israel
I don't think there is any dispute about that. Do you agree with me that science, after religion stopped interfering with it, tripled life expectancy?
Miracles
That's your opinion. Even if information does not pass between particles that are always in the same state, this is an opinion.
Israel
I can add that they live a lie and those seek the truth.
Israel
The small difference is that some brought mostly suffering to themselves and the world while some tripled life expectancy.
If they say that ignorance is a curse like no other
While education is light for the soul.
is man on earth
Will he live mindlessly like a beast?
And these claim that science is vanity
He brings only calamity and suffering to a person.
And because of that it goes away
A man of the moral path.
In short, fluff, confusion,
Opinions were constantly divided
paper wires became a flood,
And the answer is still - a draw!
Israel
If this is the case - Memorial Day for Israel's Martyrs is the opposite of Memorial Day for the State of Israel. And the next day - Independence Day of the ultra-orthodox republic. I would prefer then to live in Iran, they at least have an army....
Miracles
I argue that everyone should know what their true power is, especially if you intend to break the law.
Israel
Are you claiming that a citizen cannot be forced to obey the laws of the state? Is this also true for secularists who are brainwashed by the freebies? Am I allowed to break the rules too? 🙂
Dear Mr. Shmulik, because the particles move in other dimensions and also or mainly backwards and forwards in time many times, when you measure them they stabilize in your dimension. Therefore there is what you call the measurement problem. The same with the two cracks experiment, because they are in another time dimension, they pass through both cracks together and connect to reality from both directions. The same with the spins of photons, because they move backwards and forwards in time many times, they have several spins that connect together on your test, and you can already understand "by yourself" that information also passes backwards in time. respectfully
Shmulik
Do you believe that you have shown the fundamental change that explains the question raised in the EPR article, namely how does particle A "know" the quantum state of B without immediate information transfer between them? break up
Try to write the answer for yourself, maybe you will be convinced. I do not.
"What is interesting? The question is what is worth studying." Who cares?
"These are facts that I hope do not need to be debated" oh my. We have been arguing here for a month about a physical question without reaching an agreement, so how will you agree on what needs to be studied?
"What does it matter if one side thinks you shouldn't study math?" It matters to that one party.
"The facts show that the side I'm on is the only one capable of responding to all the threats and challenges facing us and there is no real symmetry between the two sides." I believe that too. so what? 30 km north of you, a state is emerging that is based on the seventh century, and it is sweeping and conquering everything that stands in its way.
"The reason the ultra-Orthodox are afraid that their students will learn science, evolution, math and English is that if they learn that too, a lot of them will repent" you meant the question. You could just as well write: the reason the seculars are afraid that their students will consume heroin, cocaine, and L.S.D. Is that if they take that too, lots of them will become drug addicts.
"Unfortunately, they lose the argument and win in reality." Each of us can say the same about the debate that was here about weaving. So you want to reach an agreement on education?
Israel,
We have indeed reached the limit, as I have already written several times. I don't agree that I didn't answer you about the question of what has changed since 1935, but you are right to think that nothing has changed. In my opinion, the solution you propose is no different from saying that the fericons are responsible for properly handling the spin of the photons and I think that solving the measurement problem will provide an answer to both the two slits experiment and the entanglement. Two for the price of one.
Regarding the education system, I have already written and will write again. Regarding the uninteresting question of who determines, the political system and the professional systems in the Ministry of Education determine this. Because of this, if there is an overwhelming majority for the religious public, they will be able, in the end, to dictate whatever they want. It is not interesting because it is self-evident.
What is interesting? The question is what should be studied. Since we live in a competitive and hostile world, the facts are that we must learn math, English, language and science in order to be able to produce industry and economy and military. These are facts that I hope do not need to be debated and since that is the case, what does it matter if one side thinks that one should not learn math? The facts show that the side I am on is the only one capable of responding to all the threats and challenges that lie ahead of us and there is no real symmetry between the two sides. It should be noted that what Nissim wrote to you is also completely true: there is no prohibition against studying math and Torah or any other Madhav and fantasy (I can recommend a few). The reason the ultra-Orthodox are afraid that their students will learn science, evolution, math and English is that if they learn that too, Many of them will repent, therefore the insistence of the ultra-orthodox side is only due to egoistic motives since their goal is to preserve their power and when they have a side interest in this debate, This automatically makes them on the losing side, unfortunately, they lose the argument and win in reality.
Miracles
To impose a law of compulsory education and core studies on the doss is like imposing the law that prohibits smoking napas in Tel Aviv. Hopeless.
Israel
You asked a question. I answered. And that's not good either...
Israel
I can't understand what you want. Are you against democracy? The state is not allowed to enact laws? Are there people who are above the law?
What are you trying to say?
Miracles
You are missing the point. This is not about you, morals or education.
Whose voice is worth more, Bibi or homeless? Professor or mentally challenged? Head of a department at Hadassah or a spiritual cup holder at Or Akiva?
After you answer, do the math yourself.
Israel
I would try to obey every law of the country where I live. If there was a law that I could not abide by - then I would leave the country, or sit proudly in prison.
Unlike the ultra-orthodox who dodge military jobs (and only those) - I have morals.
Israel
What is the connection between Gemara studies and core studies? Is someone preventing someone from studying Gemara?
Whoever claims that core studies are at the expense of Torah studies of various kinds is a miserable liar, just like those who think that military service is at the expense of Torah studies.
The Ministry of Education will determine..
The Inquisition forbade Torah studies, the choice was between the torture wheel and the chamber. Torah studies stopped? Hundreds of thousands of Jews chose to die for the sanctification of Hashem, Hanukkah that we celebrated not long ago because of the rebellion in the Hellenistic culture (which defeated Judaism) they were unable to get Torah believers to stop studying Torah and obey the authority and learn what it claims is its core - so the Ministry of Education of the Jewish State returned electoral power to Torah scholars Strong will be able to force them?
...
To understand why the battle is lost in advance, try to think what would happen if the situation were reversed, and the studies of English mathematics and science would become secondary to the compulsory studies of the Torah. Which of the respondents here would obey the order requiring their children to study mainly Torah and Gemara, and only in the little free time left to study science?
Israel
The Ministry of Education will determine. Just as the Ministry of Health determines which vaccinations are needed, the Ministry of Transportation determines what safety standards are required for every vehicle and the Ministry of Environment determines standards for gas emissions, removal of chemicals, etc.
Otherwise - who needs a government?
Miracles
Pretty simple. There is no debate about core studies - Mishnayat, Gemara and Poskim.
Who will determine what the core studies are?
Israel
I don't understand how you link the academic discussion between us here, and the need for core studies.
Shmulik
I think the discussion has exhausted itself. Each brought their best arguments and the other side continues to hold their views.
Reminds you of something? This was my argument at the beginning of the discussion, when we were still talking about the topic of the article, namely education for ignorance. What is education for one is ignorance for the other, and in a democratic system the direction the state is heading is the balanced power of all the forces acting on the system, i.e. those with the right to vote.
That is why the talk about core studies that the state must force on all its students is to a large extent the stuff of Alma, for the same reason that if the religious voice were strong enough or united enough to determine that the laws of the "Jewish Sharia" as you say are the ones that will become the core, you will find all the reasons and ways to A state law reached through parliamentary means will not apply to your children.
A pleasant core.
Israel,
I told several times what has changed since EPR, but if I couldn't convince, then no. In my opinion, not that it matters much, the solution lies in the solution of the well-known measurement problem, which will also explain the two-slot experiment and not in a solution of the infinite speed of information type beyond the fact that it only creates more problems than it solves (what is passing, how do we know how to get to the right place, why we nothing is measured...) it is hidden by everything I've read (and doesn't give balm to the two slots, but it's really not a factor)
Shmulik
The reason I think you are unable to defend the arguments is simple: there is nothing to defend. It is not possible for two particles in separate places to always be in the same quantum state without the transfer of information between them.
I was expecting some explanation as to why it has changed since EPR and I didn't get one. It is also likely that if there had been any substantial change it would have appeared in the literature in Rish Gali. The explanation that "most experts do not treat two photons as separate but as one quantum system and the very division into two particles produces a conceptual error" is correct mathematically, but not understandable (to me) physically.
"From everything I've read, it appears that the formalism completely rules out the transition of information, such that the theory of relativity defines as information." It seems to me that you are mixing up the possibility of sending information through interlacing, which is impossible, and the fact that information passes. If I'm wrong, point to the specific link that excludes the transfer of information between the particles. I didn't see anything new in the new links you brought.
Why don't you start pondering the possibility that there might be another explanation for the mystery of entanglement, and that is that information does pass between the entwined particles at infinite speed? This is undoubtedly a difficult option to digest. Nick Herbert (from the link from my name) says at the beginning of the article that it sounded so fantastic to him when he first heard about it, that he vowed to disprove the possibility. Instead he brought the relatively simple demonstration that this is exactly what is happening, according to the article.
Even when Maxwell came up with the idea of electromagnetic waves it seemed too fanciful to many scientists. I remember reading that Hermann Helmholtz, one of the top scientists in Germany, prepared a lecture that he was going to give at the University of Berlin to all the top scientists in Germany, in which he sought to refute the imaginary theory. When he heard that his outstanding student Heinrich Hertz was able to transmit a signal through an experiment based on that controversial theory, he quickly changed the topic of the lecture and opened it with the sentence: Gentlemen, I want to inform you of the most important discovery of the 19th century.
Israel,
This is a summary of what I understood. I am not able to defend the arguments and the links that support what I am saying, I have already brought several times:
1. No one has a satisfactory Newtonian explanation and therefore the subject continues to be investigated. This is conceivable because the subject is not Newtonian
2. The formalism that EPR used is not used today, so their question sounds logical but it is not really so, just like in the example I gave regarding what preceded the big bang.
3. An example of what I mean in section 3 is that most experts do not treat two photons as separate but as one quantum system and the very division into two particles produces a conceptual error.
4. While apparently what exactly is happening there is not clear (at least not to me) from everything I have read it appears that the formalism completely excludes the transfer of information, such that the theory of relativity defines as information.
5. Insisting on this question is fine, but in my opinion the two slots experiment is equally embarrassing and one of the explanations for the two slots is multiple worlds and this is also one of the explanations I saw for the interweaving (at the end of the link). That's probably as far as I'll go.
The following links came from quora and are part of the lecture given on the subject. I am reading them now and hope you will do the same. I'm sure you will understand more than I do a large part of the arguments that come up there
http://lesswrong.com/lw/pz/decoherence_as_projection/
http://lesswrong.com/lw/q0/entangled_photons/
http://lesswrong.com/lw/q1/bells_theorem_no_epr_reality/
http://lesswrong.com/lw/q2/spooky_action_at_a_distance_the_nocommunication/
http://lesswrong.com/lw/q3/decoherence_is_simple/
http://lesswrong.com/lw/q4/decoherence_is_falsifiable_and_testable/
...
Listen, I find it much more constructive to read the articles than to argue here. All in all, all I can do is bring links.
Honorable Mr. Kabod Israel, a mistake on your part, information can be sent both backwards and to the source of parallel universes and certainly received, your mistake stems from your individual feeling that time only moves forward, and I have already done experiments even before I had feelings of this and that, and in practice people who have died live with it To the next world or this depends on your point of reference. Sincerely
Miracles
we are not.
You say that in interlacing no information passes between the interlaced particles, I say yes.
What we do agree on is that information cannot be sent through interweaving, and that non-locality does not contradict relativity.
howled experiments.
Israel
We say the same thing. So I don't understand what your point is?
Miracles
It is not possible to transfer information through interlacing. You will always find the particle in a certain quantum state, but you will not be able to receive information from it or countless particles. This does not mean that information does not pass between the interwoven particles. That's why I distinguished between known information, the results of a football game, and unknown information, the quantum state of a particle.
Relativity forbids sending known information because then it would be possible to influence the past. Elk coziness. However, this does not happen in interweaving and therefore interweaving does not contradict relativity.
See also:
https://www.hayadan.org.il/free-speach-20100800/comment-page-36/#comment-356737
So....what will happen?
Israel
I think it's impossible to transfer take information.
Miracles
Stop, Illustrating.
How can information be transmitted through interlacing?
Israel
The example illustrates what I said...
I don't understand what you are trying to say. Interleaving does not convey information.
Miracles
The example does not illustrate anything.
And how is it possible to get information quickly from light through interlacing? How can you even get information at any speed, even queue speed, using interleaving?
Israel
The example illustrates that if you could receive information at a speed higher than the speed of light then you reach a contradiction. Emphasis on the word *if*.
Shmulik
Obviously my question is incorrect. The right question is what is the answer to the question.
How does a particle on Mars choose the quantum state of its brother interwoven in Israel if there are no hidden variables and no information passes between them?
Miracles
Who said the light from the threatening meteor moves faster than light? Who even said anything about a meteor? How does this relate to weaving?
No threats please.
Israel
A particle doesn't know anything... he's a complete loser. There is a correlation between 2 particles, it is not information.
Think of two meteors that entered the atmosphere at high speed. One coming straight at you and one perpendicular. You look at both of them, they collide in a big explosion, and that's how you survive. Imagine that the light from the threatening meteor would have traveled faster, due to the addition of velocities. So, at the moment of the explosion, you would see the same meteor at a greater distance. That is, from your point of view there should be no conflict at all...
Israel,
I don't agree. I wrote that your question is incorrect just as the question of what was before the bang is incorrect. I suggest you try rolling on my question on quora.
Miracles
And if you don't call it information, then does that mean that particle A does not know what the state of B is at time 0?
And what logical contradiction does this create?
The calculation will not help because because of the reading from many satellites you sometimes also get a negative reading.
Israel
I gave you the answer - don't call "what is said between them" information. I also explained why - because it creates a logical contradiction.
Israel
Nice, you will get a refutation of Rafi Moore's idea. I want to make a simple calculation - how much error can be created as a result of the rotational acceleration. Let's hope today.
Shmulik
I did not understand from what you said how a particle on Mars chooses the quantum state of its brother interwoven in the earth if there are no hidden variables and information does not pass between them.
"how can the second particle "know"
one particle is communicating with the other instantaneously across space, ie, faster than light
Please explain, not terms.
Israel,
But I did bring. From what I understand, nobody talks about photons the way Einstein talked about them, today. This is because today photons are not considered to be very, very small spheres, but are described as follows (from an answer that Albentezo wrote to me to another question): "...just as in field theory (the modern version of quantum mechanics) electrons, gluons, photons, quarks, etc. In the whole space and at the peaks where we read particles...'. I think you don't think that the difference in this description changes anything but it embodies 80 years of research that brought the experts to understand the subject better and ask new questions. It's like the question, what was before the big bang? Apparently this is a good question and the Hebrew accepts it well, but if the theory of general relativity is correct, and time is a property that was created when space and masses were created, then this question has no meaning if time did not exist before. It's like asking what a triangle is thinking about. A meaningless question. From everything I've read, this is the best answer I know of to your question and I've quoted quotes from Quora that say the exact same thing. I challenged you to try to dress up my question and make it difficult there because there you have a much better chance of getting to the bottom of the issue. Do you want me to paste the link again?
Miracles
What, Raphael also tried to ask questions in the science? Understand him then..
The GPS receives the satellite signal with an arrival time signature according to the satellite clock. If you remember Rafi's explanation, the extra height he showed is a relativistic result of time dilation due to rotational acceleration.
This is a good and probably correct explanation. If you remember, when I planned the experiment a few months ago, I took into account observed height differences of a few centimeters, I was very happy to get 1000 meters. Learning while experimenting.
https://www.hayadan.org.il/take-a-photo-of-schrodingers-cat-0108149/comment-page-14/#comment-561312
Now, what will happen if we find that the height decrease or increase is observed even when only the antenna rotates without the GPS itself?
This is the next experiment.
Something about the logical "problem" of time reversals, when parallel dimensions and worlds are added, the grandfather or father paradox, can be solved, even if they are attributed a power that affects the dimensions and also if they are separated into parallel universes that are another dimension. Respectfully blowing water
Israel
You are starting to sound like my friend, Raphael, only raising difficulties and not speaking his mind...
The GPS satellites send a sequence of signals, take it that I don't understand what the arrival time of the signal is. The receiver performs complex processing, hardware and software, before it outputs information. Some of the information received includes the time and the location of the satellite at that time, but you will not be able to tell, in my opinion, when the signal was received.
Miracles
This particular GPS comes with a smaller connector than usual. I found a converter, but there is still no reception inside the safe. I called the company but they still haven't found a solution. It would be best if I could get the raw arrival time of the signals from each satellite and display it individually on a screen, but that is still a vision for the future. The satellite radio receivers I ordered from China should arrive every day and we hope they will be useful for experiments.
I don't think there is any point in detailing what the alternative solution to Postulate 2 is in the sympathetic and cheering atmosphere here, look how much we got into trouble with a relatively simple thing like non-locality. I will always be happy for technical advice from you and everyone, and if the experiments are unequivocally successful and are tested and approved by qualified physicists, they will be in the public domain. For now they are just an entertaining game.
will dawn
We worked with spectracom, they have a representative in Israel. I suppose you can buy online, but note that the standard connector is like a TV - quite a large connector.
Why do you offer a new passage for the second postulate, and not accept the new passage (so-called) for information?
What's your new favorite?
Miracles
Does not worry about anything, Mebsut Khalas. But as you can see, there is no simple solution along the lines of "definition of information" and the matter is closed. In my opinion, there is another possibility for the interpretation of Postulate 2, from which the laser and GPS experiments are derived.
The device is:
http://www.amazon.com/gp/product/B008RYZU38/ref=oh_aui_detailpage_o08_s00?ie=UTF8&psc=1
It comes with a small external antenna that connects to it with a smaller bnc connection than usual. I found an adapter and I have a germin antenna with a 3 meter cable, but I can't get satellite reception when the GPS is in the safe.
I asked about a line amplifier for the antenna, there was none. Do you know where to get it?
Thanks.
my client…
Israel
He is no longer a horseman. I don't really understand why you worry about him so much.
A good GPS antenna can push a cable of 50-100 meters, depending on the receiver. Beyond that you need a line amplifier. Are you using an antenna designed for long lines? The signal is terribly weak...
Shmulik
Unfortunately, your statements did not add anything to my understanding... perhaps for the simple reason that there is nothing to understand. You have not shown anything different that has been renewed since 1935. So either you don't accept that I'm saying the same thing as the Wikipedia entry says, or nothing has changed since the article was published, or it has and you can't get the links to change (fields, correlations, remember?).
Miracles
My client claims inadequate representation.
I can't connect the damn GPS to a suitable external antenna. The signal is too weak and he cannot receive satellites when he is in the safe but the antenna is outside. Do you have any idea how to do this?
Israel
I resigned from my position as the attorney for my client Mr. Albert Einstein. I suggest to my learned friend to direct his question to his new attorney, or of course to Mr. Einstein himself.
Israel,
I tried to bring information that might promote understanding (mainly yours) and not go into the question again of what has changed since the publication of the article.
If you are asked this question again, then the answer is that no expert speaks this language anymore. No expert says that one particle interacts with the other particle. The transient language. What changed? 80 years of research.
Shmulik
I didn't understand from the quotes what the innovation was from 1935.
Miracles
If as you say "transferring information above the speed of light is not possible" why according to Wikipedia did Einstein claim in the EPR article that this is exactly what happens in entanglement according to the quantum description?
"how can the second particle "know"
one particle is communicating with the other instantaneously across space, ie, faster than light
Shmulik
In my opinion, this is exactly the point - matching is not information transfer. Transferring information above the speed of light is not possible - because this transfer can create a logical contradiction. Correlation cannot such a contradiction.
If someone thinks that there is information transfer in weaving - the problem is in understanding the concept of information.
I think it's really that simple.
3.
Read Keith Olpers' answer. If I copy it, the comment is not published
2.
It doesn't. In so many words, there is only correlation between the entangled particles, no communication. For a brief but informative and accessible overview, you might want to see Entangled Photons
http://lesswrong.com/lw/q0/entangled_photons/
This link is very detailed. suggest to review
1.
: https://www.quora.com/Upon-measuring-the-spin-of-an-entangled-photon-A-does-information-instantaneously-pass-from-photon-A-to-an-entangled-photon-B/answer/Jim-Whitescarver?__snids__=846483191&__nsrc__=2
no. Bell's famous paper that showed the correlations which entanglement product also proved they could not be used for communication since unless you compare the outcomes, which requires communication at light speed the correlations cannot even be discovered and thus can contain no information.
In an information model there is nothing spooky about it. There is simply a logical relation between A and B. Just forget about relative spacetime and think of the immutable logic of the universe to be primary, everything else is only relative. It is quantum logical action that constructs relative orientation between things one bit at a time. Our world seems to have angels of any value, but in a quantum interaction there are just two angels, this way, or that way. Because of these correlations after a gazillion events the entangled this ways and that ways paint finely defined orientation of things in space to many bits of accuracy.
The mistake is to think that some relative orientation existed before logical relations between events defined them. Then we think it A knows some a priori orientation of B. But it is the other way around, the relative orientation is determined by the correlations.
If you are still spooked out by the correlations consider that in a light speed path between A and B the distance and time are contracted to zero making A and B adjacent and the event is purely local, not spooky action at a distance, in some realizable here and now where, by perspective, this way for A must be that way for B
Israel,
Let's do something else for a moment. I'm going to paste some answers I got from Quora
https://www.quora.com/Upon-measuring-the-spin-of-an-entangled-photon-A-does-information-instantaneously-pass-from-photon-A-to-an-entangled-photon-B
I really think that if you make it difficult there, we will make more progress.
I hope my father will release the comments at the speed of weaving...
Shmulik
I thought you got what I'm saying is the same as what is said in the Wikipedia entry about EPR:
Einstein, Podolsky and Rosen asked how can the second particle "know" to have precisely defined" momentum but uncertain position? Since this implies that one particle is communicating with the other instantaneously across space, ie, faster than light, this is the "paradox
And your claim is that since then we have progressed, and now there is a good explanation that solves the question, and that it did not exist in 1935. You mentioned local correlations and field theory.
It seems to me that your new questions indicate that you didn't get what was written roughly, didn't you?
So let's mark 1935 as the fault line. If you have a question that concerns the passage of information at an infinite speed, or at least faster than light, between the interwoven particles, then you did not receive what Einstein claimed according to the article:
one particle is communicating with the other instantaneously across space, ie, faster than light
If, on the other hand, you accepted that this is the only possibility posed by quantum mechanics, at least according to Einstein, go back to 1935 and access the new explanation that has been available since then for field theory or non-local correlation for the results of an assembly experiment.
Water blowing
Schrödinger's cat has more sense than you.. In any case, the stupidity is flowing from your ears. You are full of absolute stupidity.
Look, honorable Mr. Shmulik, in the Schrödinger equation it seems to me that there is a t and it can also be negative, but what is more important is that there is an t and the possibility of immensaries tm or an additional dimension in time, what is meant - time can play many times backwards and forwards to create another dimension and transfer more information to both parallel universes and back in time With respect to water
Israel,
Write in the article, how many times the experiment was conducted 24 hours along 18 km. What did they mean when they wrote 24 hours?
I don't understand your answer about infinite speed and it's absolutely not fluff but substance. If you want to claim that *something* moves between two systems at infinite speed, be prepared to face the consequences of your words: what is the source of energy that drives the transition? How does this thing know how to get to the right place? Why don't we measure any such burst of energy? We had this kind of ping pong before and the answer I got from you is: Do you see another solution? And this is not an answer, especially when the medicine is worse than the disease.
So let's make an interim summary regarding the proposals put forward to solve the problem:
1. Infinite speed of something (which you recently agreed was not information or I was wrong that you always claimed it) - yours.
2. The system is connected from another dimension - miracles (I hope I am not interrupting his words)
3. The two photons were once together - miracles and he thinks there is no problem (I hope I am not interrupting his words)
4. No information is passed - Albantezo and the article I brought. I allow myself to put it in this section because of what is written in the article
The only section that existed that Albentezo completely contradicted was section 1. Changing to *something physical* that passes instead of a letter cannot be the solution because something physical that passes is a letter. I accept the claim that the answer in the thread I know is that you will learn (passing information, correlation, and proofs in information theory that show that there are systems with non-local correlation that do not transfer information) but what to do you need to learn at least to know what to ask. Apparently Suskind's course is not satisfactory. If you haven't heard a solution from the horse's mouth either, it probably means that no one understands this mechanism fully, but it quite works out for me with quantum mechanics. She is quite snobbish when it comes to explaining results to fit our Newtonian logic. My hypothesis is that we will have to find a deeper theory than quantum mechanics (yes, which will be non-local) that will yield a more satisfactory explanation.
I would appreciate it if you could explain the experiment and why it was important to test for 24 hours.
Regarding the blow, come on, I'll start training
Shmulik
The graph presented is of data from 4 hours, which is certainly enough to illustrate the point I made about the validity of these types of experiments. I also mentioned that I think the same problem exists in the well-known Aspa experiment.
"It is clear to me that there is still no answer that allows the mind to think about what exactly is happening there" - so why is it not clear to you why I am asking questions and making difficulties difficult? It is forbidden to ask questions on this site anymore?!
"I don't understand how infinite speed won't solve a path, if the time available to it is 0. In zero time, 0 paths move and this is another question I asked you and didn't get an answer to (and as for the questions I did get an answer to, they were mostly in the form of follow-up questions or I had to insist on them "
Let's say we are trying to find out the speed at which certain information passes.
We have two towers 300 km apart, with clocks that are synchronized between them.
The first letter takes an hour to pass. We write: The speed of the signal is 300 km/h.
For the second - a second. We write down: the speed of the signal is 300 km/s.
For the third - a thousandth of a second. We write: the speed of the signal 300,000 km/s, C.
You see that as time tends to 0, the speed tends to infinity. You can philosophize and say that in no time you didn't move at all, that's why I answered you:
"If you wish, I would be happy to explain why an aspect experiment actually leads to the transmission of information at an infinite speed, or at least as high as the experimenter requests, but let's settle for 2C. Acceptable?"
Which not only answers your infinite speed question (contrary to your claim that I didn't), also explains why it is irrelevant, since 2C is enough and you are talking about 10.
The coin example is excellent in my opinion as a step on the way to the final argument. Since she bothers you, I will try to avoid her in discussions with you.
I'm not sure which Albanzo answer you're referring to. I don't remember receiving a specific answer, but something along the lines of "go and learn". I already mentioned that I watched Stanford's online course on interweaving:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=0Eeuqh9QfNI
Which in my opinion is excellent and recommended, but it also does not answer the question of how. If I remember correctly, at one point when Susskind is asked this question, he shrugs and says it's just like that.
"Regarding Ultimate Hold'em, you need a dealer for it, right?"
Ultimate casino games against a dealer. This is a relatively new game, so in my opinion even the casino is not yet aware that it is possible to gain an advantage in it. This was the case in blackjack 50 years ago when Thorpe published the first book on card counting. The problem with blackjack today is that if you count, you do gain an advantage over the casino, but sooner or later the casino will outrun you and prevent you from playing. In Ultimate this hasn't happened yet, so this is the ideal time to hit the casinos before they change the rules.
water,
I have to study, not only physics and not only to Israel I will lose in poker, there are many who drain me. But I will also win occasionally.
Israel,
In the experiment, a graph showing 4 hours of information was shown, but they said several times that the experiment was conducted for 24 hours with a distance of 18 km, so I'm not sure how accurate your words are. Regarding what I agree or disagree with (not that it really matters) note that overall I used the terminology they developed (quantum information in a free translation) and doubted its existence.
