Scientists propose a theory that makes it possible to resolve the asymmetry seen from our perspective on the progression of time. According to them, it is possible that during the bang another universe was created with the same laws of physics, but with time going in the opposite direction
The progress of the arrow of time has always amazed and intrigued humanity. Why does time always move forward? Why can't past events be changed? And why do we only have access to the present and the future? The theory of relativity that stunned the scientific community at the beginning of the 20th century presented time as a symmetrical dimension, just like the three dimensions of space. That is, according to relativity, there is no obstacle to moving backwards or forwards in time, or to cause time to stretch and contract. However, it is clear to everyone that time, at least from our point of view, always moves forward and it is not symmetrical.
Now a group of scientists from Great Britain and Canada offers a radical theory that makes it possible to solve the dilemma. According to them, it is possible that during the Big Bang, 2 universes were created, in one of which time moves forward (our universe), and in the other, time moves in the opposite direction - backwards.
The theory was published by Dr. Julian Barbour from College Pharm in Great Britain, Dr. Tim Koslowski from the University of New Brunswick in Canada and Dr. Flavio Marchetti from the Institute of Theoretical Physics in Canada in the scientific journal Physical Review Letters.
According to Dr. Barbour, "Time is mysterious. Basically, all the laws of physics we know behave the same in any form of progression of time, but in the world we live in everything goes in one direction. The universe is expanding, we are getting older, the degree of disorder seems to be progressing - at least in our immediate environment."
According to the scientists, when you take a limited model of the world (about 1,000 particles) and symbolize it as moving backwards in time, you get that the degree of order is increasing and the degree of entropy is decreasing, until eventually you return to the big bang from which our universe was created. And in this "mirror image" created by the Big Bang, the degree of order is getting smaller and smaller and time is moving forward.
However, according to the scientists it will not be exactly a "mirror universe" which is identical to our universe. Although galaxies, stars and planets will probably develop in it because the laws of physics remain the same, the developments and events that will apply in it may be completely different.
According to the second law of thermodynamics, as time passes, the entropy in a closed system cannot decrease. For example, if we take a closed box with 2 types of liquids in it, when a buffer separates the types of liquids, and then we remove the buffer, then the liquids will mix as time passes, until eventually we get a homogeneous paste.
From the law of entropy, which is directly related to the progress of time, it appears that at the time of the big bang the degree of order was extremely high, and this raised many questions among scientists for a long time. But the new theory which allows time to flow both forward and backward theoretically solves the problem.
136 תגובות
How is it that photons (particles or waves) of light without mass and charge are swallowed by black holes?
I wrote exactly this idea in 2005 on Walla's science forum...
Cool
http://forumsphp.walla.co.il/memberlist.php?mode=viewprofile&u=4677099&start=590
Feels to me like an insult to physics -> feels like a mistake.
Feels like part of what we know - is true (let's say relativity) and then models were built that were observed to be correct but in practice the same results should have been reached - but with a different theory... (Similar to the upgrading of Newton's results by A. Einstein)
(On the other hand, my knowledge as an observer (amazed) is so small that all I can have are feelings and nothing more)
I didn't understand what the scientists did with the 1000 particles
Jacob
That's exactly the point - they are really smart. If you don't understand what scientists do then ask. You don't have to feel stupid…
These scientists…
They are champions in getting huge budgets, and inventing weird theories that will make everyone look stupid, and they are smart!!!
As Stephen Hawking wrote in one of his books - every week I receive several unified theories in the mail.
A great theory, but it seems that physics has recently suffered from a proliferation of theories with little chance of confirmation - string theory, which many physicists have already abandoned after not finding even a shred of evidence to support it for 40 years; The dark matter that no one has been able to find for 20-30 years, and which we don't actually need if we just correct Newton's laws of gravity; the multiverse theory that probably has no chance of being confirmed in the near future; The holographic universe... in short - very interesting as it may be, there is no confirmation for all these things and it is also possible to prove that the moon is made of cheese and you should stock up on crackers the next time you land there.
The first paragraph is amazing
The others: No comment
My questions may not have been understood. Anyway thanks for
The attempt to answer.
questionnaire
At the "classic" level there is a body that creates a field, and every other body in the field will feel a force. Friction has no meaning in the context of fields - friction is physical contact between molecules of a substance (a good approximation). Because of this, for example, there is high friction between rough surfaces.
Matter contains particles that create both a gravitational field and an electric field (we'll ignore the strong force here). In a neutral body the number of positive particles is equal to the number of negative ones, so as soon as they are far enough away from the body the electric field will be meaningless. On the other hand - the gravitational fields only add up and therefore the field does not cancel out.
A field exerts a force on a body, but a body does not exert a force on a field.
Miracles, it seems to me that we are not aiming at the same point.
In the first question I asked to understand how a force moves in a certain direction without friction but the material through which it passes does
Feel pull / friction? My interest is not in a Newtonian or relativistic description but to understand the mechanics
At the level of the atom that is bound by 3 fundamental forces and essentially "emits" a fourth force which is gravity. and how her
Gravity, which was originally created by mass, passes unopposed through masses just like the one that created it.
Originally - without resistance or weakening, but on the other hand it does pull the same masses in the direction it came from?
Think you are climbing a ladder somewhere in space in an area of low gravity and each rung of the ladder is you
first pulling and then pushing, the ladder will move in the direction you came from and you will continue - without any effort or
Loss of energy on your part (with the exception of the weakening of the impedance of the square of the distance you traveled from the point of departure).
The second question for the theoretical decomposition of bodies in order to follow the distribution of gravity on the surface
A number of components that form a body to which the descriptions of gravity and the associated mathematics refer. to remind you
The force that binds atoms and molecules is electromagnetic and if it is the one that binds the material then why the material
"Emits" more gravity?
Newton did not know exactly how gravity works, although he knew how to formulate it for low speeds. Einstein
He found a sophisticated bypass using time, mass and distance but until his last day he was unable to connect the force of gravity
to the other three basic forces. So before you answer, try to get to the bottom of my opinion.
Thanks.
questionnaire
This assumption is an approximation, and only works at relatively large distances. Let's put two masses m at a distance d between them. There is no power in the center and that makes sense. But, what happens near one of the masses? If we do a calculation with the 2 masses, we will get that the force is relative to m/d^2, and if we refer to the center of mass, we will get that the weighted mass is 2m and the weighted distance is d/2. If you divide the weighted mass by the weighted distance squared, you will get a different result than m/d^2.
Another example - take a hollow ball. When you are inside the ball - you will not feel any gravitational field! And if you are inside a homogeneous sphere, let's say at a distance r from the center, then the gravity you will feel is for that part of the sphere within the radius r, and now it is permissible to assume that this part of the sphere is entirely in the center of the sphere.
By the way - all this was known to Newton.
Thanks Nissim for the explanation,
It always amazed me how gravity passes without resistance (in one direction) through matter or waves
electromagnetic and at the same time pulls them in the direction from which it came. ZA says that direction
There is no opposition to where he goes, but in the opposite direction there is opposition, which of course continued.
That's why I asked the question that if there is a force that weakens the drag the square of the distance it moves and not drag
The work he performs, so can it be called power?
Besides, you gave the example that the attraction between two bodies is between their centers of gravity
If they are hollow or if they are full, then I wonder if the same center of gravity is for comfort
Mathematically or in general each atom attracts a neighboring atom or another atom from another body.
For example, if the Himalayan mountain chain is an independent theoretical body that attracts a mountain chain
Hypothetically on the moon or that the pull of the Himalayas is inseparable from the pull of the moon
Does the earth create the curvature of space time?
questionnaire
The main cause of the tides is the moon's gravitational field. At every moment there is a tide in the same place that the moon is above, and also on the opposite side of the earth. The reason is that the Moon's gravitational field passes unhindered through the Earth.
And another explanation: remember the formula for calculating the Earth's gravity: product of the mass by the square of the distance from the center of mass. If there was concealment, then the mass in the center of the sphere would have less effect. Consider that there is no difference between the gravitational field of a homogeneous sphere and the gravitational field of a hollow shell, as long as they have the same mass.
elbentzo,
I still don't understand some things (especially in the context of section 1) but I want to first read and think about it more.
Thank you!
Joseph,
Your riddle reminds me of the following joke:
A biologist, physicist and mathematician are sitting in a cafe in front of an office building. After a few minutes, two people enter the building and after some more time, three come out. The biologist says: Well, natural reproduction took place. The physicist says: There must have been an error in the measurement. The mathematician thinks a bit and then decides: if one more person enters the building, the building will be empty.
Israel Shapira!
Yes you are right! And so the fish is thrown again and again.
Once upon a time in the IDF they would check a cable transmission and a punctured film by sending the following message: "Zezav, a curious fish swimming in the sea, disappointed, suddenly found a nice girl like me and how did Zezvev receive" and indeed since then a lot of water has flowed in the river.
Joseph
If time flows backwards as written in the article, then after the fisherman throws the fish it will return to the bucket.
Israel
8 is valid only once in the process
Shmulik
Regarding 2 correct, start with 43 (the smallest possible number) to this number you can add any number that is a multiple of 49.
On the positive side 7 to the N power, N determines the number of times the process can be repeated.
Why less than 6?
On the negative side, we saw that for 6 - always after subtracting 1 and subtracting a seventh
return to about 6–
We will represent the initial number of fish as the sum of 7 to the N power plus minus 6.
We will remove the thrown fish from (6-). Now it remains to issue a seventh.
The initial number 7 to the N power is divisible by 7, N times. And the number 6 - simply "freezes" in place.
The method to achieve this is systematically
Start with finding a group for once. So the numbers must contain an N7 +1 pattern
From this group, a subgroup is selected for two times, and so on.
With a little algebra we arrive at the final pattern.
I'm glad you found interest in the puzzle.
Shmulik will now change parameters and have fun in the world of numbers
Shmulik
Right..
Nice animals fish, just a little chatty..
Grandfather, father, grandson
Joseph
What's wrong with the solution of 8 fish on the edge of a river where time flows backwards?
Here is another fish riddle:
Two fathers and two sons
They went fishing together.
Everyone caught one fish
And together three came out!
What is going on here?
(You can also sing).
Joseph,
I started to understand but apparently something is escaping me.
If the coefficient is 2, then the number to start from is 43
After the thrown fish, you get 42. After taking the fisherman's share, 36 remain.
From 36 you get 35 and after the fisherman's share you get 30. Then what?
Joseph,
The minus solution is cool even though it would be a pretty unsatisfying meal.
Regarding the plus solution, I didn't understand why you downloaded 6. How do you get to such a solution?
For those following the riddle, here is the solution:
First the riddle was told in the context of anti-matter (anti-fish) and back in time.
