According to a simulation developed by scientists in Cambridge, if our universe has five or more dimensions - as expected according to string theory - Einstein's theory of general relativity is invalid. In other words, five-dimensional black holes would have such strong gravity that the laws of physics as we know them would eventually break down.
For the first time ever, physicists have been able to simulate what happens to black holes in a five-dimensional universe, and it seems that the way they work could undermine our understanding of how the universe works. According to this simulation, if our universe has five or more dimensions - as expected according to string theory - Einstein's theory of general relativity is invalid. In other words, five-dimensional black holes would have such strong gravity that the laws of physics as we know them would eventually break down.
Scientists from the University of Cambridge and Queen Mary University of London have shown that in a five-dimensional universe, black holes are built as a kind of thin rings and are not "just holes". As they grow, a series of bumps or swellings are formed in them, connected by strings that get thinner and thinner over time. These strings eventually become so thin that they "pinch" or tear as a series of tiny black holes, similar to how a thin stream of water from a faucet breaks into droplets. The results of the study were published in the journal Physical Review Letters.
The possibility of the existence of ring-shaped black holes (also known as "black rings") was raised by theoretical physicists as early as 2002, but so far they have not been able to build an effective simulation of their dynamics. Now they managed to do this with the help of the COSMOS supercomputer at the University of Cambridge in the UK - the largest memory sharing computer in Europe, which can perform up to 38.6 trillion calculations per second.
The great difficulty in simulating black holes in five dimensions lies in the fact that they are hypothesized to constitute rings of ultragravity, in which such strong gravity accelerates the formation of a state called 'naked singularity' - Naked Singularity. The naked singularity is such an extraordinary event that no one can guess what happens inside it, except for the simple fact that the laws of general relativity will no longer hold in it.
A singularity (or unique in Hebrew) is a point where gravity is so strong that space, time and the laws of physics collapse there. General relativity predicts that a singularity exists in the center of black holes, and that black holes are surrounded by an event horizon - the 'point of no return', beyond which the pull of gravity is so strong that it is impossible to escape. This means that there is no way to observe from the outside what is happening inside the black hole.
One of the authors of the paper, theoretical physicist Markus Kunsch of the University of Cambridge, said: "As long as the singularity remains hidden behind the black hole's event horizon, it causes no trouble and general relativity is preserved. According to the 'cosmic censorship hypothesis' - that's how it always is, anyway. As long as the cosmic censorship hypothesis is valid, we can confidently predict the future outside of black holes."
But what if the singularity happens just outside the event horizon?
Physicists hypothesized that in a state of five or more dimensions, if any object shrinks to infinite density - that is, to a singularity - the event horizon will not limit it, and a naked singularity will be obtained. In this situation the happenings inside the object and around it are 'crazy', and we have to recalculate how physics works.
The authors of the article said: "If a naked singularity exists - the theory of general relativity collapses... in this situation there will no longer be any ability to predict".
If the cosmic censorship hypothesis is not valid in a higher-dimensional universe, we need to understand what in our four-dimensional universe causes a naked singularity to not form and general relativity to hold. If the cosmic censorship hypothesis is disproved, an alternative way of explaining the universe is required. One possibility is quantum gravity, which combines general relativity and quantum theory.
to the announcement of the researchers from the University of Cambridge
91 תגובות
to anonymous
I said indefinite article. exists without being defined. "Exists" is its only definition.
Dark matter is defined by its mass and the gravitational force it creates and the gravitational clouding it causes.
Say it's impossible, like thinking about something without thinking about it.
almost.
There are other options that you haven't thought of.
Israel,
I have no idea because I haven't seen this lecture yet. Hope to see her on my next run 🙂
I'm pretty sure he won't talk about it because he's not really a man and because it's like being asked about a flight and you'll ask when they'll tell you about traveling by train
Shmulik
Suskind's lecture is simply the YouTube of the article you brought a year ago, isn't it?
Can you tell me in which minute he talks about information not passing between the interwoven particles?
When did I demand that whatever happens in the braid?
If you would like to see really excellent lectures from A to Z on the subject, see Susskind's entire course:
https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=0Eeuqh9QfNI
Israel,
I don't know if we're done. I'm still trying to get you to progress and you're stuck with coins that no one understands what you want. You make a copy paste and I send you to try at the academy to explain what you are asking for. Susskind's lecture is not the lecture series you are talking about, as far as I understand. there she is. Will you try to see?
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=jZDt_j3wZ-Q
Do you accept the possibility that if they are right, that is an explanation for what happens in the weave without what you require to happen?
A.P.
The only thing that meets this definition is: the dark matter.
I know, Yehuda Sabdarmish will not agree with me. "They have been looking for him for 80 years..." - he will say.
But how long do you search for God? Has anyone been staffed? He who despairs dries up.
Israel
The man does not understand physics and you demand answers from him in a worldly manner... really, go ahead.
Shmulik
the question:
"Even though information cannot be transmitted through entanglement, and Bell's theorem and the Aspect experiment proved that there are no hidden variables, doesn't this require that information - the spin or polarization state - passes from one entangled object to another?"
And in more detail:
"Is it known if there is a decision in the academy on this matter? Is there an explanation for the correspondence between the quantum state of entangled particles without the transfer of information between them?'
the answer:
"As far as I know, there is no consensus in the entire scientific community regarding the interpretation of this issue."
If that's not clear enough, I'll try to translate to alien.
the question:
Is there a mathematical proof that information does not pass between entangled particles?
the answer:
..
..
..
Oh, no answer. There is no link either. there's nothing.
For a mathematical proof you don't need wormholes. Bell's inequality theorem is a mathematical theorem, we just apply it to interlacing.
I saw Susskind's lecture series on interweaving, excellent lectures that include the required mathematical formalism.
I think we're done, aren't we?
Israel,
What is not clear? The consensus is that you won't be able to have a phone conversation and you don't argue about that either. That is, information, in the way that physics defines the concept of information, does not pass. I referred you to Maldesina's lecture that discussed the subject of interweaving and you decided that it is not related because you are stuck with the coins that no one understands what you want to explain with them.
With all due respect to the names you mentioned, which I'm sure are quoted from here until a new message, Maldesina, who is also quoted, in his lecture, which I barely understood anything from, links between interweaving (I don't know if it's any type of interweaving or just a certain type) and wormholes and describes a connection geometric between the interwoven particles. If this doesn't explain to you, that there is another idea, which is not yours, that explains how one particle can affect another particle, without passing information, I don't know what else to do.
If you had seen Maldesina's lecture, and reached minute 34 (at some point I skipped ahead until I found something I could try to understand), you would have seen a summary slide of Maldesina's lecture and since you will not go listen to the lecture, I will try to translate the slide
1. Entanglement patterns are an important feature of quantum field theory
2. Interlacing patterns encoded in the geometry of time-space
3. A geometric connection can emerge from weaving itself, but the horizon will prevent the passage of information
4. The formalism of the tensor network (Chinese to me) seems to have a connection to Balk geometry (also Chinese) including the ability to connect distant areas
5. The last point is written in an alien
What does all this tell us? This means that people who know the formalism, the experiments and all the relevant information, try to solve the non-consensus in non-coin related ways, probably for good reason.
The people you contacted also told you that you do not understand the meaning of the word information. The sentence "because it is not about transferring information in the conventional sense" means that the conventional sense is what is defined in physics as information and it does not pass.
So maybe you'll still try to find out what the experts on the subject think?
I found something else you can do. Since I don't want to block them, I'll just tell you that if you type in Google IR is equal to IP, the second link is Suskind's YouTube lecture on the subject. Maybe it will help.
Shmulik
"What's more, he wrote exactly the absolute consensus on the subject."
Did you read what I wrote you in the initial response?
The question I posed was:
"Even though information cannot be transmitted through entanglement, and Bell's theorem and the Aspect experiment proved that there are no hidden variables, doesn't this require that information - the spin or polarization state - passes from one entangled object to another?"
And in more detail:
"Is it known if there is a decision in the academy on this matter? Is there an explanation for the correspondence between the quantum state of entangled particles without the transfer of information between them?'
The answers I received from Guy Hatzroni and others were:
"This is a bit of a big question for the forum (I will gladly discuss it here face to face), and it does not have an agreed upon answer."
"Shalom Israel,
I agree with Guy that this is a bit too heavy a question for this forum. The same thing bothered Einstein a lot, so you're in good company. The answer, of course, depends on what exactly is meant by the transfer of information, and since it is not a matter of transferring information in the conventional sense (you will not be able to conduct a telephone conversation with the help of this effect), there is no contradiction to the theory of relativity. Still this contradicts classical intuition. As far as I know, there is no consensus in the entire scientific community regarding the interpretation of this issue, and as long as it is an interpretation and not a prediction of the results of an experiment, it is more a philosophy of physics than pure physics. Hope this helps you in some way"
"Interweaving between states of two bodies takes place when they are together in one place. Only then do they separate. In the case of maximal entanglement between two photons, the label of each of the photons is undefined. Only measuring the inscription of one photon defines the inscription of the other. The non-locality of this process is the cause of disagreement between the researchers.'
So what consensus and absolute are you talking about? It seems to you that if the fact that information does not pass between entangled particles is not knowledge, there is a mathematical proof, those involved in the subject would not know it and would write explicitly: "There is no consensus in the entire scientific community regarding the interpretation of this subject"?
Achilles,
First of all, you're confusing me with someone else. I have no idea what forum you are talking about, but I assure you that the person you remember is not me. I'm not here for a few days, and when I come back I find that it turns out that every time someone comes across someone on the Internet who was not nice to them, it turns out that it was me. What's the next step, remember I'm also the one who killed Kennedy?