From the fact that the issue is still being studied empirically, it is clear to me that there is not yet an answer that makes sense as to what exactly is happening there. It may be that for this he will need a deeper theory (yes, it will probably also be non-local. I hope Zibi will understand on his own what I meant). I think that moving *something* at infinite speed is not the solution, but with all due respect, my opinion does not matter at all and my logic does not serve me in this matter because my logic (the correct word is intuition) is fed by Newtonian reality and it is certainly not relevant here. In addition, I do not understand how infinite speed will not solve a path, if the time available to it is 0. In zero time, 0 paths move, and this is another question that I asked you and did not receive an answer to (and as for the questions that I did receive an answer to, they were mostly in the form of follow-up questions or I had to insist about them. I still don't understand if the next time you start the topic again you will use the coin pattern.)
Say what you will, but you made an honest effort to get us to understand the issue better and I have another question: are you still pondering Albentazo's answer?
Regarding ultimate hold'em, you need a dealer for it, right?
I don't play poker, do you know how much I lost?
water
The house is the casino.
You should visit. With the experience you've gained in turning back time, there's no doubt that jokes and flops will come to you like water.
Israel, I thought poker was your house? ? ?
Shmulik
"There is a connection in the quantum system between its components even though they are far apart in such a way that measuring the spin of one photon will allow knowing the spin state of the other photon absolutely and at a speed greater than the speed of light"
This also happens with a pair of gloves, one of which was sent to Alice. When Bob looks at his, if she is right-handed he immediately knows that Alice's is left-handed.
This is not the case with interweaving. To understand why, there is no choice but to look at the percentages of polarization mismatches in the Aspa experiment.
In my opinion assembly experiments and those after it are not perfect. In the article you brought, the experimenters were about 15 km apart and the experiment lasted about 4 hours. This leaves a sufficient time interval for the polarizers to coordinate positions, thus enabling the programming of hidden variables. Friedman from 10 years ago. Still, as Meir Amiram showed, this does not rule out the category of programming hidden variables out of scope The experiment. This is why I always say "transfer of information between the 2 sides of the experiment" and not "transfer of information between the particles".
But from the new wording, I think you accepted my compromise, didn't you?
Regarding the Quora website - at some point I will present the question there, but as you must have noticed I have presented it in quite a few places and in quite a few correspondences. As in the paradox of the paradox, the number of news as the number of respondents.
Note by the way how much your words "at a speed greater than the speed of light" directly relate to the additional question I presented about the position of the photon in the context of uncertainty. Because if a photon does not have a specific and defined location, and light consists of individual photons, then if we treat a single photon as a quanta of light, then how can we even talk about the speed of light, if the photon is scattered with a certain probability in all space (the answer we received from all the experts).
But relativity should also apply to a single photon, and it is built on the assumption that it has a precise and known position and momentum at any given moment. This does not agree with the uncertainty principle, and indeed Einstein never accepted it, according to EPR.
It is on this spreading feature of the photon that I performed the laser experiments in the summer.
"What bothered me is the fact that you insist on drawing conclusions from a classical system to a quantum system." I have always pointed out that the example of coins is an attempt to break the main argument into stages.
"In addition, you demonstrated an inability to answer questions"
I believe I answered almost every question. Please show me which question I did not answer.
I do not keep any links.
Ultimate Hold'em is the most popular game in the casino today. You can practice in:
http://wizardofodds.com/play/ultimate-texas-hold-em/
Its greatness, in my opinion, is that it is possible through cooperation between all participants to gain an advantage over the house, just as a dealer has an advantage in blackjack.
discharge
I don't know, but I have a hypothesis that is probably wrong. Its advantage is that it can be tested experimentally, and that's what I'm doing now. The results of the experiments are consistent with the hypothesis, but there are other possibilities.
Shmulik, poker is played for money, and it seems to me that in Israel you are going to lose, it could be that you are playing innocently, as in physics you still have something to learn
Israel
Do you mean that there is some factor related to the particle itself, or a physical factor (let's say a particle) a kind of mediator that acts on the particle?
Zibi, I'm a known grump, in advance, but I wrote in advance, several times so don't get excited!
This is basically my translation of nonlocal correlation.
Israel,
But I googled and brought you the first or second result. A-local correlation is my translation of non-local correlation and it means that there is a connection in the quantum system between its components even though they are far apart in such a way that measuring the spin of one photon will allow knowing the spin state of the other photon absolutely and at a speed greater than the speed of light (free text, don't get caught me here in words). I didn't get down to the depth of graph 5, but what was clear is that at the beginning of the article, they doubted that anything even passes between the photons, they demonstrated that the speed must be at least 10 times and nowhere did I see anyone assuming an infinite speed. I added and asked: if the speed is infinite, will it help us if the time given to this speed is 0?
I didn't get the answer Albantezo wrote on Quora (not that I doubt his answer) but it surprised me a bit. Maybe I didn't ask the right people (you can direct the question to specific people, but for some you have to "pay" with credits that the site gives you). One of the answers I got was that it was a mistake to treat each photon individually but that really doesn't solve the problem on my intuitive level. You are more than welcome to make it difficult for the respondents there.
As for niceness, I'll make an honest effort. What bothered me is the fact that you insist on drawing conclusions from a classical system to a quantum system. In my opinion, you have no basis to lean on, so it is dangerous to deduce something from a classical system to a quantum system? In addition, you demonstrated an inability to answer questions...it bothered me a bit.
And regarding your question about something physical passing that is not information, here I definitely think that the material and concepts must be understood and I have no idea where to start to answer that. The authors of the article called it quantum information, said it was not classical information and doubted that quantum information even existed.
As a well-known link keeper, do you have the link where the first discussion between you and Albantezo exploded?
Ultimate Hold'em…I don't know this game! I have a friend who is addicted to poker, who organizes the meetings for us. I'll check with him but it's not for a home game, is it? Do you need a dealer?
discharge
From the logical point of view, if there is an intervention of the mind, then this explains the results of the experiments without the transfer of information.
Is this a physical possibility? Apparently yes. I believe in the least fantastic possibility, namely that there is a physical mechanism that causes the same particle to be in two places at the same time.
Maim Noshpin, it is not clear why you sign with respect, I do not see any respect here.
Israel
Consciousness also intervenes or is involved in the boundaries of the conts. The very decision to influence the choice of a side determines the chosen side. You can recognize this in the case where you choose a photon or an electron. Hence my question: are you sure that information is passing, or could there be another phenomenon?
Zibrish came out in the form of two languages, but Ai gives the possibility of playing in an additional dimension, in our case time, so it has an expression that brings together two dimensions. Sincerely
Gives the possibility of playing in an additional dimension, in our case the honorable Mr. Israel, I don't know all the equations but play in the time dimension many times
And it is expressed in statistics
Zibi
I don't think it can be.
Miracles
The fact that the particles were previously together cannot result in a cosine/sine squared discrepancy graph as obtained in the Aspa experiment or in the graph in Shmulik's article, but you should have gotten a zigzag graph.
Are you sure you read the article from my name to the end? If so, explain to me how the percentage of polarization mismatch increases 3 times when we "double" the state of the polarizers, and this without transferring information from side to side in the experiment.
What do you think of the compromise I proposed to Shmulik? fair?
On the one hand, I liked the feeling that I know things that others don't yet, on the other hand, talking to you is like talking to a wall. Forgive me miracles, time reversals have several degrees or stages, I have experience in reviving people back in time, so sometimes if I indirectly explain about things in physics, it's like stages for children. So forgive me miracles first let's end this nonsense of bickering. Then maybe he gave examples of resuscitation or seeing or transmitting information or whatever you call it
water
Save for both of us...
Sorry to deal with this and if it is true
Nissim will understand that they change a little after you have tested them, change statistically and therefore it is almost required that there is a connection to the time they were together, i.e. passing information back in time. With respect, try to deal with it
Zibi
As far as I understand, the particles were once together, so there is nothing here that creates a contradiction.
Israel
Are you please? I googled "a-local correlation" and the result I got is my response in science... Could it be that the Shmulik is just scribbling like there's no tomorrow?
Does it make sense that the particles are coordinated between them (seemingly) but nothing coordinated between them? That is, there is no broker who created the brokerage?
Shmulik
Indeed, in the cold I visited the page in question.
I also visited the second link you brought, to which you return and direct me, and I even brought you a quote from it. Did you read it to the end? Do you understand the meaning of the sine pattern in the adjustment graph in the attached table?
I did not receive an answer to my repeated question:
"What is alocal correlation?"
Except for the usual chorus of: "Go study" and "You've already received a reference".
How hard is it to see "a-local correlation"?
How about this compromise that will advance us a lot: something physical travels between the interwoven particles at a speed higher than that of light (at least 10 times according to your article). Does not have to be information. How do I?
Howl, Ya Balaam, turn around and go back to being the nice Shmulik. The persona of the preacher educator that you have recently adopted does not suit you.
Leave now quantums, relations, sponsorships, sponsorship fees. There is now a new game at the Ultimate Texas Hold'em casino, played against the dealer. I think it is possible to get an advantage over the house like in blackjack.
Already in 2015 we are bringing Thamka!
Israel,
Read here
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Quantum_nonlocality
I am sure you have already visited this page many times.
Speaking of multiple times, I will remind you that I already said that I cannot explain what happens when measuring an entangled photon but what I can do, and have already done, is to try to explain that your intuition (which you call logic but is not really logic) needs maintenance In the form of information, information that exists in the science that Albantezo referred you to.
I will again refer you to the article:
http://arxiv.org/pdf/0808.3316v1.pdf?
Pay attention to what they themselves write:
According to quantum theory, quantum correlations vi-plating Bell inequalities merely happen, somehow from outside space-time, in the sense that there is no story in space-time that can describe their occurrence: there is not an event here that somehow influences another distant event there. Yet, such a description of correlations, radically different from all those found in any other part of science, should be thoroughly tested
That is, they reinforce what I wrote: that even though theoretically there is an explanation (and it is the explanation that Albantezo wrote to you that you need to study), you still need to check experimentally that this is indeed how things are. Pay attention to what else they write:
We shall keep this terminology, but we like to emphasize that this is only the speed of a hypothetical influence and that our result casts very serious doubts on its existence
That is, they completely doubt that there is an information transfer of the kind you are talking about.
They were dessert in the sentence when:
Indeed, to maintain an explanation based on spooky action at a distance one would have to assume that the spooky action propagates at speeds even greater than the bounds obtained in our experiment
Sarel
A local correlation is when you ask for an answer and get an answer. Only the answer is wrong
Shmulik
https://www.hayadan.org.il/2011149-hunted-state-46-core-learning/comment-page-39/#comment-575417
out of it:
"I already said earlier that the issue of currencies came up because I broke the main argument into stages, I also mentioned that it is probably difficult to digest."
And now it's your turn:
What is alocal correlation?
Israel,
No. It means you agreed that the rules are different but that's not what I asked. I argue that the analogy in advance is flawed. agree?
What will happen, Shmulik?
https://www.hayadan.org.il/2011149-hunted-state-46-core-learning/comment-page-36/#comment-575108
Don't know who it is. The only rabbi I know is Rabbi Yacom.
Israel,
You first, I'm serious. Do you understand why you can't use coin logic?
Wow? Really a relative?
Shmulik
Do you mean David Shrolik?
What is alocal correlation?
It is very difficult for Israel to answer questions.
Israel, are you related to Rabbi Israel Shapira?
privileged
It is easy to show that transferring information above the speed of light creates a logical contradiction. The state of interweaving does not create a contradiction.
That's what's important, you don't have to deal with definitions all the time, and certainly not why Einstein apparently didn't understand the matter.
privileged
The correlation between the two particles is not information transfer.
There's no way I can send you a message faster than the speed of light, and that's what information means.
Israel,
you first. Do you understand why you can't use coin logic?
I do not understand the field, not even in a basic way,
But it is interesting to understand,
Does science have proof that there is no information transfer that creates coordination between the quantum parts?
Shmulik is not coins - currency, and in time
Shmulik
What is alocal correlation?
Israel,
Instead of laughing, concentrate.
The quotations and the article, which you have not yet told me whether you have read or not, were quoted to tell you that relying on Einstein is a mistake. This is why the author of the article wrote misleadingly. I brought the entire quote so that I wouldn't be suspected of hiding information.
What you are doing is taking this famous sentence at face value. This article, too, tells you this is a mistake. You keep asking what Einstein (and the other two authors) didn't know? They didn't know information theory, they didn't know field theory, so their terminology is incorrect. Alocal correlation is not something that was known back then. Why don't you get it? Why does it not receive a place of honor in your assessment of the correctness of the answers you have already received?
You can go back and give classic examples inspired by any holiday you want (coins - this is also inspired by the holiday, spinning wheels, menorahs, whatever you want) but nothing relevant to weaving. How many times should I write that if I perform a two slot experiment with coins I will not get a friction pattern? It is impossible to deduce from the behavior of classical matter the behavior of photons. Did you see the definition of photons that Albenzetto wrote? A photon is not just a very small ball. He is not a ball at all.
What does seem to happen is that you insist on not reading any link I send. Did you read the article that strongly doubts that information is being sent? You can read its opening and closing even without being a physicist.
Why don't you address the problem I raised about infinite speed at time 0? This is not a trivial problem. Treat her please.
And don't say I'm not trying to promote the topic, I asked the question on Quora. I don't know if this is the wording you would use, but in any case you are not willing to ask there, so you have no opening here.
https://www.quora.com/Upon-measuring-the-spin-of-an-entangled-photon-A-does-information-instantaneously-pass-from-photon-A-to-an-entangled-photon-B?__snids__=840882356&__nsrc__=1&__filter__=all
Tell me, are you related to Rabbi Israel Shapira?
http://he.wikipedia.org/wiki/%D7%99%D7%A9%D7%A8%D7%90%D7%9C_%D7%A9%D7%A4%D7%99%D7%A8%D7%90_%28%D7%91%D7%9C%D7%90%D7%96%27%D7%95%D7%91%29
We seem to have reached the end of the discussion (although as I write this, the discussion will continue for dozens of comments). The answer you are looking for lies in understanding the material and no matter how many times you write that it does not satisfy you, this is probably the case. Which means that even in the future you will give the example of coins even though it is completely invalid for this case and cannot be used as an inspiration for solving the problem.
Honorable Mr. Israel, you made a mistake, if we change a part it will affect itself in another place, only because we affected one of its many conditions and also the change was partially erased in time, only statistically it will affect itself in another place.
And it is also possible to see it in a big way, if you see a parallel universe and go back in time to another universe, you will be able to know from experience with a certain probability why it will develop in the future, and if you change an option in one universe, you will be able to understand what the change can do in the other universe and you can choose the change and statistically it will be very similar, in short there is a transfer here Information back in time and the possibility to deal with the future and choose better in your universe according to the parallel universe, forgive me but I have experience in repetitions in things like reviving people who died in the future, with respect and again with respect from experience
Shmulik
Your response didn't flatten the texture, it just tickled it. Indeed he burst out laughing.
You don't need to bring all those quotes to emphasize what I say all the time, I know that myself.
Shmulik:
As weird as quantum theory is, it doesn't allow two separated individuals to send messages to each other faster than light.
Israel:
Caveat: the fact that information passes between the interwoven particles, does not mean that known information can be sent through them. If we measure the polarization of the electron or the spin of the photon we find in retrospect that they are always in the same state or always the opposite, but we cannot send the results of a football game through interlacing.
Shmulik:
Einstein famously (and misleadingly), derided
Israel:
My question has always been how did Einstein not understand this?
The details don't quite add up either..
Shmulik:
The article defines the transition speed (if it still exists despite the theories) at least 10 times the speed of light (I am correcting what I wrote earlier, in the article it says 10.000
From the article:
A lower
bound for VQI greater than 10.000 times the speed of light
is found for any such reference frame.
Perhaps inspired by Hanukkah, I will try to explain what I am saying with a concrete example:
We have two rotating gyroscopes, one in Israel and the other on Mars. If you stop one of them and it falls on N, when you drop the other one, it also falls on N.
options:
1: Hidden variables, Einstein:
The state of the spinners is predetermined. The measurement, dropping the spinner, only revealed this.
Like the gloves, the shoes and the letters.
2. Communication between the spinners:
For example: inside each spinning wheel there is a small radio that communicates at 0 time with the other spinning wheel. As long as the spinners rotate, they are in a superposition of N, C, E, F. When one spinner fell and its position was determined (N for example), the radio transmits the information to the other spinner at infinite speed and when it is dropped, it falls on N as well.
Has information passed? Yes!
Is it possible to send information from Earth to Mars in this way? No! Not even the state of the spin in Israel, which has already been determined, cannot be transferred.
That's the whole story. If you have an explanation - an explanation, not "you've already been told several times" not "go and learn" not "advanced field theory compared to primitive quantum mechanics", the SR - shot.
A link is also possible.
And as I showed, it is enough that you sent information at one millimeter per second faster than light, and relativity as it is collapses.
Happy holiday of lights.
Israel,
There is a waiting that, if released, will completely collapse the fabric of time-space.
The question is not relevant on a theoretical level because since then teachings such as information theory have been developed and quantum mechanics has been rewritten and the answer to your question lies in the understanding of the new material that was unknown in 1935.
I also disagree with your assumptions. I brought you an article that already doubts whether there is information transfer between the photons. The article defines the transition speed (if it still exists despite the theories) at least 10 times the speed of light (I am correcting what I wrote before, in the article it says 10.000 and I interpreted it as ten thousand) so that you write 2c it shows me that you did not read the article and I explained it to you Why infinite speed doesn't solve your problems because in zero time even something moving at infinite speed (or someone, the flash, if you read dc) won't move a millimeter.
Until you directly address what I wrote, and not in the form of a follow-up question, I'm afraid I won't be able to help beyond what I've already tried to do. Note that I have written several times that I am not familiar with these theories, but what Albantezo wrote has been confirmed in other articles that I have attached here. I suggested that you ask on other websites and maybe get more insights from them and also contact Rafi Moore. What is said here still stands.
Shabbat Shalom and Merry Christmas!
Miracles
Shabbat reception. will be discussed later.
Miracles
God forbid. Why?
Accept that two particles communicate with each other instantly and give each other information about their quantum state?
Call it one particle in two places at the same time or whatever you want.
Israel
Einstein did not understand many things. Is that your point?
Shmulik
I would be happy to receive an explanation or reference as to why "the question has become irrelevant".
If you wish, I would be happy to explain why an aspect experiment actually leads to the transmission of information at an infinite speed, or at least as high as the experimenter requests, but let's settle for 2C. Acceptable?
According to relativity, if you passed C by a millimeter per second - you got a simulated number in the denominator of the relevant Lorentz transformation and went back in time.
That's why Sipi Ertz made noise two years ago when it seemed that some brazen neutrino dared to pass C by a few permils.
In short, if known information can be transferred faster than C, relativity breaks down.
But I do not claim that information can be transferred, I claim that unknown information (…) is transferred. This does not contradict relativity.
My question has always been how did Einstein not understand this? Or maybe he understood something that we didn't?
Working.
Israel,
There is a waiting room with reading material that directly addresses your question
Regarding why it matters, it matters because in 1935 they didn't know enough so the question was legitimate and today we know much more so the question has become irrelevant.
What about the questions I presented to you? What about the scientific article I quoted here that casts a heavy shadow on information transfer? did you read it What about the questions I posed about zero time versus infinite speed? May I have a reference?
Israel,
And I already wrote. There is no difference between your question and the question of Einstein and Co. Why don't you read my answers?
Here is another article that speaks directly to what you are asking:
http://www.ucl.ac.uk/oppenheim/articles/urvsnl-arxiv.pdf
I got it from here:
http://www.ucl.ac.uk/oppenheim/uncertainty-nonlocality.shtml
Here it says:
As weird as quantum theory is, it doesn't allow two separated individuals to send messages to each other faster than light. It doesn't allow us to act instantaneously over large distances. Nevertheless, it does contain a subtle form of nonlocality that Einstein famously (and misleadingly), derided as "spooky action at a distance".
and also
The uncertainty principle says that our knowledge of nature is limited — there are properties of nature, such as a particle's position and momentum, which you can never predict exactly. For example, if you learn the particle's position, then you will be completely uncertain as to the particle's momentum (or visa versa). This has traditionally been captured by the equation ΔxΔp≥ℏ/2, which is by now so famous you could safely wear it on a t-shirt without getting beaten up. However, information theory has given us more sophisticated ways to describe uncertainty, and these are important if we want to understand the link between uncertainty and nonlocality.
Do you look familiar?
Oh, here I got an answer:
"There is no difference between this article and what you are asking."
At least we skipped one hurdle: we don't understand at all what Israel's problem is.
Because here, the Wikipedia entry also raises the exact same question, doesn't it?
And the answer: "It has already been written several times that since then quantum mechanics has been replaced by field theory."
Can I get a breakdown of how this solves the question I posed?
My friend, despair, despair, despair.
I didn't ask what the explanation for the weaving was.
I didn't ask what the authority said.
I did not show transmutation properties.
Nor did I ask what the secret of creation is.
I asked: Is there an apparent difference?
I would love an answer, also in dancing and singing.
Israel,
And one more thing, I thought you meant the article that I brought and that I hoped you would read because the wiki entry is not an article but an *entry*.
There is no difference between this article and what you are asking except that if you rely on it for something you are making an appeal to authority. Are you ready to advance from 1935 to 2014? It has already been written several times that since then quantum mechanics has been replaced by field theory. Why do you keep abusing Einstein?
Interesting article about quantum mechanics:
http://phys.org/news/2014-12-quantum-physics-complicated.html
It begins like this:
Here's a nice surprise: quantum physics is less complicated than we thought. An international team of researchers has proven that two peculiar features of the quantum world previously considered distinct are different manifestations of the same thing. The result was published December 19 in Nature Communications.
Patrick Coles, Jedrzej Kaniewski, and Stephanie Wehner made the breakthrough while at the Center for Quantum Technologies at the National University of Singapore. They found that 'wave-particle duality' is simply the quantum 'uncertainty principle' in disguise, reducing two mysteries to one.
Israel, what do you have to say in your defense now? (just, unrelated)
Anyway, gotta sleep. Continue tomorrow (if there is a reason)
Israel
You quote a sentence from an article, but the rest of the article explains the problem. Are you only getting part of the article?
Israel,
Don't say that I don't answer, here is an answer to what you asked about the difference between your claim that there must be a transfer of information and what was written in the article published by arxiv. Here is the link to it again if you haven't read it (I don't know what you read, the article in Nature or the arxiv):
http://arxiv.org/pdf/0808.3316v1.pdf?
Israel,
Regarding what you asked, you already answered my opinion and here it is:
"You can ask: why did they conduct an experiment if Albanzato claims that there is no transfer of information and my answer is that the scientists wanted to prove that there is no transfer of information, even in an experimental way. Maybe I'm wrong."
Beyond that, pay attention to what they themselves write:
According to quantum theory, quantum correlations vi-plating Bell inequalities merely happen, somehow from outside space-time, in the sense that there is no story in space-time that can describe their occurrence: there is not an event here that somehow influences another distant event there. Yet, such a description of correlations, radically different from all those found in any other part of science, should be thoroughly tested
That is, they reinforce what I wrote: that even though theoretically there is an explanation (and it is the explanation that Albantezo wrote to you that you need to study), you still need to check experimentally that this is indeed how things are. Pay attention to what else they write:
We shall keep this terminology, but we like to emphasize that this is only the speed of a hypothetical influence and that our result casts very serious doubts on its existence
That is, they completely doubt that there is an information transfer of the kind you are talking about.
They were dessert in the sentence when:
Indeed, to maintain an explanation based on spooky action at a distance one would have to assume that the spooky action propagates at speeds even greater than the bounds obtained in our experiment
The spooky was written in Italic. If I understood correctly, they proved that the spock speed should be 10000 times greater than the speed of light and actually outside the measurement capability of the current experiment.
Does this seem similar to what you claim?
I asked if you agree with my following claim:
If quantum-information-speed is infinite, still the change cannot take place at time 0, because at time 0, the path is 0. Do you agree with this statement?
If quantum-information-speed is not infinite, we can produce a violation of the law of conservation of angular momentum. Do you agree with this statement?
Shmulik, one more time gloog gloog gloog?
You are not following orders. At this point, Paul for 30 squats, leg and all. If this continues, then Shalom Shabbat.
What is so difficult for you to answer a simple question?
Go to the thread. I said earlier that the currency question came because I broke the main argument into stages, I also mentioned that it is probably hard to digest.
And now maybe Marco will already find mom and I'll get an answer to my question? Here is a special for you, only for the fifth time:
From the EPR Paradox on Wiki:
Einstein, Podolsky and Rosen asked how can the second particle "know" to have precisely defined" momentum but uncertain position? Since this implies that one particle is communicating with the other instantaneously across space, ie, faster than light, this is the "paradox
"Can you or someone explain to me the difference between what I'm saying and what was said in the article? He's clearly talking about the transfer of information between the particles, isn't he?"
Just that.
Israel,
I saw that you finally answered an answer.
So another question that I've already posed a hundred times: do you understand why you shouldn't equate coins to photons even if it doesn't solve your question.
Just that, thanks
Israel,
Answer first. Did you ask on quora?
I reduce my questions to the easiest question because I have to check if you have the ability to reply to the answers not by means of a follow-up question.
Just that, thanks
Shmulik
I went through your last comment. I found a lot of "told you" and "explained to you over and over again" but the only question was: did you post your question on quora?
I will present, I will present. Can I get an answer to my question now? It is not in quantum or relativity, only logic:
"Can you or someone explain to me the difference between what I'm saying and what was said in the article? He's clearly talking about the transfer of information between the particles, isn't he?"
Just that.
Israel,
And one more thing. If Rafi's answer is correct about the photons, does this seem similar to what coins experience?
And one more thing, why don't you take Albentazo's answer that I copied here a few comments ago (the one that says that in information theory lies the answer to what you are asking) and pass it on to Rafi. Check out what he thinks.
Israel,
No. First answer what I asked you
Let's just say you shouldn't be walking with a white dog right now.... The truth is, even parking a white car outside is not recommended
Try to think outside the box (for a bucket in Yossi's case).
I need to take my dog for a walk.
What's the weather like in your place?
Israel
I don't understand why you did the experiment. I am indeed surprised by the result, and the explanation you gave (the slowing down of time) seems reasonable to me.
In the meantime, Rafi's answer regarding the photon was received:
Hi Israel,
The question of the position of the photon is even more problematic than the question of the position of a particle with mass (with the exception of the Higgs particle whose position is completely illusory Emoji). For other particles such as an electron for example, if we give up knowing its momentum we can determine its position with any precision that our equipment allows. In the mathematical representation of a photon there is no location parameter at all and it turns out that such a parameter cannot be defined either.
Despite this, measurements on the speed of a photon can be made quite simply. We can know where and at what time a photon is created and where and at what time it is absorbed and becomes another form of energy or matter.
That is, we can precisely define the birth and death of a photon but not its position during its life.
Best regards
Rafi.
Nissim, beginning to understand the purpose of the GPS experiment?
It's like Yossi Simon's riddles..
Shmulik
From my previous comment:
"Can you or someone explain to me the difference between what I'm saying and what was said in the article? He's clearly talking about the transfer of information between the particles, isn't he?"
Just that please.
Miracles
As above.
great. Everyone is happy. Mebusut Khalas. Stalbat. Sotol. clouds.
Israel,
Do what you want but it is important for me to say that what I am doing is not an appeal to authority just as if a dentist tells me there is a hole in a tooth, and I will tell my wife that there is a hole because the doctor said, is not an appeal to authority.
What Shah is doing is an appeal to authority because Einstein and Newton are no longer relevant because knowledge has been accumulated that was not in their possession and you can't blast their name just because you think they can help you with your argument.
This has been said several times and it has been written in various threads that quantum mechanics has been corrected and renamed, you have been told several times that the answer to what you are looking for is in information theory and you decide, for no logical reason, that because you have a nice analog to coins, photons must line up and behave like coins.