The solution is (6 – ) (minus 6)
6 - is not divisible by 7, so we throw a fish into the river.
Now the number of fish is (1 – 6 –) ((minus 6) plus (minus 1)) you get minus 7.
The fisherman takes one seventh of the fish, meaning minus 1 fish.
Then we remain ((minus 7) less (minus 1)) and return to the result of minus 6.
For those who don't like it (anti-fish), convert the fish to a bank account with a minus.
For those who are interested in knowing in the positive area: below is the method
Let's assume that this is a repeated process 41 times, so every multiple of 7 to the power of 41 minus 6. gives a response.
No answer endless times.
albenza,
Can you explain whether the force of gravity is weakened as a result of being hidden by another object?
In a solar eclipse, for example, when the moon is between us and the sun, does the satellite move away from its orbit
By how many meters as a result of "hiding" gravity?
Thanks.
Maya,
Thanks!
Joseph
If time flows backwards on the edge of that river, the answer is 8, isn't it?
Hope at least the river flows forward..
Hi Shmulik,
Some time ago I found this really cute blog in a web search. Both in Hebrew and generally for every person. He is talking about the amount of this invoice series. The blog is called "not accurate" because it does not pretend to be accurate, but relative to this it is quite accurate... In short, it is highly recommended if you want to immerse yourself a little more in the wonders of mathematics:
http://www.gadial.net/2014/01/18/sum_of_naturals/
albentezo,
Can you expand a bit on infinity?
Was the universe infinite a second after the big bang and if not, why is there a qualitative change after 13.8 billion years?
Speaking of an infinite series of miracles, the result of 1+2+3+... = 1/12- (as far as I remember, this result is important in quantum mechanics and string theory???), is the series really equal to 1/12-?
withering,
It seems that the thing that bothers you the most is "Isn't it reasonable to think that if something with physical reality is added to us (a vacuum is a real thing since it takes up space) then "someone" should pay for this addition?" The answer - no! There are quantities in physics that have conservation laws. That is, that their total amount must be preserved, not disappearing or appearing out of nowhere. These conservation laws are not arbitrary but actually proven by the conditions of the system. When there is a conservation law, it is clear that every addition comes at someone else's expense, and every lack finds its way somewhere else. This is because there is conservation in the SAC. But as soon as there is no law of conservation, then additions can come at no one's expense, and things can disappear without moving to another place. In the expanding universe there is no conservation of energy (there is local conservation, as I mentioned in the previous response, but there is no overall conservation).
What is the essence of the vacuum? its energy density. What else is "real" about it? After all, nothing was added as a space (like a balloon - no matter how much you inflate, no more balloon will be added). The energy is not conserved and therefore there is no reason for it to come at the expense of someone or something else. He even guarantees that she is not - because if she did come at someone else's expense, then in total she would have been preserved, and this is in complete contradiction to the fact that there is no symmetry to shifts in time.
And direct answers to your questions: 1. The big bang theory does describe an infinite expanding universe. A bit confusing but true.
2. Yes, the radiation cools as a result of energy loss resulting from the expansion of the universe.
3. Your question about the energy content of the vacuum is not entirely clear. We measure the energy density of the vacuum in the laboratory, so we are sure of it. Is it possible that the composition of the total energy in the universe includes more than the percentage currently attributed to dark energy (order of magnitude of 70%)? Yes. These calculations are based on adjustments to existing models. If we discover better models in the future, fitting measurements to them may yield different numbers.
4. Yes, the "effort-energy tensor" is a complicated and awkward name, but it is the tensor to which I directed you. He determines, through Einstein's equations, the geometry of space.
5. Yes, non-conservation of energy is expressed in this tensor. This tensor contains several components, which are the energy density and momentum in space. In systems where symmetry exists, it is possible to explicitly prove that its (tensor) derivative zeros, meaning that what is called in physics a continuity equation holds.
dE/dt = -divergence(p) q
where the q at the end is to be ignored, and the quantities in the equation are densities. We see explicitly that the equation says - "any change in energy must be balanced by an opposite change in momentum". That is, energy can only be lost if there was a change in momentum (what is called in physics, an external force was applied). If the symmetry does not hold, the derivative does not zero and the above equation is simply incorrect. Therefore it is absolutely wrong to think that energy can only be added at someone else's expense.
withering
You have to be careful with the term "infinite". I think this concept has different meanings in physics and mathematics. In mathematics we can define infinity in several ways, as a limit of a series, as a power of a group, as an unblocked value and so on. In physics - you also have to say what is meant. For example - what does an infinite number of stars mean? What is infinite space? This is also true in the other direction - for example, what is the smallest division of time, or space?
Physicists may say otherwise, I think the reason for this is that they are talking about their models, and not about "reality". The models are mathematical, and there the definitions are familiar.
Uncle,
I haven't received an answer yet. As an expert on the rabbi's thoughts, was the rabbi wrong when he stated that there is no connection between matter and time? If I read all his musings, will I think that the summary of his case, which I have copied here, is completely wrong?
Thanks and happy holiday
infinite
Ofir Shmulik!
The bucket never resets.
elbentzo
"The space is just the surface area of the balloon and the thickness is just a graphical representation of the curvature at each point (or the energy density, it's considered)"
Indeed that is what I meant.
"An infinite universe expansion does not produce more space."
The big bang theory.. talking about an infinite universe?
"This stretch basically represents a constant loss of energy of all the waves in an expanding universe."
That's why the background radiation got cold, right?
"In an expanding universe there is no conservation of energy, but there is a constant decay of all the energy of all the fields and particles in space, except for the vacuum energy density (the cosmological constant) which remains constant, and this is because vacuum does not "stretch" but, similar to what you claimed, is simply added to space."
Is it possible for the vacuum to have a greater energy content than is currently attributed to it? Is it not reasonable to think that if something with physical reality is added to us (a vacuum is a real thing since it takes up space) then "someone" should pay for this addition?
In addition, is the non-conservation of energy in an expanding universe reflected in the relative stress-energy tensor? (http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/f/fe/StressEnergyTensor_contravariant.svg)
[[Is this the same tensor you referred to at the end of your response?]]
It is not clear to me what is meant by "a mechanistic explanation for the expansion of the universe".
The meaning is where (and at what expense) does the extra vacuum come from which is necessary for the expansion of the universe? (This question is also related to the other answers you gave, actually I think this is the point that is the most difficult for me to understand - the universe is expanding, although no more places are created, but a vacuum is created, right? I don't understand how you get a vacuum for free if it has a physical reality).
Thanks!
Yossi Simon,
In your puzzle it is explicitly written that the bucket was emptied at the end of the process: "How many fish were in the bucket before it was emptied (!!!!!)"
There is no number that, if you run the process on it, the bucket will be empty at the end.
Shmulik
You need to find a number that gives an answer for any number of times in the process.
Yossi Simon,
So you need to find the number that gives the largest amount of iterations?
Shmulik!
The bucket is never emptied (under the conditions of the riddle) (this is a thick hint) because the next time the fisherman wakes up he would not have to throw a fish into the river because zero is divisible by 7. And he would immediately take 0 fish to his stomach and continue to sleep.
Use number theory and the remainder theorem. The riddle was told in the context of physics, and not just a math exercise.
withering,
Let's start with general references. If in your analogy the space is just the surface area of the balloon and the thickness is just a graphical representation of the curvature at each point (or the energy density, it's equal), then there are no problems of consistency as I mentioned in the previous response, but I don't see much gain either. But if it's convenient for you, by all means. I don't see anything wrong with the analogy. I can mention that the balloon analogy is mainly good for a cosmological description (large scales, as mentioned in the link you sent) and on these scales the curvature (and the energy density) are to a very good approximation constant. I mean, the analogy doesn't have a lot of nice things to explain to us if we're looking at a very bright spot in your language (that is, having a high energy density). To describe what happens there in a graphical way that is friendly to a user who is not familiar with formulas, another analogy is needed, for example a canvas.
Now a little about expansion and energy conservation. An infinite universe expansion does not produce more space. It stretches the existing space and distances the points that make it up. The difference is subtle but very important - for example, what happens to a certain wave in an expanding universe? Since the universe stretches, the wavelength stretches along with it. You can draw a sine wave on a spaghetti string and see what it looks like when you stretch it. Wavelength becomes frequency, and linear frequency becomes energy. This stretch basically represents the constant loss of energy of all the waves in an expanding universe.
And this is indeed the case (at least in the big bang model, it does not go into pathologies in more complex models). In an expanding universe there is no conservation of energy, but there is a constant decay of all the energy of all the fields and particles in space, except for the vacuum energy density (the cosmological constant) which remains constant, and this is because vacuum does not "stretch" but, similar to what you claimed, is simply added to space. There is no problem with this non-conservation of energy. We know exactly who the law of conservation of energy is and why it exists: the law of conservation of energy is a result of symmetry for displacements in time. That is, the fact that if I perform a certain experiment today and repeat it under identical conditions tomorrow, both experiments will give the same result, dictates conservation of energy (there is a very elegant mathematical proof of this by the early 20th century mathematician Emi Neter). In an expanding universe there is simply no such symmetry - if I perform an experiment today and tomorrow, the space itself will be different, and the results will not be the same. That's why we have no problem with the fact that the energy is not conserved - it shouldn't be conserved either. However, it should be remembered that the change in the scale of the space is very slow. Therefore, between today and tomorrow for another million years there is no real difference, and therefore there is effective energy conservation in such processes. But when we talk about cosmological processes and changes in the energy density that result from stretching, the lack of conservation does not bother us, but rather is expected and consistent with our understanding of energy and conservation laws.
It is not clear to me what is meant by "a mechanistic explanation for the expansion of the universe". If you mean some kind of particle description, then this is a bit of a problem. The classical theory of gravity (general relativity) cannot talk about phenomenological descriptions of particles, but only about energy densities: such an explanation exists, but it is not intuitive (in principle, it is a constant energy density that creates a very large negative pressure, which opposes the gravitational forces and pushes the space On the outside - not something easy to imagine in the head). A particle description of gravity is found in quantum gravity theories and they are less intuitive in principle - space itself is expressed as particles and therefore it is difficult to impossible to imagine gravitational dynamics that do not take place on a fixed background.
I would be careful with the analogies you offer (if I understand them correctly) regarding the formation of space (we will ignore for a moment that no new space is created). The expansion of energy density does not really describe the expansion of space - even in a completely empty space with a cosmological constant there will be expansion, and it will clearly not be due to the creation of space by points of high energy density.