In any case, if there was a motel here on the site, our situation would be much better. People are too busy looking for someone to tell them how beautiful and clever their theories are and how they came up with all the things that the scientific community has somehow managed to miss (and all this without even studying or understanding the issues they're talking about), and that's at the expense of the truth. It's nice that you chose Motel, who is quite a brilliant person in his field and there is a lot to learn from him. All of us (myself included) would like to have someone like him here who can say intelligent things about science and not just engage in mental masturbation and presenting first year semester first degree problems under the title "paradox". Well, maybe not all of us. Surely someone would find a reason to complain.
Israel,
It's not clear what you're answering here and I'm not going to judge who started or didn't start. This is not a kindergarten.
You have the right to think he is wrong, but your opinion is not equal to his opinion on science issues. This is not democracy, what's more, he wrote exactly the absolute consensus on the subject. He explained that you are using the wrong term and that classical information does not pass between particles. It is clear that what exactly happens in entanglement is not understood, and therefore, for example, Maldesina and Susskind proposed a wormhole that connects any two entangled particles (or between a certain type of entangled particles). I write this and feel fake because I'm writing about things I barely understand, but I understand that the very fact that they publish the article means that the issue is not resolved and that this proposal or a derivative of it, theoretically, could explain what you are trying so hard to solve, but they do it by Publishing a scientific article while they are completely knowledgeable in every aspect of the field and you are not. Why don't you address the ideas presented here? If you've commented before, I really don't remember what you wrote so write again.
https://www.quantamagazine.org/20150424-wormholes-entanglement-firewalls-er-epr/
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/ER%3DEPR
Shmulik
1. Albanzo is always invited to lecture and explain, I am among his readers.
2. Albanzo can also be wrong, as I believe happened in the case of the proof that information does not pass between entangled particles, and several more times.
3. Albenzo has a foul mouth and always starts fights. There is no reason not to answer him.
4. Derech Eretz came before the Torah - my choice is not to listen to scientists blather, but to hear and kidnap.
If my father wants, let him make closed articles for a limited Hasidic audience. In others, I will write what I believe in, listen patiently to the opinions of others, and respond firmly to those who attack me personally.
For an example of a discussion that is conducted in disagreement but in a cultural manner, see the discussion in the corresponding article.
My response was released
waiting
Irrelevant response, but still.
There used to be a fruitful forum that dealt with science and was run by one active doctor from the south. According to the way of phrasing and the approach to opposing opinions to Albanzo I remember in particular that he accused some of us of opening a branch of Peter Wyatt's charities. I especially remember another physicist who was a libertarian in his field (A****e) who knew how to sharpen his pen and reply mainly to Albenzo (AP, is that you?). Malbanzo and A. I learned and for that I am grateful. I also admit that the discussions here do not degenerate into verbal provocations that discredit distinguished members as often happens in forums/blogs abroad (cf. Lobush Motel, 2007).
Of all my teachers I have learned because your testimony speaks to me.
Ariel
This past you are talking about is 3 days old.
See comments from
https://www.hayadan.org.il/black-ring-instabilities-and-the-weak-cosmic-censorship-conjecture-2202163/comment-page-2/#comment-703216
At the time, Dr. Michael Avraham published a series of articles on Ynet under the title "Is belief in God rational". There were two excellent commenters there: Dan, Tel Aviv and Asaf. They were so good, that Dr. Michael continued to argue with them in talkbacks and addressed their comments in his follow-up columns. I remember that Dr. Michael said something along the lines that he feels embarrassed to explain why everything has a reason and Dan answered him something like that if a student came to his office and brought up the idea that not everything has a reason, he would not throw him out of his office (did someone say David/Raphael? ). The series of articles was only interesting because of the debate that will take place in the talkbacks. I remember that for a certain period I was looking for more of their responses in the science articles.
What does it matter if Albantezo is Dan or not, what matters is the content. I come here to read articles and ask questions. Happily, in physics, Albantezo answers me and others. With all due respect to all the people Israel mentioned (somewhere) who once frequented the forum, he is in a different league. Worthy content. It is really not trivial in my eyes that Albantezo answers in depth and patiently and it is also permissible to praise.
Unfortunately, between Albantezo and Israel it comes within a second to an explosion and then the content is distorted.
All I can do at this point is call again to calm the spirits and alternatively, roll my eyes and scroll up.
Come on, let's move forward. Why isn't anyone excited about this? (sorry for repeating myself):
http://www.iflscience.com/physics/latest-cern-results-indicates-there-something-wrong-particle-physics
To Ariel - if your response was to the point, it should have been simple, short and to the point.
Link to a scientific article for that famous quantum-mathematical claim from which entanglement arises.
which proves that interweaving is not a function of place.
Israel,
Aren't you tired of asking for the proof? What will help you?
Regarding this discussion, what is your education in physics? (High school? Undergraduate? Second? Ph.D.?) You come up with ideas and that's very nice but you have to understand that there are many, many physicists like Albenzo who have probably already thought of these ideas, and found the flaw.
Why do you even expect Albenzo to answer you if you hurt him in your every response and insult him? He may have insulted you in the past but it was probably due to your inability to understand that your ideas are not necessarily original and have probably already been refuted, or the fact that you act like you are a physicist without understanding the meaning of what you are saying. It is very easy to read popular science and come up with ideas, but popular science simplifies the subject and gives you a general sense of what is happening rather than the exact mathematical description.
Albanzo, if you're already here -
You said that information does not pass between entangled particles, this is not knowledge. There is a mathematical proof.
So if you are a man of science and not a man of debate, bring the proof or you will admit that you got lost and that you misled everyone.
interested
I know who Al-Benzo is, but just not overly interested.
Shmulik,
I hope you enjoy the discussions here and in the article "What is the theory of evolution..." I am confident that at the end of the discussion you will understand much more deeply the subject of interweaving, radioactive decay, and of course string theory and the universe in an arbitrary number of dimensions.
to anonymous:
"Hidden causality is just semantics that doesn't solve anything"
Causality is synonymous with logic. It is the source of objective knowledge. Don't underestimate logic.
which arises from reason is a source of knowledge or new knowledge.
-
If there are many viewers?
All viewers in the universe are participating in the same grandiose show. They are part of the same show and from the same viewer.
who are not part of that program will not be able to view the object (universe) that the program defines.
Hence all viewers participate in the same program they are watching.
There is one observer in all observers, otherwise one definite quantum state cannot be observed.
-
"The quantum state does not depend so much on the observer"
The identity of the quantum state is independent of the observer. For example, the identity of the spin direction.
The existence or non-existence of the quantum state depends on the observer or his absence. For example, a particle or a wave.
A particle is the actual present.
A wave is different probabilities that the particle has in space-time.
How is it possible that existence is conditioned by the viewer, but his identity is not?
Is it possible that the existent began to exist with the viewing, but a certain feature of it existed without it and before it?
It is impossible and meaningless.
the solution :
If the attribute identity exists as an immaterial plan, then it can exist apart from the material which remains indeterminate.
What is an indeterminate substance that exists even when there are no observers?
Leaving you to search for an answer.
To Israel Shapira, for your information:
Known by his nickname "Albanzo" appears in many articles on YNET about evolution under the nickname "Dan, Tel Aviv."
He is known for his brutal lashing out at anyone who has an original opinion or who disagrees with his words or their illogicality, who exposes his lies, contradictions and failed and unfounded arguments, who expresses truth or error unintentionally.
There is no compromise on justice and those who appropriated scientific authority to shut up their mouths deserve all condemnation, exposure, denunciation as you did.
That pesky commenter works to destroy science in the name of science and gives it a very bad name.
The problem is that there are many like him and they are multiplying. Through them, science slowly but consistently turns from a way to search for the truth into an instrument for its suppression.
By the way, I liked the: "Going into Tilt?" …
I advised him to go suck on a peppermint candy, but the comment was deleted.
Apparently the editor doesn't like sarcasm...
jubilee?
Wait, I'll call him..
A.P.
I understand your feelings very well, you are probably not used to the stormy and emotional nature of the site. Try to take it in light amusement, especially if your responses imply a belief in a higher power, the first and preferred goal of a significant number of the commenters here (not that I believe).
If you would like to see to what degrees of delusion a mixture of urine and blood can bring to mind, including paranoia and accusations of incitement to murder, follow the responses from the following link:
https://www.hayadan.org.il/issac-newton-bigraphy-1101152/comment-page-2/#comment-578782
You can also join the discussion on interweaving and non-locality in the corresponding article.
We, Inal Drabkam, where does Yuval go when you need him?
One more thing, AP, you don't need to be a great understander to understand that you are talking about God.
But the existence of hidden variables has been disproved as you also mentioned.
And hidden causation is just semantics that doesn't solve anything. The same lady in a new glory.
By the way, I agree with you about that annoying commenter whose name I will not mention.
But in my opinion, if we speak as little as possible to the body of a commenter and more to the body of the matter then
We will all come out more educated from the discussion.
A.P.
Although the observer determines the state of the particle, but if there are other observers, and one of them expects a different state than others...? On the one hand, this is said in jest
And on the other hand, when you think about it in depth, you come to the conclusion that the quantum state does not depend so much on the observer... correct me if I'm wrong.
Israel Shapira:
I thought my opinion on the nature of the discussions with Mr. Albanzo was unique until I came across your response that defines the matter precisely.
I will repeat your words with which I especially agree:
"The aggression always comes from one side only - Albanzo's side."
"If you ask Albanzo, he is Mr. Science, and anyone who dares to disagree with his opinion is an ignorant liar and a charlatan, especially me."