It's been explained over and over why the coin story fails you, even if it doesn't explain to you exactly what's going on in the weave. I brought you another article where the other experts don't think in the direction of infinite speed at all and I commented that infinite speed won't help if the time available is zero and what you think needs to go through will be zero and that defeats your argument. If the speed is not infinite, then at the time you claim that a conservation law for a long time can be inverted from the Planck time because theoretically it is possible to throw one of the photons to Andromeda and change the spin.
Come on, did you post your question on Quora?
Israel
What information passed between you and me? Entangled particles are connected to each other, but no information flows between particles. That's my opinion at least. That way everyone is happy.
Miracles
From the EPR Paradox on Wiki:
Einstein, Podolsky and Rosen asked how can the second particle "know" to have precisely defined" momentum but uncertain position? Since this implies that one particle is communicating with the other instantaneously across space, ie, faster than light, this is the "paradox ".
Can you or someone explain to me the difference between what I say and what is said in the article? He is clearly talking about the transfer of information between the particles, isn't he?
"how can the second particle "know"
And why doesn't anyone solve my Shatanz cars puzzle? This is especially for you, a question for engineers.
Something about gravity - because the photons move backwards and forwards in time many times and in similar possibilities - they feel the future potential and move and stabilize accordingly, what carries the force is the movement backwards and forwards in time and therefore the knowledge of what they will meet in the future and the possibility of a preferred potential in their next interaction. Sincerely
Israel
You are missing the point. What passes between the particles is not information. I don't understand how it works, and I'm not a physicist.
But, there is no logical contradiction here.
Shmulik
You can do whatever you want. Would you mind if I do what I want too?
Do you want to accept that attraction takes place through the exchange of virtual photons? break up This is probably also the explanation.
Do you want to believe that if photons in two different places are always in the same polarization and there are no hidden variables, then this is not a transfer of information? You will also be separated.
See, I don't insist, flow with you, whatever you say.
But what's wrong with the simple and trivial explanation that everything will be in His Word? If Newton himself had told you this (he was quite a dos as I recall), would you have accepted it even then or would you have continued to look for mother like the stubborn Marko and Israel?
Good night.
In the meantime, dream of a physical solution to the question: In the yard there are a number of goats whose square is the number 36.
How many goats in the yard?
I will flow with you: 4 parameters, no dimensions.
It is still possible to solve physical problems assuming that there are more dimensions than 3, but this does not mean that they are acceptable in reality, eg goats in the yard.
But you didn't answer the question, how do you differentiate between a mathematical explanation and a physical explanation? The only answer I can think of is that a physical model should eventually predict correct measurement results. And this is also obtained from models that we do not know how to imagine or explain them in Newtonian language.
As I said before, I haven't read all the comments here, so I don't know what anti-fish means.
And with all due respect you are wrong about the dimensions. In Newtonian physics, time is not a dimension. Not every variable can be treated as a dimension, there are also variables that are parameters. Treating time as a dimension is an innovation of the theory of relativity.
Well, I understand that you are all in America, but I am in Israel and need to sleep. Goodbye.
In Newtonian mechanics there are 3 dimensions of space and a dimension of time, together 4.
The intention is that mathematical models can be built without contradictions but this does not mean that they are applicable to reality. According to Yossi's riddle with anti-fish.
So I understand that a physical explanation is a Newtonian explanation for you? Once again I repeat that I am not asking disrespectfully but really to understand because it makes a very strong impression that everything that does not fit with logic from everyday life and Newtonian mechanics you do not accept as physics but from the maximization of mathematics.
Except that in Newtonian mechanics there are not four dimensions but only three. Four is in the theory of relativity that it contradicts Newtonian mechanics.
Stupid iPad, emits responses ahead of time.
Miracles
What you described is hidden variables. The state of the envelopes is predetermined. Are you sure you read the whole article on my behalf?
we
Not only does he accept quantum mechanics - a temple.
But does not accept Feynman's claim that it is impossible to understand.
Mathematical model: linear algebra problems can be solved in 13 dimensions.
Physical model: in Newtonian physics there are only 4.
Miracles
It's just like Shmulik will send letters to both of us - when exactly one of them has a coin. You receive your letter, feel that it is a bit heavy, and immediately know that I will receive an empty envelope.'
Israel
No information passed. The situation is determined simultaneously on both sides. In the experiment with the spin - we both have to determine in advance the direction of the measurement. And what do we know in advance that we will get opposite results. It's just like Shmulik will send letters to both of us - when exactly one of them has a coin. You receive your letter, feel that it is a little heavy, and immediately know that I will receive an empty envelope.
Now, that Mulik sends each of us 7 envelopes in all the colors of the rainbow, assume that there is one coin in (exactly) one of the envelopes of each color. I decide to check the orange flyer - and I need to somehow tell you to open the orange envelope as well. And again - we know the result in advance.
I understand that this does not explain the quantum experiment. I'm just showing you that here too - according to you - information passes.
Israel Shapira
How do you differentiate between a physical explanation and a mathematical explanation? I ask seriously not to be defiant. The explanation of the two-slit experiment in quantum mechanics is a superposition of the waves, which allows constructive/destructive conflict. Do you think this is a mathematical or physical explanation?
Earlier you asked if you accept quantum mechanics and you didn't answer me. If I may ask again with a slight change, do you accept quantum mechanics as a physical theory? Or just a mathematical idea? Or not accepting at all?
Come on.
Marco will not meet mother today either
Miracles, I tried your suggestion - and it worked!
I have 2 coins. On one side of each coin is written Nissim, on the other Israel (it used to be Peli, but they changed it after 48).
I claim: my definition of information is miracles or Israel. Therefore, with one coin falling on miracles, in order for the other to also fall on miracles with a probability of 100%, information needs to pass from one side to the other.
Applying the proposal of miracles, and changing the definition of information. From now on information is Michael.
And see it's a miracle! Since Michael went to Belly again, then without a doubt information is no longer passing from one side to the other!
Didn't you try miracles?
This is already a new record of the comment system. Israel's response appears in recent comments but does not appear in comments in the article.
Once again my response was taken to the basements of the Mohabarat's investigations.
I instructed her not to divulge any information except name, rank, personal number, and to mutter delusional mumbles like her biological father.
Friend, I have to go to work, in the meantime a puzzle in Newtonian physics for you:
Only recreational cars are accepted for the prestigious Shatanz car race, whose manufacturers must meet the following conditions:
1. The car should consist of a chassis of an existing car and an engine of another car.
2. The engine power of each car must be constant throughout the race. The meaning is that in any given period of time the car burns the same amount of fuel, or in the case of an electric car the voltage is multiplied by a constant amperage throughout the race.
The race takes place on a straight salt track in Colorado that is 500 km long.
3 cars reached the final stage of the race:
Italy was represented by a Ferrari car with an electric engine and a bevel gear that turns all the engine's power into driving force without wasting energy.
France was represented by a Formula 17 car with a 24-cylinder gasoline engine made by Rolls-Royce and a Koni gearbox as mentioned above.
Israel was represented by a Susita Kubia model 65 car with a fiberglass body whose rear was chewed by a camel, and a rocket engine that is a miniature model of the Apollo 11 engine.
Because of the salt track and the high altitude of the Rocky Mountains, there is no form of friction during the race.
The race has started and here are the initial data:
When the Ferrari reached the 1 km line, its speed was measured at 200 km/h.
When the formula reached the 1 km line, its speed was measured at 190 km/h.
When Susita reached the 1 km line, her speed was measured at 80 km/h.
Who won the race? who is the second Why?
Hint: Pay attention to all the data.
Israel
Change your definition to information - then everything works out. I don't think anyone is saying that nothing passes in 0 time, but what passes is not information. Take that as a definition. It does not contradict any physical law.
The effect of unentangled particles does not contradict logic. He contradicts, perhaps, your rule of law. There you will look for the solution.
Israel,
You didn't answer me about the infinite speed at time 0. Infinite speed won't help you if time is 0.
0 * infinity = 0
Maya,
I tried several times, it just doesn't work but I will try again.
Israel,
A few days ago I asked Albentazo what is the mechanism by which a proton is attracted to an electron. It's very interesting and I have no idea how it happens and you probably have no idea either. Albantezo told me that attraction is achieved through virtual photons and Eisenberg's Uncertainty Principle. I had a follow-up question: what obligates the virtual photons to hold the attraction exactly as we see it. Why isn't there some statistical interest there and why occasionally we don't see an electron being repelled from a proton. Unfortunately here he said that the answer is in the small details and there is nothing to be done, this information cannot be conveyed through science. need to study. He did provide me with a link that I am trying to read and understand.
What should I do now:
1. Take his word that math and physics work out if you do all the right calculations
2. To write again and again that it can't be, that I didn't get an answer and that surely there are little gnomes there who are responsible for the attraction. Do you see any other way than little dwarves being responsible for this?
In my opinion, this is the level of your stubbornness. I'm sorry.
I didn't go too far back, but this is what he wrote to you:
"Transfer of information and correlation are two completely different things. You imagine that if there is any connection between two cases then it means that some signal must pass between them. But this is simply not true, and until you get up off your ass and decide to learn what information is, what correlation is, and what a system with non-local correlations is, nothing will help you. There are explicit proofs in information theory that show that systems that have a correlation (even if it is not local) of the kind of interweaving (non-spherical systems) do not transfer information between them. I refer to interweaving because in your example there is not enough information about the nature of the correlation.'
This puts you in exactly the same position I am in: both of us do not know enough about the material but I, in this case, take his word that the subject cannot be explained through the science website. The material is not simple and requires a lot of prior knowledge. What to do?
It's really not fair to equate the answers you got with the answers you get from those people whose names you mentioned. Hand on heart, are you really comfortable with the comparison you made between: "If you read the Torah book you will understand" and: "Study the Torah of Information and you will have answers"?
at least:
1. You received an interesting article from me by other experts in the field. did you read it I went over it (on the introduction and conclusions, I'm not knowledgeable or focused enough to understand the meat of the article) but for example, I noticed that they immediately assume a finite "quantum information speed". They also have no such thing as infinite speed
2. I was trying to make it clear that your use of the coin analogy is fundamentally wrong. Even if it doesn't solve your problem, the analogy is wrong. If I were to deduce what would have happened in the two-slot experiment through a parallel coin experiment, I would be wrong. Thus, I hope you stop using the coins pattern for something that requires the photons.
3. You have provided yourself with another outlet. Did you ask your question on Quora?
Maya
I think Einstein was talking about his granddaughter... 🙂
Maya, hello.
I believe I know the math more or less - I'm looking for the physics.
And as I said, the problem is logical.
If you're struggling, you're in good company. Feynman said that nobody understands quantum mechanics.
Israel,
After days of struggling, I was finally able to figure out your problem. It was difficult, but in the end you described her well enough and I understood. Your problem is that you are neither an electron nor a photon and therefore your physical intuition does not match them. I understand what you are looking for. You are looking for an explanation not through equations, but one that can be explained even to a person who does not understand the material in simple layman's terms. Now, I don't understand the material and I don't know if there is one. I know Einstein said that if you understand something you can explain it to your grandmother, but hey, what did he know. We in our development in this cruel world got intuition about things that will help us survive. It's the 3D world with this time dimension you're talking about. What to do that photons, in many ways, live in another world about which we do not have a good intuition?
I apologize, but I think this is the best answer you will get. Shmulik's answer that photons are not small coins. Why? how? Do not know. For that maybe you really need to study for seven years (I studied a lot more, but not these subjects. Maybe it's a shame). Do you want more than that? Go to the books, study the mathematics, there is a situation that through this you will be able to develop this physical intuition that you are looking for. I know this happens to a lot of people. You can keep searching the forums for someone who understands and will give you this intuition, but I must say that I doubt you will find. Anyway, good luck.
In short, it seems to you that if 2 particles are always in the same state and there are no hidden variables, then there is no transfer of information between them? How does that happen? just happens?
walking dead
You are exactly right.
Miracles
To be fair, the question I asked was not a yes or no question, in fact it seems to me that it is more of a question that has some inherent error and has no real meaning.
Which is roughly what I think can be said about the question of Israel.
Shmulik
I am not against anything. In the example of the coin, I asked for a proposal for any possible physical way that is other than the transmission of information. The answer was that there is no such way, there must be a transfer of information.
Even in entangled particles, I ask that you provide any physical explanation as to how this happens. Nissim proposed: the same particle is in two places at the same time. Additional suggestions: multi-dimensions, parallel universes and more. Shoin
The explanation of non-local correlations is a mathematical explanation, not a physical one.
Your explanation can be summed up in: "Photons are not coins, that's how it works in the quantum world".
With all due respect and affection, this is not a physical explanation. I hear similar explanations for natural phenomena in many articles from people whose names are usually Hezi, Ezekiel or Elkanah.
By the way, if you don't find a physical explanation, you may be able to console yourself with the fact that, as we said, although information passes between the particles, it is impossible to send known information through entanglement.
Israel,
One more thing, and in the above there is nothing to add/give up/reduce/weaken anything from what has already been written here:
You resist any attempt to accept the fact that photons are treated solely through the prism of quantum mechanics. All Newton and Aristotle and the two slit experiment for photons does not demonstrate an entanglement pattern. So let me assure you that even infinite speed will not help here. 0 * infinity = 0
And in addition, because it moves many times backwards and forwards in time, it vibrates between, for example, the elements of mass, momentum, space and time, in short its movement backwards and forwards in time many times gives the freedom of the principle of uncertainty and its freedom in the additional dimensions. Sincerely
Honorable Mr. Shmulik, if you want to toss from coins to photons - it is one coin that moves back and forth many times, so if it falls on its side, its return back in time is also affected, sometimes it settles on its options and struggles with itself, it has several spins because it goes backwards And forward in time and settling on several possible spins, again many times. And his mass because he goes backwards and forwards many times in time is divided between the times and therefore tends to zero, he moves at the speed of light but the speed depends on where you look from the number of times, again he moves backwards and forwards in time many times. In short, one currency only with movement in the time dimension also backwards many times. Sincerely
Israel,
Regarding photons, beyond the fact that photons are not matter, i.e. not just very small balls, this means that their behavior is categorically and completely different from coins. That's why they are woven and coins are not. This means you can't cast from coins to photons. We do not live in a Newtonian world. I don't understand why you don't see that this invalidates your line of questioning completely.
As for you learning the concepts, a few days ago I asked him a question regarding the attraction between protons and electrons using virtual photons, well, he couldn't explain to me what exactly is happening there because I don't have the appropriate knowledge. He gave as detailed an answer as he could but there is too much material that I have to study for him to be able to clarify the issue. He sent me to a certain link and I grind my teeth trying to understand what is happening there. He also had such an iteration with you (and gently I will write more than one). There is nothing to do, you have to study the material and maybe you are right and it takes seven years to understand why information is not passed but if you study, you will understand. So you can bang on the table as much as you want, but pregnancy takes nine months.
What should not take a few months is to answer me whether you agree that it is forbidden to extrapolate from the behavior of coins to the behavior of photons, even if this does not solve the question for you.
You don't need to take months to tell me if you read the non-scientific article and maybe also the scientific one that invalidated the transfer of information even in an experimental way
I'm glad the doctor's prediction didn't come true. The prognosis for recovery is very individual. What was not a problem was locating the problem. The science there was excellent and I am sure that in the next problem you will run to the doctor, or leave.
Shmulik
Can you show me what specific reference I got for a physical explanation of how the polarizations of the entangled photons are always the same except "go learn"? Maybe I missed something.
"You won't see an entanglement phenomenon if you throw coins on two slots. Why isn't that enough to finish your line of inquiry?"
Could you explain to me how the interference phenomenon is related other than saying that it is impossible to explain this and that?
I have something simpler for you:
"Wonderful are the ways of God"
Or perhaps more relevant: "in a miracle from you do not demand and in a veiled from you do not investigate" - this will really end my line of inquiry.
I couldn't get up without crutches, and even here, the Blue Cross doctor who examined me after the injury explained to me professionally and kindly that you no longer eat like before.
For 10 years now I have been walking in the mountains with my dogs almost every day for at least an hour, including climbing over natural disasters.
We - I'm not saying there is no explanation, I'm just claiming that non-locality is perhaps a mathematical explanation without contradictions, but it is not a physical explanation, as are non-local correlations (please note, you have to remember not to say non-local interactions).
Inspired by Yossi Simon - maybe you want some nice physics puzzles?
"Friend, can we return for a moment to a realistic physical world of 3 dimensions of space, dimension of time, atoms, electricity, Newton, Maxwell, Boltzmann?
It seems to me that you can at least try to explain everything that way."
And maybe it's not possible to explain like that without quanta??? You're making an assumption here that everything can be explained without quanta, so maybe that's the problem why the explanation with quanta doesn't work out for you. I mean, what if 100 years ago they would have said "it seems to me that everything can be explained with three dimensions, there is no need for a fourth dimension of time" and they would have rejected the theory of relativity?
I don't understand much in the field, but I agree with Shmulik that you have a discount here. But I haven't read all your comments either so maybe I'm missing information. Israel Shapira do you accept quantum mechanics? Maybe you don't agree on the basis at all and then my comment is not related at all and I'm just bothering you 🙂
Israel,
I'm not the expert (as I've written several times) and it doesn't seem to me that it takes 7 years to read the definitions for the required concepts that the expert recommended you do. In any case, tell me whether you agree or provide an explanation why you disagree with what I wrote regarding the fundamental and absolute difference between coins and photons. The argument is that you cannot infer the behavior of photons from looking at coins. For example, you won't see a scramble phenomenon if you toss coins on two slots. Why isn't that enough to finish your line of inquiry?
A herniated disc is a pain and it's not that nothing helped. Would you try to walk without crutches? If the breakout is not too severe, the recommendation is always conservative treatment and the body slowly overcomes the problem and learns how to live with it. I understand that the pain was unbearable and therefore you received injections that reduced the inflammation. I hope now it is not too present in your life.
This story also proves that it is worth listening to the experts, because you received injections that improved the quality of your life. How many more examples should be given before you agree to listen to a specific expert in the field (after all, here too you went to an orthopedist and not a gynecologist. At least in Israel such things are treated by an orthopedist. I have no idea how it is in the US)?
Israel,
Until it is released, here is a link to an article about it on the Nature website
http://arxiv.org/format/0808.3316v1
This Gestapo is called Akitazmat, but that's the price you have to pay to not manually check a thousand spams a day. Sometimes it has false alerts.
my father
The Gestapo discovered my true face. All my comments are moderated.
Shmulik
Our GP has a good track record, as do most doctors. That's why I choose him.
What line of inquiry are you talking about? If you can explain the issue of non-locality without additional dimensions and parallel universes, or terms like non-local interactions, and without detailing the physical meaning of those interactions or correlations, I'm all ears.
I am too lazy to go study now for another 7 years. It's better to ask questions and experiment, isn't it? More fun too.
In light of the warm recommendations from you and Nisim, I will add quora to the list. Thanks.
I had a hernia 14 years ago, I was on crutches for half a year. Chiropractic, physical therapy, Amayat (all on doctor's referrals), nothing helped.
In the end I went to Dr. Friedman who gave a short order: a cortisone injection.
After an hour everything worked out.
Miracles
I don't even try to convince myself. i don't know That's why I'm trying to get empirical results by laser and GPS experiments.
Israel
That way you won't convince anyone...
Israel,
don't get me started Fix your aching leg for a herniated disc...
Israel,
In no way do I understand why you think your answer constitutes a winning answer to what I wrote. Simply put, this means that you don't go to the doctors because your leg hurts.
If anything, the fact that you brought up the electron only reinforces everything I said: an electron is also a quantum non-classical production it has a definite spin. He performs wrestling. Coins do not perform a struggle. I don't understand why this is not enough to make it clear to you that your entire line of inquiry is fundamentally wrong.
Did you read the link I sent?
I tried to post your question on quora?
Miracles
"There is no transfer of information in the entire interweaving story"?
How do a million particles on Mars know to choose the same state as their interwoven brothers in Israel without transmitting information? happening, as Wookiee suggests? Why wouldn't they choose random states like their non-interlaced cousins?
"Perhaps there is another dimension through which the two intertwined particles are in the same "place".
Maybe there is also a great father in the sky who will do everything in his word, including adjusting polarities.
Wookie
"How do you know you didn't accidentally fall into that sequence?"
Still having trouble seeing the relevance, but for you: I don't even know if the infinity that contains the infinities, contains an infinity of infinite series. fun?
Company, can we return for a moment to a realistic physical world of 3 dimensions of space, dimension of time, atoms, electricity, Newton, Maxwell, Boltzmann?
It seems to me that you can at least try to explain everything that way. You don't need 17 dimensions for that.
Otherwise - I call water! He sounds more realistic than you right now.
walking dead
Let's assume we have an infinite series of tosses. How exactly will you check that there is a series of infinity "Pelli"?
Israel
Perhaps there is another dimension through which the two entwined particles are in the same "place". Think of the classic example of an inflating balloon to explain the Big Bang. If you pinch the balloon, you get exactly this situation.
This is just an explanation I made up.
I am unable to explain to myself why this solution does not allow for immediate information transfer, but it does not disturb my sleep.
And it is important to emphasize - there is no transfer of information in the whole story of the interweaving.
Miracles
infinite-collection=?
Israel
Relevance - how do you know you didn't accidentally fall into this sequence?
Yes, that's the word I meant. Although it is mostly a guess, which is why it is easy for us to determine that there is no need to pass information in a situation of high probability (in our opinion, we do not exactly know how to determine what is a high probability and what is a low probability).
The question is whether there really is some probabilistic limit that creates a difference between things.
Wok
I think so. relevance?
Did you mean probability?
Miracles
Proposed mechanism of chains and gears for coordinating coins. Can you suggest a physical mechanism where one particle is in the same place at the same time with nothing in between? And that one side of it is not in a defined polarization, but as soon as it is determined, the other side also receives the same polarization in 0 time? And how does the other side know which polarization to accept if no information has passed from one side to the other?
Shmulik
Oh, you young runners.. I can only take my dogs for mountain walks. Those in the know claim that running beats the legs.
What to do if different doctors make contradictory claims? Do you want me to show you the contradictions in the solutions of the twin paradox? Who to believe?
Power-carrying photons? What about electrons? And who says that the pattern of conflict and duality does not have a logical physical explanation?
walking dead
No…
Shmulik / Israel
Quora is a great site! And no, there is no information transfer between the photons. I look at it as one particle that is in two places at the same time. I can't do an action on one side, and someone on the other side will discover what I did at a speed higher than c.
If you have an infinite sequence of tosses of 2 coins, will it contain an infinitely long sequence of tosses in which both always land on the same side?
what word sssssoshtak?
She has a lot of authority.
Israel,
what we've got here is failure to communicate
Well, it is clear that the laws of physics work on everything, but photons are the mediators of the electromagnetic force and not matter, while coins are classical matter, so it is impossible to extrapolate experimental results from coins to photons. Coins do not level up electrons. Coins do not produce a wrestling pattern. Photons yes. it is not enough?
And I'm not saying that information does not pass between the interlaced photons, but the family physician states this emphatically and suggested that to understand where your Aristotelian logic fails, you turn to the professional literature and study the concepts. I know you can. I will clarify another point: I am not able to defend the claim that information does not pass between the photons beyond the weak arguments I gave you at the time, because I do not know the material but I know how to listen to an expert who recognizes one. For you, I googled the question: do entangled particles communicate between themselves and found a nice article (note, this is not a scientific article but describes the article for readers like me)
http://www.nature.com/news/2008/080813/full/news.2008.1038.html
And his point is:
"The bottom line, says Gisin is that "there is just no time for these two photons to communicate"
You can ask: why did they conduct an experiment if Albenzato claims that there is no information transfer and my answer is that the scientists wanted to prove that there is no information transfer, even in an experimental way. Maybe I'm wrong.
I'll try something else because I have to go to bed:
You know the site: https://www.quora.com? It's like yahoo answers only with a lot of experts. Also ask your question there and tell us the answers.
Note: I don't have a herniated disc, but my leg hurts quite a bit (actually both) but what can I do, the marathon won't run itself
Lil't!
Israel
I think you know. Maybe a word with an s in it?
Shmulik
what are you claiming That information does not pass between the interwoven particles because photons are not coins and other laws apply to them? And which laws are not laws of physics? Isn't there a physical mechanism that causes two entangled photons to always have the same polarization?
Israel,
Alak Shmulik said. Hardly recycles claims.
I asked again: Are the laws that apply to photons different from the laws that apply to coins?
The rules are different not because there was a vote and the photons won but because coins are classical objects and photons are not. Photons are not very, very small balls, but other than that they are identical to coins and here is a description that Albentzo wrote in response to my question about the attraction mechanism of Gravtons:
"... just as in field theory (the modern version of quantum mechanics) electrons, gluons, photons, quarks, etc. are described by a field which is found throughout space and at the peaks of which we call particles..."
Coins are not described as such. Coins will not form a grappling pattern if thrown through two slots. Coins cannot flag across a potential barrier and suddenly appear on the other side. I really don't understand why you are trying to cast from coins to photons.
I will try another way:
My leg hurts. I decide to argue about it in the forum and say that the leg looks fine and I don't understand why it hurts. Here and there I hold discussions and say that the skin of the leg looks perfectly normal, so how can it be that my leg hurts? My doctor calls and tells me that he has the MRI results and knows exactly why my leg hurts. No, I answer him, there is no need and I decide to continue arguing. At some point he calls again and yells at me that I have a herniated disc and the pain is radiating to my leg and I will make an appointment with him for further treatment. No, I insist, the forum will help. But, he says, the MRI is a proven technology, the professional literature is extensive, the treatment is known, it just has to come. He tells me that MRI was developed as a result of the insights of quantum mechanics, which is the most studied Torah in the world and that I should listen to him, because he has a lot of experience in treating disc herniations. Shall I continue?
Please Eraf, maybe she passed?
The point is that in the previous case she did pass.
Israel
There is no need for this, but it also does not necessarily mean that no information has been passed. The question was: "How can it be said that information did not pass between the rooms?"
The question is actually what is the factor for which it is easy for you to determine that there is no need to pass information in this situation?
Wookie
Until the waiting woman is released from the clearly illegal detention.
The situation you described happens spontaneously even without means of communication passing information between the 2 rooms, so why does information need to pass?
waiting for me
Great, we already have 2 agreements, Shmulik and Nissim. Wookie is known as a pathological skeptic, due to his reservations about experimenting with tossing a coin 1000 times (you have to take into account the probability that one in a billion billion billion times we will get a random match, or that Roseanne Bear will beat Sandy Bear in a beauty pageant, a much lower probability), but I bet on the probability that he would agree , water is currently flowing in another dimension, but I do not believe that in this case it will flow against the current.
Therefore, it can be concluded in my opinion that the control group received the thesis that appeared in:
https://www.hayadan.org.il/2011149-hunted-state-46-core-learning/comment-page-30/#comment-574837
And also a month ago in:
https://www.hayadan.org.il/black-holes-voices-3110147/comment-page-9/#comment-569418
And for that we can only ask: What was the whole Gog and Magog war about in the last 24 hours if everyone accepts the thesis? It is not clear.
Let's move on to interlaced particles.
Remember, in a given entangled state, 2 entangled particles such as photons, always share a common property. In our case: polarization.
If we have 2 photons that have undergone a certain common interaction and are therefore entangled, one on Earth and the other on Mars, measuring the polarization of one will also reveal the state of polarization of the other.
As with the example of the coins, I believe it is possible to say that there are 2 options:
1. The state of polarization was determined during the joint interaction and the measurement only revealed it, what is popularly called hidden variables.
2. The polarization state was determined by measuring one of the photons and its entangled brother immediately received the same state. Quantum interpretation.