To clearly answer the questions:
A. No. The example with the balloon was born to demonstrate that the space is the same space, but the distance between every two points in it increases. The geometry stretches, but no new places to visit are created. The number of points at any given moment is fixed (infinite, but fixed).
third. We are not so much interested in the total energy as in its density, because that is what determines the geometry. The total energy is interesting when there is conservation of energy, and here explicitly there is no law of conservation of energy. The equation that connects the energy density and the geometry of the space at that point is the Einstein equation (actually, the Einstein equations). I don't know how to import a tex file for comments, so I'm attaching a link to Wikipedia. R and R_{\mu \nu} are quantities related to the curvature of space and define the straightest line between any two points T_{\mu \nu} is the energy and momentum density tensor at the point. Lamda is the cosmological constant.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Einstein_field_equations#Mathematical_form
Yossi Simon,
Question: Was the bucket completely emptied at the end of the process?
For it to be completely emptied, one fish had to remain in the bucket. So the sleep fishing will throw one fish, take a seventh from zero and we're done.
The step before the last iteration should be 2 and a sixth (because then you subtract 1, you are left with 7/6 and if you subtract a seventh from that, you are left with 1) and this does not meet the conditions of the question.
I guess I'm wrong but I have to ask:
Are you convinced that the wording is completely tight?
Obviously, there was not just one fish in the bucket (from the terms of the question). They are indeed I should expect that at the end of the iterations there will be 0 fish in the bucket?
Thanks
withering
There is no mistake in the wording!
I simply upgraded it compared to the version I received.
Hint! Try to solve mathematically (ignore the content) after receiving the answer relate the idea to your physical knowledge.
Successfully.
Joseph,
Are you sure there is no error in the wording of the riddle?
elbentzo,
Thank you very much for your reference.
Yes, the entire universe (space-time) is bounded in front of the balloon only, the thickness of the balloon only represents the energy density at each point, perhaps it is better to represent the density by the degree of brightness or color on the surface of the balloon to avoid misinterpreting the analogy as if particles can move not on the surface The balloon only.
The analogy I proposed is of course based on the familiar balloon analogy:
http://www.astro.ucla.edu/~wright/balloon0.html
Where the main difference is that I don't just grid points (galaxies) on the surface of the balloon (so that an intuitive illustration of the expansion of the universe, the distances of the galaxies from each other and the fact that there is no point in the universe that is the center) is obtained, but I add the issue of density as the only variable that matters (whether it is a galaxy , a photon or a cube of space). In this analogy, the balloon inflates because more space is created (with a relatively low energy density at the expense of energy with a relatively high density such as mass and gamma radiation for example). In this context, is there a mechanistic explanation for the expansion of the universe? After all, this means that more space is created, and space has an energy content... We don't like free meals in physics, so where does this extra energy come from? From my inflating balloon analogy it is easy to imagine that the balloon inflates as a result of the formation of space from denser energy states, you can also think of it as transitions in aggregation states when an ice cube (water arranged at a relatively high density) breaks up into a puddle of liquid (water at a relatively low density) and thus the puddle of water grows until Her hominid death, when the whole battle turned into one big puddle of water. But so that I don't talk too much nonsense, I ask:
A. Did the expansion of the universe create more space?
B. If so, where does this space come from, what produces another space? (It would be really cool if it turns out that there really are "engines" for creating space).
third. Since it is agreed that space has an energy content, where does this extra energy come from? (By the way, I know the equations that link energy to mass and energy to photons, what is the appropriate equation between energy and space?)
The article reminds me of a lovely riddle that a physicist named Yitzhak N. asked me years ago.
Once together 7 fishermen fished in the river, fish.
In the evening they decided to go to bed and with the second light of the morning divide the loot equally.
One fisherman was speeding his way and while sleeping decided to take his booty.
The fisherman counted the fish but the number of fish was not divisible by 7 (whole number). The fisherman took one fish from the bucket and threw it into the river. Now the number of fish was divided by 7. The fisherman took a seventh of the prey and put the fish in the sloe.
Since the fisherman was acting while sleeping, he was not aware of his actions. After several minutes the story repeated itself, again the number was not divisible by 7. Again he cast a fish into the river and took a seventh of the spoil.
The act was repeated many times, the number is unknown because in that region time crawled slowly.
The question is how many fish were in the bucket before it was empty. (The solution is exact and there are no tricks).
withering,
Equivalence between energy density and the curvature of space is (almost) the basis of all the knowledge we have about gravity. Einstein's equations that are the basis of general relativity talk about exactly this connection. The reason I said almost, is that the equivalence is not trivial. It is about equality between the energy density and a function of the curvature, not the curvature itself. The difference is intuitively negligible - energy density determines the curvature of space at a point (monotonically, that is, high density - high curvature), and the curvature defines the straightest lines in which particles will move (what is known as gravity).
The description you gave for a balloon with a nice thickness at the popular level, but is not usable in a physical model for an expanding universe. The balloon analogy is good because it refers only to the surface of the balloon, which maintains the fundamental property of an expanding universe - the distance of any two points from each other. If you don't look at a balloon but at a membrane, it will have points whose distance remains constant (points that are on the perpendicular line in front of the balloon's surface), and this does not correspond to our universe.
Gravity is a very, very non-intuitive subject, so it is customary to explain it with a lot of analogies, but you have to be careful not to mix them up or take things literally from them, because most of them are imperfect analogies. The balloon well represents an approximately homogeneous universe, whose curvature is more or less constant (like a balloon - it has a more or less constant radius, and its curvature goes like one of the parts of the radius). I mean, it's a good analogy for describing the universe in a cosmological system, but if you want to look in particular at some system, for example a black hole, its curvature is not approximately constant and its geometry does not resemble a balloon. Once you have a very complicated geometry it is difficult to understand how it expands in such a way that all the points move away from each other. What I'm getting at is that if you look at the gravitational behavior of the entire universe, then the thickness of the balloon in the idea you proposed is approximately constant (and I'm currently ignoring the fact that it doesn't correctly describe the expansion of the universe) and is therefore meaningless. If you want to describe smaller systems, they won't be well described by a balloon at all.
Let's go a little deeper into the world of analogies in relationships in general. The guiding line is, usually, to simulate a space for some kind of two-dimensional sheet. True, our space is not two-dimensional, but we can imagine two-dimensional shapes and understand what a line stretched over them looks like. We have a very good intuition about whether the shape is curved or flat (and for a very bad reason - we misinterpret the word "curvature", but not important at the moment). This is the power of analogies. In the analogy you propose, the space is described by a three-dimensional surface (if I understand correctly. You may have meant that the thickness is only a marking and a physical particle cannot move to the depth of the balloon, but only on top of it?). As soon as you talk about such surfaces, our human intuition disappears and there is no longer so much point in talking in analogies, you can talk precisely about the geometry of the space.
The distortion will not benefit so much from this description either: distortion in optics is created when light passes through a medium whose density changes. But if the thickness of the balloon changes, then an analogy to optical dusting would be for particles that penetrate through the balloon, i.e., whose movement is perpendicular to its surface area. This is not the effect of gravitational damping - this effect occurs in movement relative to the body that induces a certain gravitational field and in relation to the viewer. That is, it is not a completely geometric effect but depends on the viewer. It is not clear to me how your description allows such a thing.
In principle, the equivalence of the different forms of energy, as you called them, is already inherent in general relativity, and it is explicitly encoded in the geometry of space. The connection is a little more complex than how you presented it (I know you didn't mean to claim that this is the connection), because the energy density and the energy being massive or not, are not really related (there are certainly systems of massless energy, for example radiation on matter, whose energy density is significantly greater than systems massiveness). The equivalence of the different forms of energy is actually much better understood in field theory (the modern incarnation of quantum mechanics), where mass is a completely effective quantity (that is, not a basic and fundamental characteristic of a system, but mainly a result of its dynamics).
I hope that at least some of the things I wrote were clear and addressed what you wanted me to address. It is a bit difficult to answer the question "Is the analogy good", because analogy is not measured quantitatively (otherwise it would simply be the theory, and not an analogy to the theory). Also, I'm not entirely convinced I understand what space-time is in the analogy (is it just the surface and the thickness of the balloon just a reminder of how dense the energy is in it? Can a particle also move through the balloon, through its thickness dimension?).
If you refine the questions, I can probably give much better answers. I will warn in advance that, unfortunately, quantum gravity is not very rich in analogies and stories that are easy to explain even without a technical background, and at least some of the things you refer to are directly related to quantization.
Do not understand .
elbentzo,
If we have already mentioned dark energy. I would appreciate it if you could tell me what you know about the idea that the energy content everywhere in the universe is equal(?) to its curvature in that place. Do you think the expanding universe could be described as if it were an inflating balloon where the thickness of the balloon represents the energy density at that point (a galaxy would be represented by a thick layer, a vacuum would be represented by thickness at the base level). I like this image, for example, because perhaps it is easier to understand gravitational lensing because now the description is more similar to "normal" lensing resulting from a density change in matter. Another thing is that it is easier to understand the equivalence between the different forms of energy, when just as energy can be embodied in mass or movement, so it can also be embodied in space (place), with the main difference being the density of the energy in that place. Mass, for example, is energy that is more dense in space (for example, a plutonium block), but the energy in the products of a nuclear explosion (especially radiation) is mostly less dense. I would expect in such a case that there would be an appropriate equation between energy and space, when it follows that the formation of space may simply result from a transition from a denser state (perhaps mass or radiation) to a less dense state (space). It is possible to imagine this relatively easily in the same inflatable balloon whose integral over its thickness is constant and equal to the amount of energy in the universe and where a process takes place in which thicker areas are thinned down to the basic level (space). It follows that there are supposed to be space-creating engines (perhaps black holes?) that perform this conversion (I used to think of the deficiency observed in tawny neutrinos from the sun as a potential candidate, but I think this issue has already been resolved...). An upper limit on the future of the expanding universe is also easy to understand from such a model because this balloon obviously has a maximum possible final size (when its thickness everywhere reaches the basic energy density).
I would appreciate your patient attention, I'm sure I've written some pretty serious nonsense here...
Hello David,
Indeed, I agree: "Judaism, like any religion, is a faith." I have a friend who repeats the question and does so significantly. He says he doesn't have a rabbi or community to consult with, he only has faith that he doesn't really know what to do with. I agree that you do not need scientific confirmation in order to accept the Torah as truth. You do not need any confirmation, in fact even when there is conclusive proof that contradicts what is said in the Torah this should not change your mind. This is exactly the meaning of the word faith. This is the main reason why I think that religion and science do contradict each other and are certainly not two sides of the same coin, but precisely on this point I really have no problem agreeing to disagree. The only thing that bothers me is, as people have said here before, the need to find the "scientific aspect" in the Torah. You said that the Torah is not a scientific book and serves a completely different purpose. Why, then, impose the latest scientific discoveries on this book? Shmulik asked you why Judaism and you chose to take the approach of "Judaism has stood the test of time, look at the scientific evidence". If this is the best answer you have about why Judaism, I really don't understand it.