"Uses his titles and position for private revenge".
"I immediately responded with a barrage of shocking curses and detailed explanations about my education, my character and my way of life."
I will add that the above is also a double-edged liar.
-
To your question:
"Doesn't this require that information - the state of spin or polarization - passes from one entangled object to another?"
Quantum theory states that the quantum state of an object is determined at the moment of viewing it only, in the present, therefore it has nothing to do with the transfer of information.
Entanglement is a mathematical solution of quantum theory. This solution does not depend on time and distance.
Interweaving is similar to flipping a coin. A coin has two sides that always exist. Viewing one requires the existence and identity of the other.
In everyday life it is common to think that the side of the coin that will be revealed to the viewer when he decides to watch, was determined and existed before watching.
This means that the result does not depend on the viewer.
In quantum theory, there is no specific party waiting to be identified. The particular side is determined at the moment of viewing only.
Your question assumes causality and rightly so. Related to the issue of hidden variables.
The hidden variables are like the identities of the sides of a coin.
If a coin (two entwined particles) has two sides (spin) whose state is defined at any given moment, then the side that is observed is the side that has already been determined to be observed.
Quantum theory says that there is no physical way to know this in advance, so what is observed is determined only at the moment of observation and by chance.
Therefore there are no hidden variables (predefined sides).
Quantum theory states that there are two reasons for the above result.
One is that the particles are intertwined, that space and time are irrelevant.
The second is that there is an observer.
You assume there must be another reason that explains how the viewer's decision to watch arrives at the second entangled particle.
Quantum theory does not explain this. she determines; There is a decision, there is a result. The "how" doesn't matter.
But the "how" is bound by causality, and even though we don't care about the result, that doesn't mean we don't exist.
Quantum theory says that the existence of hidden variables does not matter, because they cannot be observed.
Hence the "how" is not relevant and hence the way to "non-existent".
What cannot be proven or disproved is not scientific and the same is true of the hidden variables.
If you posit the quantum explanation along with causality, then you must necessarily require an explanation for information transfer.
But if you don't accept the quantum explanation, you can argue that the results of the experiment were predetermined. No experiment can contradict your claim (or prove it).
Note that if you do not accept the quantum explanation, then this does not mean that the results of the experiment are not possible.
The results of the experiment are proven mathematical conclusions. The quantum explanation is only an interpretation of them.
Therefore, if you do not accept the quantum explanation, then you are not obliged to assume information transition!.
Hidden variables cannot be observed, but the assumption of their existence is logical and the opposite is not logical.
They should be called: hidden causality.
Therefore, in my opinion, the quantum interpretation is incorrect.
From a practical point of view there is no difference between the interpretations. almost:
According to quantum theory, the results of the experiment are random. They are not conducted according to a predetermined plan.
But if everything is accidental, there can be no order, form and law.
In reality there is law, form and order.
In order for them to take place there must be a plan.
The program is a hidden variable (hidden cause), because it determines the result in advance.
But the program is not made of matter! Because, as mentioned, it is not possible to prove the existence of material hidden variables experimentally.
This conclusion has tremendous results. And the one who understands will understand.
-
IL-PA
Israel Shapira:
I thought my opinion on the nature of the discussions with Mr. Albanzo was unique until I came across your response that defines the matter precisely.
I will repeat your words with which I especially agree:
"The aggression always comes from one side only - Albanzo's side."
"If you ask Albanzo, he is Mr. Science, and anyone who dares to disagree with his opinion is an ignorant liar and a charlatan, especially me."
"Uses his titles and position for private revenge".
"I immediately responded with a barrage of shocking curses and detailed explanations about my education, my character and my way of life."
I will add that the above is also a double-edged liar.
To your question:
"Doesn't this require that information - the state of spin or polarization - passes from one entangled object to another?"
Quantum theory states that the quantum state of an object is determined at the moment of viewing it only, in the present, therefore it has nothing to do with the transfer of information.
Entanglement is a mathematical solution of quantum theory. This solution does not depend on time and distance.
Interweaving is similar to flipping a coin. A coin has two sides that always exist. Viewing one requires the existence and identity of the other.
In everyday life it is common to think that the side of the coin that will be revealed to the viewer when he decides to watch, was determined and existed before watching.
This means that the result does not depend on the viewer.
In quantum theory, there is no specific party waiting to be identified. The particular side is determined at the moment of viewing only.
Your question assumes causality and rightly so. Related to the issue of hidden variables.
The hidden variables are like the identities of the sides of a coin.
If a coin (two entwined particles) has two sides (spin) whose state is defined at any given moment, then the side that is observed is the side that has already been determined to be observed.
Quantum theory says that there is no physical way to know this in advance, so what is observed is determined only at the moment of observation and by chance.
Therefore there are no hidden variables (predefined sides).
Quantum theory states that there are two reasons for the above result.
One is that the particles are intertwined, that space and time are irrelevant.
The second is that there is an observer.
You assume there must be another reason that explains how the viewer's decision to watch arrives at the second entangled particle.
Quantum theory does not explain this. she determines; There is a decision, there is a result. The "how" doesn't matter.
But the "how" is bound by causality, and even though we don't care about the result, that doesn't mean we don't exist.
Quantum theory says that the existence of hidden variables does not matter, because they cannot be observed.
Hence the "how" is not relevant and hence the way to "non-existent".
What cannot be proven or disproved is not scientific and the same is true of the hidden variables.
If you posit the quantum explanation along with causality, then you must necessarily require an explanation for information transfer.
But if you don't accept the quantum explanation, you can argue that the results of the experiment were predetermined. No experiment can contradict your claim (or prove it).
Note that if you do not accept the quantum explanation, then this does not mean that the results of the experiment are not possible.
The results of the experiment are proven mathematical conclusions. The quantum explanation is only an interpretation of them.
Therefore, if you do not accept the quantum explanation, then you are not obliged to assume information transition!.
Hidden variables cannot be observed, but the assumption of their existence is logical and the opposite is not logical.
They should be called: hidden causality.
Therefore, in my opinion, the quantum interpretation is incorrect.
From a practical point of view there is no difference between the interpretations. almost:
According to quantum theory, the results of the experiment are random. They are not conducted according to a predetermined plan.
But if everything is accidental, there can be no order, form and law.
In reality there is law, form and order.
In order for them to take place there must be a plan.
The program is a hidden variable (hidden cause), because it determines the result in advance.
But the program is not made of matter! Because, as mentioned, it is not possible to prove the existence of material hidden variables experimentally.
This conclusion has tremendous results. And the one who understands will understand.
-
IL-PA
Shmulik
Thanks for the response and the article, I remember we talked about it at the time.
If you read the responses to the question I presented in the blogs, there is no consensus in academia that information does not pass between entangled particles.
Albanzo, on the other hand, claims that it's just a misunderstanding of mine because I'm stupid and a liar, and that there is proof that no information is passed.
So where is the proof?
Albanzo!
You said that information does not pass between entangled particles, this is not knowledge. There is a mathematical proof.
Where is the proof?
Israel Shapira
I didn't read your long comment carefully...
I am a passionate supporter of the skepticism you raise here…
questionnaire,
Not sure I understood your question, but a priori there is no difference between the dimensions of string theory and our dimensions. In string theory there is some condition of mathematical consistency (for those interested - that a conformal anomaly does not occur). When, at the same time as this condition, it is demanded that the described universe be asymptotically flat (that is, away from all black holes and stars, etc., we will get a gravity-free space in which the shortest distance between two points is a straight line) we accept that ten dimensions must exist. There is no difference between these dimensions and the dimensions in general relations, or the four dimensions we see around us.
At first glance, this means that string theory is incorrect, because we do not see ten dimensions but four. But in string theory we have the freedom to write a system where some of the dimensions are "hidden". It's not that they are fundamentally different from the other dimensions, it's just that in this specific system they are very small and therefore very difficult to distinguish (in the same way that a wire that is very, very small in thickness looks like a line, that is, a two-dimensional object seems one-dimensional to us).
In conclusion - there is no difference between the dimensions, but we mainly look at systems where 6 out of the 10 are very small because these are the systems that probably describe our universe.
If I didn't answer your question, try to clarify it.
lion,
There is a connection but it is quite weak. In both cases it is the theory of relativity in five dimensions. In the Kaluza-Klein theory, a certain condition is imposed on the fifth dimension (a type of camo-actualization on a cylinder) and thus we get that the equations of motion are of a *4-dimensional* universe and, in addition, a photon. Here, we are also talking about relativity in five dimensions, but we are talking about a specific constraint of an object called a black ring, which does not fulfill the Kalutza-Klein condition and it actually produces gravitational effects in five dimensions.
Israel,
In my post I mentioned the quarrels between you two but I really don't think of you as a troll! Note that in my post I referred to various types of pots, David-Yam, Xingua, etc. When there is one in your bio, who challenges consensus knowledge (more on that right away)
It is important that there should be Albantazo, Nissim, AP who will answer him and explain to laymen (of which I am one) where his mistake is. If he is not mistaken, and indeed he points to an interesting point, because other physicists (in this case) also failed to contradict his words, it adds strength to his argument. The way I think, if his claims were left unanswered but it is clear to everyone that they are against the consensus, I tend to ignore them because I am sure that there is no connection theory that all scientists share. What was important for me to emphasize is my hope that there will be more commenters here on the site, whose profession is science, with advanced degrees, precisely to answer the kind of questions you ask.