Intermediate states also exist, we will not refer to them now because it can be shown that they are a reduction of the 2 options above.
We will refer to situation 1, hidden variables.
Bell proved in his inequality theorem and Aspect in his experiment that this situation is impossible. If someone does not accept the results of the Aspect experiment as proof (me! Me! the Aspect experiment is not perfect in my opinion and has a loophole through which hidden variables can sneak in) - let them look at the link from my name or ask for an explanation.
We are left with situation 2.
He says something like this as I remember it: as soon as the polarization of one photon in the earth is determined, his brother interwoven in Mars chooses the same polarization instantly, that is, in zero time.
The questions are: Did information pass between photon to photon, how does this happen, and how does it happen in 0 time.
My claim: information does pass, there is a physical mechanism that causes it to pass, and it works in 0 time.
Caveat: the fact that information passes between the interwoven particles, does not mean that known information can be sent through them. If we measure the polarization of the electron or the spin of the photon we find in retrospect that they are always in the same state or always the opposite, but we cannot send the results of a football game through interlacing.
We will check the alternatives:
Shmulik claims: laws that apply to coins are not acceptable in the quantum world which has its own laws.
Nissim Gores: The same particle is in the same place at the same time.
Other variants are non-local interactions, non-local correlations, parallel universes, time reversal and more.
Everything is possible, but you have been warned: the register is open and the hand is writing!
Because all the options that can be applied against you in the corresponding article. Nissim claims against Raphael that there is no record of the exodus of the 2 million Egyptians who recorded every grain of wheat - they were recorded in a parallel universe! David claims that Kabbalim can move from one place to another in what is called "jumping the road" - non-local interaction! Shmulik claims that there is no physical possibility for the actions described in the Bible - laws that apply to humans and objects do not apply to God!
Once we leave physics, anything can be explained. And physics requires a physical mechanism.
Therefore, as we have shown that there must be a physical mechanism that will cause two coins to always fall on the same side, and this mechanism transmits information, whether through physical communication between the 2 chambers or through the hidden variables that carry the information, there must also be a physical mechanism that transmits the information - the state of polarization or state The spin - between the intertwined particles.
Otherwise we are not dealing with physics but with metaphysics, everything is possible, we don't need a mechanism, we can say "non-local interaction" as if there is some higher power and a world of illogical rules that apply to quantum mechanics and close the matter.
This is my point: there must be a physical mechanism that transfers the information between the entangled particles. The alternative is metaphysics, then anything is possible.
Sabri Maranan.
Israel
If we neglect the probabilistic answer.
In the same way, but one can also ask: if 2 coins in different rooms do not always fall on the same side and there are no hidden variables, i.e. the state of the coins is determined only with the toss - how can it be said that no information passed between the rooms?
I agree
Israel,
Are you claiming that everything that applies to classical objects, including coins, applies to photons?
Shmulik
agree. Can we finish our coins phase before moving on to photons? Does everyone agree that the claim:
"If 2 coins in different rooms always fall on the same side and there are no hidden variables, i.e. the state of the coins is determined only with the toss - how can it be said that no information passed between the rooms?"
The answer is: no, not possible?
Miracles?
Walkie?
..
...
..!.
Israel,
You are allowed to answer a question from time to time.
Do you agree that the laws that apply to photons do not apply to coins?
Just that
Shmulik
It's all true - but I'm thinking of something else. The difference between the classical world and the quantum world is randomness. In the classical world there is no randomness, in the quantum world (maybe) there is.
And of course - in the quantum world you can be in two places at the same time (in my opinion).
I'm going to bed too, 1 in the morning.
Paz Maya dreams.
Yes, he doesn't eat donuts.
Now I'll go to bed and dream about donuts.
For you Maya, always. Not only in the draw, even in the bluff.
Speaking of bluff. You... are you sure you're not actually a Wookiee?
Israel,
Now coming back from the Hanukkah party? I really like a donut. Do you have it on hand?
Shmulik, where did you go?
I just came back from a Hanukkah party. Everyone was there - except you. Judah (the Maccabi), Israel (a people), miracles (which he did for our ancestors), and ...
Oh, no Wookie.
But Antiochus was!
As you remember, we break the argument into stages. It is good for digestion. The claim we are now dealing with is this:
"If 2 coins in different rooms always fall on the same side and there are no hidden variables, i.e. the state of the coins is determined only with the toss - how can it be said that no information passed between the rooms?"
I guess your answer is: no, not possible. Right?
also of miracles (?)
Walkie?
water?
Miracles,
You get the point, Israel already wrote it for me
"You say: in order for there to be a full correlation between currencies, information must pass. Beauty. Well?
But Albanzo claims not..
That's the point.'
And to this Albantezo answered and so did I: photons are not very, very, very, very small balls, but other than that they are identical to coins, but the laws that apply to photons do not apply to coins. So Israel turned to the authority and to that I replied that since the authority spoke, the formalism changed, new things were discovered that were unknown to the authority at the time and therefore the authority is no longer relevant but then Israel went back to talking about coins instead of moving forward and I already went to bed.
Israel,
Is it possible that Marco will find his mother today?
Something so you can understand how it works, the particle moves in another dimension in this case time, back and forth many times, therefore it falls coordinated with itself on the other side, just what, because it passed through a lattice or a field it is affected by the field but because it passes several times and the effect of Every action has a statistical response
Israel
Read. what's the point
Israel
You mean we want to make sure that happens?
got to go. Hanukkah, first candle, child, woman, widow.
To see how it relates to our discussion - link from my name.
Bye.
Miracles
Beauty
So here we got two acceptable options for two coins in different rooms always falling on the same side:
1. Transfer of information between the rooms.
2. Hidden variables.
Can you or anyone think of another option?
Israel
Ok, sounds good.
I probably meant yes, in the specific example I gave.
Miracles
Of course not. A hidden variable can be, for example, the tilt angle of the coin, its shape, etc.
Here is a simple example of hidden variables in coins, and the beginning of the connection to our article:
We have a pair of coins close together, a tree on a pole, and a spring between them. The coins are tilted at a certain angle.
At some point the spring is released and each coin flies to another side. Each experimenter on each side receives a coin tipped at the same angle, so if he lets it fall the coins will always fall on the same side.
In that case, there is no need for a telephone line between the rooms to transmit the information. The coins themselves transferred her.
accepted?
Israel
I don't think a hidden variable conveys information.
Wookie
As I wrote for miracles, there are only 2 options besides "beam" (by the way, you can download the beam option because it was not taken into account in the experiments).
1. Transfer of information between the rooms.
2. Hidden variables.
getting?
agree
Miracles
Let's see if we agree:
Apart from the mentioned market option (happening, what can be done) you can get a correlation in only 2 options:
1. Transfer of information between the rooms.
2. Hidden variables.
getting?
Israel
Yes
Wookie
Your reservation is acceptable, possible, and duly registered:
It is possible that in a controlled experiment a correlation between coins will be obtained 1000 times.
True, the probability of this is approximately 1:1000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000 - but it exists! Deen Peruta as Deen Hundred!
Even in a million tosses the probability exists.
Miracles
You're right, the answer is yes, but only if there are hidden variables, right?
And how will you know if there are or are not hidden variables?
Yes
Israel
I don't know, if there is a difference apart from the probability, maybe you can explain to me what it is?
Wookie
Are you claiming that there is no fundamental difference between a correlation in 2 throws and a correlation in 2000?
Miracles
Must make sure. You say that by passing information, you can get a correlation in the state of the currencies 1000 times, right?
Question: Is it possible to get a correlation through another way, for example early coordination between the currencies, but without transferring information between the rooms?
Israel
To me a match in 2 tosses means nothing, but you claim (it seems to me) that there must be a transfer of information starting from some X of parallel tosses, I don't. I wonder what the difference is between one X in which there must not be a transfer of information, and another X in which there must be a transfer of information.
The numbers here are related to probability and our feeling as humans of what their likelihood is, but I'm not sure that beyond that there is anything here at all.
Actually, until now I still don't understand what argument you want to make.
Why does the fact that the result is the same indicate the transfer of information and not the fact that the result is not the same indicates the transfer of information? Why is the evidence for the transmission of information that does not change from litter to litter? Maybe in throwing Y identity indicates the transfer of information and in throwing Z lack of identity indicates the transfer of information?
Israel
Ok. I gave you information. What next?
Or more precisely a "hidden variable" which actually does not change nor is it hidden..
Yoda
There is a problem.
Your "sirti from Bios" are what we call "hidden variables" at the Elk ranch.
is that the problem???? I thought the problem was more complicated. In short, there is only one solution to the problem, the coins are actually BIOS cards that only have one side, so they will always fall on one side!!!! And believe me they will always do it this way without passing information between them. They will always fall on their one side. They have no other choice!
What do you think of the answer?
But what a pleasant and beautiful night
Yehuda
Miracles
We conclude from the fact that you passed on information to me so that you told me how the situation was (what is the situation with you? Everything is fine with us, God willing, God is great).
Israel
I don't follow. There is nothing unusual here. I toss a coin, tell you what the result is, and you place a coin in the same position.
What do you conclude from this?
Wookie
This is once again the question of who is more beautiful Sandy Barr or Roseanne Barr...
Answer yourself. If we got a match in 2 tosses, does that mean something?
And in 2000?
Miracles
You can lay, you can also bloom.
The main thing is that you will be able to get a perfect correlation in 1000 throws/discounts/excursions without transferring information from room to room.
Yoda
Trying to find out the issue of non-locality, by giving an answer to a basic question:
"If 2 coins in different rooms always fall on the same side and there are no hidden variables, i.e. the state of the coins is determined only with the toss - how can it be said that no information passed between the rooms?"
It is allowed to use gravity pushing.
Israel
I'm starting to think the cube is loaded after I get the same number three or four times in a row, but that still doesn't mean it's true. But of course it's because I live in a world where I usually encounter more statistically probable events than statistically less probable events, it doesn't mean that statistically less probable events don't happen.
Obviously it looks like twinning to me, but I can't know if it really is if I can't find the twinning mechanism.
Anyway, the more interesting question is why you don't actually think there is a twin when the number of times is smaller. is there an answer?
Friend, may I know what the argument is about? Please spare me reading five hundred comments to understand.
Yehuda
Israel
No - because only one of us flips a coin. For my part, we'll call it a "coin flip" - then I agree with you.
Albanzo
Successfully.
Wookie
I am convinced that after 15 tosses, I will already have a reasonable suspicion that if the coins always fall on the same side then there is some sort of coordination here.
You do not? After all, a 1 in 30,000 chance?
And what about 30 throws? 1 per billion?
Not to mention 1000…
I'm glad you accept my apology. Unfortunately, I am not optimistic about our ability to have a discussion in the future or turn a new page. Therefore, it is better that we say goodbye with a sincere apology than that we try to continue and degenerate into the same place again in the future.
And now that we've cleared the air a bit, I can really get back to work.
Israel
I'm starting to understand the problem elbentzo has with you, you just insist on not listening or understanding anything other than what is being said. You assume people mean one thing when they mean something else.
When I asked you: "Do the experiment with 100,000 people. How many people will get the same results as yours? Was information passed there?"
You should either understand that I am asking you if you do an experiment with 10 coin tosses with 100000 people how many of the tosses came out with the same sequence as your sequence or understand that I do not understand you.
When you heard about it somehow, I don't really understand how, that the experiment is done with 100000 people and they all get the same sequence (but for some reason I'm asking you how many of them got the same sequence as yours) we started talking about other things.
In the meantime, maybe answer me in which X you start to think that information is passing.
Why, for example, do you not think that information passes for a simultaneous toss with the same result of one toss? (assuming you don't really think so)
Albanzo
I wrote the last comment before you responded.
I accept the apology, and hope to open a new page without any personal comments.
OK Albanzo, whatever you say, match.
Miracles
We are trying to see if it is possible to get a full correlation in 1000 tosses in any way, including manual arrangement.
Do you accept that this is possible through the transfer of information?
You know what, I regret the previous comment.
At this point it is already clear to you what I think about you, and it is clear to all the commenters here what I think about the physical problem. Nobody gains anything from a bout of insults, and if you think I'm happy to write you these comments, you're wrong.
I will continue to read the comments here, but I will try not to comment. Maybe I'll break down and respond if you put words in my mouth or something like that, but no more. I stand by every factual claim I have presented, whether it concerns physics or the mistakes you make and your unwillingness to learn, but I apologize to you for the insults and sadness I have caused you. I don't think there's an ego battle here, but I do think I got carried away.
Successfully.
What's going on here? I just left you and the whole kindergarten is already numerous?
My friend Israel, what does Albanzo want from a nice person like you?
This is how we promote science in Israel?
Yehuda
Israel
No correlation between coin flips. Only one of us fired. The other placed the coin on a certain side.
There is no ego battle here. There is a member here who does not understand physics, turned to me and asked me a question, refused to accept the answer, refused to learn, refused to listen, and during the discussion degenerated into a fight. My self-esteem does not depend on Israel Shapira. If she was, I would identify myself by my real name, I would bombard you with the articles I wrote. It's an ego, right? glorify myself?
And don't worry about my suppliers. I fulfill all my pedagogical duties, and my article delivery is very good, thank you very much. But of course you want to talk about my article provider. You know, compared to a man who accuses me of "ad hominem" and constantly complains that I don't respond to the matter (even though every question of yours was answered explicitly and in detail), you have a very strong tendency to refer to me, my life, my work, my sleeping habits, to curse me, to wish me ill and all these other things that are very relevant...
So, can we add "hypocritical" to the list? You know, that's with the fool, liar, etc.
Miracles.
I did not understand.
Do you accept that in case there is communication and transfer of information between us we can get a correlation 1000 times?
Israel
So I flip a coin and you don't. Ok. What is the conclusion?
Glad to entertain you.
But I am not amused by the fact that this is the level of our lecturers. A physics doctor who wastes his time on ego and ad hominem battles instead of teaching and being an example.
Israel,
Do you know the difference between us? When you go down on me, I burst out laughing. When I tell you what I say, you lose your temper. You know why, right? do you understand
Well, one of the differences. I also know physics…
Come on Albanzo, back to the barn.
Wookie
"There is a chance for that, it's just that the probability of it happening tends to zero."
You are almost right (do not aspire to 0, 1 to 999^2).. This is indeed one of the possibilities. chance.
Now we'll add your 100,000 people, and let them do the coin experiment too.
If you also get a 100% match with them, isn't that also a transfer of information? According to you, there is also a chance here, isn't there?
Israel, Israel,
don't feel bad Hating someone because they know more than you and they're showing you that you're wrong, telling them to obsess over each other, trying to incite everyone against them, and wishing them nightmares is very common behavior in 3 year olds. The commenters here realized in one hour what you haven't been able to grasp for hundreds of comments), there is no reason why you shouldn't behave like such a child as well.
And by the way - it's not "non-local interaction", it's non-local correlation. I know, I know, you have no idea what the difference is and there is no way you will learn, but at least try to quote correctly.
And now it's your turn to cry because I said I wouldn't respond for a few hours and yet I responded...
Miracles
Tell me which side your coin landed on, watch me put mine on the same side. Even 1000 times.
Not a wizard?
(It also works with rabbits).
Israel
No. You can't flip a coin so it lands on one side.
LILAT Shmulik, Paz Dreams.
Try to dream of an answer to the following question: what is the difference between "non-local interaction" and transferring information from one side to the other.
Lil' Albanzo, nightmares.
Israel,
So come on, lil't everyone
Miracles
We can get identical series if we have a connection, can't we?
Shmulik. We haven't reached the point yet, an assemblage experiment. We will wait for miracles and a walkie-talkie.
Israel,
He didn't mention the name of the book about a hundred times and if I was a serious person I would already remember it?
In any case, I'm in Israel, not abroad and I need to sleep, but I'd love to get an answer:
Do you understand that there is an abysmal difference between coins and photons and that the logic of coins should not be imposed on photons?
Israel
And so we will never get identical series.
Albanzo
Whatever the reason, the main thing is that you overlap.
Miracles
There are no machines. There is no mechanism. There is only you and me in separate rooms, with quarters.
Shmulik
You said "and she directs us to specific reading material on the subject". Where is the reference?
Albanzo
When you solemnly commit to stop the personal reference and talk only about the issue, I will be happy to discuss with you.
Until then, catch up.
Israel
I'll say it again - there are two situations:
1) We received different series. The reason - the throws are different (for example - you and I throw).
2) We received identical series. The reason - the tosses are the same (for example - two machines toss the same coins under the same conditions).
Israel,
brother! What a comeback! You are almost as funny and witty as you are a talented scientist.
Anyway, your wish came true. It's already a little after 4 pm here at my place and I need to get some more work done before the day is over. So today I probably won't respond anymore, maybe for a few more hours when I get home. I'll just leave you with the following diagnosis:
You asked to involve all the commenters here in the discussion to prove to me that you are not alone in your opinion (you claimed that I said that you are stupid because you do not know the answer and that is not what I said at all, but leave it). Note that everyone here - without exception - everyone *except you* is arguing with you. Everyone *except you* sees a flaw in your logic. Everyone *except you* claims that there is a place to study things in depth before determining whether this or that thing is possible or not. Everyone *except you* sees a fundamental difference between a coin and a photon.
And just so you know - the fact that I said I'm going now doesn't mean I'm not going to come back. Don't blame me after I promised to go and broke the promise, like you do.
Israel
There is a chance, the probability of it happening tends to zero.
The fact that you get the same result does not directly indicate the transfer of information. That's why I asked you about the beginning almost in an experiment with the 10 tosses: "Do the experiment with 100,000 people. How many people will get the same results as yours? Was information passed there?"
Maybe if you bothered to answer we would progress towards some kind of understanding of each other.
Israel,
Nothing specific, but in the degree in electrical engineering there were several courses on quantum mechanics (oh holes and electrons! The lecturer brought to the first lesson a plastic lizard to describe how the holes attract electrons, or something like that), unfortunately only half a semester on special relativity and the rest from reading on the internet.
What does it matter?
Physicists today know more than Einstein did. Today's physicist rests on much firmer mathematical ground than it did in Einstein's time, so bringing up Einstein's name as a reason why you are right is an appeal to authority. Invalid
Miracles
And if I got 1000 throws? Is it possible without transferring information?
Albanzo
We realized a long time ago that you were in shock.
Israel
informative. The throws are not random. You will never get a correlation.
Shmulik
What specific reading material?
Wookie
Are you saying that you and I can currently flip coins separately and get a match in 10,000 flips without passing information between us?
Israel,
The department is a department of theoretical physics of high energies. A group of talented physicists, people who are successfully doing the things you only dream you could do, and everyone is just in awe of you.
And again you tell me to overlap. We already know what that means, right?
simply incredible.
How can you claim that you still haven't received an answer to the coin question?
Here is a quote: "...there are non-local correlations without information transfer. Coins are classical objects and cannot have non-local correlations. Photons (or any other quantum particle - electron, positron, quark, etc.) can. Therefore, they can certainly exhibit Correlations without the transfer of information, and this is indeed what happens in intertwined systems.
If you had currencies that had non-local correlations between them, I would argue that there could be a correlation in the measurements between them without the transfer of information. Since you don't have any, I never claimed [this]."
Israel,
By the way, what you are doing is appealing to authority. Logical fallacy of the first order.
You can argue that I also make such a logical fallacy, but in this case, part of what I wrote comes from my external information and the last part is based on the fact that the authority is here, and it directs us to specific reading material on the subject.
Israel
When X equals 1, what must be concluded?
When X equals 2, what must be concluded?
When X equals 3, what must be concluded?
When X equals 4, what must be concluded?
When X equals 5, what must be concluded?
....
When X equals 10, what must be concluded?
When X equals 100, what must be concluded?
When X equals 10000, what must be concluded?
Albanzo
You said everyone in the department was laughing at me, didn't you?
Could it be that the department is the closed department? This nicely explains the hysterical laughter.
overlap
Wookie
Yes
Miracles
I just break the assembly experiment into steps. This is the logical step.
What is the problem with answering the coin question?
Israel
You mean we are now doing an experiment where we both flip a coin over and over again X times and each time we get the same result?
and asks are we supposed to conclude anything from this?
Whoa whoa, pay attention. Now Israel is trying to create a misrepresentation as if he and Einstein were in the same camp.. and as if I called him ignorant and a liar because he did not agree with me, and not because he refused to study the subject before he stated that "no one knows the answer" and because he flatly lied and said that I Claiming things I don't believe at all.
Albanzo
I have no problem with you responding, if you only refer to the subject in question and not to me personally as you always do.
Miracles,
You may be right but what is important is the point of his words. I wanted him to write the point!
Israel,
But what to do since we have discovered things and formalism has completely changed? So he wrote. So what? According to what Albantezo writes, if he were alive today, he would not have written this.
Wookie
Still don't understand why you need more than 2 testers. What is stopping you and me from doing the experiment right now? Why are his results unacceptable?
Miracles
You keep coming back to photons and quanta, while I keep talking about coins.
Can we close the issue of coins? Shmulik wants to run.
I said I wanted to end the discussion. But I also specifically said that if you continue it, don't expect me to stand aside and shut up.
Notice how many times you try to ask me to be quiet, try to ask the other commenters to ignore me, try to ask me to leave... A wise man once said that when you try to silence someone, you only prove that you are afraid of what they might say.
walkie,
To be honest, I was a little bit on my own for writing this. Who am I to judge? But glad to hear you understand what I mean
Shmulik
We read together EPR on Wikipedia..
According to the article, Einstein claimed that if 2 photons are always in the same state (like our coins) then there is a transfer of information between them faster than light, or that hidden variables exist. There are no hidden variables. So..
Are Einstein and Wiki ignorant and liars too?
Shmulik
The projection is not correct - because there is no randomness in the classical world!
What Israel is doing is equivalent to the following experiment: I have two objects moving towards each other at a speed 1.5 times the speed of light... do they see each other?
Not every thought experiment is a valid experiment. That's why this whole discussion is ridiculous to me.
Israel
Because coin tossing behaves in some statistical way that I'm sure you're familiar with, and in order for the results of two or more sequences to be the same, an appropriate number of participants in the experiment is required.
Shmulik
If I were a photon, or how many things I could do, if only I were a photon.
As for the woman, I will take that into account. My intention when I write the woman is simply an abbreviation of the great and wonderful woman with whom I share my life, when I don't have the patience to write everything.
Israel,
What does the coin experiment matter now? Let's assume there is randomness (miracles, flow), what changes is the projection you make from the coins to the photons. It is not true.
Albanzo
Yes! Yes! want to get dirty Whatever you say.
You didn't say what 20 times you go?
and Israel,
What does Arab have to do with it? Do you want to pollute this forum not only with stubborn refusal to study and opinion buying but also with racism and hatred of difference?
Shmulik
"And there was always the same answer. With coins, there is no problem."
It seems to me that Nissim and Wookiee/Maya do not necessarily agree with you.
We'll wait.
Israel,
Coins will also never transmit information faster than light, no matter what you do.
You claim that because information passes through the coins, information also passes between the photons. Between coins you admit in advance that it is not about going above the speed of light. Between photons you claim yes.
Albentazo comes and says that only if you study the material, you will understand why there is no transfer of information there. Understand why your inference from coins to photons is incorrect.
Marco...mom?
Israel,
I don't "want to add to that a shameless liar". I want you to stop shamelessly lying and saying I'm claiming things I never said.
I don't know what happened a year ago, but you talked to me about an assembly experiment, which was not conducted between coins - but between quantum particles. It is true that you also tried to ask about coins, but I told you explicitly, accept with a committee, that I am not answering the specific question about the coins but the question regarding the assembly. I made it clear to you again and again and again that this was a quantum experiment, even though you insisted that it was a "logical experiment unrelated to quantum mechanics". Hopefully now, with the kind help of the other commenters, you are beginning to understand that there is a difference.
Israel,
And it was always the same answer. In coins, there is no problem.
But when you included Albantezo's name now, you indicated that, in your opinion, what applies to coins applies to photons.
And here is the failure.
Marco...mom?
Miracles
Don't exist? Don't you have a room at home? Is the situation that serious?
walkie,
If you were a photon, I could do it from both computers. Think about it.
Chutsamza, I don't like saying "the woman". What's wrong with my wife's writing?
Albanzo
When I asked the question, I humbly announced in advance that I was opaque/clogged/ignorant/Arab.
Do you want to add to that a shameless liar? break up
Wookie
What I did not understand. Why do you need more than 2 people to conduct the experiment?
Shmulik.
Go through all threads and threads, including from a year ago.
I always asked the coin question.
Miracles?
Israel
I can't correlate things that don't exist.
If your way of thinking leads to a contradiction - check your way of thinking.
You reached a contradiction - and your mistake is that there is no randomness in the classical world.
Israel,
But we have already written the abysmal, fundamental, categorical, absolute difference between coins and photons.
Doesn't it bother you that photons obey different rules than coins? It is proven. There is a Torah that deals with this. She has well-defined concepts. Computers are built thanks to this theory.
Marco will not meet his mother today either 🙁
Israel.
Shameless liar. I never said that there is a correlation between currencies without the transfer of information. I said that there are non-local cursors without information transfer. Coins are classical objects and cannot have non-local correlations. Photons (or any other quantum particle - electron, positron, quark, etc.) can. Therefore, they can certainly present correlations without information transfer, and this is indeed what happens in intertwined systems.
If you had currencies that had non-local correlations between them, I would argue that there could be a correlation in the measurements between them without the transfer of information. Since you don't have any, I never claimed what you say I did, and you prove once again that you are not only lacking in any physical understanding but also a shameless liar.
Israel
Maya was me, you have to remember not to respond from the woman's computer.
And if you read the response you would understand that it cannot be done with just two people.
Shmulik, ya spoiler.
You say: in order for there to be a full correlation between currencies, information must pass. Beauty. Well?
But Albanzo claims not..
This is the point.
Miracles.
Leave for now the meaning of Zionism and self-fulfillment. Can you build a mechanism that will give you a correlation between the coins when you and I cast in separate rooms without transferring information between the rooms? Just that.
Yes or No.
Miracles,
stop making it difficult ok? 🙂
Let's move forward
Israel, huh?
Israel,
Running is tomorrow. Martavu will not run alone
Israel
There is no randomness in the classical world. Therefore, your experiment has no meaning.
What is simpler?
albentezo,
It's like with Marco. Maybe today he will meet mother
Shmulik
Run for fitness.
That being said, Ruci Shmulik..
When you come back, we may get a critical mass of agreement/disagreement percentages, and we can move forward.
Israel,
I will write alone.
In order for there to be a full correlation between currencies, information must pass. Beauty. Well?
Israel,
Well??? what's the point???
I have to go exercise. Yes, I know what time it is now in Israel.
Shmulik.
You already agreed, I need another 2 + Maya.
Maya, tell me, why can't we do the experiment just you and me?
It seems to me that the commenters here can read my comments and decide for themselves whether I am responding to the matter or not.
Girl, would you mind ignoring Albenzo for now? He does not respond to the subject, but to the responding body.
Israel
I have no problem in principle, except that in this case (1000 tosses), I need more participants in the experiment than there are people
Israel,
But I already wrote:
If there are random tosses, the chance of both of us getting the same or the opposite is probabilistic and the more chances we make, the chance of having a full correlation drops to zero.
Well?
1. Yes, I care. I will intervene as much as I like.
2. I didn't say you're a moron because you don't know the answer. I said you're an idiot because you don't listen, because you refuse to learn, and because you're convinced you know things you have no idea about. The experiment you performed was successful - each of the other commenters has already made it clear that he feels he needs to study the subject before determining whether or not information is passed and under what conditions. You have successfully proven that you are indeed the only idiot here.
Albanzo
When an experimenter interferes during the experiment, it is called bias.