You agree that the Bible is not a scientific book. You agree that we will leave the science to the science and the Torah to the Torah. You think there is no contradiction between the years, I agree to disagree. So why mix? The premise for the "scientific discoveries" prophesied in the Torah. Could you answer Shmulik's question - why is Judaism above all religions, without apparently involving scientific predictions from the Torah?
Happy holiday. On Sunday I will go to a Hanukkah party and make my heart (and stomach) happy with donuts.
Uncle,
And a few more things (but don't forget that I want an answer to the question of whether the rabbi was wrong)
1. It's a little funny to me that you write that the Torah is not a science book and then tell us about its wonders in the scientific field and outrageously state that the creation story matches the scientific description of the history of the universe in general and evolution in particular (miracles, birds preceded trees, didn't they?)
2. Please tell us how the Torah took care of women (especially those who did not raise a voice), 12-year-old girls whose father raised them to men, and explain why Shas and Aguda mothers proudly say that women in the Knesset have nothing to do, but not in our school because the Halacha does not see it as good .
3. I am amazed by the fact that the Torah, for all its paradisia, spoke about the great issues of life: sefirot, creator and destroyer of worlds, the next world, evil and good for him, at the same time as smearing sheep's blood on the mezuzahs so that God would kill only first-born Egyptian men, and as a worker Babies also come out, innocent of any crime wat su aver. Babies!
4. The Torah was written in human language. Good. Why isn't there the moral progress that exists today? God could not add a few more sayings, something like: a. Women will have the same rights as men. Yes, completely identical, one to one, in any field and on any subject. Thanks. B. Slavery will not exist in any form, way, path. Neither a Hebrew slave nor a Gentile slave. No slavery. No, no slavery. third. Gays exist and deserve full equality of rights. Homosexuality exists in all mammals, it is natural. cope d. Children need love and protection, they are not cheap labor and under no circumstances will 12 year old girls be sold to other men. continue?
And another reference to slavery. In my opinion, it is super brazen to talk about the slavery of the Christians when Judaism has a hand and foot in the slavery that the Christians introduced among the Negroes. The religion itself is a separation between those who do the specific rituals and those who do it. In this way, it divides those who belong to the upper class and those who do not as the lower class, as subhuman. This separation is the first psychological step that allows humans to be treated as animals. Slavery is mentioned in the Torah as a completely legitimate practice and instead of completely prohibiting this horrible and barbaric practice, God decided that it was rather nice for the Jews to keep slaves and if these slaves had children, why not, the children would also be slaves. horror Christianity, which is a literary copy of Judaism (without the traditions in the original) will certainly continue with this practice. Why not? If I have slaves, more power to me. So if Raphael and Hasoi spoke in previous threads in praise of Judaism that it contributed the mortar and pestle to modern life, then please. take responsibility For dessert I will note that as far as I understand, slavery is still allowed according to Judaism. Horror, did we say?
elbentzo,
Yes, that's what I meant: "for a full explanation of the phenomenon about which there are no more open questions"
I thought that "exhaustive" instead of "satisfying" would clarify the matter, it is indeed one word, but it is an important word. It is possible to understand "satisfying" that you can stop there but you can also continue, while the meaning of "exhaustive" is that a full explanation is given. As I wrote before, this could also be understood from the comparison I make to the answer "God did it" which by definition constitutes an exhaustive "explanation".
Raphael,
All in all, I know and understand more than you (probably a lot) about scientific subjects and I try not to be condescending and create a false representation that I understand subjects that I know little about, and I usually know how to identify logical fallacies and therefore try very hard to avoid making claims that include them, and it's easy to rely on them later. I'm also quite polite as long as the commenter in front of me wants to learn something about science, and doesn't condescend without justification, and doesn't try to push topics unrelated to the topic under discussion, and doesn't ignore simple questions that are asked, and doesn't ignore factual answers that are given, and doesn't answer in stupid and irrelevant ways Their purpose is to divert the discussion from the question that was asked without an answer. There are many more such clauses, so yes, I am quite polite to those who do not behave this way. Those who do behave this way, I allow myself to be less polite, usually gradually.
Raphael, it's not a shame that your knowledge of science matters is less than mine, I'm sure that your knowledge of other things, especially things that I understand nothing about, far exceeds mine. Isn't it more logical, more pleasant and more moral for us to contribute our information to those who are asked, each in his own field? So, if I want to learn something new about religion, I will go to a website on this topic and I can ask and get the way religious people look at the topic and then maybe you will be the one to answer me? Wouldn't that be a better world to live in?
withering,
Well, then you just repeated the sentence and replaced the word "sufficient" with the word "exhaustive". I thought I explained quite well what was not clear to me in your response - in your response it seems (to me) as if you are claiming that dark matter and dark energy are placeholders until we find the real solution, which is clearly not true. I asked if by the words "satisfactory explanation" you mean a complete explanation of the phenomenon about which there are no more open questions (then indeed, the physics community does not see them as satisfactory explanations) or did you mean that the essence of the explanations is not clear or is not in consensus (as I said earlier, we can see from the first sentence In your response that you claim that physicists do not think that these are the real explanations for the phenomenon, and I disagree with that).
But from your last response there is a strong impression that you are not interested in expanding, so it doesn't matter.
Uncle,
Unfortunately I was left without an answer. Here again:
It seems that you did not read my response, so I will copy the part that refers to the rabbi:
"I have no objections to the rabbi's reference either. It is even "logical" to state that there is no connection between the substance and time at the time, but the question remains: do you agree that he was wrong?'
I turned and turned in your answer, but I did not find an answer to my little question: Was the rabbi wrong when he stated that there is no connection between matter and time? If I read all of his thoughts, and not just the summary, will I think that the summary in his case, which I have copied here, is completely wrong?
Thanks
Hi elbentzo
I really meant this (I think I even wrote it in the body of the response), I really don't know any scientist from the field of physics who accepts dark matter as the exhaustive explanation of the "lack of mass" problem (when n>0 of course, the sentence would be trivial if I simply didn't know any physicist …).
uncle Shalom,
It is completely acceptable that you express your opinion only, although I am quite sure that your opinion as expressed represents many religious people (I have personally known several who held a similar opinion to yours and I have come across many others over the years who have expressed themselves in a similar way).
You wrote: "...the Torah is not a scientific book. It was written in the language of those to whom it was given 3500 years ago."
The Torah is indeed not a scientific book and the attempts to present it as if it contains scientific knowledge (by Zamir Cohen for example) are at best embarrassing. If there exists in the Torah (or in any literature based on it) actual and relevant knowledge about the world (even if it is a "spiritual" matter but which has an effect on the material world) then there is a very simple way to put this knowledge to the test, by making a definite prediction and testing it objectively, Just as it takes place within the framework of the scientific method. The simplest test is to find such knowledge, which is unknown to science, and on the basis of which it will be possible to develop a technology (that works) or, alternatively, a medicine that will help cure diseases that today science and medicine have no reasonable ability to solve. I don't know of any such example that was developed thanks to religious scriptures (and it doesn't matter which religion). It would be fascinating, in my opinion, if the religious Jews would succeed in being a light to the Gentiles in this field and would be the first to help increase our understanding and reduce human suffering in the many issues with which science still has difficulty. I have no doubt that such an impressive success, even one, will raise the profile of Judaism and bring many Jews closer to it who are currently alienated from the religious establishment.
Most importantly, you didn't answer my question... with your permission I will repeat it:
You wrote that the stages of creation correspond to evolutionary knowledge. I find it difficult to identify the connection between the scientific knowledge I possess and the descriptions of creation. Could you explain how the comparison is made (if possible first in the essence of one versus the other).
withering,
Although I agree with your approach and with the things you wrote to Raphael, I somewhat disagree with the sentence "I don't know any scientist who accepts dark matter and dark energy as a sufficient explanation for the problems associated with them". If you meant that no one thinks that we have finished investigating them and that it is possible to move on, you are absolutely right. But there is an unequivocal consensus regarding dark matter and dark energy being solutions to physical problems (very different problems, it should be noted). Regarding energy, we have a solid and proven phenomenological explanation for the mechanism that produces dark energy. The trouble is that the theoretical calculation and the measurement in the field do not agree on the size of the cosmological constant. This is a burning problem that many people are working on (including me, by the way). Regarding dark matter, the problem is exactly the opposite: the theory fits the measurements exceptionally well, but lacks a phenomenological explanation. That is, who exactly is the particle that maintains the properties in question.
I don't know what you meant. If you want to expand, I'd love to hear it.
Raphael,
My response is very matter-of-fact. I show matter-of-factly that you do not fully understand what you are talking about, therefore your criticism is worth less than a garlic peel.
And you can keep saying the words "I don't despise science", but when you write you write a sentence like "I thought that what doesn't work is supplemented with something dark (dark matter, dark energy)", especially when you have no idea what these words mean - and I would be very happy if you prove me wrong. It's like I'll say "I don't despise the Jewish religion" and then I'll go pee on a Torah scroll...
You criticize without spending a single minute studying the subject, you spread lies and gross scientific errors, and you claim that when scientists come across something they don't understand they invent a quasi-scientific name for it. If you call it not disrespecting, I'm interested to know how you treat the things that you do disrespect.
withering
And you are smart and moral and polite and infinitely sharp.
Hello Nisem,
It seems to me that we can continue like this until no end... 🙂
In any case, for the avoidance of doubt, my whole reference here was not in condemnation of science, but in favor of Judaism. Only a complete fool can not love reason.
Finally, my opinion is that it is possible to love science (which is not a religion) and Judaism (which is not a science) without there being a contradiction between the things. It's love of opinion, and it's love of opinion. I don't see the two as a 'zero sum game' but two sides of the same coin (and you already noted that you have a different opinion, and I agreed that we will disagree).
In any case, I enjoyed the discussion very much :-),
Good evening and happy holiday,
Uncle
Raphael,
Dark matter and dark energy are merely names for that part of which we know next to nothing except that it must probably exist. Now we can speculate about the possible identity of the two. For example, a number of different identities have been proposed for the dark matter and in the meantime, as far as I know, they have already ruled out one of them with a high probability (the "machus" explanation) and are still trying to find confirmations for the possible explanation of the "wimps". Similarly, it is proposed that dark energy is stored in the vacuum itself that fills the entire space of the universe. This is how science works, there is an observation, the existing model explains a great many things but does not explain the new observation, so usually the problem is called by a name (so that it will be easy to refer to the problem) and offer a multitude of possible explanations and then try to obtain confirmations for these explanations. If a proposed explanation yields predictions that explicitly contradict existing knowledge that has already been tested, the explanation is thrown in the trash (or at least there is a sharp decrease in motivation to continue testing it, especially when there are still options that seem much more promising, as happened with "Machus").