Consensus, from what I understand, works like this: someone manages to publish an article in a peer-reviewed journal. Beauty. It doesn't mean much but it is an important hurdle. Others begin to address the claims in the article. Check the original claims, confirm them or contradict them and so on. More articles are published on the subject and the topic is starting to gain volume. Sometime experiments are conducted that confirm the claim in the article or contradict it. More scientists continue to test, research, make suggestions. At some point, when there is a critical mass of knowledge, it becomes a consensus and enters the textbooks. I don't have a better answer as to why this is a scientific consensus, but it seems to me to be a good answer.
In relation to information and entanglement, what Albantezo wrote is that it is clear that classical information does not pass between the two entangled particles. I think this is the consensus. By the way, at the time, I sent you an article that could explain the issue and I thought you would be more enthusiastic, but it didn't happen. Here again:
https://www.quantamagazine.org/20150424-wormholes-entanglement-firewalls-er-epr/
A question for the author of the article or the experts. Is there a connection between the universe that is discussed in this article, and the five-dimensional universe without the nuclear forces, of Kaluza-Klein?
Hi Shmulik
Although I agree with the unnecessaryness of the quarrels, it is difficult for me to agree with the assumption that there is some kind of parallel between Albanzo and me in this regard. It's like saying: these two are like a cat and a mouse.
Have you ever seen a mouse attack a cat?
Have you ever seen me attack Albanzo or anyone else?
Aggression always comes from one side only - Albanzo's side. In this article as well, he tries to paint me as some stupid and harassing troll without me even responding to it.
And this is a bit strange, because in all the confrontations I had with Albanzo, I proved to him that I believe he is just talking. References by demand.
It could have been merely a disturbing anecdote, if it had not led to the misleading of commenters on his part, including you.
You write: "What John Oliver did was to bring in Bill Nye and 98 other people who represent climate science and one who represents the oil companies, and that certainly still does not represent the consensus on the subject."
But this is exactly the question: who and what represents the scientific consensus?
If you ask Albanzo, he is Mr. Science, and anyone who dares to disagree with his opinion is an ignorant liar and charlatan, especially me. Many times, including in this article, I asked him to show me what was wrong with what I said, but he never does, but immediately gets angry and goes on a personal attack.
But does Albanzo really represent the consensus in the scientific community, or is he using his titles and position for private revenge?
Remember the debate about the transfer of information between entangled particles?
This seems strange: how can two particles always be in the same quantum state or the opposite if there are no hidden variables and no information passes between one particle and the other?
In my opinion, this is impossible, but I may be wrong. That's why I tried to get an explanation from the specialist Albanzo.
I immediately responded with a barrage of shocking curses and detailed explanations about my education, character and way of life. I did not receive an explanation, not even a reference to the link (except for an explanation that shows that information cannot be sent through interweaving, which is true, but not about the fact that information passes between the particles), and a condescending reading: Go learn!
Albanzo continued to claim that there is proof that information does not pass between the particles, that there is agreement on this in academia, and only I, the ignorant troll, do not know or understand what every student knows and understands.
But the question continued to bother me. That's why I posed this question in several blogs:
"Even though information cannot be transmitted through entanglement, and Bell's theorem and the Aspect experiment proved that there are no hidden variables, doesn't this require that information - the spin or polarization state - passes from one entangled object to another?"
A commenter named Guy Hezroni (I don't know who he is, but he sounds understanding) answered:
"This is a bit of a big question for the forum (I will gladly discuss it here face to face), and it does not have an agreed upon answer."
In another forum I clarified the issue:
"Is it known if there is a decision in the academy on this matter? Is there an explanation for the correspondence between the quantum state of entangled particles without the transfer of information between them?'
One commenter answered:
"Shalom Israel,
I agree with Guy that this is a bit too heavy a question for this forum. The same thing bothered Einstein a lot, so you're in good company. The answer, of course, depends on what exactly is meant by the transfer of information, and since it is not a matter of transferring information in the conventional sense (you will not be able to conduct a telephone conversation with the help of this effect), there is no contradiction to the theory of relativity. Still this contradicts classical intuition. As far as I know, there is no consensus in the entire scientific community regarding the interpretation of this issue, and as long as it is an interpretation and not a prediction of the results of an experiment, it is more a philosophy of physics than pure physics. Hope this helps you in some way"
A second commenter answered:
"Interweaving between states of two bodies takes place when they are together in one place. Only then do they separate. In the case of maximal entanglement between two photons, the label of each of the photons is undefined. Only measuring the inscription of one photon defines the inscription of the other. The non-locality of this process is the cause of disagreement between the researchers.'
And another priest and priest. There is no agreement.
So as you can see, Albanzo has misled many commenters into believing that there is proof and agreement on the subject of information transfer.
There may be a proof or an explanation. I don't know, and I would be happy if any of the commenters who are not dumb trolls like me could explain or show the proof, but one thing is clear: there is no consensus in academia on the subject as Albenzo tries to present, he who appropriates all knowledge and authority.
Friends,
I am of the same opinion with the sipa of Shalon's words. Nothing good comes out of these fights.
Regarding why it is important to have professional commenters here, despite the allocation of time and the frustration created by the clickers, I will tell through an example. In a wonderful episode of John Oliver, he talked about warming up as a DHA. He explained to this public that it seems as if there is a debate in the scientific community because always TV programs that deal with the issue (in the five minutes they devote to the issue) bring a climate scientist on one side and a representative of an oil company posing as a scientist on the other side and then there really is the appearance of a debate. After all, this is an opinion against an opinion. What John Oliver did is to bring in Bill Nye and 98 other people representing climate science and one representing the oil companies and it still does not represent the consensus on the subject. was hysterical
Communication between scientists and the public is especially important in view of all the bots and their clones that pollute the site, it is critical and it is the only site I know that offers, in Hebrew, such a convenient forum to post comments on original articles it produces. The comments are the lifeblood of the site and without them it would be your knowledge. So there is no doubt that patience is needed, but we will all benefit from it.
Maya, well done. What a beauty!
elbentzo, maybe you could give your opinion on this topic?
It is difficult for me to understand why there are three geometric dimensions and one dimension of time
In them the laws of physics are fulfilled, while in string theory they talk about 10 dimensions
It's just that the difference between the first four dimensions and those that come after them is a lot
more significant.
In other words, every phenomenon that happens in space/time is already contained, regardless of its size,
So the question is, is there confusion between "orders of magnitude" and "dimension"? Or the fifth dimension
Indeed so far, so more developed than the other previous dimensions, equivalent to distance
Where are the first four dimensions from each other?
By the way, if you give up on who has the last word, you will save yourself unnecessary stress,
This is a situation of "pat" in chess (in which there is no piece of the side whose turn it is to move that can execute
a legal move, but his king is not threatened by chess), you won't convince him and he won't convince you.
It's better for you to continue what you excel at (excellent explanations) of which there are probably dozens
And maybe hundreds of people read and enjoy them.
teach≡teach+learn.
Just teaching is a commandment of learned people. The disaster of the world!
Albenzo - Is there a connection between the universe that is discussed in this article, and the five-dimensional universe without the nuclear forces, of Kaluza-Klein?
But what happened to Benzo, once again the blood and urine went to your head and you lost your temper when you had to deal with unpleasant facts?
After all, I asked you to reveal my true face in public and show where I am lying or misleading or ignorant or whatever you choose. Maybe you don't do this because you know that, as always, you have no basis for your ridiculous claims and that any substantive discussion will show everyone what a jerk you are?
Come say the last word, another rant, and let me go for another year.
Israel, the rebellious and complicated old man (59, very happily married +2, but as always, if only women worked).
Maya,
No problem, I understand. I didn't mean to put you or the physicist in an unpleasant position.
Now that I know that people from the field also read my comments here, maybe I'll start to elaborate a little more... 🙂
Albanzo
For nothing. I really enjoy your explanations.
My physicist friend maintains that his anonymity is important to him as well, so he prefers not to go into detail and I, of course, respect his wish.
thank you for the greetings. The job search was, without a doubt, one of the challenges of my life. I traveled all over the country, meeting people and giving lectures and I did all this with a nursing baby. It was definitely challenging... at least now you can rest a bit until you start the job itself, which is probably also a challenge in itself...
And congratulations on getting the job! Not an easy task these days.
Maya,
Thank you too for the encouragement. It is very nice to know that there are people who feel that I have helped them understand a little in this world of theoretical physics, which can be intimidating to people who are not familiar with it.
Although it is true that my anonymity is very important to me (mainly due to cases in the past when people I rubbed shoulders with in one or another forum harassed me at my place of work), but it amuses me to hear that you tried to find out who I am. In what field, if I may ask, does your physicist friend work? I know you said particles, but it could be a lot of different things.
Israel,
One thing can be said to your credit, and that is that your level of maturity is completely consistent with your level of understanding. There are no words to describe how surprised I am that you do not understand what you are being told. I have no intention of arguing with you. This is also the reason that for a year (according to you, I didn't count - but I believe you if you checked) I didn't respond to anything you said. I came to the conclusion a long, long time ago that there is no point in talking to you. The only reason I'm responding to you now is because you tried to threaten me ("If you mention my name again and don't apologize, I'll show you what it is!") and I can't stand being threatened, especially not when it comes to people like you.
This? Have enough words been spilled, or are you still thirsty for blood? Do you feel you can go back to your discussions on the site or are you going to try to pressure me some more before you say I'm stalking you and bothering you no matter how much you try to avoid confrontation with me?
Al - Benzo.
You are not a troll, although there is no doubt that you are crazy.
You are much worse than a troll.
The common troll, his damage is little. No one takes him too seriously.
It is much worse when a person uses the authority he supposedly has to promote a personal agenda as you always do here.
Just because you studied, doesn't necessarily mean you understand what you learned.