We are currently trying to determine if Israel is really as stupid as you claim, and this is through comparison with a control group. Do you mind not interfering?
Miracles on the kippak. No randomness? Ready to put money on this discount? Say when you want to start.
Israel constantly urges everyone to do an experiment, but it demands that it be done in a classic way. I wonder what would happen if he agreed to do it quantumly... Oh, wait. Basically - they did it quantumly. lots of times One of the times (actually, one of the first times) is called an assembly experiment. Israel loves to talk about him but doesn't understand him at all. The results are - as we know - in quantum systems there are non-local correlations. Such correlations can occur without transmitting information, and this is easy to prove with pen and paper (if you just bother to learn instead of going to the science website and declaring that everyone is wrong and you are right...)
Shmulik
Pre-coordination means hidden variables.
For example, it is possible to send boxes with the coins inside tilted at a certain angle. When you place the boxes on the floor and let the coins fall, they will always fall on the same side.
I'm talking about random throws, see my original question.
Israel
Our throws are not the same. The variables are not hidden at all - the weight of the quarter, the angle of the assumption on the toe, the air density, the temperature (it's colder for me...).
Again - there is no randomness here. There is no random in the classical world.
Shmulik,
Everything you said is true. Specifically, the issue with the currencies is clearly irrelevant, because (as was explained to Israel a billion times) correlation and information transfer are two different things. That is, the fact that there is a correlation does not mean with certainty whether or not information has been transferred. In classical physics, there are no mechanisms that can produce non-local correlations, which exist without transferring information. In quantum physics, yes. What Israel is desperately trying to do is to force quantum mechanics to obey his intuition (which is of course drawn from the classical world), and this without even knowing what information is, what correlation is, and what the differences are between the classical world and the quantum world (in particular in this context, and according to his questions - also in general ).
Miracles
You talk about "hidden variables", otherwise how would you get the same situation?
Are you claiming that it is possible to get full correlation without transferring information? Want to run an experiment now? do you have a quarter
Israel,
I wrote yes, but I want to clarify something: if you trust me in advance, I don't know if it can be called a transfer of information.
If we talked while doing it, information passed.
But I flow. Information also passed.
Well?
Shmulik
If we talked, what did we talk about, the weather?
Getting passed?
Wookie
If you believe that a 100% correlation can be obtained in 1000 tosses without information transfer, state when you are interested in starting the experiment and how much money you are willing to put in the intervention.
I'm waiting.
Israel
If we are in exactly the same situation - in any case all the throws will be the same, let's say "tree".
If we both got mixed and identical series, then I would say that there is something in the casting mechanism of both of us that causes this series. Why? Because there is no randomness in the classical world, in my opinion.
Israel,
Or it didn't happen, if we didn't talk.
did not pass Something probable came out
passage. What we trained for came out.
Well?
Israel
Do the experiment with 100,000 people. How many people will get the same results as you? Has information passed there?
Israel,
passage. Well?
Israel,
What does it matter? Coins are not photons.
Reality is not interested in classical logic. Classical logic has to bow its head to reality. Quantum mechanics is reality and the rules are different from what we are used to. Photons obey different rules than coins and inferring from coins to photons is incorrect. is an error.
The solution lies in learning the definitions and the material. By the way, don't think for a second that I know the material.
Shmulik
Hit, hit, but probably not enough..
Leave Quantum for now. Let's finish with the logic experiment.
The miracles of the screens.
So you accept that if each of us in our rooms flips a coin 100 times and we get a full correlation, then information has passed between the rooms?
Yes No
Wookie, Nissim Shmulik, everyone.
I am now in my room in Encino.
You are in your rooms.
Here I flip a coin 10 times:
Peli, Peli, tree, Peli, tree, tree, tree Peli, tree tree.
The information about the charges was sent to you via the Internet. Do you have a problem arranging your coin to fall in the same order? I guess not. Just put it in the order I said.
Now let's do the experiment without information: I will throw, you will throw, we will call later and see what correlation we get.
Ready?
Israel
agree. In any case - there is no random coin toss, so the experiment has no meaning.
Israel,
When did you stop beating your wife?
Classical logic does not apply to quantum mechanics. A particle can be applied to that universe. An electron can pass through both slots. It freaks me out on a classical level, but reality doesn't care.
If coins always fall in the way you describe, there must be a connection between them. Photons are not coins but quantum creatures. This difference is world wide
Israel,
It's not the same either. Your paradox is problematic to understand because it contains many assumptions and components. Here we are talking about a well-known and well-studied mechanism of quantum mechanics.
Show me a link to a contemporary physicist who claims that this is information transfer. By the way, if you remember, I once asked you if it is a matter of transferring information, then there is some kind of radiation. Why don't we measure it? And, how does the information know how to get from one photon to another, where is the quantum GPS hiding in the square of the information item that passes? To my delight, Albenzato made it clear in no uncertain terms that the solution is much simpler and it lies in understanding the material.
Israel
First of all, I'm not entirely sure that I know what information transfer is, so I'd appreciate it if you could explain to me exactly what it means, because it's not really my field.
Secondly, if Shlomo Yankelovich plays basketball at the same time as all the Lakers games (because he is unable to watch them play, it's hard to blame him) and throws to the basket every time Kobe Bryant throws to the basket, and every time one scores the other also scores, and every time one misses the other also misses, Should I conclude from this that information is passing there or could it be that information is passing there?
Shmulik
We will also reach quanta. Right now we are dealing with a logical question.
You think logic doesn't apply to quanta?
Miracles
Your mechanism is an information transfer mechanism. I'm talking about you being in your room now and me in mine flipping the coins. Want to do an experiment with 100 tosses? Want to bet there won't be a 100% match? Not 90's either? of 80? of 70?
Israel
That is - if you make the same toss twice then you will inevitably get the same result.
Israel,
This is indeed a quantum question because only there is such a case.
In any other situation, this does not occur unless there is coordination. In quantum this happens but there is an answer as to the mechanism that makes this possible (which you have to learn to understand)
Israel
But - I don't believe there is a "fair currency".
Shmulik
"Honestly, what reason do you have to doubt what Albantezo said (on the scientific issues)?"
And what reason do I have to doubt what any of the professors who solved my twin paradox said?
The problem is, as I remember, that each one brought a different solution and contradicted his friend's solution. this is the reason.
Can you solve my currency question? It is not related to physics, only logic.
Israel
Yes. Connect them using a mechanism made of a chain and two gears.
Nissim Hadar
As I have stated many times, this is not a quantum question. This is a logical question.
Can you suggest some mechanism where the coins will always fall on the same side?
Israel,
I have a lawyer friend who sometimes gives legal instructions and when I ask why I should do this and that, he answers me: "Listen, I'm not going to teach you 10 years of law through a phone call. Only from the age of 18!" (just a joke, but up to the point, everything is true).
Honestly, what reason do you have to doubt what Albantezo said (on the scientific issues)?
It is absolutely clear that it is necessary to study the material, the definitions, the axioms of the field and not rely on the fact that the meaning of the concepts you use in everyday language is the same as the definitions of quantum mechanics. For example, he specifically wrote:
"We know that the probability of occurrence of event A (whose probability is a) or event B (whose probability is b) is a+b only if A and B are foreign events. This is ten thousand percent true in quantum mechanics as well. What is strange about it is that it has non-local correlations, so events that our intuition says should be foreign are really not and therefore do not obey the law. Specifically, when talking about systems that contain non-local correlations, i.e. entanglement, one should be careful that the event spaces of each individual particle and of both together are different.'
In order to understand why our intuition fails, we need to study the material.
By the way, Lawrence Krauss in his Facebook group intervened in some discussion about interweaving and said that there is no way for interweaving to transmit information faster than light (rarely, since he usually writes a post but does not comment on talkbackists' posts). All over the internet you will find this claim over and over again. Why doesn't information go through? need to study.
The same goes for the question about Einstein. Imagine a brilliant physics student who has never studied relativity but is proficient in Newton, quantum mechanics and mathematics (I don't know if such strange proficiency can exist, but let's assume). From what I understand from this thread, she can develop relativity without some of the assumptions that Einstein made. Hence, this whole line of questions about Einstein is somewhat irrelevant. What does it matter today if part of what he thought contained contradictions to information that he could not have had in any case? Happily, his intuition was sufficient for the development of the theory of relativity, and even if there is a contradiction, it did not interfere with the development of the Torah, because at this stage, the quantum world did not have to be required. But we moved on anyway.
That's it, I hope we're still friends and in some universe somehow we'll add you to our monthly poker, for NIS 50 per person (I guess you're used to a lot more but that's what it is).
Israel Shapira
Since when do two classical coins always land on the same side? You throw from the quantum world to the classical world, and then you reach a contradiction. Maybe this projection is not valid?
Wookie!
Let's start with the basic logical question:
"If 2 coins in different rooms always fall on the same side and there are no hidden variables, i.e. the state of the coins is determined only with the toss - how can it be said that no information passed between the rooms?"
If you are interested, I will also ask you about the photons.
What question exactly do you want an answer to?
Let's assume you are right and Israel the obscurantist just doesn't understand.
Is anyone reading the comments here able to answer Israel the idiot with the answers to his questions?
Miracles?
Shmulik?
Walkie?
anonymous?
Anaraf?
I'm waiting.
Listen. The last time.
Information transfer and correlation are two completely different things. You imagine that if there is any connection between two cases then it means that some signal must pass between them. But this is simply not true, and until you get up off your ass and decide to learn what information is, what correlation is, and what a system with non-local correlations is, nothing will help you. There are explicit proofs in information theory that show that systems that have a correlation (even if it is not local) of the kind of interweaving (non-spherical systems) do not transfer information between them. I refer to interweaving because in your example there is not enough information about the nature of the correlation.
All this has already been told to you. But you ignore it, because you don't understand. You don't understand, because you don't study. You don't learn, because you refuse to admit that your knowledge is lower (by a lot, it should be noted) even than a bachelor's degree student. And if you had an ounce of courage or a shred of honesty, you would open a book in the undergraduate syllabus and see that it is Chinese for you. There is a name for people like you.
Successfully.
Okay Albanzo, I'm a compulsive liar.
Why is it so hard for you to answer a simple question?
"If 2 coins in different rooms always fall on the same side and there are no hidden variables, i.e. the state of the coins is determined only with the toss - how can it be said that no information passed between the rooms?"
Maybe because you or someone doesn't have the answer?
Israel,
Either you are a compulsive liar or you live in a fantasy world. First, you are the one who initiated this discussion when you asked me to settle things that didn't work out for you on the issues of the uncertainty principle in private relations and the assembly experiment. All I did was comment on the story you posted. You could have ignored my comments, and you could have answered them. But you chose to ask me to explain things to you in physics.
Second, you only prove your horribly low level when you write in the same comment the sentence "I claim that "the theory of relativity is based on the classical behavior of light", eh? Where?" And also the sentence "If this doesn't invalidate Postulate 2 in relations? It is built on the assumption that a photon has a known position - the time that has passed since the light is turned on is multiplied by the speed of light minus the starting point - and its momentum is also known and constant.". Let's see. The assumptions of special relativity, according to you, are based on the assumption "... that a photon has a known position... and its momentum is also known and constant". This is what is called classical behavior. So basically you say that the assumptions of the theory of relativity are based on the classical behavior of light, and at the same time you say that... didn't you say that? yes? Is this what is happening here?
I answered your questions, including the one with the inconsistencies. You just don't seem to know what the word "correlation" means, which I used. But it's up to you. I also understand from your response that you are still afraid to open Sakurai, right? If you have the audacity to accuse me of not answering your questions, you should have the audacity to face the possibility that I may be answering but your knowledge is so minimal that you don't even understand the answer. As you did not understand that to say that "Postulate 2 is based on the assumption that the position of the photon and its momentum are known" is to say that private patronage is based on the classical behavior of light.
Understand - I will never want to talk to you about physics. Simply because talking to you about physics is like talking to a child: your level of knowledge is at floor level, and you have nothing to contribute to the discussion. In addition, you do not understand anything that is said to you, that is, an incompetent child. Finally, you insist on your ignorance and stupidity. That is, a child who is not talented and also makes a mess in class and refuses to learn.
Keep telling yourself that "we both studied physics"... keep telling yourself that I'm chasing you... and most importantly - keep ignoring all the facts. From the fact that you turned to me (in this discussion and all the previous ones) to please settle your misunderstandings, from the fact that you received answers to questions but you do not have the minimum tools necessary to understand them, from the fact that your "expert" is just someone who did not tell you to your face that you are talking nonsense and therefore received Suddenly a degree of honor, because his claims (and yours) regarding the connection between mathematics and quanta are incorrect, or at best - poor formulations of irrelevant and meaningless claims, From the fact that you claimed that an Aspa experiment is not an experiment in quantum physics, from the fact that throughout the discussion you only demonstrate a lack of understanding below the level of a bachelor's degree but refuse to admit it and claim to understand.
continue on your way. After all, she brought you this far, and you are a great physicist who made a real impact on the world of science, right? People come to you from far and wide to learn from you, right? So go ahead.
I hope you're laughing out loud, because I'm just cracking up. You are the official joke of our department!
Who?
Will Shaponym crawl back to the lair? not interesting.
Will Israel say something like "I did not claim that the theory of relativity is based on the classical behavior of light.. Bring me a reference"?
interesting.
waiting (what's new?)
Let's get a little closer to the facts.
I brought a quote from Albanzo:
"But still, he is an expert as far as you are concerned, while people who discovered new things in relationships and promote science, and teach future generations - they do not understand anything."
And I offered him:
"If you find evidence for this claim of yours against me - point to them."
My intention was truly that those "people who discovered new things in relationships and promote science, and teach the next generations" that Albenzo claims that, as far as I'm concerned, "they don't understand anything" - are well-known scientists such as Feynman, Bohr or Hawking. What claims does he have against Yehuda, no?
For a moment I didn't think he meant himself. I don't know about anything new that Albanzo discovered in relationships (I'd love to hear), I don't know what Albanzo does, (I remembered something about quantum communication) and I don't know who and what he teaches. Am I supposed to know? The man marked me as a target from day one, and I try to avoid any contact with him. Except for one hasty first and last time, I never initiated contact with him, but only responded, including in this article, including today. Even when he promised not to respond to me anymore (yesterday), he returned today with another response. You can check, everything is linked.
Albanzo quotes me:
"Did it occur to you that maybe you just don't know or understand the experiment?"
Here is my response in full:
"I asked for a reference to the Aspect experiment. This is a logical experiment, regardless of quanta.
As usual, you answered what you choose to answer, not my question (% mismatches, remember)?
Is it conceivable that maybe you just don't know or understand the experiment?"
This is after I go back and ask him to answer only one thing: the percentage of mismatches in the experiment, and receive explanations about things that are different from what I asked for.
What wonder then that I think that maybe he simply does not know or understand the experiment?
Until now, I have not received from Albanzo or anyone an explanation of the discrepancies. If he or someone had bothered to answer this question that I have repeated so many times, including a logical abstraction, we might have gotten to the root of the matter.
You can continue to go through claim after claim, but I don't think there is much point. Any examination will prove that Albenzo is the one who always turns to me, always aggressively and arrogantly. Any examination will show that he does not answer my very focused questions, but answers in irrelevant generalities (I claim that "the theory of relativity is based on the classical behavior of light", eh? Where?). I feel it's ridiculous to even start justifying myself for something. Anyone with eyes in their head, a bit of intelligence, and a minimal sense of decency, will be able to go through all the comments in all the articles and see who starts with who. If someone does not understand the technical details (I ask: the uncertainty principle forbids knowing the position and momentum of a quantum particle. Doesn't this invalidate Postulate 2 in relations? It is based on the assumption that a photon has a known position - the time that has passed from the moment the flashlight is turned on is multiplied by the speed of light minus The starting point - and its momentum is also known and fixed. So how does it work out?) I would be happy to explain why this is a completely relevant question. I have asked Albanzo several times to let me know if he is interested in discussing physics, the answer is probably not. It's all ego. Otherwise how did we get into another fight? It's fresh, just today, no need to dig through 700 comments. Who started the fight today? I?
anonymous
you say:
"Say: I agree that Rafi is not an expert or understands less than a person who deals in the field professionally.
Or any correction you see fit."
I do not know Rafi and I do not know what his education is. I know that he has articles on relationships (that's how I found him), that in the long correspondence I had with him he was courteous and professional, that he solved the "twin paradox" with elegant ease, after I received many contradictory answers from people who are considered experts in the field, and that he offered an interesting explanation and concrete suggestions For my GPS experiment.
Bottom line for me, he and miracles are the only ones that really help.
I assume that by "a person who deals in the field professionally" you meant Albenzo. Until a few days ago I thought that his specialization was in quantum communication, and therefore also in my first response to him I wrote to him about "something from your field". I didn't know he was a relationship expert. Now that I know I'm ready to say what you asked.
Good night teddy bear garden.
Here are some quotes: "Did it occur to you that maybe you simply don't know or understand the experiment?", "Go patronize someone else. It's quite clear that you don't know what I'm talking about."
In addition, I will make two comments:
1. To ask someone to go through 700 comments and to say that if he refuses to answer them then he should apologize for his words is such indescribable vileness. Just a poor attempt to take advantage of the fact that normal people don't have the strength and/or time to go through hundreds of comments to try to claim some small victory for you. pathetic.
2. If you are so into apologizing for mistakes and admitting them, maybe do it yourself? Maybe you'll apologize now, for claiming that you didn't tell me that I don't understand what I'm talking about or know the relevant material? Perhaps thanks to the countless mistakes you have had in this thread, starting with the fact that you argued with me for dozens of comments about uncertainty in relations, through the fact that you claimed that the theory of relativity is based on the classical behavior of light, and ending with the fact that you claimed that asfa is not a quantum experiment when it is nothing less than measuring correlations Between particles intertwined in a way that eliminates the effect of local correlations (and therefore any measured correlation is non-local)?
If I were a devious person, I would say that it is your duty to check the things and that if you do not investigate them and provide proof that you were right then you should apologize... but I am not interested in such things. The responsibility for your ignorance (or eradication, if one day you wish), is all yours.
And again you dragged me into a fight. Can you perhaps explain to me where you have the audacity to say that I'm bothering you and that you just want them to leave you, when my every response ends with "let's leave it at that, don't respond to me and I won't respond to you" and you continue to answer defiantly (and this time also lying)?
Leave, don't want an answer. I just want you to let go. Until next time, when you can accuse me of taking care of you.
Goodbye and Goodbye.
Israel, your last response is repulsive naivety.
If Albanzo's statement is not accurate, just clarify instead of leveraging it for your ego.
Say: I agree that Rafi is not an expert or understands less than a person who deals in the field professionally.
or any correction you see fit.
I'm not going to go over 800 comments. When you didn't understand my answer about assembly you specifically said that I don't understand the experiment. A comment or two after that, you specifically accused me of not understanding what I was talking about (this was at the point where both of our comments were mostly insults).
Feel free to check for yourself.
Albanzo
I will quote just one sentence from your words:
"But still, he is an expert as far as you are concerned, while people who discovered new things in relationships and promote science, and teach future generations - they do not understand anything."
Please go through my comments in this article or any other article you choose.
If you find evidence for this claim of yours towards me - point to them.
On the other hand, if you don't find even one confirmation, either they don't exist or you don't want to look - I expect you as a scientist to admit it and apologize.
Israel,
I addressed this in my response. Any sentence, about a proven tautological mathematical statement, if it can be applied in quantum mechanics then it is valid. Of course, there may be sentences that cannot be applied. For example, let's take Rolle's theorem as an example. The sentence says that if a derivation and an actual sentence are applied
f(x)=f(y)z
For x and y are different from each other, then there must be a stationary point (minimum or maximum, for that matter) in the domain between them. (Please ignore the letter z at the end of the line). Now suppose I encounter a non-deductive function. There is no problem with Roll's theorem - the function simply does not fulfill its conditions and therefore it does not fulfill its prediction.
The same goes for quanta - it is clear that there are claims that quantum systems do not meet their conditions, but there is no fear that a mathematical truth that can be applied to a quantum system will not be true. True, sometimes we develop new mathematical tools - so what? Let me remind you, Newton also had to develop New mathematical tools to engage in classical mechanics.
I'm not going to continue the discussion. The point - quantum theory is axiomatic and any tautology that stems from the axioms is consistent with it. If his statement is interpreted as you ask, then it is simply a meaningless statement.
And regarding Rafi - I searched some 6 Wikipedia entries on relativity, and the only thing I found was a reference to a summary he wrote about relativity. Not exactly a scientific paper. In the same spirit, I will remind you that writing an entry on Wikipedia is also something that anyone can do and it does not even begin to indicate expertise. Again - I don't know the guy and I don't want to judge him without knowing him and not in his presence, but there is - simply no - any evidence that he is an expert. It's all about a man who wrote a summary about relationships personally. But still he is an expert as far as you are concerned, while people who have discovered new things in relationships and promote science, and teach future generations - they do not understand anything.
Albanzo, details.
What Rafi said is this:
"In the course of the logic, we made additional assumptions and not just the stated one. Giving up any of the other assumptions gives an equally good explanation why the inequality does not hold.
For example, we assume that the mathematics as we know it is also valid in quantum reality, but in at least one case we have already seen that the mathematics we knew did not work at the quantum level: the probability rule we knew says that if there is a probability a that event A will occur and a probability b that event B will occur, the probability that either A or B will occur is a+b This rule does not always hold at the quantum level and in order to be able to calculate the probability of measuring quantum properties we had to invent a new mathematical term - the probability amplitude".
A quick look at Wikipedia shows that the concept of "probability amplitude" was developed for quantum mechanics by Feynman and Co. This is exactly what Rafi says: "The mathematics we knew did not work at the quantum level" - that is, the previous mathematics did not contain this concept.
He does not claim that mathematics does not work at the quantum level. What Rafi said is:
"The thing is, this is not the only explanation that can be given for the particles not fulfilling the Bell inequality.
During the logic we made additional assumptions and not only the stated one. Giving up any of the other assumptions gives an equally good explanation for why the inequality does not hold."
From a purely logical point of view, Rafi is right. If we assume that 1+1=3, this nicely explains Bell's inequality. This does not mean that we should adopt this assumption, and I do not think that Rafi thinks so. I'm sure not.
You can find a reference to Rafi's articles from the entry on relativity on Wikipedia, and he also edited the entry on Bell's Paradox on Wikipedia at the time as you can learn from the correspondence page in the entry.
As I have told you several times, if you are interested in discussing physics, let me know. The first question I will ask you is the question I have never received an adequate answer to:
If 2 coins in different rooms always fall on the same side and there are no hidden variables, i.e. the state of the coins is determined only with the toss - how can it be said that no information passed between the rooms?
I don't think you need a PhD in physics to understand a simple answer to this simple question.
By the way, I checked the book I told you about, and indeed such a book appears in its entirety online!
http://phy240.ahepl.org/ModPhy-Serway.pdf
It is different from the book we studied with at the time (came out in 89), which dealt almost exclusively with quanta. As written in the introduction:
The third edition contains two major changes from the second edition: First,
this edition has been extensively rewritten in order to clarify difficult concepts
But it also states that:
This book is intended as a modern physics text for science majors and engineering
students who have already completed an introductory calculus-based
physics course.
I didn't like him very much, I preferred RESNICK and HALLIDAY. But from a brief study of it, this is about the level of my knowledge, except that the last integral I solved was some 20 years ago (there is this thing of Khatiyarat)
Albanzo
Israel did an interesting experiment - he connected a GPS receiver to the end of a fan blade and saw that the altitude (and height) displayed by the GPS changes when the fan is turned on.
Is it possible that a positional error is created because time slows down with the acceleration of the blade tip? We know that the change in gravity from sea level to the height of the GPS satellites has a slow effect (I think 45 microseconds per day) so we assume there is a large change (say 200-300 microseconds per day) at the tip of the blade.
I'd be glad to hear your opinion
Israel,
I really don't want to continue discussing anything, but I feel I have to comment on something you wrote.
You quoted a person named Rafi Moore, whom I do not know, who said "We assume that the mathematics as we know it is also valid in quantum reality, but in at least one case we have already seen that the mathematics we knew did not work at the quantum level".
I can't begin to explain how simply untrue that sentence is. I don't know Rafi, I've never spoken to him, so I won't judge him - it's possible that he meant something true and failed in his language - but the sentence as it is written now is absolutely and indisputably simply 0% correct and 100% wrong. Quantum mechanics is nothing less and nothing more than an axiomatic algebraic theory. As such, it is tautological and does not contradict any tautological claim ever made in that axiomatic system - in particular, any mathematical theorem. The example given by Rafi is simply an inaccuracy on his part: we know that the probability of occurrence of event A (whose probability is a) or event B (whose probability is b) is a+b only if A and B are foreign events. This is ten thousand percent true in quantum mechanics as well. What is strange about it is that it has non-local correlations, so events that our intuition says should be foreign are really not and therefore do not obey the law. Specifically, when talking about systems that contain non-local correlations, i.e. entanglement, one should be careful that the event spaces of each individual particle and of both together are different.
I have no intention of starting an argument. I said mine. You can believe me when I say this is only for your benefit, because if you believe Moore's words as they are quoted here, instead of learning and being educated, you will only move away from understanding quantum mechanics. You don't want to believe me? Think I have malicious intent, or I don't know what I'm talking about? Stop it, my son.
By the way, on the same topic - I noticed that you called Rafi Mor a relationship expert. As I said, I don't know him and I don't know who he is. I looked for articles he wrote and did not find any publication in the relevant fields. But you consider him an expert. On the other hand, for me (who teaches relativity and publishes articles on the subject, promotes research and innovates) you have no problem saying that I don't understand at all what I'm talking about. I'm not asking for an apology or any such nonsense, think what you want - your right. I just want to ask you to consider the possibility that you value his opinion so much because he gives you compliments and supports your scientific experiments, and as far as I know you have no problem disrespecting him because I don't get anything from what you say.
I don't expect an answer. This is a point for thought, and you can take it in any direction you want. Can ignore, can consider, however you like. As I said at the beginning, I'm not interested in the discussion, I don't see the need for you to respond to me, and even if you do, it's unlikely that I'll respond because I'm tired of everything that's happening here. But at least regarding the first point - Rafi Moore's (apparently, at least) claim that quantum mechanics is inconsistent with proven mathematical truths, I implore you to check the issue yourself and consult other (as you see fit) experts. Because he's just not in the right direction.
Thanks Albanzo,
Interesting (and necessary) information
Israel, the explanation for the statistical result in the Aspect experiment is that by decreasing dimensions you get an indication and a statistical image in a low dimension, there is a transition here from movement backwards and forwards in time many times between a superposition which is a kind of "parallel universes" and the image that stabilizes on the test in a low dimension, therefore it is possible and again possible to transfer information faster than speed The light is only statistically compensating for a decrease in dimension. Respectfully blowing water
: )
I realised. You thought Rapi was short for him, huh?
The common denominator is probably that some of the comments I would have blocked were from someone whose last name begins with the letter R
Israel
What about me and Rafi's answers and blocking comments?
If I could block comments here, I would use it to block other comments from other people here.
Can't even sneak parts of Rafi's answer. Wookie, is that you blocking them?
The response with Rafi's answer to the Aspa experiment is still pending for some reason. Here is the bottom line:
"We assume that the mathematics as we know it is also valid in quantum reality, but in at least one case we have already seen that the mathematics we knew did not work at the quantum level."
And to that I agree. If the math is not valid, there is indeed no problem.
Israel
It's a bit more complicated, but I don't think so. You see the lowest satellite at 0 degree declination.
In flight - a plane on the horizon line is always at your height. Approximately - because the horizon is a little lower at high altitudes (a few degrees)
I definitely think there is no non-relativistic explanation!
Miracles
The "error" in the GPS reading - like an "interference" in electromagnetic transmission - is the essence of the experiment.