Therefore, in contrast to the answer "God did/willed it that way", which is presented as a full "explanation" for the problem (which arises many times precisely because one assumes his existence and his contribution to humanity in the first place) and which constitutes a signpost, there is no entrance to curiosity and the possibility of learning something new about the world, dark matter and energy Darkness is in no way the "explanation" sought by science but only the beginning of the journey to a more complete understanding of the nature around us. And really, I don't know any scientist who accepts dark matter and dark energy as a sufficient explanation for the problems associated with them. But scientists can live in peace with temporary ignorance, believing that our intelligence will stand up to uncovering these secrets, just as the scientists' intelligence has stood up to this day in finding excellent descriptions of the reality around us that provide us with a deep understanding of a tremendous variety of phenomena (such as rainbows for example) and along the way Enable the acquisition of useful technologies that everyone uses every day, some of them even extend our lives to a considerable extent (compared to other times when religion was widespread and even more widespread).
You wrote in the past that you don't disparage science, but when you write a review, rather stupid it should be noted, that stems from ignorance of science issues, not only in the technical details but in the understanding of the scientific process and the conduct of scientists, you are not only arrogant without any justification, you express disdain for an entire field. The worst of all is that you spit into the well from which you drink day after day and hour and hour and this is impudence and first-class good spoons that reveal poor morals. You are Raphael, a person with poor morals, first and foremost because of this spitting in the well, and your claim that you are not disrespectful, which is hidden as mentioned by the rest of your statements, lowers you to an even lower level. I feel sorry for those around you who have to put up with you for all hours of the day, because I find it hard to believe that a person who exhibits poor morals in one place will not behave in the same ugly way wherever he is.
Of course, you are always welcome to drive differently (although from my experience the chance of that tends to zero).
Albanzo
Why can't we stay on the business level? Why do you constantly go into emotional reactions?
Did I reproach the scientists? Am I underestimating scientists? where did you see it
I just showed that what Nissim said that if it doesn't work throw it away is not true.
Even in science there is a tendency to forcefully push the theory into what we think is true and if it doesn't work out then we give it a little massage and sort it out. This does not mean that all science is bad. As I have already stated several times at the audience's request, I say again: science is important, science advances humanity, and I enjoy learning about scientific innovations, and sometimes I don't agree with all the conclusions that scientists reach. my right.
Raphael
Einstein added the cosmological constant at the time to match the equations to the observations (this is not an accurate description because not adding it means setting it, arbitrarily, to 0). Today, a large number of physicists believe that there is dark matter - it is not correct to say that the only reason for this is "matching reality to measurements". The dark matter is an explanation for additional observations, and even provides all kinds of predictions.
It is not fundamentally different from the theory of evolution. There were a lot of speculations, and Darwin (and others) found an explanation that explains the phenomena, and provides predictions. After Darwin's idea, we discovered the mechanisms that make evolution possible.
This is how the physicists think will happen with the dark matter - in the end we will find out what it is made of and what its properties are.
And of course... then the religious will come and tell how everything is already described in the Torah.
I did not deny that the existence of dark matter has not been proven. But there is *very* strong evidence that points to its existence. As usual, you think that if something is not 100% proven then it has no value and that is of course in two words, the antithesis of science.
The cosmological constant was never "invented". When writing the operation of a gravitational system, the cosmological constant is a valid term that can be added without breaking the symmetry and consistency of the system. Einstein initially supported it because it allows (under certain conditions) the existence of a static universe, and Einstein thought it was the correct description of our world. Then there were many debates about whether or not this term should appear in the equations (Einstein even switched sides and argued that it should not appear), and today we have empirical evidence that it does appear. We can actually measure it and its size (in a number of different ways, for example in the cosmic background radiation left over from the Big Bang era).
You think you are making an impression and that you find fault with scientists for adding ideas to their theories. You don't understand that you are proving exactly what Nissim said - when you find out that one theory or another that we thought was true does not agree with all the observations, we throw it in the trash and find another one. True, dark matter was never thought to exist. So start seeing things that don't add up, start measuring unfamiliar phenomena, throw out the old theory, and replace it with a theory with dark matter. And what do you know, for meta-CDM, the cosmological theory that includes dark matter, fits the observations perfectly and explains phenomena with great precision (and even predicts new phenomena). Obviously there are more open questions, this is always true in science, but this is an excellent example of how science changes according to what reality dictates.
Albanzo
Do you deny that the existence of dark matter has not been proven?
What about Einstein's cosmological constant? Wasn't it invented to plug a hole in a theory that didn't work?
Raphael,
The reason you thought that is because you don't know what dark matter is. You don't know what the evidence is for him, and what is against him. You don't know what problems he solves and how. Do you want us to talk about parallel universes again? There it took something like two comments before you admitted you didn't even know or understand the definition of what you were talking about.
Miracles
"In science - what doesn't work is thrown away". Are you sure?
I thought that what doesn't work is then supplemented with something dark (dark matter, dark energy).
Uncle,
It seems that you did not read my response, so I will copy the part that refers to the rabbi
"I have no objections to the rabbi's reference either. It is even "logical" to state that there is no connection between the substance and time at the time, but the question remains: do you agree that he was wrong?'
However, I turned and turned in your answer and I did not find an answer to my question: Was the rabbi wrong when he stated that there is no connection between matter and time? If I read all his musings, will I think that the summary of his case, which I have copied here, is completely wrong?
Thanks
Uncle,
I didn't quite understand the problems you mentioned about the gravity-quantum connection and incompleteness theorems. I am quite knowledgeable about both of these topics and would be happy to hear and try to understand what bothers you, and if it bothers me too
Happy holiday to everyone.
Uncle
Godel proved that number theory is incomplete. This has nothing to do with the correctness of the mathematical tools.
Just a curiosity for you: I wrote a thesis (for a master's degree) in which I showed that, following Godel's incompleteness theorems, an evolutionary process will inevitably "defeat" any planned system. If you agree if my words grow up (and understand them) you must accept my opinion....
Regarding gravity and quantum theory: if I had an answer then I would have a Nobel Prize... We have two models that describe parts of the world, in an amazing way. I don't see any need to add a third Torah (God) that doesn't explain anything to me about the world (and is full of internal contradictions...).
Are you arguing against the multiverse because it is not scientifically testable? Do you also put your belief in the existence of God in the same test?
Darwin had a number of mistakes in his Torah, mistakes that pretty much invalidated his Torah 🙂 But the mistakes were corrected, and today there is no missing link in the theory. On the contrary, there are many things that cannot be explained without this theory.
You are absolutely right that there are theories that have turned human knowledge upside down. In particular - Copernicus completely contradicted the religious theory that the earth is at the center and Darwin completely contradicted the religious theory that man is at the center.
You say that the Jewish religion is consistent. It's a bit funny, because beyond that, the Jewish religion itself is full of different approaches, there are thousands of religions in the world, and each person thinks that their religion is the right one.
For me - science explains the world far better than religion. Science changes according to the accumulated knowledge. There are no axioms in science. In science - what doesn't work is thrown away.
What's not to love about science? 🙂
Shmulik,
Simply put, the entire Aristotelian physical theory is an absurdity and a mistake that the rabbi stood for one by one.
Do you know what the 'place of the unmotivated motive' is, Eliba Daristo? And what do you have to say about the 4 elements that make up the world? Why don't you review this? You do know that.
And no, it was not Newton who was the first to crush Aristotelian physics in his book Mathietetica Principia, but Rabbi Hesdai Karshaksh 200 years before him in his book Or Hashem, only he did not do it mathematical tools.
But you accept Newton without question and you don't even know the rabbi who was right to expose Aristotle and his teachings for all his mistakes. Despite this, you feel comfortable speaking your mind.
And it seems to me that you have never seen Newton's book in the original and certainly not the rabbi's.
I hope that my answer at least does not elude you.
Good day and Merry Christmas,
Uncle
Hello Nissim and Kamila,
If you noticed about the evolutionary thing I wrote my opinion.
And I wrote that the Torah is not a scientific book. It was written in the language of those to whom it was given 3500 years ago. And yet, as I wrote, no scientific theory that I know of has stood up in such an exceptional way as the Torah. I would love to know otherwise.
Miracles,
In your opinion:
How is it that you use immortal tools even though Kurt Godel proved something about its completeness or imperfection.
Can you explain to me how gravity rules if quantum theory? Do you think that because they are mutually exclusive and both fail at a gravitational singularity, one must be true and the other not? You don't think so.
You may argue for an 11-dimensional solution, but it is a philosophical solution at least at this stage (Aliba de Weinberg). As well as Susskind's holographic universe, etc.
Also the multiverse in question, is it a testable theory or philosophy, at least at this point?
And one more thing, can you tell me with absolute certainty that there is not a single missing piece or link in the puzzle for Darwin? And if not, would you agree that more than once we were presented with 'almost perfect theories' and only the little comma that was missing in them, turned human knowledge upside down, while 'cancelling' the original theory?
Wasn't it Lord Calvin who said in 1900 that the automaton of physical knowledge would be completed? And in 1905 Einstein showed otherwise.
And it was not Newton, the father of modern science, who looked for clues in the Torah most of his life.
Thanks,
Uncle
Uncle,
What is absurd is that I will state that what Aristotle was talking about is absurd. The man lived two thousand three hundred years ago. The very discussion of the subject in such depth is amazing.
I have no complaints about the rabbi's reference either. It is even "logical" to state that there is no connection between the material and the time at the time, but the question remains: do you agree that he was wrong?
Uncle,
I did not receive a satisfactory answer but an evasion:
Do you agree that the rabbi was completely wrong when he stated that there is no connection between matter and time?
Are you claiming that the summary was wrong by one hundred and eighty degrees and if I read all of his thoughts I will understand that he did not state that there is no connection between matter and time?
Uncle
I agree with Camila - how does the Torah fit in with evolution?
If you tell me that the Torah is a story, but a story with many important meanings, then I agree with you. But - if you claim that every word is true, and what is written there is exactly what happened, and what will happen, then I am far from agreeing.
Uncle,
You wrote many things that I do not agree with at all, but I will ask you right now only about one of the sayings that particularly bothered me.
You wrote that the stages of creation correspond to evolutionary knowledge. I find it difficult to identify the connection between the scientific knowledge I possess and the descriptions of creation. Could you explain how the comparison is made (if possible first in the essence of one versus the other).
Nissim and Shmulik, hello again,
Miracles,
1. Indeed for the Declaration of Independence. And you know that originally they didn't really mean all humans but the white man, as evidence of what was required to pass the 13th amendment.