If you can, please show me and the forum where what I wrote is stupidity/lie/ignorance/deliberate deception, or the other expressions you usually use when you are caught by mistake and the piss comes to your head.
I'd be happy to do the same for you if someone asks (of course you're not, it's not your honor).
There is and so-and-so demands respect
Because he has already studied for many years
And he understands - like any idiot.
Israel,
I never ran away with my tail between my legs. At most I understood that wasting time on you is, well, a waste of time. I still firmly stand behind this opinion.
and no won't help you. Your name is not holy, and I am allowed to say it. I'm allowed even in whatever context I want.
also. You are (kind of) a troll. You are polluting this site in a lame attempt to get attention, combined with an even lamer attempt to boost your self-confidence and try to deal with the fact that you can't understand things that 20-year-old undergraduates pick up easily.
I have stopped responding to your nonsense, as evidence of my non-intervention in all the nonsense you have been spewing lately. But you might be confused-to-very-confused if you think I'm afraid of you or that I should avoid mentioning your name. Shmulik asked a question - "Why aren't there many more scientists commenting on this website" - and what to do, you and your ilk are part of the answer.
With the blessing "Who do you think you are" and "You won't be able to drag me into another two weeks of stupid arguments with a stubborn and complicated old man",
elbentzo.
Shmulik
Thank you very much for the links. I'll watch them when I get home from work today. We are expecting a fascinating evening...
Regarding your question about where our friends are, I'll just point out that I'm specifically now in a postdoc in the US, so most of my friends don't read Hebrew (except for another Israeli postdoc who is also a particle physicist, but I'm only using him so he can read Albanzo's comments and try to guess who he is 🙂 So far without success 🙁 ), but I do tell them about the site. My field of expertise, as you know, is not physics at all and the main discussions in which I can give an educated opinion are evolution discussions of various kinds. There most people who respond in an unscientific way are by definition trolls with a clear agenda who respond time and time again with the same claims that have already been answered time and time again. And yes, communicating with people like this is quite exhausting and quite time-consuming. And really, my friends here, I told them about the site and I tell them about the responses, they really keep asking me why I waste my time like this, and even more during a postdoc period, when you're supposed to work very hard to get a job (but I already got a job, so I'm wasting my time again 🙂 ) The truth is I have no idea why I do this. Obviously, most of the people I respond to don't hear me at all, but I'm a bit of a drama queen, so maybe that's why...
In any case, on this occasion I will also join in thanking Albanzo. As a person who has absolutely no idea about physics (me) your explanations are definitely very understandable and very clear. I'm sure they don't represent the whole picture, but they certainly give me a general picture of questions I'm interested in in a way that I can understand. This is definitely a rare opportunity, there is no doubt that it is much easier, convenient and hits the target than a random search on the Internet on a subject that I do not understand at all. so thank you
teach≡teach+learn.
Just teaching is a commandment of learned people. The disaster of the world!
Al - Benzo.
Many thanks for mentioning my name without provocation, and more in the context of trolls.
The last time I responded to you was when I wrote to you "Why don't we take a break for a year or two?" I checked, and indeed a little over a year has passed. I'm sorry for the accuracy.
You may have also forgotten to mention that the reason you ran away from that discussion with your tail between your legs was that you were caught in another rant of your many rants. If you continue to treat me in any way, I will gladly reveal to everyone how much of a jerk you are.
You can end with an apology, or just remember not to mention me in any way.
Shmulik,
Yes of course. Always when you find a better explanation for a phenomenon there is the possibility that the explanation you found can be generalized and in fact is only one facet of an even more comprehensive explanation. To me this is one of the best things that can happen to a theorist. In particular, it is possible that if we have a theory of string fields, we will find that they themselves can be described more generally, and perhaps this will give us new insights into the structure of our universe. But it is important to understand that it is not arbitrarily cyclical - there is a big fundamental difference between point particles and extended objects such as strings and membranes. There is no reason to expect that fields of such objects can necessarily be described more generally, just as one can guess from general considerations that dimensional objects can describe things that point particles cannot.
Thanks for the thanks. You may have jokingly asked where my friends are and why they don't respond here, but the truth is that this is a rather serious matter. I once showed the site to a person who worked with me (who is a physicist himself). I think it was at a time when I was still responding to Israel Shapira. He browsed the comments for 2 minutes and concluded with something like "Why are you commenting on this trolling site?". In other words, for every interesting discussion we have here about physics or evolution or science or philosophy, there are hundreds of pointless or contentless responses, which for people whose main occupation is science (and probably also their main passion in life) are usually frustrating in a way that is hard to describe. Maybe commenters on the site will look at the way I (tried) to deal with AP and say I was rude or excessively aggressive. But the truth is that the alternative that more or less all my friends would choose is not to respond. The pleasure of learning something new or teaching someone curious about what we do pales in comparison to dealing with the trolls, the preachers, the pseudo-scientists and the rest of the vegetables.
K.,
I was just wondering if I fell for a troll's trap, or if I fell for a person who really would rather stick his head in the sand and scream than admit a mistake, listen and maybe learn something. Thanks for the compliments. Overall, I usually enjoy writing and reading people's comments on the site.
Reporter:
"He (the article here) does not talk about string theory.."
I did a "search" for "strings" and found that the word appears in the article 4 times, completely by accident, of course.
And the understander will understand!
Here you corrected yourself - earlier you wrote in section 6: "Your original argument was still wrong because both theories have black holes with a horizon."
Now admit that the Torah in the article talks about black holes with no horizon and with an exposed singularity. And what remains is your denial that the framework is the string theory model.
I talked about exposed singularity according to the article. You strongly objected to that.
And this is how you write: "The article talks about black rings in general relativity" and "a very, very specific type of singular phenomena in general relativity"
And writes "just can't understand something so simple it's sad". And it's really sad that the eye outpost doesn't grasp how sad his twists and turns are.
I will mention again that I was referring only to what was said in the article translated here.
If Albenzo had a quote from the original article that explains that the computer model has nothing to do with string theory, he should have brought it, instead of mountains of words, straw man arguments and especially personal slanders expressing rudeness,
Arrogance, arrogance and insolence designed to cover the failure of his arguments and protect his false dignity.
What I argued in my first response remains valid.
The results of the computer model (either in the framework of general relativity only, or in the framework of string theory) disprove it.
To Mr. K:
Keep your insults to yourself.
to Achilles:
If the principle of refutation is not valid, science can be abandoned. It is no longer science but a collection of hallucinations.
Regarding quarks, there is a whole history of proving their existence from the 80s until the last TOP of them in the 2000s, indirectly through the discovery of their decay products.
Regarding the lost information paradox:
Currently there is a partial solution in the form of quantum entanglement conditional on the existence of wormholes. The issue is complex.
albentezo,
I don't remember an argument with Ephraim but I don't think there is a troll here. As a bystander it seems like an argument that very quickly degenerated into harsh tones and it's a pity.
I don't understand the type of discussion AP is having but I'm petty. I don't understand why he decided that the theory of relativity is correct and that's it, stop, I've touched on God. Isn't it one of the famous sayings that the theory of relativity is incomplete and that, in principle, a theory that predicts the end (a black guy or the big bang) cannot be complete and must be revised?
If we return for a moment to the topic of strings and fields,
Under string field theory, aren't we "in danger" of regression because the field it describes may be an expression of something even deeper? Just as string theory manages to reproduce the results of field theory?
It's clear to me that I'm asking the question "whether" the answer can be "well, anything can be".
Regarding Lord Calvin and Darwin, that's what I meant. Surely Nissim will be able to tell some more interesting details about the subject.
http://apps.usd.edu/esci/creation/age/content/failed_scientific_clocks/kelvin_cooling.html
At this point, I also want to thank you for your fascinating responses (and also K., Maya, Nissim...). The knowledge site must not be left without professionals. Where are your other friends? 🙂
AP,
From your writing we can get the impression that the basis of all your claims is based on Popper's principle of refutation. Your words are true as long as we are dealing with particle physics. All that is needed is for a particle to be detected either directly or indirectly (like a Higgs boson) in a detector and you have empirical proof.
The principle of refutation will no longer apply when divers dive into more fundamental and elementary topics such as...strings for example. In fact, no one has yet been able to understand any quark. Nobel laureate Marie Gell-Mann, who is credited with the discovery of elementary particles and, among other things, the discovery of the quark, was not at all convinced that quarks exist at all. He saw them as trains capable of explaining processes that take place inside the particles and the forces acting on them. Today quantum chromodynamics (QCD) is a fundamental theory that every physicist dealing with elementary particles must know, while the quarks themselves are considered particles for everything even though no one has noticed them. Likewise with the strings. As of today, they are only variables/components in elegant equations, but ones that allow us to understand conventional theories that otherwise we would have difficulty understanding. The paradox of the information lost in the black hole is a beautiful example that on the basis of the ads/CFT adjustment (non-elliptical n-dimensional anti-deSitter space on the one hand and quantum field theory on the other hand or simply "dual gravity") is able to explain what happens inside the hole through the mathematical formalism of string theory Black is better than Hawking's hypothesis or entropic Beckenstein.
In conclusion, sometimes we have to assume (or rather hypothesize) the existence of apparently non-existent components (we already said that?) but through these components we understand conventional theories that we perceive as objective truths in a deeper and more convincing way.
albenza,
It seems to me that there is no point in referring to the AP commenter
It's not so important what his nickname history is, it's only important what he produces in his comments, and right now he seems to be another one of those whose goal is to pollute the site.
I would like to take this opportunity to say thank you for your interesting and patient explanations here. It amazes me how ignorant people so easily pass up an opportunity to learn a thing or two from professionals.