Are you able to explain the cause of the error in a non-relativistic way? I do not.
Rafi's answer to the assembly experiment is awaiting release.
Miracles
Really nonsense. What does it matter? I brought the pole to make it easy to imagine.
Don't you see that in the example I gave, the satellite would appear to be much lower than the horizon plane? This is the relevant point for the results of the experiment.
Israel
The interpretation of "an object is below the horizon line" is that the horizon hides the object. That's how I know. You treat it differently, hence the misunderstanding between us.
And for that matter - I think the reception of satellites close to the horizon is problematic. In particular - you will get errors because of ground returns. But - the receiver will always prefer distant satellites in the sky to improve the accuracy (matter of DOP).
I don't know why it interests you so much. You got an error while the receiver is accelerating. What do you care what the direction of the error is? Most of the satellites are above you, and the error of low satellites will be to move you away from that satellite (or close? Not sure about that).
Maybe do the experiment on the side of a building so that all the satellites are in the same part of the sky? So we expect to see an error towards the building, don't we?
Israel
It's hard with you... At a height of one km, the horizon is over 100 km away... GPS satellite tracks do not pass over the pole...
But that's nonsense.
Let's take a communication satellite located in the longitude of Israel - let's say 35 degrees east. I am in Israel at latitude 36 North, 35 East. Note that communication satellites are located on the equatorial plane, at an altitude of 36000 km (approximately).
Question - Where in the sky do I see the satellite?
In the meantime, Rafi's answer to the question was received.
Hi Israel,
I am very familiar with the arguments of Bell's law, as mentioned I wrote a Wikipedia page on the subject.
The accepted logic regarding Bell's theorem and the non-locality of reality is as follows:
It can be proved mathematically that Bell's inequality must hold for every group in which each of its members has or does not have each of two properties.
If in the EPR scenario each particle is assumed to have either spin 1/2 or -1/2 in each of two given geometric directions, these values should satisfy the Bell inequality.
These values can be tested empirically on pairs of entangled particles and see that for certain choices of geometric directions Bell's inequality does not hold.
From this it follows that the assumption we made is wrong and the parts do not have a specific spin in any of the directions, the spin is randomly determined during the measurement.
If the spin is determined at the time of measurement and for entangled particles we will always measure the same spin in a certain geometric direction, then the measurement of one particle can immediately affect the physical state of a distant particle - that is, reality is non-local.
This logic is not wrong and provides a complete explanation for the predictions of quantum mechanics.
The thing is, this is not the only explanation that can be given for the particles not fulfilling the Bell inequality.
During the logic we made additional assumptions and not only the stated one. Giving up any of the other assumptions gives an equally good explanation for the inequality not holding.
For example, we assume that the mathematics as we know it is also valid in quantum reality, but in at least one case we have already seen that the mathematics we knew did not work at the quantum level: the probability rule we knew says that if there is a probability a that event A will occur and a probability b that event B will occur, the probability that either A or B will occur is a+b This rule does not always hold at the quantum level and in order to be able to calculate the probability of measuring quantum properties we had to invent a new mathematical term - the probability amplitude.
When we develop Bell's inequality, we rely on the axiom that if B > A and C > B then C > A . An axiom is an assumption. An assumption that fits the reality we know. But if we assume that at the quantum level this axiom is not valid, then Bell's inequality is not valid at the quantum level and Bell's theorem does not prove the absence of hidden variables that determine the quantum properties of a particle. In such a case reality need not be non-local either.
Another assumption we make in the logic above is that the entanglement allows us to bypass the uncertainty principle and simultaneously know the spin of a particle in two different directions. If we alternatively assume that the uncertainty principle cannot be circumvented and the entanglement allows us to know the spin of a distant particle in one direction according to the spin measured in its partner in the same direction, but does not allow us to know the spin in two different directions, we can find another explanation for the non-existence of Bell's inequality In an EPR experiment.
If the explanation of a non-local reality seems more logical to us than the other explanations, it is nothing but a subjective opinion that is not anchored in facts.
Rafi
In short, I think the response can be summed up in one sentence:
"We assume that the mathematics as we know it is also valid in quantum reality, but in at least one case we have already seen that the mathematics we knew did not work at the quantum level."
And to that I agree. If the math is not valid, there is indeed no problem.
Miracles
Think about it this way.
You are on a mile high North Pole lighthouse. The horizon is 20 km away from you.
You are in contact with a satellite that circles the earth in a period of one hour. You see it descend until it almost touches the horizon. That is why the eye contact and the radio did not break.
Now, the satellite is 30,000 km away from you. So if you factor in the curvature of the earth, for you it is much lower than the horizon.
Out of all the mess, I still haven't received technical answers to the questions I posed.
1. A monochromatic photon has a definite and absolute momentum. Therefore according to the uncertainty principle, its location is unknown. Albanzo (the photon gambit) also said that.
Doesn't this sterilize Postulate 2 in the relationship? It is built on the assumption that the position of the photon is known at every moment, as it appears in Einstein's original article of relativity.
2. How can it be said that no information was transferred between the 2 ends in an aspect experiment if the percentages of mismatches in the polarizations of the photons are triple when the polarizers are both at 30 degrees?
For those who are not familiar with the experiment, here is a logical abstraction of it.
There are two rooms. 1000 coins with a serial number in each room. We don't know anything about the history of the coins or if they are equipped with sensors or any kind of device.
Each room has a sign with the number 30 written on it.
Course of the experiment:
1. The signs are not hoisted.
Toss coin 1 in room 1 and coin 2 in room 1, and record which side each coin landed on: a tree or a straw.
So up to 1000 currency in each room.
Checking the percentages of discrepancies between the parties on which the coins fell: result: 0%. Each coin fell on the same side as its brother in the other room.
2. Repeat the experiment with the sign raised in room 1 but not in room 2.
The percentage of mismatches: 10%.
3. Repeat the experiment with the sign raised in room 2 but not in room 1.
The percentage of mismatches: 10%.
Question: What is the observed percentage of discrepancies when the signs in both rooms are raised assuming that information does not pass between the rooms? Is he over 20? Is there any way that the mismatch percentages will suddenly jump to 80%?
Any possible technical trick or trick can be used, as long as you don't leave the room and don't communicate with the other room. There is no problem coordinating the coins in advance, except for information about the condition of the signs.
I'll make it clear in advance that I didn't study/I don't understand/I'm just being clever/I'm opaque/I'm obtuse/I'm not me at all, I'm an old Arab woman from a Balta refugee camp.
And yet, I would be interested in getting purely technical answers to the purely technical questions I posed.
Anyone ready to explain?
Thanks.
hello confidential,
Nissim's answer is also the answer I would give you. I will elaborate in particular on interesting information (in my opinion) - the chemical energy stored in the bonds that Nissim spoke about does affect the mass of a system, as you said in the reference to mass-energy equivalence. That is, systems of particles connected to each other weigh less than the sum of their parts (because the bond energy that binds them together is negative - they gain energy from staying close). For example, a hydrogen atom consisting of a proton and an electron surrounding it has a binding energy of 13.6 electron-volts (an electron-volt is a unit of measure for energy). That is, if you convert this 13.6 eV to mass, you will find that a hydrogen atom weighs about one-tenth to the 32nd power less than a proton and an electron separately.
What I'm trying to say is that when such binding energy is released, the mass is indeed small. Why don't you measure it in the lab? Simply, the nature of the relationship between mass and energy is such that lots and lots of energy equals very little mass. Examples - a chemical reaction of nuclear fission in a few kilograms of energy-giving material that wipes out an entire city (atomic bomb). Another example - if a free electron flying in the air of the chemistry laboratory meets a proton, they will stick together and heat will be released into the air at a rate of 13.6 electron volts, and a weight The system will decrease by 10 to the power of minus 32 grams, but this weight is so small in relation to the weight of the proton And the electron until you don't notice the difference. In fact, it is only ten to the minus 6 percent of the weight. That is, if you take one whole kilogram of protons and electrons and let them all bond to hydrogen atoms at the same time (a very violent and extreme reaction in relation to the chemistry we encounter in everyday life) The weight of the system will change by ten to the power of minus 8 grams.
But in principle it can be measured. If you measure the core of an atomic bomb before and after the explosion, you will see a real difference in mass.
Quick and surprising response.
Miracles, thank you.
privileged
That is - the energy is "hidden" in the chemical bonds of the substance.
It's not unlike a spring squeezed into a small space.
privileged
To create certain chemicals you need to invest energy. This energy will be released if the chemical breaks down.
albanzo,
Can I get an answer to the question from you? I will thank you.
Regarding chemical reactions that emit heat. They can occur inside opaque glass. The material remains as it was. You can consider it.
So where does the heat energy emitted from the sealed bottle come from, isn't there matter-energy equivalence?
Miracles, addressed to you too.
Israel
A GPS receiver cannot receive satellites below the horizon.
On the other hand, there may be 16 over the horizon.
that's it.
And one more thing before going to take care of the children.
If I am 1000 meters above sea level, the horizon is 20 km away and the satellite I am connected to is 30,000 km away, then before the satellite orbiting the earth loses contact with me because the horizon separates us, it will be low for the height calculation by several tens or even hundreds kilometers Stereometry.
And that really already explains the phenomenon observed in the experiment.
Wookie
you beat me to it..
It has nothing to do with the horizon. What matters is if the satellites are above the plane I'm in the center of. On a tall building by the sea, the horizon is lower than me because of the curvature of the earth.
Miracles
"What percentage of the earth's inhabitants see the sun at any given moment? Hint - the answer is 50%"
What is this, the sun has the population data in the country and is doing slaloms in the sky to prevent discrimination?
The number of satellites in the weighing varies between 4 and 8. As mentioned, the GPS is in no hurry to get rid of the satellite if it doesn't have to. Therefore, if I am at an altitude of 1300, and the satellites connected to me have descended below this altitude, then the same relativistic phenomenon, if it exists, that caused the altitude to increase when they are above me, will now cause it to decrease, right?
walking
Definitely 🙂 It's hard to explain to Israel that you can't see below the horizon... - On the other hand, you see half of the sky.
Miracles
Technically the inhabitants of the earth are not evenly distributed on its surface so it does not come out to 50%.
They are also inside buildings and don't look at the sun, so you should try it as can see the sun.
And there is also the refraction of the sun's rays in the atmosphere which adds a bit of time to its visibility beyond where it actually is.
Just nitpicking
Israel
Do you even read what I write? Let me make it simple for you. Let's assume we have two moons, in antipodal orbits. How many moons do you see at any given moment?
Another question - what percentage of the earth's inhabitants see the sun at any given moment? Hint - the answer is 50%
Another fact that I have said several times - a satellite is not received without line of sight. Check reception in a mountainous area or between tall buildings. The fact that your receiver is extrapolating, according to you, will not change the situation.
accepted
And now, like this, between us, we both studied physics, each at his own level.
You don't even care what I'm trying to say? You are reading, for example, about a GPS experiment I conducted, Sharpi Mor, an expert in relativity and the editor of the first entry on Bell's theorem in the Hebrew Wikipedia, wrote to me about it:
On Dec 4, 2014, at 8:58 PM, rafi wrote:
Hi Israel,
It seems to me that this is a home experiment that demonstrates one of the important principles of general relativity: gravitational time dilation, or rather, its acceleration equivalent.
The GPS device on the wing of the rotating fan is at a significant acceleration, so the time in it passes a little slower than the time in the center of the fan, which is the same as the time of a stationary system on Earth.
Since the GPS system relies on accurate measurement of time, this tiny difference is enough to disrupt the GPS device's location calculation.
If my hypothesis is correct, this is a very impressive experiment.
Best regards
Rafi
That's right, you wrote that, then you wrote that I'm afraid to face facts and told me to cover up, and called me a snooze.
It's like before, when you claimed that I was bothering you even though you were the one who contacted me and asked to talk about an assembly experiment: if you really want to interrupt the discussion, don't keep writing me comments that accuse me and curse. Obviously, I will respond to such comments.
Trust me I'm fed up. The last thing I want is to go on. The ball is in your court - if you really don't want to continue, all you have to do is not write a comment that accuses me or curses me or challenges me, to me or to others. Then you'll see that I'm like a good boy, leaving you alone and minding my own business.
Come on Albanzo, aren't you tired already?
I told you, when you want to talk physics, let me know. If not, let go.
Israel,
Your selectivity is amazing. After all, I gave you answers to all your questions when they touched on physics. You didn't claim that I was afraid to face facts when I explained to you why the description of a classical light beam doesn't work as a quantum system, or when I explained to you what happened in the Aspa experiment... only when you sent me to dig hundreds of comments back to prove what every reader here knows - that you don't ask stupid questions but Trying to find problems in modern physics (without understanding it at all).
I'm here, and not going anywhere. If it bothers you so much, feel free to vent your frustration on another site. I know, it's hard when a mirror is put in front of your face that shows you're stupid. It's especially hard when you're an old man and 18-year-old kids with a bachelor's degree can make you school. Hard hard. But you have to deal with it.
How is Sakurai doing? You must be done already, right? easy for you. I read your comments here and see that in fact you solved most of the exercises in the book without even noticing.
Vendors
Health is not lacking... still recovering from two almost sleepless nights in the palm springs.
Israel.
Did you sleep enough last night? The most important thing is health.
I'm here to study psychology (of commenters and article writers). In general, I don't think comments here teach much (although sometimes they do).
I enjoy watching the fights because they reveal the (psychological) motivations of the writers.
it worked..
When you had to deal with facts, you suddenly changed, eh?
Contrary to your claim, the reason is simple. I do not talk nonsense, not with great confidence, and do not deceive others.
Does not matter. The main thing is that you overlapped, let's hope we don't hear from you again, snooze.
I'm not a clown, I'm not small, and I'm not yours. As a result, I'm not going to do research on your old comments, and certainly not to do it "quickly because it's almost 4 in the morning". You know very well that even when you ask questions, they are defiant and aimed at pointing out flaws.
Knows what? Everything I said was wrong. Everything, without exception.
Good luck with Sakurai :).
All right, my little buffoon. Come show me exactly where I am "a man who speaks nonsense with great confidence and misleads others out of his ignorance".
After all, all I usually do is ask questions. You're the one who claims to know everything, aren't you?
But here's your chance. All my comments are visible. So show me and the forum where the nonsense I speak with great confidence is.
Let's start with this article, but quickly. Almost 4 in the morning, should go to sleep.
No obsessive pursuit. Believe it or not, 80% of the time I spend on the site I read articles on topics not related to physics. Every now and then I see an article that deals with fields I know and out of interest I look at it and the comments. When I see curious people who want to know more or have trouble understanding what the scientists are doing, I try to help. You yourself said that science today is seen as an ivory tower - that is, cut off from the people. So far I don't see any problem.
But I do have a problem. The problem is that it is hard for me to see a man who speaks nonsense with great confidence and misleads others out of his ignorance. If I were a little stronger, I wouldn't bother talking to you or your ilk. But I have a problem that doesn't allow me to read a comment that shows a basic lack of understanding of things I'm interested in, like and understand, without responding. And the response can be a sincere attempt to help the person understand, and sometimes - when it is clear to me that the person cannot understand, does not want to understand or both - the response will be intended for other readers. So that they don't fall into the net of his ignorance and at least his lack of understanding will stay with him and not spread to the rest of the public.
I don't eat anything. I don't need to show anyone what I know or don't know. It's just hard for me to see someone who writes nonsense, and even more difficult for me to see someone who insists that their nonsense is true. You see, I talk and sometimes argue with people about physics most of the day. But there is an unwritten law among scientists (and opinion-loving people in general) - before you express your opinion, you learn and understand that you know what you are talking about, and if you come across someone who contradicts your words, you stop, think, check his statements and accordingly you are convinced or try convince.
You express your opinion without even understanding what you're talking about (I highly doubt it, but maybe one day you'll open Sakurai and you'll see that there are light years of knowledge gaps between you and a bachelor's degree student(!) in physics), and when you receive a different opinion you don't bother to listen to it , to think about it and certainly not to check its correctness. This is why discussions between us explode - you are the antithesis of scientific discussion.
I don't understand book publishing, but I'm glad you found something to keep you busy.
Maybe explain to me, to the forum, and especially to yourself what you want? what eats you What is this obsessive preoccupation with showing everyone how much you've learned and how much you know more than everyone else, as if anyone would dispute that?
good, nice First of all, I see that you have ignored all the relevant points about physics. It is good.
Second, there is one such book. In the publishing world, you don't publish two books with the same name because it's a source of confusion (but confusion is your specialty, isn't it?). At least in the publishing of textbooks. Meaning, you are talking about an older edition of the same book. Are you claiming that the level was high and they lowered it to a level below the knowledge required for a bachelor's degree? Ok, sounds weird, but I'll check. Thank God, you can get all the editions of all the books today.
Finally, you wrote, "Let me know if you're ever interested in a real physics discussion." If I'm interested in a *real* physics discussion, why would I contact you? Do yourself a favor, Petah Sakurai. what are you afraid of A basic book for undergraduate students.
Oh Albanzo, how dumb can you be?
Do you know how many books there are called MODERN PHYSICS by SERWAY MOSES and MOYER? I forgot, you know everything.
This was the standard UCLA textbook for undergraduate quantum studies 20 years ago.
I have no head for your nonsense. I'm here for the technology, not the psychology. And you, Habibi, have a serious problem, otherwise you wouldn't have come here, an amateur site, but stayed in the academic ivory tower.
Let me know if you're ever interested in a real physics discussion.
Israel,
1. I never claimed or implied that I was poor and you attacked me. Of course this is a poor attempt to divert the discussion from the fact that you consistently talk nonsense.
2. I understood exactly what you were asking and gave solutions. You don't understand the answers because, contrary to your opinion, your knowledge of the subjects is too low to understand what the answer is even when it is written for you in black and white. Just like I gave you a link to Aspa's article and you didn't know if it was the relevant experiment or not.
3. "Let's leave the matter of the photon for a moment." Obviously we'll leave, because you can't continue to say that I don't know Aspa or don't understand him, so you have no other way out except to admit not only that you're the one who doesn't understand the subject but also that my answer did touch exactly what you asked. Except for "leaving the futon for a moment", of course.
4. For the 1015th time, the words that flow from your mouth cannot change reality. The special theory of relativity stands on a solid foundation consisting of the following assumptions: the laws of nature do not change depending on the frame of reference we are in (with a specific emphasis on inertial systems, this is a reasonable statement that boost is a symmetry of space) and the invariant velocity vector for the transformation is the speed of light. this is. You don't need anything else, you don't add anything else. None of these things depend on Einstein not predicting the future and performing a thought experiment with photons that do not have a defined trajectory. Einstein generally talked about light rays, which are not photons but statistical ensembles of photons and therefore not sensitive to quantum phenomena (just as you are not sensitive to quantum phenomena and can measure your position and speed at the same time), but even if he was talking about photons it doesn't matter. Because the theory of relativity does not depend on the words Einstein said at any point in his life, even if these words contradict quantum mechanics. So the question you should have asked is "But what to do that Israel Shapira thinks that postulate 2 is built on this incorrect description and with it all private relativity, and this because he does not understand the theory?".
5. A collection experiment is indeed an experiment with entangled particles! Your question regarding the transfer of information between the edges is a question about the transfer of information between intertwined particles! My God, what's going on in your head...?
6. Not your private tutor and not interested in you setting me puzzles for me to solve for you. You talked about physics, I'm a physicist, I felt obliged to try to point you to your mistakes. Of course there is no hope. A collection experiment is a quantum experiment that shows that between two entangled particles there are non-local correlations. Keep saying no, keep…
7. I know about discussions you had with me, and that I interrupted them not because I was wrong but because talking to you is like hitting a concrete wall covered in cyanide. A slow and painful suicide, and mostly pointless. I also know that a person with a level of knowledge like yours will be wrong in 90% of the discussions he has because you have the unbeatable combination of a lack of understanding with excessive self-confidence and zero inhibition to stop and not talk about something you have no understanding of. That's why I think that any person who attributes to people who don't want to talk to him the reasons you attributed is arrogant, especially when I have acquaintance with the person that indicates that people don't want to talk to him for other reasons.
8. I didn't know the book before you wrote about it. A short check on the Internet shows that this is not a book for studying quantum mechanics but an introductory book for modern physics, that is - a taste of results and not a rigorous study of the theory. The very fact that the book contains information about quanta, special and general relativity and cosmology together shows that it does not pretend to deal seriously with quanta. I'm interested in it now and it seems to have more diagrams, drawings, and historical stories than physics. Of course, it also doesn't cover a shred of quantum physics that an undergraduate should know, which raises the question - was the course you took a quantum course for physicists? Or maybe there was an introductory course to modern physics? Did you take all the relevant courses or did you take the first course in a series of 4 courses? These questions are for you. I already know everything I need to know about your knowledge on the subject - at the Hebrew University, Tel Aviv and Princeton you would have failed the first courses in relations and quanta. I guess this is true for most universities in the world. Are you afraid to look at other books too? You can search the internet for the names of the books I recommended and see that they are indeed the most popular and basic books in all universities in the world. What do you have to lose if you open Sakurai and see if you understand or not? By the way, I looked at the UCLA course list. There are 6 courses with a name containing the word quantum. Of these, the material of four does not appear at all in the book you mentioned. One is a general introductory course for science and engineering students and the other is the introduction to the first four courses I mentioned.
9. Now that we've moved on to "my usual street style", I can tell you that you're just a liar. First, in most of the articles I respond to, you turn to me and ask me to answer questions about relationships or the transmission of information. You specifically asked for it in this article as well. True, I initiated the interaction by responding to your story with the quasi-math-actually-philosophy-on-a-dime, but you not only chose to respond, but initiated a conversation about information. Even in the current post you admit it! And I quote, "...I tried to move the discussion to the only topics that could possibly be discussed with you: an aspect experiment...". I mean, you turned to me and asked me what I thought about the experiment. You asked me to give an opinion and explain a contradiction that you claim you found between quantum uncertainty and the formulation of the theory of relativity. Israel, I don't know how to tell you this because I see that you don't deal with reality that well - but you turned to me and asked to debate the issue. You could have ignored my response to your story, and you could have answered within the only topic I talked about (the story and its relation to mathematics). You chose to ask me to talk to you about private relativity and the transmission of information in an assembly experiment.
Do you want me to leave you alone? Let's start with the fact that you don't turn to me and ask me to explain something you don't understand. Promise you I won't respond to the things you write anymore? No way. This is a free forum and I am allowed to comment on something you posted if I have an opinion about it. At the beginning of the post you accused me of trying to create a false representation in which I am vulnerable and attacked. The rejecter in Momo rejects, since there is nothing more pathetic than your claims that you want me to leave you to your own devices when they are accompanied by repeated requests that I address your words.
And in conclusion - a jerk is a jerk, but knows physics. What about you? Petah Sakurai. It's all an undergraduate book, what do you have to fear?
Troll
In Kiryat Anaim - grapes. In Palm Springs - palm springs (literal translation) in Scandinavia - trolls.
getting angry? Moa? Lightly amused, as always.
Wookie
I read your response.
Regarding the interrupted discussions, it's an old story I have with Alfalcenzo, I'm not sure you know about it.
Let me remind you how the discussion unfolded.
The discussion is about education for ignorance, that is, in a religious direction. I tried to show that in a democratic country the religious are an integral part of the system and their weight is equal as everyone else. What you may think is education for ignorance and religious coercion, in their eyes is basic education. So is every other issue in the democratic system.
We entered into a discussion on whether it is possible to change the political system and society. I expressed my opinion that such a change requires external energy, as in a thermodynamic system. For illustration I brought the stories of the second law. I thought it went without saying that this was only my private opinion, which I have expressed many times on the blog. I also thought it was obvious that this was only a story (a sentence for the second law of thermodynamics...) and I did not imagine that anyone would take it beyond that, that I would have to bring citations, tables, studies and graphs. Because this is what is implied by your words "science appears here in the meaning of non-science". Obviously this is not science! Didn't you figure it out on your own?
Sorry if I offended you, I had a feeling that you were going to keep digging and show that there is no scientific basis for what I assumed to be self-evident.
Is the thesis in the story my opinion? Definitely. Do I have any scientific basis? definitely not. Is it of particular interest to me? Also no.
So as I have written several times before, the topic is exhausted.
Israel, it's a shame you'll just get angry. They are not worth it. why do you care
By the way, I didn't know there were palm springs in Kiryat Anavim
Israel
"In my opinion, people do interrupt discussions with me in the middle because they realize they are wrong."
All I have to do is thank you for interrupting a discussion with me when you realized you were wrong.
If you are interested in reading it, feel free to fish out my pending comment which has finally been approved for viewing. Although I predict she won't really interest you.
good week.
Miracles
No matter how you look at it - at every point in the Earth there are on average more satellites below the horizon line. This is due to the spherical symmetry of the Earth (do you see another possibility?)
Besides that, Levites are like Palestinians - they move all the time and it's hard to count them. When the GPS connects to a certain satellite, it is in no hurry to get rid of it even when the satellite descends below the horizon line. I see it on my satellite software.
Albanzo
Start by connecting to reality.
From your description it seems as if poor Albanzo is being attacked by the sleepy people of Israel for doing no wrong. Go to the thread. You enter the discussion with an unjustified personal attack on me (denying?) to a bitter experience mode, I answered you with moderation, I explained to you that all the conclusions about the so-called perfection of mathematics are taken from Prof. Evron's book (did you bother to read?) and I tried to move the discussion to the only topics that could possibly be discussed with you: an experiment An aspect, which, contrary to your claims, we never reached a discussion about, and the application of the uncertainty principle to a photon.
Go to the thread. As always, you moved the discussion to the lines of a personal war, and as always, you didn't understand what I was even asking before you started attacking.
Let's leave the matter of the photon for a moment. If you didn't understand, you yourself said that Einstein's description of the photon taking one path from the flashlight to the detector is incorrect. But what to do on this incorrect description is built postulate 2 and with it all the special relativity? That was the gist of my question.
The second question was about the transfer of information between the two ends of an Aspect experiment. Every time I ask this question (many times according to you) I point out that a simple description, BARE BONES as Nick says, can be accessed from the link to my name.
Since you are omniscient Albanzo, you immediately decided that it meant the transfer of information between the entangled particles. Did it occur to you that there might be other options?
I gave you a simple question without quanta without photons and without polarizers to simplify the problem for you. You didn't bother to answer, she pissed you off. If you try, you might see that an aspect experiment is actually a logical experiment regardless of quanta.
In my opinion, people do interrupt discussions with me in the middle because they realize they are wrong. Do you know about discussions I have had in the past? Am I the only one who knows about them?
The book I studied with is MODERN PHYSICS by SERWAY MOSES and MOYER, a standard textbook at UCLA in the quantum course, third year.
And finally, let me answer you a bit in your usual street style:
You claim that "I bully and don't let go". You cheeky little snoozer. Has anyone even approached you, asked you something, talked to you, asked for your opinion? You are the one who took care of me, as always. My only request from you has always been and remains that you leave me alone and that you bully other suckers who are willing to absorb your ridiculous nonsense.
vole
We haven't heard from you in a while. Isn't it time to go back to the trash cans you always dig in?
was Created,
Unfortunately I fall into the trap every time. Note that at the beginning of the thread I was determined not to get into the same arguments with Israel again that were conducted in the past, but his smugness broke me and I couldn't help but try to explain. Of course it's pointless. He will ignore this explanation as he ignored the previous ones, and will continue to think that he knows and I don't...
By the way, I didn't accuse you of being a charlatan. Deepak Chopra is a charlatan because he misleads people with false claims. I didn't say you do or try to take advantage of people. I said you have a common denominator - using scientific language to describe non-scientific ideas. That is, a scientific appearance behind which there is no scientific content. In your case, I would love to be fooled if you manage to formulate a mathematical statement about mathematics from the story you posted here. It seems to me that all you have there is philosophy on a dime under the guise of terms like "perfect numbers" and "Jacobian".