2. Who knows if I lack knowledge or not.
3. No, I don't think Greek culture was destroyed by Jewish culture. I have already noted that Jewish philosophy, led by Rambam (and not least Kabbalah) drew ideas from there. And the opposite is also true, Greek culture did not crush Jewish culture but drew ideas from it.
4. Beyond that, it's a shame to expand, let's agree that he didn't agree, I suppose on most issues.
Still, I enjoy the discussion with you.
Shmulik,
You should read the book and not just quote summaries.
There is a whole discussion about the connection between time and movement in Aristotle, and he really does not connect time and space. Although the whole concept of space itself is distorted by him, which reaches the point of absurdity that he comes to a discussion about the definition of the concept of "place". And another thing, for Aristotle without motion there is no time. Whereas with Karshresh the discussion is different.
And no, I didn't claim that Kashrekh was the first to claim time-space, that's an honor reserved for Einstein. And he was indeed the first to crush Aristotelian physics (which, unfortunately, Rambam failed to do).
Happy Hanukkah,
Uncle
Raphael,
As Nissim answered you, there is no stopping an infinite universe from having a beginning.
You consistently show difficulty seeing options that are legitimate (logical coherence) on the one hand and using arguments that contain logical fallacies on the other. It is not surprising that certain things that are completely kosher seem illogical to you and other things that are obviously logically illegal actually seem to you not just logical but even bound by reality. I don't know why you behave this way, that's why I asked you the question of what is the age of the earth to the best of your understanding, because this answer can shed light for me on why you behave this way.
Uncle
All in all, you write beautifully, don't misunderstand.
Regarding the American Constitution - you are wrong. First of all, I assume you mean the Declaration of Independence and not the Constitution, correct?
In the Declaration of Independence it is written that all people are equal, without exception. The whole issue of slavery is a disgraceful disregard of this statement. The Constitution, at its core, talks about the American system of government. In addition, the 13th Amendment specifically prohibited slavery.
To remind you, in the Bible there is slavery, including laws that regulate the issue. And let's not talk about the discrimination against women... that exists to this day in religion.
Raphael
Please differentiate between infinite in space and infinite in time. One is possible without the other, both are possible, and it is also possible that nothing is infinite.
David Hanukkah,
I don't have time for a long response but something short anyway. of:
http://www.daat.ac.il/encyclopedia/value.asp?id1=1589
"A student of the Rabbinate and a friend of the Rabbis, among his students was Rabbi Yosef Albo, the principal teacher.
Karshash's important composition is "The Light of God". This book is about religious philosophy and it includes remarks about a confused teacher of Maimonides. Rambam followed Aristotle, while Karskash dismissed the introductions of the Greek philosophers that Rambam used. Karskash was the first who dared to dispute Aristotle, claiming that there is no connection between time and matter. "
It is hard to imagine a bigger mistake than the claim that there is no connection between time and matter, so forgive me if I don't accept claims on his behalf about modern physics.
Before we move forward, do you accept the claim that history has proven that Aristotle (who discussed the above issues hundreds of years before the rabbi) was right, while the rabbi was completely wrong?
Uncle
You lack vast knowledge in science, which you make up for with "faris" of ancient literature, literature that we know contains far more scientific errors than truths.
But, I will concentrate on one point only. You said that man is the pinnacle of evolution (and twisted the Torah in the passage claiming that there was no evolution!!!).
Man is developed just like any other living creature, nothing more. For example, the species called man separated from the species called chimpanzee about 6 million years ago. The essential difference between us and chimpanzees is one - we have language, chimpanzees don't. If you take a group of people who have not learned a language, you will find that they are not much smarter than monkeys.
I don't want to bother anyone with a long response, and I will end with what I said earlier: interpreting the Torah to fit the accumulated knowledge is embarrassing, and achieves two things. The first is the alienation of the secular from Judaism. The second is turning the tight-knit believers into a bunch of fools who live in a lie and who know nothing about the world (of course there are genius ultra-Orthodox and stupid seculars...)
No offense, but if you think Greek culture was "defeated" by Judaism, then you are talking nonsense.
In fact if our universe is infinite it also has no starting point. Not 13.8 billion years or any other number.
withering
This theory is about a parallel universe to ours that moves backwards in time. If our universe is infinite then there is no starting point for the parallel universe and then this whole theory falls apart.
Nissim, Shmulik and Maya Hello,
Shmulik,
It was not for nothing that I mentioned the "Or Hashem" of Karskash. He discussed there in depth (in the 13th century) the void and the meaning of the void. About time and the essence of time (which he calls "spiritual experience").
Regarding Kraus's multiverse versus Ebert's, I already wrote "Creation exists from 'nothing'" and not "Creation exists from nothing".
The - 'In', he-he is the eternal transcendental ancestor from which created worlds are ennobled (ours and others all the time, he-he "builds worlds and destroys them") through a system of spheric delegation on the path of Kabbalah or through 10 separate minds on the path of a perplexed teacher / Islamic philosophy of the Middle Ages (Evan Rushed and others). In this regard, the Ramban already hints, "In the beginning of God" (this is how the Torah is written) can be read as "in the beginning God created" and also "in the beginning God was created" and implies without elaborating, deliberately, that out of the primordial and eternal 'nothing', the creative power first emerged The divine, and all one! Without going into detail, because in this matter it is preferable to speak only. Because the Bnei Yisrael had already made a mistake and separated themselves in their question "Is God among us or 'Is He not'" whose intention was to find out whether God (the creator and active power in our universe) dwells among them or "is not" (infinite), and not as it is customary to mistakenly interpret the Bnei Yisrael's question as – 'Is there a God among us or not'. And they were already punished "and for their testing the Lord" is the creator power, because they separated and created a multitude (Exodus XNUMX:XNUMX). So the matter of introductions and creation is at the heart of the Jewish concept from its beginning. And Rambam, in this regard, writes thus:
"The secret of the foundations and the pillar of wisdom for the knowledge that there is a first found name and it is the inventor of everything that is found and all that is found from heaven and earth and what is in between is not found but verifies its invention. If it is conceivable that it does not exist, nothing else can be invented. If it comes to mind that all those who are apart from Him are not present, He alone will be present and He will not nullify them. He is the one who the prophet says and the Lord God is the truth, he alone is the truth and there is no other truth like his truth and he is the one who the Torah says there is no other besides him, that is, there is no truth there other than him like him..." (Rambam Halchot Yesodi HaTorah XNUMX)
Miracles,
Regarding the interpretation of each text which is in different directions depending on the need, says that the Torah was actually in conflict with human scientific knowledge until the middle of the XNUMXth century. So that most of the time, Jewish "science" did not rise in subjection with scientific knowledge and nevertheless preserved its identity. And I think that's pretty impressive.
And all this, if you insist, I will agree that there are seven faces to the Torah, and these and these are the words of a living God! And that is the beauty of Judaism, it is able to accept that absolute truth is outside of human perception and will always be in our perception second. I don't understand why you are surprised by this, after all, gravity and quanta do not coincide, these and these are living things, everything in its context. The quest for knowing the truth is man's journey.
Regarding the Earth, the Zohar says (Vikrah page XNUMX:XNUMX):
"Every settlement rolls around in a circle like a sphere (the whole settlement - that is, the world and humanity on it - rolls around in a circle like a sphere) I am in the bottom and I am in the top (these - that is, some of them - live below, at the bottom of the sphere, and those above) Ether and Ether, and Kaimin in his existence as the other sons of Nesha. (And all these creatures - who live in the different parts of the globe - differ in their appearance - in their color, in the shape of their faces, etc., - because of the change in the weather, like the weather in each and every place. But they stand like other human beings). And on Da Eit Ether Bishova (and therefore there is a place in the world) as a nahir lalin, dark lalin. Lalin Yamama, and Lalin Lalia. (When it is light for these, darkness for these. Day for these, and night for these) And with Ether Dcholia Yamma, and she did not forget her Lilia Bar in the day of Hada Zaira. (And there is a place in the world that is always lit and night will not be found in it except for a short time) etc. It is written (that is how it is written) I will praise you because I have fallen terribly and your deeds are wonderful! (Tahilim Kelt) And Raza Da Itamsara to Marihon Dakhmta (and this secret was given to those with wisdom - the wisdom of the Torah) etc."
And in order not to overburden, I will turn to the Babylonian Talmud, tractate Pesachim page XNUMX page XNUMX, where there is a discussion about who made the water of the sun rotate the earth or vice versa, between the sages of the nations of the world (Greece) and the sages of Israel.
And in the evolutionary matter, I say my opinion:
After all, God could have created the universe in one article and not in ten.
From the reading of the content in Genesis chapter XNUMX, a picture of a multi-step evolutionary creation clearly emerges and that man is the culmination of this creation.
You must ask, why was it necessary to detail the creation of all its stages (which correspond quite interestingly to the evolutionary knowledge) that the Deity can create everything at once.
By the way, in this matter it is important to note the approach of Rambam, who says explicitly and in a large number of places that man is the pinnacle of creation under the wheel of the moon only, that is, on the earth. The entire approach that advocates that the universe and all existence was created for man, is a utilitarian approach that man created for himself. Judaism explicitly says that God, blessed be He, created the world for His honor and not for ours. And why he did it we will never know.
Maya,
I think you hit the heart of the matter.
Judaism, like any religion, is a belief - at its core is ignorance!!! "If I had known it, I would have known it", and not science - because the text was given not after the realization of a scientific research process, but as such saw and consecrated, and not a theory - it cannot be refuted.
I don't even know if God exists, I believe (like most of humanity since the dawn of childhood) that he exists. That's why I wrote that the dichotomous approach misses the point. It does not come in this place, these are truth and this is truth, one is given to man and the other man discovers through his intellectual power.
I don't need the scientific proof to accept the Torah as truth. The Torah is not a science book but a complete life program for a person. The issue of creation is mentioned in it almost covertly (barely a few individual verses compared to entire chapters and painfully detailed regarding the Mishkan, etc.).
It is the program about which Freud (who is not suspected of excessive religiosity) said that human civilization begins with the commandment "Thou shalt not murder", and Philo of Alexandria writes that "Thou shalt not covet" is greater than "Thou shalt not murder".
It is the source of truth where the immigrant, the orphan, and the widow are not trampled upon, contrary to the attitude of ancient Greece or the USA until the Civil War, where slavery was a natural norm! Contrary to the American constitution which aimed at all white people being equal, the Torah said otherwise.
And yet, it's nice to know that obscure verses that were deliberately obscured so that only "those who understand" are in line with contemporary scientific knowledge based on fundamental and basic research.
Thanks,
Uncle
An infinite universe does not require a starting point.