Shmulik,
1. The difference between string field theory and string theory is very similar to the difference between field theory and quantum mechanics. The difference lies in the way in which quantization is performed, and whether the Torah describes the mechanics of a particular object (in quantum mechanics - a particle, in string theory - a string) or whether it describes all the dynamics that can occur between any arbitrary number of objects. Quantum mechanics talks about a particle (or two, or three, etc.), but when working with the formalism of field theory, the basic object is a field of which the particles are instances, and can be created, disappear, change their number or properties as a result of the dynamic processes. String theory currently describes what happens on a string moving through space. The ambition is to find a theory in which there is a "string field" of which the strings themselves (as I wrote in a previous comment, are the cause of the quantum fields) are an instance of it. There is a subtle point here that he did not go into (that even in the current formalism a string that splits into two, for example, can be described as a certain topological choice of the space called the worldsheet). We believe that such a theory will be more fundamental and will be able to describe processes that cannot necessarily be described (or simply described) when quantizing a single string (or two, or three) moving in space.
2. It should be understood that string theory talks about degrees of freedom other than particles. This can be explained through an example - we know that all matter on Earth is made up of atoms, which in turn are made up of electrons, protons and neutrons. Theoretically, when you want to describe a system of a billiard ball colliding with another ball, you can try to solve the system using the quantum equations of all the particles involved. But it is clear that this is not applicable. There is no way to solve these billions billions billions of equations. There is not even a chance that we will be able to write them correctly. It is much easier to move on to talking about other degrees of freedom (a billiard ball, which is an average description of many particles) and then the problem is simple. Similarly, we know how fundamentally it is possible to reconstruct quantum field theories from systems of strings, but that does not mean that we now know how to solve every particle problem in nature using the mathematical formalism of string theory. Usually it is much, much more difficult. There are many people working on such things, specifically the string description of QCD (which is only part of the standard model and not the whole) and although there are many interesting things in the field, it cannot be said that today we know how to take problems in QCD and solve them as strings. From a purely conceptual point of view, there is no difference between the collision of two protons that release a Higgs particle that decays in both spins. The process is the same, the question is whether the quarks that sit inside the protons and the Higgs that are released are a manifestation of a field or are they actually tiny strings.
3. I am not familiar with the history of the debates, but the intention is indeed that the process of hydrogen fusion that occurs in the sun (and is the main cause of the production of the heat that reaches us) is a procedure that is only possible in a quantum way. In order for it to happen, the particles have to overcome a Coulombic potential barrier that to pass it requires more energy than they have. Classically this means that they will never be able to pass it (classically – a particle gets stuck in a wall and must reverse direction and move away. It cannot climb over the wall). Quantum there is no problem because of the tunneling phenomenon (a quantum particle also cannot climb over the wall, but it can certainly pass through it).
And now I have a question for you, as a person who has been commenting on the site longer than me and knows the regular commenters better than me. This AP I'm wasting my time on, is this the same troll named Ephraim? Could it be that I have fallen into a troll's trap?
Jesus Christ.
There are simply no words.
There's no point wasting time on you, because not only are you very, very stupid, your insistence proves what you really are.
I will summarize everything that has to be said in one simple paragraph, which you will not understand or deny.
The article does not refer to string theory. String theory differs from general relativity in a lot of things, one of which is that in general relativity any number of dimensions can be written (with a slight problem in 2 dimensions) and strings can only be written in 10 dimensions (if we require the theory to be well defined mathematically). Besides, there are many other very basic differences (for example, one of the theories is quantum and the other is not). Everything that is done in the article (and I am not talking about the few paragraphs that appear here, which were translated from the press release but about the scientific work itself) is in general relationships in 5 dimensions. Nothing is quantum. In string theory, the results are completely different.
You just can't understand something so simple that it's sad - the article talks about black rings in general relativity, that is, about a very, very specific type of singular phenomena in general relativity. He doesn't talk about string theory, and he doesn't talk about black holes in general. You keep repeating that yes, but it's stupid. It started because you don't understand what you are reading, and it continues because you are stubborn and instead of admitting that you mumble words like the last of the illiterate, you prefer to stand on your hind legs and fight for your stupidity.
Successfully. If you had a drop - a drop!!! – of integrity or honesty, you would just go to Google and do a 5 minute search on these things. Not to become an expert on them (although you've clearly proven here that you're the type of person who thinks reading 5 minutes makes them an expert), but just to see how much nonsense you've been talking. Look up Hawking radiation in string theory. Look up the difference between black rings and black holes. Look up the difference between string theory and general relativity. Search other sources on the article in question and see for yourself that the simulation was not done according to any rule related to strings, but only according to general relativity.
My God, how much stupidity can be pushed into one head.
To the editor: Please do not censor.
For the sake of fairness - I have the right to respond to the condemnation of my words. My right to comment or I will censor his last comment.
-
Your response is unnecessary - eye contact.
It does not teach anything new. Your resistance to logic is disgusting.
Spewing mountains of words do not strengthen your positions.
Disrupts my words, ignores the continuation, lies, contradicts himself, evidence later.
In short - a compulsive troublemaker, whatever his degrees may be.
For section 2: "Show unreasonableness in my words"
The illogicality of your words is in your opposition to the use of the rules of logic and inference. See my original response.
"There is no straw man argument" - wrong.
Because there is no connection between the example you gave and my response.
The analogy is not correct. Far-fetched The logic she demonstrates is completely different from what is expressed in my arguments (the first and the second).
Your far-fetched example is a straw man argument, and does not in any way demonstrate the logic of my claims.
You had to show directly, using the rules of logic, that my claims are not true. You can't unless you lie and distort. And that's what you did.
My arguments are a perfectly valid objective conclusion that only the patently illogical can think of opposing them.
Being a compulsive troublemaker deprived of logic, you will copy until it shows no connection between your response and my original response.
For section 3:
"The theory of relativity is incorrect - or at least incomplete"
"If you meant that it contradicts the scientific knowledge available to researchers in the field today, then it does not."
Here you are fooling: the theory of general relativity is correct and this is the accepted opinion of any self-respecting scientist. .
No self-respecting physicist would argue that general patronage is incorrect. There is no observational test that contradicts the theory.
The facts predicted by general relativity have been proven to be correct. He who claims that sponsorship is not correct, denies the facts. Turns science on its head.
Turns facts into lies and mathematical illusions into truth. This is scientific insanity.
For section 4:
"Your logic that if a certain Torah has a correct predication then the Torah is correct and contradicts other Torahs is stupid."
I didn't claim that. You lie.
I argued that if different Torahs have conflicting conclusions that are only proven in one, then the conclusion is that the proven Torah is the correct one,
And the other is necessarily false!
Your dishonesty as a physicist greatly undermines your intellectual and scientific integrity.
"Stupid" - "Stupid" leave it to those who are really stupid.
For section 5: the string theory in the article predicts the existence of 5-dimensional black holes, but only as naked singularities.
For section 6:
"The article does not refer to string theory but to general relativity in five dimensions".
Stop lying.
A quote from the article that proves you are lying: "If our universe has five dimensions or more - as expected according to string theory"
There is no mention in the article of general relativity in five dimensions.
"Your original argument was still wrong because both theories have black holes with a horizon."
Not true, you lie!
The article reads: "The strong gravity accelerates the formation of a state called 'naked singularity'"
Naked uniqueness is not surrounded by an event horizon. Therefore only in general relations is there an event horizon.
Therefore, when the conclusions of two teachings are contradictory, it is necessary to choose the one whose conclusion is proven, and to reject the other.
For section 7:
"The visualization does not relate to string theory"
The simulation definitely relates to string theory, and this is how the article states: "If our universe has five dimensions or more - as expected according to string theory"
"..the fact that the rings have no horizon and therefore do not radiate does not mean that black holes in string theory do not have Hawking radiation"
have no horizon and therefore do not radiate, hence there is no Hawking radiation! .
The continuation contradicts everything that was said - "does not mean that black holes in string theory do not have Hawking radiation".
The article specifically talks about 5-dimensional black holes in string theory. 5-dimensional black holes in string theory do not have Hawking radiation, that's what I claimed. You are not contradicting her but contradicting your own words.
Other string theory models are not relevant. The article doesn't talk about them and neither do I. The discussion here is only about a computer model of 5-dimensional black holes, in string theory. They are the discussion only. Discussion of other models is not relevant.
Therefore, your claims that are based on other models are not relevant to my argument.
For section 8:
Beyond the washing of words and inflating the ego as expected, you do not deny my words.
If the event horizon does not exist, then Hawking radiation does not exist either.
In section 7 the claim that Hawking radiation exists, and in section 6 that an event horizon always exists.
As expected, fickle lacks honesty and professional integrity. Non-committed, non-decisive, unequivocal, stealthy.
For section 9:
I asked what the entropy of a naked singularity was and your evasive answer was: "The question is not well defined".
Just as expected from someone who has no idea.
If you don't know how to define naked singularity entropy, then you can't talk about naked singularity Hawking radiation.
Did you say there is naked singularity hawking radiation? Maybe not. It's impossible to tell from your stealthy non-binding words.
Please refer to section 7 of your two-face.
"And we don't have a gravitational model of a naked singularity"
"In string theory the folded singularity is solved and does not hold"
Not true according to the article that claims the opposite - that there is a naked singularity.
It is foolish to support a theory (the string model in the experiment) that contradicts the known facts and to oppose a theory (general relativity) that explains them.
For section 10:
"What you stated are not facts but pure nonsense"
"The disqualifier, in Momo disqualifies" and this is true for all your claims - I proved it.