And no, I won't apologize. What should I apologize for? About the fact that you received a compliment from a scientific editor (that the very fact that he gave you a compliment calls into question his knowledge of mathematics)? Tell me what you expect me to apologize for and we'll see if I agree that I should apologize.
albenza,
That's the problem with popular science sites. They attract compulsive troublemakers to them like flies to... In the end it seems to the website owners that they are promoting science and progress but instead they make compulsive troublemakers become mega-worriers. And worst of all - popular science is usually simplistic/wrong/misleading/misleading and feeds the real thing.
Shame on you for the time you waste here in correspondence with troublemakers. You can be content with short responses to the body of an article.
And one last and tiny thing - you don't think it's hysterical that you accused me of not going to your link to check if we're talking about the same experiment (even though you mentioned the link a lot of comments ago, when we didn't talk about the experiment and I specifically said I wasn't interested in talking about it), but Second, you did not write in your comment whether we are really talking about the same experiment or not?
Is it because you didn't enter the link I sent and you're just a hypocrite, or because you entered but didn't understand what it was about because you can't even understand what Aspa did, how and why? Not even able to recognize the experiment when you are served a document with a full description, diagrams, explanations of the results, etc.?
In the previous answer, of course, it should be written "cosine 60 degrees" and not 30, because what we are measuring is the degree of correlation between the two photons and therefore we need the relative angle between them. When the relative angle between them is 30 degrees, the square of the cosine is as expected 75% and therefore there is a 25% discrepancy. This is, of course, a full correlation of the quantum state.
Israel,
Where to start, where to start?
1. I went through all the comments. Contrary to what you claim ("As I've mentioned many times, the experiment I'm talking about is described in a link from my name"), you mentioned it only once. It was at the beginning of the thread when I specifically told you that I didn't want to discuss interweaving and information transfer because I knew where it would lead. You still dragged me into this because you don't have the minimum respect to let a man go if he tells you he doesn't want to talk to you about something (we'll get to that later). Since then I forgot that you referred to the link, so I automatically returned to the Aspa experiment that I know and did not go to check which Aspa experiment you mean.
2. As expected, we are talking about the same experiment. It's just that I take my information from Aspa's scientific article and you from a popular source of information that hides more information than it gives.
3. Aspa's experiment is an experiment in quantum physics and intertwined bits. If you don't believe me, read the link you sent again.
4. Match/mismatch has a name in math. Guess what it is? Very true, correlation. So when you complain that you are asking about a discrepancy of measurement results and I answer you about a correlation, you are only making yourself very, very small.
5. As expected, my answer perfectly answers your question. Nick Herbert also says this, although less clearly, which is probably why you don't understand: the photons are entangled and therefore the correlation between their quantum states is complete. The correlation between the measurement results of the two photons is not necessarily complete because they pass through different polarizers. At the base of the polarizer, the photon looks like a superposition of parallel and perpendicular polarization, and the ratio between the amplitudes is the cosine of the angle (meaning - the probability of measuring the photon after polarization is the cosine squared). Go to the calculator, put in the cosine of 30 degrees and square it. what did you get That's right, a match of 25%, that is 75% that there will be no match. Aspa used this set-up and this *classic* result (polarization in optics and these calculations were known long before the birth of quantum mechanics), to show that the correlation also exists between particles that are spacelike separated, and therefore the correlation is non-local (which is synonymous with entanglement that even I used in it several times already). This teaches us two things: first, you missed the point and got stuck on the uninteresting part of the experiment because you don't understand some classical result. Second, all the correlations here are the result of the entanglement of the two photons. And here comes my answer, which has already been given to you umpteen times (but you don't accept it because you simply don't understand), that a perfect correlation between the quantum state of two photons does not mean that information has passed between them. You won't understand this until you decide to sit down and learn what information is, what correlation is, what interweaving is, etc. Logic says you should have studied before you started talking about these topics, but oh well.
6. I read your comments and every question you asked was answered. However, feel free to go back and count how many times I had to repeat the same answer about your question with Pence being quantum irrelevant because its initial conditions violate quantum mechanics before you internalized. I'd say it's brave of you to accuse me of not reading your comments when you clearly don't read what you write, but I'm only using the word "courage" here as a substitute for something else.
7. First, it turns out that Hebrew is also from you onwards. The meaning of the phrase "grinding everyone's brains" is that you bully and don't let up. It has nothing to do with the content of your words, but with the fact that you have been asking me the same questions for months, even though I answered you and made it clear to you that I do not want to continue the discussion. To bed I know, Nick Herbert doesn't do that to me so he doesn't grind the brain and you do.
8. Please don't team yourself up with Nick Herbert. He understands what he is talking about. At no point did he claim (in the link you provided or in any source I read) that information passes between entangled particles. He claimed that there is a non-local correlation. But of course you don't know the difference so feel free to put words in his mouth.
9. I don't look down on you. I mean, I do. but rightfully so. I know what I'm talking about and you're nowhere near it. Ask yourself why you are afraid to give yourself the test I suggested: take a basic quantum undergraduate book and see how far you are from understanding what is in it. Note that I'm not involved - I won't be there when you do it, I don't expect you to report the results to me. I will not diagnose you. I just hope that a little honesty will put your feet back on the ground from the fantasy world you are in, where you are sure you know quanta and relativity and interweaving and information when the truth is that you understand nothing about them, with an emphasis on nothing. That's why you have a lot of questions, and that's why when you get answers you argue and bore yourself instead of agreeing.
10. I agree that I "don't know what you're talking about at all". I know physics, I know quanta, I know what entanglement is and what information is, I know what they did in the assembly experiment and why they did it, and what they showed by doing it. But what are you talking about, I really don't know.
In closing, I'll tell you something I told you the first time I had the dubious pleasure of answering your questions on the site. More than your ignorance, and the inhuman disparity between how little you understand and how much you think you do, I am shocked by your arrogance. I am amazed at your ability to say a sentence like "People interrupt arguments with me because they realize they are wrong and don't want to admit it" without blinking. I am amazed at your ability to get answers from a physicist in the field to your questions and not even check them thoroughly before declaring that he does not know what he is talking about. I don't expect you to believe the words of a Sinaitic Torah - but Rabak, I give you an answer, you are not even able to check it?! Actually, now that I put it that way, the answer is obvious.
No you do not.
Good luck later.
Israel
No laughing until the fat woman sings. GPS satellites do not orbit in the plane of the equator, but in a plane that creates an angle of about 55 degrees to this plane.
But, let's look at communication satellites, like "Amos" of sorts. They are indeed on the plane of the equator. And what is more amazing than seeing them from Israel? And you know what? They are about 55 degrees above the horizon.
Think again about what I said - for distant celestial objects we see about a hemisphere.
Miracles
The funny one laughed.
According to your smallness theory, satellites that are on the concentric circles around the equator will not be below the horizon line?
Satellites can be light years away from Earth, yet due to spherical symmetry most of them will be below the horizon line of any observer.
going to work
Israel
The dispersion is not uniform and the reception at the poles is not good. But let's assume so.
The Earth is small, small, small, relative to the sky that contains the satellites. Therefore, from the North Pole, we can see almost the entire Northern Hemisphere.
OK, now?
Miracles
Apparently it is rocket science.
Let's say you are at the pole (prefer northern?)
The 32 satellites circle the earth. According to the complicated calculation you performed, 16 of them are north of the equator, and 16 are south.
Some of the northern ones are below the horizon line (exactly appropriate: northern ones, ofek, apheka..)
You don't know which of the northern 16 is above or below the horizon line (do you?)
If the GPS chose from among the 8 that it uses satellites below the horizon line, in some cases we will get a decreasing altitude while the GPS is rotating, like we got in the experiment I did.
I am now planning a new experiment with an oscilloscope, to get the exact arrival time from the satellite radio. If he succeeds, it will be conclusive evidence for the theory.
Israel
Yes... I see another option. There are 32 satellites. The satellites are spread (roughly...) over a sphere (what Raphael calls the sky). The horizon line roughly crosses the sphere. Therefore … a second … a calculator ….. hmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmm …. 32/2 = 16
It's not rocket science... Actually yes, but rocket science is not what it used to be.
Miracles
It does not matter.
Since it receives 8 satellites (I have software that shows exactly which satellites it receives), some of them are low from the ground line. Do you see another option?
If the relativistic phenomenon happens, and the arrival time of the signal from the satellite to the GPS appears to be shorter, it will weight those satellites as closer and therefore conclude that it is lower.
Israel
"Now it is said that the GPS only picks up another satellite from the other side of the country" ... let's try it again:
GPS receiver does not receive through the ground. Therefore - all received satellites are above the receiver. Maybe you mean planes? Even then - the plane must be below 60 thousand feet (civilian shelter) to receive - and then, as I mentioned, there is a greater error due to the atmosphere (and ionosphere) landing.
And one more thing for you, Albanzo.
Because of your claim of charlatanism towards (Chopra) I bothered and found one of the emails from Galileo's editors who dealt with the publication of my article:
"Listen - from the moment I started reading your chapter I just couldn't stop... fascinating.
Scientific editor Zvi Atzmon was also enthusiastic. Please read his response, it has very important comments.
Also attached is your text with Zvi's specific comments.
(After we're done with this chapter, we'll talk about the sequel... It seems to me that in the next planned chapters the problem that exists in this chapter as well is exacerbated: you assume that all the readers are completely familiar with Matria and therefore can easily follow the reproaches and cynical comments. Here it may not be bad, but when you're dealing with Godel and Jacobians, etc. ' may lose the average reader completely...)
Mickey
First, we are scoundrels, and we should be put on trial, if we don't publish. Unequivocal.
Let there be a shout, no big deal. This is worth arguing about.
Second, I didn't understand everything, I admit. There is also a problem with this type (genre) - it is difficult to know with confidence who and when each speaker is telling the truth or being cynical or clever. And it may mislead readers. Therefore, it is necessary to make sure to give clear hints when the claim is what the speaker really thinks, or when he is being cynical or trying to mislead. This is a problem that needs to be addressed.
Thirdly, there are things that, assuming I understood, I do not agree with you, or I wonder how accurate they are. The part of the sociological-political matter: it is not entirely clear to me to what extent the written things are the opinion of the author, or a presentation of approaches that he opposes.
I marked all this.
deer".
are you going to apologize Or maybe you didn't understand that either?
Miracles
Let's make it simple. There is one satellite above me in the zenith. The GPS calculates the distance to the satellite by taking into account the speed of light and the time it took to reach me, right?
If, due to relativistic phenomena, time appears to the GPS to be shorter, it will think that it is closer to the satellite, and therefore will see a higher altitude than reality, right?
Now it is said that the GPS only picks up another satellite from the other side of the earth, just below it. If he measures less time due to the same relativistic phenomena, he will think that he is closer to this particular satellite, and will see a lower altitude than reality, right?
Take 8 satellites that are constantly in motion. The GPS weighs the signals from all of them.
Therefore we will get a variable height, depending on the constellation of the satellites, right?
Albanzo
Inscholdigen Zee, Main Hr.
As I have mentioned many times, the experiment I am talking about is described in a link from my name. Do you read anything besides your comments?
And if you also read my responses for a change, you will see that what I say is also claimed by Nick Herbert (PBUH). Does Nick also grind everyone's brains?
So maybe you will finally answer only what you are asked (inconsistency percentages), and not the subject that you feel you understand something about?
Or let go and go patronize someone else. It's pretty clear you don't know what I'm even talking about.
Oh yes. One last note. Even if you are talking about a different experiment, I don't see how my answer is inadequate. You are talking about an experiment in which there is a certain correlation between measurements and you are asking how the immediate correlation is possible without the transfer of information. My answer, of course, solves it - you simply did not bother to learn what information is and what its transfer is, and to see that there can be correlation (both local and non-local) between objects even without information passing between them. But why start now to learn what information is and what correlation is when you can simply decide that if there is a correlation then information has passed and grind everyone's brains with it over and over and over again..?
This is an assembly I know.
http://www.drchinese.com/David/Aspect.pdf
And my answer is completely satisfactory. Apparently one of us doesn't understand what's going on here. do you think it's me Nice, enjoy. It's pretty clear to me that a person who doesn't know what shazira is (sorry, I meant a person who took a course on the subject whose level is higher than a master's degree!) or what information is, is probably the one who doesn't understand, and has given up on it - he probably doesn't have enough knowledge to understand that he doesn't understand, and therefore He blames others. But if you want to think differently, think. As I said - learn or be ignorant. There are no more options. Ask yourself, not me and without anything to do with me, if you have studied and if you know. If you are unable to determine for yourself whether you know or not, I am attaching a list of undergraduate quantum textbooks at the end of the response. You can open each of them and see if you know everything in it and if you know how to solve all the exercises. This will give you an idea of how much you know relative to an undergraduate student.
Sakurai, Shankar, Cohen-Tannoudji, Gasiorowicz, Abers, Schiff.
Israel
The receiver does not pick up any satellite below me.... There is mud and stones and oil and fossils and diamonds... even satellites close to the horizon are problematic, because of the distortions of the atmosphere.
Israel
"Your questions have been answered, but not as you requested."
If they were answered by evading and ignoring it is considered answered, then it can indeed be said that they were answered.
I did not prepare any bottom line, not at the beginning of the discussion, not in the middle or at the end. I was just trying to understand your point and whether and how it works, because it didn't work out for me, and I wanted to see if I could learn something new and if I have something new to learn here. I'm not talking to people here to be right, I'm talking to them to reach for truths (contextual as they may be).
For example, when you use something that is only your personal opinion, in order to make a claim on some subject, maybe you should point it out, and not present it as a system with established legality, and then none of this will happen at all, because no one will require you to present an evidentiary basis for something that is Just your opinion.
For example when I ask: "On what evidentiary basis do you state that an overall psychological system behaves as a thermodynamic system?"
You can simply answer that it's just your opinion based on what I think instead of coming back with answers and examples that present it as if it is indeed an evidence-based thing.
Or when I ask: "What makes this more than an aerial view?"
You can simply answer that this is indeed only an aerial point of view.
The snoozer here is not me, who is just trying to understand properly, but you, who continues the pretense, and the false presentation, instead of simply presenting things as they are.
Shmulik,
Philosophically I don't know. I don't think there is a difference between the interpretations of quantum mechanics where the building blocks are points and quantum theory where the building blocks are strings. From the technical point of view, there is no difference in the results. One of the beautiful things about string theory is that for problems where the length scale is actually larger than the length of the string, the string effectively looks like a point and the theory is simply the same as a normal quantum theory. Therefore, a two-slit experiment where each slit is larger than the length of the string is identical to the quantum problem.
For cracks on the order of the length of the string, I can't think of a difference. Quantum strings also do not move in a defined path, so phenomenologically I think the result will be the same. But maybe I should think about it a bit.
Albanzo
I asked for a reference to the Aspect experiment. This is a logic experiment, regardless of quanta.
As usual, you answered what you choose to answer, not my question (% mismatches, remember)?
Did it occur to you that maybe you just don't know or understand the experiment?
Gotta go to the football, Oof Widdersen.
You have already received explanations for this in the past. Correlation and information transfer are not equivalent terms. Information is a well-defined quantity in mathematical theory, within which it is possible to calculate if and how much information is transferred between two points. It is also possible to prove that without the addition of a classic bit, it is not possible to transfer information between two interleaved bits. You refuse to believe on the one hand, and refuse to learn the basic principles of information theory on the other, and instead choose to bother me for months with the same question that you have already received an answer to and rejected based on... based on what? Do not know. Based on the fact that you did not understand the answer and it did not appear to you.
Want to know? you will learn Don't want to study? You will live in ignorance, whether you are aware of your ignorance or whether you think you are an expert on information, quanta and relativity (even without knowing that entanglement is not a specific state but a classification of a state and there are many such states, understand what uncertainty is or know what needs to be assumed to develop the private relationship)…
albentezo,
To refine my question, does string theory have anything to say about wave-particle seconds and the collapse of the wave function (why does this occur)?
Miracles.
Makes sense, makes sense. Think about it that if there are 32 satellites, most of them are below you even when you are only connected to 8. If the GPS measures a shorter distance for everyone without exception, the observed altitude will be lower, right?
I do not verify that the photon came out at a certain time. The point is that Einstein's description in the original article of relativity is not realistic, and the fact that Einstein did not know it does not change that.
As you remember, Einstein fought his whole life with the quantum description of the photon, and lost.
If you or someone, or someone, or someone, will answer my logic puzzle, it might be possible to show why information passes at time 0 from side to side in an aspect experiment, also contrary to relativity.
You have to take the child to soccer, then to work girlfriend, to work.
Israel
I don't understand why 8 whales would give an altitude error. It makes no sense at all.
You said that a photon left at time 0 in a certain direction... how do you verify that this is indeed the case?
Albanzo, and Gietz?
At your repeated request, I decided to learn everything anew and in depth, but for the sake of thoroughness also to learn German so that I can read Einstein Planck and Heisenberg in the original, so that they won't work for me in translation, the Miniaks. It is highly recommended. Zohar Gott
Is there a beta option that can answer the question that I have asked you so many times and I have not received an answer? Here it is again:
"How can it be said that no information was transferred between the 2 ends in an aspect experiment if the percentages of mismatches in the polarizations of the photons are triple when the polarizers are both at 30 degrees?"
If you have already answered and I missed it, you can copy and paste, or bring a link.
Danka Shane.
Israel,
You can keep repeating the same mantra a thousand more times. Private relativity is based solely on the fact that boost is a global symmetry of space and its invariant velocity vector (which you don't even have to assume exists because it's easy to prove) is the speed of light.
Einstein's thought experiments, which are not - in an absolute, unambiguous sense - necessary for the mathematical description of special relativity, are described in the language of classical physics and are not consistent with quantum mechanics *because the articles were written before there was quantum mechanics*!
How opaque can you be...?
Miracles
I did not understand. What is the connection?
According to Einstein's original paper, the description is as I have shown, isn't it? Can you show me how it is different?
And if this is an unrealistic description, isn't postulate 2 based on this unrealistic description?
Did you understand why the GPS sometimes shows a drop in altitude when it is connected to 8 satellites?
And why is no one answering my logic puzzle?
https://www.hayadan.org.il/2011149-hunted-state-46-core-learning/comment-page-26/#comment-574394
Something about place and momentum and time and energy, when you move between parallel universes you can go back in time and there is kosher between the time of the parallel universe and its energy remains a state.
The idea is that if there are additional dimensions and the particles vibrate in them, the space and momentum will play between the additional dimensions.
And in relation to the super position of the cat, you don't just randomize random things, you give a mathematical expression to the decrease of dimensions, and depending on which dimension or parallel universe you are in, you can meet a Stack or Pitha cat
Israel
You make a reduction between a classical light beam and a photon.
Let's shoot a shell in the cannon. The shell, ignoring friction and the Earth's rotation, performs an elliptical orbit. The position of the shell can be calculated with any level of precision we want, at any given moment. Is it possible to infer from this that the position of any atom of the shell can be accurately calculated?
Another example. There is air in the jar in front of me, and I can measure with any precision I want the position of the air cylinder in the jar. Can I conclude from this about the position of any molecule of the air in the jar?
Miracles
What analogy are you talking about and what is wrong with it?
albentezo,
And thanks for the previous explanation...
albentezo,
And another question regarding the two slits experiment: does string theory provide a different description of what exactly happens there or at least bring additional insights?
elbentzo
Thanks for the explanation, now I need to do some research to understand better.
Regarding the cat - I thought that the possible cause of the cat's death was the random decay of a radioactive nucleus. Is the superposition of the nuclear states actually?
I will ask differently - is there a connection between the randomness of the nuclear decay and, let's say, the passage of a photon in the two-slit experiment?
By the way, a photon is usually seen as something that exists only in physics laboratories, but our eyes, under certain conditions, can detect a single photon.
Miracles,
You are right that uncertainty has nothing to do with knowledge. That's why I don't write "if we know the position then we don't know the momentum" but "if a particle has a definite position then it doesn't have a definite momentum", or at least I try - I may have failed somewhere and used a bad wording.
This is due to the fact that in the formalism of quantum mechanics a measurable value is an eigenvalue of some operator (you can think of it as a matrix, for those who are not familiar with operators). If you take two matrices, it is not guaranteed that they will both have the same eigenvectors - and the uncertainty principle is simply a fairly trivial proof in linear algebra that if two matrices do not commute (ie AB is not equal to BA) then they have no common eigenvectors. Momentum and position, in particular, have this property - the matrices that represent them in quantum mechanics do not change. Therefore, if any vector a is an eigenvector of a position (and therefore an eigenvalue is defined for it, which is what is called in quantum mechanics "the position of the particle described by the vector a") then it is necessarily not an eigenvector of the momentum, and therefore there is no eigenvalue corresponding to it - Momentum cannot be defined for this particle. What can be done? Express a using a combination of eigenvectors of the momentum matrix. That is, although particle a does not have a defined momentum, it can be viewed as a superposition of states, each of which has a defined momentum.
And the reason for all this explanation is to clarify that the uncertainty principle is directly related to the fact that in quantum mechanics a particle can be in a state of superposition, which is not possible in classical physics. This is the same superposition that makes it impossible to say that the cat is alive or dead. I mean, there is certainly a connection between the cat paradox and uncertainty, but it is a little less trivial than how it is sometimes presented in popular literature.
Hello Shmulik,
I don't remember in detail the conversation in question, but yes - in quantum gravity every gravitational interaction is described as an exchange of virtual gravitons (a graviton is the name given to the gravitational particle) between the attracting/attracted bodies. In any case, a black hole does not stop itself from pulling because the virtual particles through which it pulls do not get stuck inside it. A charged black hole, with all its electric charge in the singularity, also produces an electric field. Because the virtual photons that are responsible for creating the electric force don't get stuck as the black hole.
Albanzo
In my understanding, the uncertainty principle does not speak of "knowledge" at all. The principle says that pairs of values, such as momentum and speed or time and energy, have no real value (if that is the right word), at the same time (also a problematic concept in this context).
It seems to me like saying that the more the particle behavior affects, then the complementary property affects like a wave.
Therefore, I also do not think that this principle has anything to do with Schrödinger's cat paradox. In particular, in the case of the cat, I can tell when he died, and there is no stage where he is in an "in-between" state. And so that the feminists don't freak out - the cat can be a cat...
Israel
And regarding the example of the flashlight and the photon - even I understand that your analogy is wrong. It's like going back to trying to wrestle through two slits.
Israel
You wrote "The only reason I got into this whole thing was to express my opinion that the weight of religious power in a democratic system cannot be underestimated."
This is also true for syphilis…
albentezo,
At the time, you explained that the black-black-actuated attraction, in a quantum aspect, takes place through virtual particles (I hope I'm not disrupting what you said). Does the attraction of any body that, in the quantum aspect, end up going through virtual particles? If not, is there a question of difference between the "efficiency" of the two mechanisms?
Why am I rowing? If the mechanism is a little less efficient and also a black hole interferes with the trailer because of its strong pull and therefore I wondered if it hinders itself from pulling (and here the continuation of the sentence becomes a bit silly but reminds me a bit why a natural alcohol concentration will never reach XNUMX percent) due to its strong pull?
clear. All the answers to all the questions in the world are "what you expected", because you studied the subject at UCLA....
Maybe you'll answer a question for me, for a change. Simple question, yes or no. You think you know quantum? If you have time for two questions, then the same question about private relativity.
Thanks. This answer is also exactly what I expected.
Good night.
Israel,
I am not your private tutor, nor a tool for you to demonstrate your ideas. I'm not interested in your riddles. I have taught many hundreds of students in my life and I have never met a person who was so eager to develop insights on a certain subject and show everyone that he has insights, and at the same time so stubborn in his refusal to learn.
Your question looks like a probability question (I admit I didn't read it to the end because I got annoyed after one line). Want an answer? Go learn probability. Or did you already study at UCLA?
Successfully.
OK. I think I have already received the answer, and it is indeed the one I expected:
"In an exact quantum problem, for example, a hydrogen atom that emits a photon as a result of a drop in energy level, the emitted photon does not have a definite location. Neither at the moment of emission nor a second after. Of course it has a probability distribution of locations, but in the case of a single photon with one frequency, it is a uniform distribution (that is, an equal probability of finding it at any point in space)".
The other answers are also what I expected, exactly brisk without uncertainty.
Let's move on to another, logical problem. I would appreciate it if you could consider it, it is directly related to the topic.
There are two rooms. 1000 coins with a serial number in each room. We don't know anything about the history of the coins or if they are equipped with sensors or any kind of device.
Each room has a sign with the number 30 written on it.
Course of the experiment:
1. The signs are not hoisted.
Toss coin 1 in room 1 and coin 2 in room 1, and record which side each coin landed on: a tree or a straw.
So up to 1000 currency in each room.
Checking the percentages of discrepancies between the parties on which the coins fell: result: 0%. Each coin fell on the same side as its brother in the other room.
2. Repeat the experiment with the sign raised in room 1 but not in room 2.
The percentage of mismatches: 10%.
3. Repeat the experiment with the sign raised in room 2 but not in room 1.
The percentage of mismatches: 10%.
Question: What is the observed percentage of discrepancies when the signs in both rooms are raised assuming that information does not pass between the rooms? Is he over 20? Is there any way that the mismatch percentages will suddenly jump to 80%?
Any possible technical trick or trick can be used, as long as you don't leave the room and don't communicate with the other room. There is no problem coordinating the coins in advance, except for information about the condition of the signs.
I'm going to bed soon (4:30 am). I believe the answer to the question is essential.
Good Morning.
Israel
Impossible to talk to you because you are not interested in answers. You want to prove that you know something that others don't.
You got answers to everything. What to do when Einstein published the article in 1905 there was still no quantum mechanics and therefore the words he uses to describe his intuition are taken from classical physics, in which particles have trajectories and there is no problem for a particle to have a definite position and a definite momentum at the same time. But as I already wrote, all that is needed to reconstruct the theory of relativity is the assumption that light is the invariant of the BOOST symmetry, and there is no need to talk about trajectories or draw intuition from classical thought experiments. The theory is completely consistent with quantum systems and leads to the same results.
I don't know where, how and when you learned relativity and quanta, but all the questions you ask are questions that a second year undergraduate student knows how to answer. Sorry, I don't want to offend, I don't mean to offend, but that's the truth. Consider relearning, maybe from a different source, maybe to refresh things you've forgotten. don't know
And you got an answer to the explicit question, no matter how many times you copy/paste it.
Answer your question:
I studied both quantum and relativity at UCLA.
The quote I gave is from Einstein's original relativity paper without editing.
http://www.fourmilab.ch/etexts/einstein/specrel/www/
Which brings me back to my original question:
The uncertainty principle prohibits knowing the position and momentum of a quantum particle.
Doesn't this sterilize Postulate 2 in the relationship? After all, it is built on the assumption that a photon has a known location - the time that has passed since the light is turned on is multiplied by the speed of light minus the starting point - and its momentum is also known and constant. So how does it work out?
No.
In quantum mechanics there is no trajectory for a particle. In fact, this is an alternative way of formulating quantum mechanics - particles moving in infinite paths at the same time. You can look at a particle that was at point A and after time t is at point B. You can determine its average momentum along the way, but you can't draw a trajectory for it.
As I said (already the umpteenth time), you are simply trying to apply quantum mechanics to a problem that contradicts quantum mechanics, because it is only an approximation where there is no uncertainty in anything.
Question: Considering that you spend hours every week writing here questions and theories and what not, wouldn't it be simpler if you studied quanta and/or relativity?