I imagine some kind of bubble beyond which are more bubbles, but I have no idea.
Orty
And if the universe is infinite what will be its starting point?
The idea that there is "anti-time" - or time that moves in the opposite symmetry to our time, is an idea that can be based on the determinism of the laws of physics if the initial data is a big bang that ends the collapse of a contracted universe. That is, the universe swelled up to a certain point, but did not reach the "Big Freeze", and from that point it started to go backwards. If the idea of a parallel universe with anti-time is realized, it starts with the fact that all the galaxies that existed just before the "Big Freeze", must be scattered in space, and start their journey towards the Big Bang. Such an idea requires the "victory" of anti-matter over matter - as we know from the Big Bang theory, only in the opposite direction. Such an idea, as far-fetched and unempirical as it may be, could exist in a parallel universe existing at an unknown point in time. On a personal note, I like this idea, it presents us with a breathing and deterministic universe. Although this concept is borrowed from psychoanalysis, but if the statement regarding the conducted simulation indeed proves that the entropy is small in a "shrinking" model, then the existence of such a universe is possible.
Raphael,
Because you decide what determines?
The assimilation is at its peak and the number of Jews in the world is falling, but it's fine.
And regarding the Greeks: the traditions that the Greeks, from 3500 years ago and more left us, are present in our lives much more than you think and certainly more relevant than Judaism. I will not write a complete list but I will content myself with mentioning democracy, which the Greeks invented and Socrates and the principles of science they instilled in the world. These two arrowheads dwarf and ridicule religion. The whole essence of democracy is to take almost any religious principle, and turn it upside down. The whole essence of science is to ask questions without presuming the answer and go as far as where the pencil takes you. Religion: Shas and Aguda are not ready to have women as Knesset members. Not with us they say. Democracy: women deserve just as much as men for any position. Religion: appeal to authority is in our soul (broad shoulders). Science: there is no such thing as an appeal to authority, everything is known and visible to everyone and the evidence is decisive. You can go on and on. no taste.
You will surely talk about "thou shalt not kill" that Judaism has enshrined in the world and I will remind you that there is not a single culture on the face of the earth that is indifferent to murder, theft and forgery (there are at least two billion Chinese and Indians who certainly do not hold to Judeo-Christian principles, but they have their own principles and murder is forbidden there as well). So that you shall not murder is not only a Jewish tradition (which also means that part of the Ten Commandments corresponds with Hammurabi's laws, that is, here too there is clearly an influence of earlier laws on the Jewish codex)
I have not yet received an answer to my request: give me the contribution of Judaism to the world in the last two hundred years.
Schmolrik
In this case, the majority does not decide. Here at Hanukkah the few defeated the many. We are here and the Greek power has been wiped out and so have the descendants of the Greeks. You will also want to take an example from the IDF.
Uncle,
Of course I'm not convinced. In fact, I despise the devious behavior of changing the interpretation according to the latest scientific concept.
http://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Moving_the_goalposts
In Greek mythology it is about the creation of a world out of chaos. This is much more suitable for Lawrence Krauss' claim that the world was created as a quantum event, but it does not indicate anything about the correctness of the mythology. As I wrote to you, only Ebert's claim is a claim motivated by good motives since his is an interpretation based on facts. Even if we accept as a fact that the Torah is in line with the latest scientific consensus, in the first sentence of the book, this does not indicate anything about its overall correctness. What's more, she destroyed it after she gave a continuation of a description of her that is completely wrong and every sentence of it needs a piece of "interpretation" in order for it to fit reality
Let's see if it will be possible to take another step forward with you. With Raphael it didn't work:
If you take Lawrence Krauss's lecture, which talks about what nothing is, he ends up describing the formation of our universe out of a multiverse. He does not claim at any point that it is proven or even scientific at this point, (he literally says those words). So what's my point? The point is that there are models in which the multiverse is eternal. There is no Genesis. Also Shane Carroll, in a discussion with Doctor Craig, discusses the exact same matter and he describes the exact same thing: there are models that predict an eternal multiverse. There is no Genesis.
What do you say about that? How will you interpret the Torah and the Zohar according to this information?
Note, this multiverse is not Ebert's multiverse.
A debt to Raphael,
But we are 12(?) million and the Christians are one and a half billion(?). If you wanted to talk about eternity as proof of the righteousness of the way, we are not in a very good position
An interesting article about Hanukkah
http://www.haaretz.co.il/literature/study/.premium-1.2509760
What "strengthens my faith" is the reactions of religious people.
Every intelligent person needs a short conversation with religious commentators, to understand that there is nothing behind their faith.
I love the question "but why does the electron obey the laws"...
Miracles
He can, here he did it. The fact that doing so is pure cheating is another matter.
Uncle
You can't take a text that tells a story, and interpret every word to fit reality. I can do the same for any book you want. Where is the problem? You assume that the book of the Torah is true - then all the interpretations are justification for this assumption. I guess the Torah is just a story, there is no need to justify anything, and there is no contradiction 🙂
what are you doing here? On the one hand, you say that the text is completely accurate and has not undergone any changes. On the other hand - you interpret the text according to what science reveals. (To remind you - the biblical "earth" is flat and fixed, with the sun circling the earth).
And let's add just one more small layer - we know, factually without any debate (in the scientific world) that there was evolution, and that man evolved from an ape-like animal. This is a fundamental error in human history. Once there is such a serious contradiction in the text, it is very difficult to accept the other things that are written there.
The early universe was not gas, liquid or solid. These three states of aggregation have properties that the matter that made up the universe did not have.
uncle Shalom,
I read your comment with great interest. My question to you is this: Does it really matter what science would have discovered in order for you to say that the Bible has stood the test of time? Hello, you yourself say that the words must be interpreted in a certain way and the interpretation you give them is based on the scientific discoveries. If the scientific discoveries were different wouldn't you just interpret the words differently?
Hello Nisem,
There are certainly quite a few creation stories.
If you will, belief in one God was proposed \ dictated to the inhabitants of Egypt where it is in the 14th century BC by Akhenaten is Amenhotep IV. By the way, immediately after his death the Egyptians returned to worshiping idols. His teachings not only did not survive the time and passed away from the world. Moreover - a closer examination reveals that it is far from the truth.
As you mentioned, there are indeed quite a few creation stories. There is no doubt that there was a mutual influence between different theistic concepts that Judaism did not deny. A religion that does not influence or is influenced is a dead religion. Judaism influenced and was influenced by Christianity and Islam not only at their birth but throughout history. By the way, the Jewish philosophy of the Middle Ages, until the appearance of Rabbi Hasdai Karshaksh, drew from both Greek philosophy and Islam.
In this context, the books of Prof. Israel Knohel is very interesting.
And yet to your question, why Judaism? Because I don't know of any other religion or other people that more than three thousand years ago put on a page, minutely at the tip of a yod, consecrated and froze a text that says the following:
"In the beginning God created the heavens and the earth",
And one must ask, what are the 'heavens' and the 'earth' that were created? What is meant by? It goes without saying that heaven and earth are not meant in the everyday sense. These were created later.
And Leibovitz often asked, what does the word 'created' mean?
And our sages wrote: 'Genesis' is the beginning of time and space (creation and not before)!
And to remind you that neither Aristotle nor all the other wise men of the world up to Einstein (including), was not ready to accept creation but sanctified the preliminaries. the eternal static universe. Only after Edwin Hubble's measurements at the beginning of the last century, Einstein admitted his mistake.
"And the land was in chaos"
Chaos is said only about the 'Land'. Nothing was said about the "sky".
And what is chaos? The primordial heliotrope? (This is how the sages of Israel interpreted the word thousands of years ago).
And what is boho?
"And darkness over an abyss",
And I don't understand what the abyss is, but based on current scientific knowledge, the big bang created time-space ('Genesis') boiling ('chaos') and dark ('and darkness...').
"And the Spirit of God hovers over the face of the water"
What are the 'waters' in question? Certainly not the water in the everyday sense.
By the way, I wonder, what was the state of the universe born in its beginning according to the scientific concept? gas? solid? Liquid/aqueous?
So far, a moment of actual creation, the creation of existence from 'nothing' (it is important to say: 'nothing' does not mean 'nothing' or 'empty').
And immediately afterwards these are the things that are said:
"And God said let there be light and there was light",
It is clear that the light of the sun is not meant, because the lights were created on Wednesday. Our sages call the light of creation "the stored light".
The echoes of Gemov radiation, a remnant of the Big Bang, were discovered by Gemov only at the beginning of the last century and were measured for the first time by Wilson and Panzias afterwards.
"And God separated the son of light from the darkness"
What 'light' do you mean? And what 'darkness' do you mean? What does the difference between light and dark mean? After all, as mentioned, the expression 'the earth' does not refer to the earth, but to the universe that was just born and was in chaos (for 380,000 years after its creation).
And I wonder if the difference between 'light' and 'darkness' refers to the scientific insight that is gaining traction in the last decades and differentiates between visible matter ('light') and dark matter ('darkness')?
"And there was evening and there was morning one day"
One day was said, not Sunday.
Since the great lights have not yet been created and the earth has not been created, this day is not 24 hours, since no earth has yet been created to surround any sun.
"And God said let there be a firmament in the midst of the waters"
As mentioned, I do not know what the water in question is, for sure it is not H2O.
And what is the firmament, certainly not the sky in its everyday sense.
Are these the 'waters' in which the parallel universes float? Because immediately after that it was said:
"And God made the firmament and separated the waters under the firmament from the waters above the firmament, and God called the firmament Heaven"
If so, what are the 'waters' that are above the sky...?
Even so, my answer is long, so I will stop here with the examples.
Now, I do not intend to claim that the Torah will replace science. I do not see the Torah and science as one and the opposite. Such a dichotomous view is a wrong view.
Its roots are not in Judaism but in the papacy and Christianity in its beginnings, which sanctified Aristotle's writings. These were in line with the views of the church in those days, and there is no point in adding to that. I am of the opinion that Torah and science are two sides of the same coin, the coin of truth. One is given to man and the other is carved by him with great effort.
Still, you asked:
Why is the story of Genesis more reliable than any other story?
And my answer, as I detailed, is:
This text stands the test of time, and has not succumbed for 3500 years to scientific fads that have risen and fallen and passed away from the world.
I know of no other religious writings or scientific theories that have stood the test of time like this.
The text that was delivered 3500 years ago to a nomadic people / slaves, is consistent with current scientific knowledge!
A great truth stands the test of time, and it seems to me that the truth of the Torah is like this.