Your cleverness does not make them correct, and you a great and righteous understander - but the opposite, a duplicitous fool.
"This is not a rational scientific discussion, it is the swans of a person who does not have enough humility or intelligence to understand that he does not understand"
do you mean yourself An idiot who we don't know is an idiot, even if he is a physicist.
A cheeky brat who tries to turn a lie into truth, and truth into a lie. who ignores logic and facts, who lacks a backbone.
In conclusion:
Beyond a series of irrelevant evasions and contradicting your own words, it seems that you do not agree with the article itself.
The paper claims that a string theory computer model for a 5-dimensional black hole leads to a naked singularity.
You deny it. And in general that there is a hidden singularity in string theory.
All this in order to disagree with my arguments.
childish,
Beyond that, a compulsive troublemaker who gets drunk on endless self-talk, who hides behind mountains of endless and purposeless talk, which has nothing to do with a real physicist.
-
Your response is unnecessary to the point of being sarcastic.
It does not teach anything new, apart from my response.
It is your fault to oppose logic and I mean your shameful opposition to what was expressed in my first response.
We are dealing here with a compulsive troublemaker of whatever degrees.
Spewing mountains of words serves you to strengthen your positions by forgetting the original topic of discussion.
Disrupts my words, ignores the continuation, lies, contradicts himself, evidence later.
For section 2: "Show unreasonableness in my words"
The illogicality of your words is in your opposition to the use of the rules of logic and inference. See my original response.
"There is no straw man argument"
An example of obsessive compulsive disorder. why?
Because there is no connection between the example you gave and my response.
The analogy you brought is not correct. Far-fetched The logic she demonstrates is completely different from what is expressed in my arguments (the first and the second).
Your far-fetched example is a straw man argument, and does not in any way demonstrate the logic of my claims.
You had to show directly through the rules of logic that my claims are not true. You can't unless you lie, which will become clear later.
As mentioned, this is a completely valid objective conclusion that only a clearly irrational person can think of opposing it.
My conclusion is that you are a compulsive troublemaker deprived of logic whose entire purpose is to rant.
For section 3:
"The theory of relativity is incorrect - or at least incomplete"
"If you meant that it contradicts the scientific knowledge available to researchers in the field today, then it does not."
Here you are fooling: the theory of general relativity is correct and this is the accepted opinion of any self-respecting scientist. .
There is no physicist who claims that general protection is incorrect. There is no observational test that contradicts the theory.
A scientist who claims that it is not true must bring proof that will contradict all the facts predicted by general relativity and proven to be true.
Such a proof is not possible.
This is where you border on insanity. Scientific insanity
For section 4:
"Why is your logic that if a certain Torah has a correct predication then the Torah is correct and contradicts other Torahs is stupid."
I didn't claim that. You lie.
I argued that if different teachings have conflicting conclusions that are only proven in one, then the conclusion is that the proven Torah is correct and the other is disproved!
Your dishonesty as a physicist casts great doubt on your intellectual and scientific integrity.
"Stupid" - "Stupid" leave it to those who are really stupid.
For section 5: the string theory in the article predicts the existence of 5-dimensional black holes, but only as naked singularities.
For section 6:
"The article does not refer to string theory but to general relativity in five dimensions".
Stop lying.
A quote from the article that proves you are lying: "If our universe has five dimensions or more - as expected according to string theory"
There is no mention in the article of general relativity in five dimensions.
"Your original argument was still wrong because both theories have black holes with a horizon."
Not true .
The article reads: "The strong gravity accelerates the formation of a state called 'naked singularity'"
A naked uniqueness is not surrounded by an event horizon, unlike a uniqueness that is not naked.
General relativity with a horizon in contrast to string theory with naked uniqueness and no horizon.
Hence the conclusions of the two teachings are contradictory. Therefore, it is necessary to choose a Torah whose conclusion is proven, and to reject the other.
For section 7:
"The visualization does not relate to string theory"
The simulation definitely refers to string theory, and this is how it is written in the article: "If our universe has five or more dimensions - as expected according to string theory
the strings"
"..the fact that the rings have no horizon and therefore do not radiate does not mean that black holes in string theory do not have Hawking radiation"
have no horizon and therefore do not radiate, hence there is no Hawking radiation! .
The continuation contradicts everything that was said - "does not mean that black holes in string theory do not have Hawking radiation".
The article specifically talks about 5-dimensional black holes in string theory. 5-dimensional black holes in string theory do not have Hawking radiation, that is
I argued. You are not contradicting her but contradicting your own words.
Other string theory models are not relevant. The article doesn't talk about them and neither do I. The discussion here is only about a computer model of holes
5 dimensional blacks, in string theory. They are the discussion only. Discussion of other models is not relevant.
Therefore, your claims that are based on other models are not relevant to my argument.
For section 8:
You do not deny my words.
If the event horizon does not exist, then Hawking radiation does not exist either.
In section 7 the claim that Hawking radiation exists, and in section 6 that an event horizon always exists.
Volatile without professional integrity. Non-committed, non-decisive, unequivocal, stealthy.
For section 9:
I asked what the entropy of a naked singularity is and your answer is evasive: "The question is not well defined". Just as expected of you, who have no idea.
If you don't know how to define naked singularity entropy, then you can't talk about naked singularity Hawking radiation.
Did you say there is hawking radiation for a naked singularity? Maybe not. It is impossible to know because your words are stealthy and non-committal.
Please refer to section 7 of your two-face.
"And we don't have a gravitational model of a naked singularity"
"In string theory the folded singularity is solved and does not hold"
Not true according to the article that claims the opposite - that there is a naked singularity.
It is foolish to support a theory (the string model in the experiment) that contradicts the known facts and to oppose a theory (general relativity) that explains them.
For section 10:
"What you stated are not facts but pure nonsense"
Your cleverness does not make you savvy and right - but the energetic opposite.
Your words that ignore logic and facts, are spineless.
"This is not a rational scientific discussion, it is the swans of a person who does not have enough humility or intelligence to understand that he does not understand"
Look Who's talking! A moron We don't know he's a moron even if he's a physicist.
A cheeky brat who tries to turn a lie into truth, and truth into a lie.
In conclusion:
Beyond a series of irrelevant evasions and contradicting your own words, it seems that you do not agree with the article itself.
The paper claims that a string theory computer model for a 5-dimensional black hole leads to a naked singularity.
You deny it. And in general that there is a hidden singularity in string theory.
All this in order to disagree with my arguments.
childish,
Beyond that, a compulsive troublemaker who gets drunk on endless self-talk that hides behind mountains of words that have no end and purpose, that has nothing to do with a physicist
True.
albentezo,
Field theory describes the world wonderfully and string theory manages to reproduce its results. Although string theory is not proven, it is a framework that also manages to solve other problems. Why is a string field theory necessary (?). In string theory you actually explained what a field is, so why return the fields? In other words, what is missing from string theory?
You have a few more questions
The description of finding the Higgs (as I heard in Sean Carroll's lecture) is that when you collide with a sufficiently large force in the Higgs field, the Higgs particles are created which very quickly fade away, etc., etc.
What happened in this string theory experiment? Was there damage to the string that caused it to vibrate at a certain frequency which is the Higgs particle?
The sun cannot burn classically. Why do you leave such sentences unexplained? 🙂 You mean, among other things, the debate held with Lord Calvin who tried to calculate the age of the sun (and Darwin discovered that the geological age of the earth is greater than Calvin calculated...) that the sun actually produces energy by turning hydrogen into helium and this reaction cannot be described classically ?
An interesting but mostly baseless debate, all the theories that were built, were built on the assumption that each and every step is correct.
Why would the time dimension move according to some imaginary axis of some human being? Why won't he move simultaneously in every direction?!.
Maybe that would explain some of the quantica slaps?!.
Who said there is even a concept of time? Maybe if you treat the thing as continuous chemical reactions of an infinite plasma, you can explain the strange things that cannot be explained without it.
Why explain reality by what we see, instead of explaining what is the relative part of reality that we see?!
Man did not create nature and his ten fingers are not the basis on which nature is actually built.
Hence 4 dimensions are a figment of the imagination, (reality is multidimensional even for the movement of matter) if there is indeed a slap between the proven Torah and the new one which has not yet received any proof, it means that the new one does not correspond to reality!
AP,
I thank you for sending me to study the material, but thank you very much - I have already finished my first, second and doctorate degrees in physics. I am an active physicist in academia, and my area of expertise (yes, yes. expertise. I write articles, publish in the most prestigious journals, lecture at conferences, etc.) is... black holes, and specifically their description in classical physics (general relativity) versus their descriptions in quantum physics (in particular theory the strings). So again I'll give you the same advice - instead of fooling yourself into knowing, open your ears and listen. You might learn something. Although according to the impression you've made so far, probably not...
1. "You have no idea what to answer." really? So how come I answered you?
2. "The text you poured out contradicts science, is inaccurate, misleading, nonsensical, based on straw man arguments, distorted and has nothing to do with my arguments." It is accurate (if not, show where). He is not misleading, because he is true. He makes sense (please show the illogicality of my words). There is no straw man argument (what you claimed is a straw man is an example. Maybe you just don't know what a straw man is. An example that aims to explain to you why your logic is crooked is not a straw man). He is not deformed. And it has a direct connection to your argument - I just went through all your stupidity and explained that it is not true.