Is the thought experiment that begins in the following sentence
Let a ray of light start at the "A time" ta from A towards B
Is it different from what I described? in what?
Is it admissible in the concepts of quantum mechanics?
You did get an answer. You claim not. Why? because you don't listen
If you have a flashlight, and you turn it on, after a second the light will be a light second away from you. This is not a quantum mechanics problem, it is a classical problem. It does not exist in our world, but only describes it approximately. The reason the approximation is good is that what you call "position" of the flashlight and "momentum" of the flashlight (and also of the light beam) are actually averages with a very small standard deviation. Therefore classical physics, where the standard deviation is 0, is a good approximation.
2. In an exact quantum problem, for example, a hydrogen atom that emits a photon as a result of a drop in energy level, the emitted photon does not have a definite location. Not at the moment of emission and not a second after. Of course it has a probability distribution of locations, but in the case of a single photon with one frequency, it is a uniform distribution (ie, equal probability of finding it at any point in space).
I'm listening, but I didn't get an answer.
1. I have a flashlight. I also have a Mayman atom.
2. I have a watch.
3. I lit the flashlight, or excited the hydrogen atom, at time 0.
Questions:
1. Is what I described possible? If not, what is possible?
2. Where is the photon exactly at the time of 1 second?
3. If it is not exactly a light second away from the source, does it have an exact location? Does it have a possible distance range? Probability of finding it at a certain point?
Israel.
You're not listening.
There is no flashlight in quantum mechanics. If you started your question with a flashlight, that means you're working within a classical approximation. Your flashlight is itself an object whose position and momentum you know with absolute certainty. If you want to look at the problem in quantum mechanics and not make a classical approximation to it, you need a "quantum flashlight". An example of such a thing, for example, is an excited hydrogen atom. The electron will drop an energy level, and as a result will emit a photon. The photon frequency is precise because the energy of the electron levels is well defined. The photon is created in a superposition of positional modes and you cannot know at all where it was created. You know that one second after formation it is a light second away from the point of formation, but the point of formation is spread over all space.
For some reason you insist on looking at a classical problem (where at t=0 a photon is created at a certain point and with a certain momentum) and wonder that you are unable to apply quantum principles to it. I'll say it again, in case you don't understand - if you start from a problem whose conditions are inconsistent with quantum mechanics, don't be surprised that you can't apply quantum mechanics to it.
Quantum and special relativity are two completely consistent theories, and there are mathematical proofs for this. It was even awarded a Nobel Prize in the 60s (Feynman, Schwinger, Tumonga).
Ok.
If I turned on the flashlight at....00:00:00:00 any precision I want.
Can I know the exact position of the photon at 00:00:01 energetic precision? Isn't he exactly a light second away from me?
If not, where is he? In what area of the distance of the light second from the flashlight?
1. You just missed what I was saying. The problem is not the level, but that under the guise of using terms like "Jacobian" or powers of infinity, you are not saying anything mathematical.
2. Did you read my comment? A flashlight is not a quantum object. If you look at a problem of a flashlight shooting photons, you're looking at a classical problem, which is just an approximation of the full quantum problem. In this approximation, uncertainty is very small and the 0 is taken. Your statement of "the position of the photon at any instant is equal to the time elapsed since the flashlight was turned on times the speed of light." Exactly the same as saying "I know where I am and what my momentum is".
The theory of relativity is well defined even without the assumption of classical trajectories of particles (position equals velocity times time, up to an initial position). You take classical results, apply them to quantum mechanics, and are surprised that what you get doesn't make sense...
If you want, I can find you the original correspondence with Galileo's editors. At first I went into exact details, but Miki clearly demanded to keep it at a popular level and not go into every detail.
Didn't we run out?
The uncertainty principle is quantitative.
If I turned on the flashlight in Israel at time 00.00.00 and I know exactly the momentum of the photon, which is the multiplication of the frequency of the photon by Planck's constant divided by the speed of light, then according to the principle I have no idea where the photon is, it can be anywhere in the universe.
But according to Einstein, the position of the photon at any moment is equal to the time that has passed from the moment the flashlight is turned on multiplied by the speed of light.
If the accuracy isn't sharp (there's no reason not to be), I'll get a pretty good approximation.
But the principle forbids approximation, which is not bad, and it has clear limits.
So how does it work out?
And just to clarify, my criticism of the story was not that it was on a popular level. My criticism was that he creates an illusion as if he is discussing mathematics, but in fact none of his arguments concern mathematics (such as something being imperfect because it is composed of disjoint sets, or the question of the "existence" of complex numbers). It reminds me of writings by people like Deepak Chopra who use the content world of quantum mechanics to sell New Age ideas. Yes, he mentions the words uncertainty, interweaving, etc. a lot, but in the end he presents ideas that are not related to science.
No.
A flashlight is not a quantum object. You could say the same about yourself - you know where you are and what your momentum is. That's because you're not a quantum object. What you call your position or your momentum are averages, and because of your size their standard deviation is very small and effectively they look like exact values. Pence is also like that. If you look at a quantum flashlight, that is - a small enough system that produces photons, and for the sake of it, let's say it is completely monochromatic - you cannot tell where the photon was created. Your mistake is that you are looking at a classical system in the first place.
You have to understand that uncertainty is not some law that someone has enacted and he "forbids" things. This is simply a consequence of the formalism - a quantum state cannot have a definite momentum and a definite position at the same time. I guess you wouldn't say there is a "law" that says two times two plus 9 is thirteen. It is simply a result that results from the definition of numbers and the operations of addition and multiplication. The same goes for uncertainty.
Albanzo.
The explicit requirement of Galileo's editors was to keep the story at a popular level.
The only reason I got into this whole thing was to express my opinion that the weight of religious power in a democratic system cannot be underestimated.
With your permission, let's close the beaten subject and concentrate on what interests us both much more: physics.
You say: "I'm not going to answer the question with the information. We talked about it a lot."
We never talked about an aspect experiment (correct me if I'm wrong). In essence this is a logical experiment, regardless of quanta.
Let's get down from relativity right now. Doesn't the uncertainty principle prohibit knowing the position and momentum of a quantum particle?
Tell me when and where you lit a flashlight with monochromatic light and I'll tell you at any moment you want exactly where the photon is and what its momentum is.
No?
Israel,
1. I did not claim that what you say is not your personal opinion. I said that knowledge is confused and relies on many ambiguities that arise from sharp transitions between mathematics and popular science clichés and even metaphysics. You talk *about* math but don't actually say anything mathematical about it. In any case, I find it a bit jarring that on the one hand you claim that this is your "personal knowledge" and on the other hand, instead of answering each of the questions I asked, you referred me to others. If it is your personal opinion you should at least be able to explain it or say why you said the things you said. If you only refer to others it leaves the impression that either this is not really your opinion but a collection of quotes, or that you are not really able to reason any of the things you said.
2. I'm not going to read a popular science book right now to get an answer. Don't want to answer, don't answer, just know that Godel's theorems deal with truth claims in an axiomatic system and not with theorems. There is a huge difference between the two. Can you give an example of a sentence - a tautological claim - that has no proof and is not an axiom?
3. I do not intend to answer the question with the information. We talked about it a lot. Do you want to reject the conclusions of information theory without studying it? you are welcome. I have already given you all the figurative explanations I could think of and directed you to the tools needed to perform the calculation (and I even provided links to protocols that demonstrate my claims). From here you are on your own, and you can keep asking over and over again as much as you want...
4. I don't know what "postulate 2 of relativity" is. The theory of relativity (the special one, I assume you mean) is a geometric theory that assumes only one thing - a light ray is the invariant for the BOOST transformation in Minkowski space. That is, given a constant speed. There is also an implicit assumption that BOOST is symmetry, that is, does not change the laws of physics. None of these assumptions say anything about a photon's position or momentum.
Albanzo.
The story and thesis are my personal opinion only.
Regarding Jacobiani and Co., to direct complaints to Miki Elazar and Zvi Atzmon, the editor and scientific editor of Galileo who edited the story before printing.
Regarding "what the hell is the connection between the fact that the axis of real numbers consists of a different group of numbers (sometimes overlapping) - prime, whole, perfect, defective, etc. - that mathematics according to you "...was and still is a large collection of patches, and many of its fundamental theorems cannot be proven at all In spite of the structure of the group of reals, mathematics is axiomatic. There are no patches in it. There is not a sentence that cannot be given For proof" to refer claims to Professor Arnon Avron, this appears in his book: "Gedel's Laws and the Problem of the Basics of Mathematics".
Regarding the story in general, to direct complaints to the Ministry of Education and Culture who chose the article about the second law and the subsequent article "Psychoanalysis of the second law" by Nir Lahav to appear on his machines website.
But if you are already here, a simple question in your field:
The uncertainty principle prohibits knowing the position and momentum of a quantum particle.
Doesn't this sterilize Postulate 2 in the relationship? After all, it is built on the assumption that a photon has a known location - the time that has passed since the light is turned on is multiplied by the speed of light minus the starting point - and its momentum is also known and constant. So how does it work out?
And also my permanent question that has not yet been answered: How can it be said that no information was transferred between the 2 ends in an aspect experiment if the percentages of mismatches in the polarizations of the photons are triple when the polarizers are both at 30 degrees?
You can access the link from my name. of which:
The proof is reduced to its bare bones, wherein Nick shows that quantum reality is non-local because (in a particular optical experiment) 1 + 1 = 3.
Thanks.
Israel,
I don't know how much your stories are meant for entertainment and amusement and how much they are really supposed to represent your opinion, but if they are supposed to represent your opinion you need to change your opinion urgently... You have made a complete mess here and above all you have attached philosophy to a penny of mathematics to the confusion that the connection between it and mathematics is coincidental. What is the connection between the Jacobian of a copy and the definition of a new set of numbers? What is the "existence" of the set of imaginary numbers that you stand out about? I set up dummy numbers, here they are. At most you should check consistency and/or inclusion within another group of numbers (which is something easy to do even in the first year of a bachelor's degree in mathematics). And what the hell is the connection between the fact that the axis of real numbers consists of a different group of numbers (sometimes overlapping) - prime, whole, perfect, defective, etc. - and the fact that mathematics "...was and still is a large collection of patches, and many of its fundamental theorems cannot be proven in depth at all". Despite the structure of the real group, mathematics is axiomatic. It has no patches. There is not a single sentence in it that cannot be proven (what is the difference between proof and "deep proof"?), except of course the axioms. There are of course truth claims that cannot be proven in any axiomatic system, but they are not theorems.
In conclusion, as a story it may be entertaining, but as a statement about mathematics or physics it is completely wrong. If you have something here that you are trying to say, I suggest that you write it coherently without story, without drama and without plot aids. This way it will be clear to the readers what you are trying to say and, in my opinion, it will be easier for you to see that you have no real claim here regarding mathematics but rather a series of emotional claims regarding how you see it.
Wookie
Your questions were answered, but not as you requested.
Why don't you go straight to the bottom line that you prepared in advance at the beginning of the discussion: "You failed to prove, you have no basis, you are rambling and I am right as always".
In short, let go already, snooze.
Israel
"Psychomechanics is an ancient science that was invented by the author about 10 years ago."
Yes it was clear. (besides the number 10) (and the part that apparently science appears here in the meaning of non-science)
What is not clear is why none of my questions can be answered.
Should I just understand that the answer to the question - what makes it more than an ethereal point of view? - is nothing, because it is nothing more than an aerial point of view. Question Mark?
We returned from the palm springs.
Wookie
"I'm looking for an understanding of the micro, consistency and grounding."
The point may not have been made as clear as it needed to be.
Psychomechanics is an ancient science that was invented by the author about 10 years ago.
There is also an opinion that the claim regarding a so-called trial made for the second law of thermodynamics is not based at all. The second law itself claims that some slanders are baseless and that he has no criminal offense.
moreover. Historians now claim that there is no reliable evidence of a mass rebellion of simple numbers as told in the second chapter of the story. According to them, the supposed leader of the rebellion, the random number known as Rando, did not exist and was not created. Rando also confirms the claims.
"That's exactly the difference between us and physics," the professor pointed his nose at Al. "Mathematics is perfect to infinity, just as the Almighty is perfect to infinity, while physics is nothing but a collection of approximations. No wonder you yourself, the father of the progenitors of chaos, are chosen as the basic law and the most representative of physics, As if to confirm the thesis that there is an upper limit to the scientific truth that can be achieved by physics.
"And there is also an upper limit to the amount of nonsense that the ear is able to digest in a given period of time," muttered the law.
"Did you mumble something?" barked the professor.
"Nothing, nothing," the law smiled flatteringly. "All of us here feast on the pearls of your tongue, Professor Leibnovitz." He pointed to the line of numbers the professor had drawn on the blackboard. "Tell me, please: how many special and perfect numbers are there between minus infinity and infinity?"
"infinite!" replied the professor firmly.
"And how many numbers are without any uniqueness?"
"Also infinite" answered the professor in a weak voice.
"And which infinity is greater?"
"What kind of nonsense are you spouting, Law" intervened the prosecutor. "What does greater infinity mean? Infinity is infinity, isn't it Professor?"
The audience applauded, but the professor buried his face in the ground.
"The prosecutor expects an answer from you," scolded the law.
The professor raised his flushed face and muttered "The infinity of meaningless numbers is greater.."
"Thank you for your openness. How much bigger?"
"infinite…"
And among all the great and wonderful laws of mathematics, among all the prime numbers, beautiful, perfect, Romeo and Juliet, lovely and pleasant, have you ever heard of the number 1995, the number also known by its name: "Rando"?
The professor turned pale. "You..do you know Rando?" stammer
"Acquaintance also acquaints" answered the law. In fact, I even went to the trouble of asking Marando to testify for the prosecution. He's standing here." He took out a pocket calculator and typed some digits on it. "It's going to be a little difficult because Rando's native language is binary, but I think we'll manage. Isn't that right, Rando?"
"Certainly" answered Rando.
"Don't tell him anything!" the professor squealed in frustration.
"Keep to yourself" the law said to the professor in a scolding. "Believe me, it hurts me more than you. Undoubtedly, it is not particularly pleasant to reveal in Parhasia one of the most obscure episodes of the kingdom of mathematics...perhaps the darkest chapter...the rebellion of the simple numbers under the brave leadership of Rando, the humble and random number of all numbers. Of course, there will be Much simpler, if you mathematicians will confess that you accused me in vain, you will discover the whole truth about the shaky foundations on which the mathematical "perfection" was built, Admit that your queen is a privileged number and that you have enslaved their righteous brothers, fall on your knees, pray for my forgiveness, and let me reveal the forgiving sides of my merciful nature. Otherwise I will be forced to do hucha and be free from the whole idea of the perfection of mathematics, which, as I have already mentioned, is not acceptable to me at all."
The professor sensed, while the audience swallowed their saliva.
"Well!" The law urged. "We can't wait a whole day for you. We still have a lot of work to do!"
The professor raised his chin in defiance, to prove that we would not give in to pressure.
The second law addressed the crowd: "Gentlemen, is anyone willing to reveal the truth?"
"Me" answered a young man's voice from the audience.
"Thank you" said the law in relief. "Who are you young man and what is your name?"
"Gedaliah" answered the guy. "And I'm a student of mathematics. I know very well the story of Rando, or in his full name: Ran-Dhua."
"Tell me Gadel-Yahweh," the law addressed the young man in a fatherly tone. "Is mathematics really so perfect?"
"Don't you dare to inform!" screamed the professor.
But the guy approached the stand and continued to speak. "Submit, Leibnovitz. Hiding the truth is not a path that a real mathematician would choose. The law is just. Mathematics, like physics, was built layer by layer through trial and error, was and still is a large collection of patches, and many of its fundamental theorems cannot be proven in depth at all."
"Are you telling me?" Rando's voice was hollow and slightly digital. " I learned this the hard way. Until the mathematicians came along with all their privileged numbers, we were all friends with equal rights, as Kroenker, a nineteenth-century mathematician, said: "God created the whole numbers, everything else is the work of man." Suddenly classes were created , aristocracy, young numbers were not allowed to play with their old but pedigreed fellows...it culminated in a party for the birthday of little i and his acceptance as a full-fledged member of the mathematics aristocracy.
"Who is the cute little i?" asked the law dreamily.
"root of 1-." answered Gedaliah. He came to give a solution to a quadratic equation of the type X²+1=0. There is no positive or negative number that can solve the equation, so this number was invented. At first it was treated with great skepticism, and even the great Descartes doubted its existence and mockingly called it an "imaginary number" or imaginary, hence the i.
Whether they exist or not, imaginary numbers are extremely useful in various fields, especially in electrical engineering. For mathematics, the simulated numbers are especially valuable, because they allow the description of geometric functions by pure algebraic means."
In his speech, Gedaliah drew on the board an axis perpendicular to the axis of numbers drawn by Leibnovitz earlier. "See? If we call this axis the "axis of imaginary numbers" it seems that we can define every point on the plane using only a pair of numbers: a real number, on the horizontal axis, and an imaginary number, on the vertical axis. Such a pair is called a "complex number." In fact, we have thereby created a system An alternative to the usual Cartesian system based on a horizontal X-axis and a vertical Y-axis, but with the clear advantage that we can perform complicated geometric calculations with algebraic means Relatively light and comfortable."
"I know it sounds a bit complicated" Gedaliah reassured the confused crowd. But after a little practice, you will argue that the demon is not so terrible. The beauty of this is that the final result does not have to contain imaginary or complex numbers at all. not fun? We started with a complicated problem, transferred it via hocus pocus to an imaginary world of virtual numbers, solved it with relative ease and returned it solved to the world of real numbers!"
"Your explanations make me understand even less" the prosecutor scratched his forehead in embarrassment.
Gedaliah, look for a suitable example. "The legend says that years ago an old sheikh wanted to divide his camels among his three sons according to the following key: the eldest would receive half of the camels, the middle one a third and the youngest a ninth. Count the camels, and behold a robbery and a robbery! The herd had 17 camels, a prime number that is not divisible by any number except himself and 1. In their distress, the boys turned to the wise Qadi to help them with the distribution. The Qadi said to them: More Soon my son will return from the market on a camel, we will add it to the herd, and make the distribution.
Now with the camel of the Kadi's son we will get 18 camels, so the eldest got nine, the middle six, the youngest two and a total of the original 17 camels. The boys thanked Kadi and went on their way happy and good-hearted, but to this day it is not known if Kadi really had a son, or a camel, and he doesn't care either.. The main thing is that the real problem was solved using that "simulated camel" and everyone is happy.
Transformations work in a similar way: transferring a difficult problem from one system to another through a series of formulas, sometimes called "Jacobins", solving the problem in the more convenient system, and returning it to the original system solved and smiling.
For example, I will present you the following problem: try to calculate the mass of a sphere whose specific gravity increases as you move away from the center. If you try to use Cartesian coordinates, you will argue that the problem is extremely difficult to solve. But transfer it to spherical coordinates and the problem will be solved in the blink of an eye.
That's why everyone was so excited when little i joined the family, and held a religious and proper feast in his honor, intended, they promised, for the whole world of numbers. Who wasn't there? Every fat man of mathematics, every duke and every count, and everyone who is a little something. Endless columns, which had gathered especially for the occasion, marched in total. Entertainment stages were set up for series. It is understood that upper and lower barriers were placed in all the streets to prevent the proletariat from rubbing shoulders with the rabble and the nobles. Then, when the signal was given, the announcer announced: "Ladies and gentlemen, I ask everyone to kneel, and allow me to present before you the five princes of mathematics, 1, 0, i, e, and π."
You already know 1, 0 and i. π is of course the ratio between the diameter of the circle and its circumference, approximately 3.14. The numerical value of e is approximately 2.72, and is defined in calculus as a number whose natural logarithm is equal to 1.
The five of them stood on the platform of honor, sons of gods lifted up from the people, while the announcer details the lineage and virtues of each of them. "And here we are, we have reached the great moment, the redemptive formula that will forever unite the fields of algebra, calculus and geometry!"
The lights dimmed, and to the sound of trumpets and drums, a huge fire inscription lit up above the stage, illuminating the night sky and the cheering crowd:
0= 1+ e^iπ
Gadalihu stopped in his words, all choked with excitement, while Leibnovitz wiped away hidden tears from excitement.
Rando, who understood the hearts of the mathematicians, continued the story.
"Yes," continued the announcer, "here are the representatives of the people, the five great figures of mathematics, combined with each other in the immortal formula which is unparalleled in frugality and elegance, and do you know that... what, what is this? What is this disturbance? Who allowed Rav Rav to approach the stage The honor?"
In front of the barrier stands Rando and with him his best friend Araba, number 6487.13.
"Can I come in?" Rando asked politely.
"And who are you? Which group do you belong to?" asked the sentry.
"I'm just a number. I thought the party was for the whole world of numbers."
The sentinel let out a chuckle. "You are quite a number. Do you belong to the primitive group?"
"No" answered Rando quietly.
"The perfect ones?" The sentry tried
"by no means."
"The square ones?"
"Not yet."
The sentinel, who was a random number himself, felt sympathy and identification with the brash and brave number. "Be careful" he whispered to him. "If you upset them they might still pull the root out of you." "Maybe the whole number bunch?" said loudly.
"Neither" answered Rando. He was born around 1994.99983 but who's counting? who cares Only when they reached the age of majority did it fill up and round to 1995.
"What does this defective number want from us?" One honorable matron grumbled.
"defective?" Rando asked the sentry. "What's wrong with me?" He was not used to condescension.
"A defective number is a number whose sum of parts is less than the number itself." explained the sentry. "You divide by 1, 3, 5, 7, 15, 19, 21, 35, 57, 95, 105, 133, 285, 399 and 665, the total of which is only 1845."
"I understand" said Rando to the willow. "It seems to me that they don't want us here. Come on, let's go home."
They turned and started marching, not looking back, while the privileged crowd called after them: "Good, go back to where you came from and take with you all the other unsuccessful numbers, too crowded here on the axis." The sentinel looked at them with an amused look, shrugged his shoulders and started walking after them. He was joined by the servants, the cleaners and the other black workers of the party. To everyone who asks them about their purpose, Rando answered briefly: come after me. Soon there was a geometrically growing column of simple numbers behind them, unknown numbers and daily difficulties, never mentioned in any book, numbers that were not beautiful, not perfect, not prime, not even necessarily positive.
All this huge procession slowly wound its way in front of the dais on which the princes of mathematics still stood, a terrified look in their eyes, because when all the simple numbers began to be extracted from the number line, all the prime numbers lost the support they had always had on the right and left, and soon they were all reduced to one singular point: 0 .
Because this is the nature of the number axis: each number in itself, however important and privileged it may be, is nothing more than a dimensionless point, but the successive addition of all of them turns them into a line with a dimension of length.
Even in a thermodynamic system, "preferred" states of order can arise spontaneously, but which are void in the infinite sixty in relation to the amount of possible states of disorder. It is this difference, between an orderly and a less orderly state, that allows useful work to be produced from the system.
Rando told his story in his metallic, digital voice. And many people in the audience, and even more who followed the "Rebellion of the Fallen" in the media - a paraphrase of a well-known story in which the exact opposite happened - hundreds of millions of people who asked themselves every day what the purpose and meaning of their bland lives was, people who were not beautiful (relative to whom?) , not tall (relative to what?), not rich (relative to a destitute but happy puppy?), not smart (relative to a monkey? to a rabbit? or to other people), Meri Nefesh (Nothing really could they do otherwise?), who worked, if at all, in jobs they hated for little pay without a real ability to advance, finally received the explanation for the purpose of their life without satisfaction and hope: to be the reservoir of low heat that allows the whole great psychomechanical system to unfold.
"And what happened to the rebellion?" The law asked Gedaliah.
"To the new abode of Rando and his gang, in the twilight zone between the finite numbers and infinity, the eternal steppes where you can pass many millions of consecutive whole numbers without meeting even a single prime number, a delegation led by π arrived. The sentinel let them in. "Please, please Of you, come back," the privileged numbers begged. "Our lives are not alive without you, you leave us only one option: to multiply ourselves at zero."
"Going back for what?" Rando asked, "To continue to be black workers who carry the whole of mathematics on their shoulders? We are treated as if we are only names and not numbers. We too have our self-respect. After all, it does not matter how much we add up, multiply or divide, we can never become i , e, or π. Without us, you too would be doomed to eternal obscurity, without any distinction, chance or hope. You are the quality, but please do not underestimate its power of the amount - we. We also want a piece of the pie."
"And they managed to match?" Law asked curiously.
"A compromise was reached. All the whole numbers were redefined as the limits of infinite series, in which each and every number was given an adequate representation. When their dignity was restored, the numbers returned to their natural place and the order was restored."
Wookie - there are many more chapters. A chapter for each kitbag question.
Shouldn't we end here?
Israel
I don't lack examples, I lack answers to my questions. I understand the claim in general, I'm looking for an understanding of the micro, consistency and grounding.
Suppose you have some psychological energy, and then your dog dies. Are you necessarily losing psychological energy or may you also be gaining psychological energy? Is there any accumulation of psychological energy or just a loss? Where does this psychological energy go? After all, you also said that conservation laws apply to a social system. Is one human being already a social system?
Israel
Is it possible that in the closed system there can be a kind of "leakage"? Like Hawking radiation?
ok walkie I will try to give you an example of how it works in the field. This is the short alternative - the long one involves more chapters.
June 5, 67, 15.00:XNUMX p.m.
Nasser happily enters the Egyptian army headquarters and finds the commander of the army and air force, Amar, drunk and hysterical.
what happened general he asks him.
Hey Rice! The planes are gone! Amar cries.
What planes? Some? Nasser asks.
Everyone! Amar shouts. The Jews wiped out the entire Air Force!
The headquarters of the Egyptian army goes into panic, a withdrawal order is given, and the Egyptian army takes a miracle for its life.
October 7, 73.
The dimensions of the catastrophe are becoming clear. Moshe Dayan and Golda are shocked, Dayan talks about the destruction of the Third Temple and offers to start discussing the terms of surrender.
The psychomechanical state of accumulation is one of stasis. Energy is needed and immediately, otherwise the system will collapse.
It's time to show leadership, and that's what Dado, Rafoul, Kahalani and others are doing. They muster all their mental energy to stop the panic taking over the army.
This is what General Joubert did during the withdrawal of the French army in August 1914, Churchill in 1940 and Stalin in 1941. This is not how Johnson behaved in 1965 and the Shah in 1979.
If you see every social system as being in a certain state of accumulation, it gives you the right tools to deal with situations. If you are a youth guide in distress, you need to know when to inject energy into a system that is entering negative feedback. The same goes for a tired party that needs vitamins or even a sad child. The role of the responsible adult is to provide the initial energy to drive the system, and maintain a stable flame.
If errors - iPhone.
Wookie
If you bet $1000 you got a pool and won, you are filled with joy. extra energy.
Your friend accepted Cara and took his hand, you are sad. Energy depletion.
The house takes its percentage anyway. entropy.
Capish?
Another question I forgot.
What happens when you lose or gain psychological energy? Is there a clear/predictable way you react when this happens?
Israel
Beyond going into inaccuracies in the details described in the examples (I can go into details if you want, but I don't think it's on your mind (and it's also very long)), I don't see anything here beyond looking at events and situations through the glasses of psychomechanics (as you call it). I still don't see where it differs from forms of critical reading such as for example reading children's stories through the glasses of the erotic messages in them. It's interesting but it doesn't necessarily mean something that really exists there.
What makes it more than an aerial view?
Mostly I think I didn't understand. Is happiness the unit of measurement for psychological energy?
Every person has psychological energy. Yes? Are you born already with psychological energy? Is psychological energy created somehow and/or at some stage?
What is considered a gain of psychological energy and what is considered a loss of psychological energy?
Is God an external source of psychological energy? So, what is not an external source of psychological energy?
What is the simplest psychological system that can be described?