Shmulik,
Creator of worlds and destroyer does not necessarily refer to our universe. For proof, see Ezor 180 in Gershom Shalom's book "Basic Chapters in Understanding Kabbalah and its Symbols" and you will understand that parallel worlds have been discussed in Judaism since its inception. There you will also see that the matter of the fine balance was already discussed then.
Now regarding your comment, say this:
If I were to compare, in the course of the last 3500 years, which of the two doctrines replaced new concepts with the mornings and which sanctified the original text to the point of every comma and syllable and stood the test of time, I would find that the Torah of Israel is-is the supertemporal truth, but I guess that won't really change your position .
Thanks,
Uncle
Raphael
It is interesting that you dismiss the Pope because he is not fixed in his views...
Time does not move forward, time has no direction, the laws of physics dictate the result, time can move faster or slower (relatively), but it cannot move backwards.
Raphael
4000 years ago there were no Jews in the world, in 4000 there probably won't be either. The Jews of 2000 years ago did not believe in the same things and in the same way as the Jews living today (even the Jews living today are not able to agree on uniformity in their beliefs) and the Jews of another 2000 will not believe in the same things and in the same way that the Jews living today believe in them. You're just imagining a big story from something temporary and fleeting.
Shmulik
It is not very wise to bring the Pope down on his knees. The Jews are a little more difficult. Today, God willing, we lit the first candle of Hanukkah in memory of the miracle in which a small group of righteous priests who served in the Temple subdued themselves that ruled the whole world and tried to impose their "culture" on the Jews as well, and this also with the help of Greek Jews of whom no trace remains, while we are here to stay. happy hanucah!
walking dead,
Well spoken!
Marvel's multiverse for example is much more interesting
David Hanukkah
There are dozens of creation stories in the world. Why is the story of Genesis more reliable than any other story?
Only Ebert's is Well Motivated
If you want to be really interested then check out
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Multiverse_(religion)
You will find that every religion and belief has some reference to other worlds and since cultures have influenced each other, you will find that many myths of many religions share similarities. Judaism is neither the first nor the last to think of multiple worlds. In any case, creator and destroyer of worlds refers to our universe and not to the universes we accept, right?
But that's your thing. If it turns out that there are no multiple worlds, which it has been proven that there is no such thing, the secret man's tower clone will ensure that our universe is meant. If it is proven that there are multiple worlds, you will interpret the Book of Zohar as the one that told about this from time immemorial.
Bubble gum.
Shmulik, there is a rather thin book called "Or Hashem" by Rabbi Hesdai Karshaksh. The book was written in the 13th century or so, you might find it interesting, if you can understand it. thanks, David
By the way, you will find that the idea of multiple worlds that Hugh Ebert proposed last century to Einstein and was scornfully rejected is not so innovative. And it is enough to say "creator of worlds and destroyer"
The fine tuning is absolute crap.
a) He is not so gentle.
b) The direction is opposite. The universe does not adjust to its "products". His "products" are adjusted to him according to how he is.
Shmulik
The fine tuning is nice - think: God has a box with 26 buttons on it, with an arrow on each button. On the box there is a marking next to each button - a small dot. On the box it is written "Dear God - to create life, you must direct each button so that each arrow points to the appropriate point. Just know, most of the living creatures you create will eat other living creatures, and most of them will die in great suffering."
Food for thought…
Miracles,
This raises another question, not really relevant but still.
In another thread, Raphael used the fine tuning argument to justify his belief in God. If we assume that evidence of the multiverse is discovered, what will Raphael and his various clones do? Here science has brought the Pope to his knees (God is not a magician with a magic wand...) It seems that little by little all the excuses, all the forced explanations are simply running out for them.
Raphael
I'm not at all sure that I understand this correctly, but look at it this way: not only is time "reversed" in this world - everything is reversed. So, for them, everything is happening as usual, and we are the ones who are upside down. It's like we feel like we're standing straight, and those in China are standing on their heads.
I wonder how no one has yet asked what the practical meaning of going back in time is. Did the universe start with galaxies getting closer together until it becomes a singular point? Will the people there come out of the graves and be younger by the time they enter back into their mother's womb?
Eyal
Look at it this way: we have all kinds of explanations for the world, and they all have a "hole" because they don't explain the asymmetry of time. And here is a new theory, which explains the asymmetry, and one of its predictions cannot be tested.
Is it not true only because it predicts something that cannot (to our understanding) be tested? Asked differently - is it necessarily wrong just because it has a prediction that cannot be tested?
Eyal,
I tried to tell that reality also provides complex examples. In the example I gave, there is a theory that some of its predictions are fulfilled and there is another prediction, which categorically will never be possible to prove (let's assume so for the purpose of the discussion). What do you do in such a situation? How do you treat such a theory? Good question.
As for whether there are theories with so many predictions? The number I wrote was just an example, but it seems to me that quantum mechanics (in its modern version) passes every test that is thrown at it
As for this article, they do not claim to have evidence of another universe.
Nissim I completely agree, and I will quote my previous response again:
Shmulik, if you have a theory that produces 100 predictions of which 99 are correct, then it is definitely a scientific theory. Do other theories that science has already accepted (the Big Bang theory, for example) have more successful predictions? I do not think so"
But here (in this article) we are talking about a theory that has no successful experiments, not even one... so there is really nothing to compare to a theory that has 99 successful predictions...
Eyal
Shmulik explained it well. If there is a theory that predicts 100 things, and one of them cannot be tested - then the theory is still excellent. It is better than a theory that predicts 50 things, all of which are testable.
One should be careful with the term "scientific theory". We predict that the sun will swell in 5 billion years (let's say) - we have no way of checking this (there is no species that has survived even a billion years....).
A theory is a model that is supposed to describe reality. As long as nothing disproves the theory - the theory is useful. The religious are trying to trash science with this argument (and a million other stupid arguments). Don't fall there 🙂
Shmulik, read what I wrote again, I was only referring to your comment about the 99 successful prophecies, do you agree with what I wrote?
Nisim, I didn't understand what you were complaining about, as someone who is close to science, you probably know that a theory that has no testable predictions, and no way to refute it, is not really scientific...
Check my signature, I am the last to defend religion and God 🙂
RAM,
Again, not an expert but the inflation theory does not replace the big bang theory as it describes what happened after the bang.
skeptical,
What's happening to you? What claim did I make? did you drink anything
First, I don't think inflation relies on there being a multiverse but rather predicts it. Krauss, in one of the lectures (or discussions, I don't remember) said that it arises from the theory not because Hogia wanted to replace God, but simply arises from it. Maybe I'm wrong, I'm not an expert in the field.
Second, I told what I heard in Kraus's lecture. I said that he said that some of the predictions of the inflation theory were adjusted. I told about his theoretical question about 99 out of 100. I told that Kraus himself asked if it was science!!!. For dessert I added: "good question"
So, apart from your desire to justify your name, what did you write this post for???
safkan elk
Shmulik is absolutely right. If there is a good theory that explains a great deal, but has implications that cannot be tested, then the theory is good.
Stop using the term "scientific theory". It's just nonsense of the religious to dismiss "science".
God is bullshit for many other reasons. There is no evidence for its existence, it is not needed to explain the world, and the idea creates problems, and does not solve any problems.
Shmulik
What you claim is a prediction (the multiverse theorem and all) is not a prediction but a tautological claim (also known as false circular reasoning, Baron Michenhausen's bootstrapping, God created reality and within it the proof of its existence). Those who want to engage in science must stay away like fire from claims whose proof relies on their correctness.
The claim you made relies on the fact that there are other universes (multiverses or something like that) that no one knows about (because they have never observed them), in order to prove that there are additional other universes. come on.
You are foaming at the mouth about religious people who believe in an invisible being, based on clever books (Bible) that someone wrote. And you do exactly the same. For you - if the stories about ethereal universes are wrapped in sophisticated formulas, then the sophisticated formulas are the proof that the ethereal universes exist.
Shmulik, if you have a theory that produces 100 predictions of which 99 are correct, then it is definitely a scientific theory. Do other theories that science has already accepted (the Big Bang theory, for example) have more successful predictions? I do not think so.
Interesting speculation. But why didn't they add and say that the parallel world is made of antimatter? This solves another important physical problem that many cosmologists struggle with. Meaning that when the initial quantum oscillation that created the universe happened, it had zero sum of masses. Then matter advanced in one direction in time and antimatter advanced in another direction in time. So here we have an even more beautiful speculation (you can write beautiful and symmetrical equations) that, like the first one, we can never prove or disprove.
Here is a slightly more in-depth article on the subject
http://www.iflscience.com/physics/there-parallel-universe-thats-moving-backwards-time
Eyal,
From what I understood after watching several lectures by Lawrence Krauss, the inflation theory predicts several predictions, some of which he adapted. One of the prophecies is the seven bangs, a multiverse of universes was actually created. Krauss asked the following question: if you have a theory that makes 100 predictions of which 99 are correct and the last one will probably be outside the empirical realm, how should you treat this theory? Is it science?
good questions
The double crack experiment really does not prove parallel universes, this is your personal interpretation.
First of all, there is a relatively simple experiment of a double crack experiment in which a particle is in a kind of parallel universe, then I got involved with it and I had a company that dealt with time reversals to try to fix things in the future, I don't want too much to turn the site into a salesperson and me into a kind of service representative, but I made a profit in the company Billions, but they are a bit transparent because they arrange the good things at the top, and money does not always rise to the top in the arrangement. Sincerely
Is parallel universes an observable thing? Explanation, detail and rationale.
Time returns to the starting point and creates parallel universes in addition it is possible that compensations were in other places as well and less dependent.
But what I wanted to point out is that in parallel universes it is possible to influence the past, and also the example of two liquids separated and together is a bit confusing because it is difficult to say which is more orderly and in addition there are fluctuations and dependent repetition and moreover it is difficult to find an absolute wall, things that express the second law. Respectfully blowing water
And a note to Eyal, parallel universes is an observed thing, with respect
Say, if it's a theory that there's no way to disprove or prove it, then it's actually not a scientific theory, but just chatter in the air, am I right?
Mathematics creates worlds out of nothing, for example negative numbers, negative roots.
Theoretically it is very interesting and you can develop horizons not only in mathematics
Painters can use it theorists, writers and all
But my imagination does not allow me to build a world that goes upside down even if 5- is a result
which is accepted in mathematics.
I liked 🙂
Nothing in science is a proof - only an axiomatic system has proofs.
In science there are theories and the level of confidence of theories. Smart people look at the world and try to understand how it works.
The committee of fools thinks that the wise are fools, out of ignorance and arrogance.
reader
Sounds like another of the dozens of speculations about distant cosmology. The fact that you build a beautiful mathematical model does not constitute proof that it represents a reality that exists in nature.
I'd be interested to hear what all kinds of scientists have to say about this study, I guess it would give some perspective.