3.” "The theory of relativity is incorrect - or at least incomplete "(contradicts science)". So that's it, no. I don't know who the "science" is, but if you meant that it contradicts the scientific knowledge that is in the hands of the researchers in the field today, then it does not contradict. On the contrary, it is the only thing that does not contradict, because it is the truth. Instead of arguing, check. You can search the internet, you can go to your nearest university and ask a physicist who studies gravity. Who knows, you might even find yourself in my office…
4. ""... and since gravity is different from Newtonian gravity then it is wrong." (straw man argument)". As mentioned, this is not a straw man. A straw man is when you replace your opponent's argument with another argument and then attack the other argument. I just gave you an example that aims to help you understand why your logic (that if a certain Torah has a correct predication then the Torah is correct and contradicts other Torahs) is stupid.
5. ""String theory definitely predicts the existence of black holes." (I didn't say no)". really? A direct quote from your previous response: "Now there is another assumption (another theory) string theory. Its conclusion blacks blacks cannot exist.”
6. ""String theory definitely predicts the existence of an event horizon" - not true according to the article here, and I was only referring to the article." No, you didn't just refer to the article. You specifically wrote "black holes cannot exist as relativity predicts, that is, with an event horizon and a radius that depends only on the mass." If you wrote that you only refer to the case in the article, you would get a different answer. The answer you would have received was this: first of all, the article does not refer to string theory but to general relativity in five dimensions. In string theory, you have to do a different simulation that can yield different results. In addition, the article refers to a very specific structure called black rings. String theory certainly predicts the existence of black holes with a horizon, but also allows for black rings. Suppose this simulation were correct, and we would conclude that in this case there is a naked singularity - your original argument was still wrong because both theories have black holes with a horizon. In one of the two there are additional things, but the fact that we did not find them does not mean that this Torah is wrong.
7. ""String theory not only predicts the existence of Hawking radiation" - not true in relation to the article here.
If a 5-dimensional black hole is a naked singularity, then Hawking radiation is not possible." Again, please don't blame me for not understanding. There is a difference between a black ring and another black hole. There are many types of black holes and this is just one of them. In short, all the answers from the previous section are correct here as well (the simulation does not refer to string theory, the fact that the rings have no horizon and therefore do not radiate does not mean that black holes in string theory do not have Hawking radiation, which is exactly what you wrote, etc.).
8. "Hawking radiation is inversely related to the event horizon. If the event horizon does not exist, then radiation does not exist either.
(Obviously your intellect could not grasp this)". really? It's interesting, because I write articles on the subject, which receive reference, recognition and citations. I wonder how I manage to do this without my mind catching on.
9.” By the way, what is the entropy of a naked singularity? (Don't answer, because you will obviously answer in a laundry of words, instead of writing "I have no idea")". I think you are confused. The meaning of the phrase "laundering words" is just words that have no content, it seems that you think that the meaning of the phrase is "things that AP does not understand because he is too stupid and has no idea, but for some reason this does not prevent him from thinking that he read a half-page article on the website of popular science makes him an expert". And the answer to your question - the question is not well defined. As I wrote in my previous response, in classical physics the entropy of a black hole is calculated from gravitational considerations only (the surface area of the horizon, up to a constant) and we do not have a gravitational model of a stacked singularity. In string theory it is possible to calculate from other considerations, but as I have already explained - in string theory the singularity of the stack is resolved and does not exist (because there are additional considerations that did not enter into the simulation).
10. ""Wouldn't it be better to spend the time trying to understand something before you write about it?"
In a rational scientific discussion, there is no place for sentences of this type of loss of temper." I don't know what makes you think I've lost my mind. The sentence I wrote should be understood literally, and it certainly has a place in a rational scientific discussion (even if you prefer to deny it, because it means you can talk as much as you like without understanding anything about anything). A rational scientific discussion should be done from a place of understanding, and an attempt to understand more. Not from a place of ignorance. Coming to a field where you have no idea what is going on and stating "facts" on the ground (pay attention to the quotation marks because as I have already said, what you have stated are not facts but pure nonsense) is not a rational scientific discussion, it is the foolishness of a person who does not have enough humility or intelligence to understand who does not understand
11. "You did not contradict, and you did not refute any of my claims. That is, that the results of the computerized experiment can be interpreted the opposite of what is said in the article." really? I'm pretty sure I've refuted and disproved *all* of your claims. Well, we'll agree to disagree and let others judge who understands what he's talking about and who just wanted to make some noise and hear himself talk.
Achilles,
There is no need to be a follower of anything, and certainly not of string theory. There are many people who think that it will not turn out to be true, some of them are respected physicists in their field with a great deal of knowledge and understanding (although it is important to note that they are in the minority, and even though it has not been proven - there is a very strong consensus among high energy theorists that it will indeed turn out to be true or at least be used as a plank jump and lead to a correct description of quantum gravity). But criticism should come from a place of understanding and not ignorance, which is why AP's response is so frustrating.
And by the way, a few things:
1. I don't know any stringer who claimed that it is likely that additional dimensions will be discovered at the LHC. Yes, it is clear that all the possibilities need to be checked and this is one of them, but in the popular string theory formulation it is customary to think that all dimensions except the four we see are compact and very small, and are unlikely to be detected at low energies. Obviously it should be tested and no one knew what we would discover before the experiment was carried out, but I think it is very wrong to say that string theory expected more dimensions to be discovered. She did not rule out the possibility, but in our understanding it was highly unlikely. The big disappointment actually came from the direction of supersymmetry (which they also didn't say must be discovered, but which they very much *hoped* they would discover because it is a fundamental building block in string theory).
2. String theory certainly describes the black hole as a quantum system that contains entropy, and even in some cases knows how to calculate exactly what the entropy is from thermodynamic considerations (and not just from gravity considerations and the generalized second law, as in general relativity - that is, knows how to cross different fields in physics and see that it is consistent with both of them) -temporarily), but it's not so related to what you said.
In fact, I just happened to write a response to Shmulik who talks a bit about the relationship between field theories and string theory (specifically calibration theories, although I didn't understand why you were "dealing" with them, because the difference between calibration theory and any other field theory is only a specific type of redundancy in the description of the fields and there is no a fundamental difference in what the basic elements of the Torah are or how physics works).
3. The sentence "string theory describes not only the black hole but also the geometry around it" is not so meaningful because the black hole *is* the geometry classically. A black hole is a name given to a certain geometry. It's like writing that Newtonian mechanics describes not only the trajectory of a particle but also where it is at any given time. It's classical. From a quantum point of view, a black hole includes both the geometry and other properties that are not expressed in the geometry, such as the existence of a field called a dilton and a certain behavior associated with it. Either way, the words "black hole" include a description of the geometry, so the sentence "both black hole and geometry" has no meaning.
This is a small comment, but if you are already writing a comment...
From the style of your writing, it can be understood that you have nothing meaningful to say and that you are preoccupied with glorifying your personal ego.
You obviously have no idea how to answer and what to answer.
The text you poured out contradicts science, is inaccurate, misleading, nonsensical, based on straw man arguments, distorted and has nothing to do with my argument.
You don't deserve a reply, but still for the sake of others reading who may be confused by your brash and childish style.
Examples:
"The theory of relativity is incorrect - or at least incomplete" (contradicts science)
"... and since gravity is different from Newtonian gravity then it is wrong." (straw man argument)
"String theory definitely predicts the existence of black holes." (I didn't say no)
"String theory definitely predicts the existence of an event horizon" - not true according to the article here, and I was only referring to the article.
Quote from article:
"Physicists hypothesized that in a state of five or more dimensions, if any object shrinks to infinite density - that is, to a singularity - the event horizon will not limit it, and a naked singularity will be obtained."
"String theory not only predicts the existence of Hawking radiation" - not true in relation to the article here.
If a 5-dimensional black hole is a naked singularity, then no Hawking radiation is possible.
Hawking radiation is inversely related to the event horizon. If the event horizon does not exist, then radiation does not exist either.
(Obviously your mind couldn't grasp it)
By the way, what is the entropy of a naked singularity?
"Instead of writing these mountains of mistakes"
"Wouldn't it be better to spend the time trying to understand something before you write about it?"
In a rational scientific discussion, there is no place for this kind of loss of temper statements.
Silly childish style. And an answer in the same style:
Better to spend the time trying to understand something before you write about it, instead of writing these mountains of mistakes.
You didn't contradict, and you didn't refute any of my claims. That is, the results of the computerized experiment can be interpreted the opposite of what is said in the article.
A.P.
Although it can be understood from my words that I am a 'devotee' of string theory, I find that the claim that there are no black holes in string theory is a bit puzzling, especially since precisely in the quantum mechanics of space-time there is a paradox of the destruction of information (for example, if a particle in a quantum state carrying information falls into a hole The blackness of the information inside the black hole must be preserved. But the end of the black hole is to evaporate and if so, where is the information? Hawking radiation does not explain this).
String theory actually adopts (warmly) the conclusions of gauge theory, which sees quantum fields as fundamental quantities. In my understanding (please correct me if I'm wrong) it also explains not only the black hole but also the geometry around it and describes the hole as a quantum system containing entropy.
AP,
Before I answer, I have to ask: don't you have some little voice in your head that says if you don't understand something, maybe you shouldn't talk about it? Or at least focus in the beginning on asking questions and not making ridiculous assertions? Or at least not do it in a forum of science-minded people, where there is a very high chance that everyone will realize that you have no idea what you're talking about?
In short - everything you said, all physics is nonsense. In fact, everything you said about science is bullshit. The distinction is important, because the very idea that if a particular Torah has a correct predication (in our case - general relativity and black holes) then it is correct, shows that you have no idea how science works. The theory of relativity is incorrect - or at least incomplete (that is, correct in the approximation of correct curvature only). The fact that it has predications that match it is excellent, but that does not mean that if another Torah contradicts it on a certain subject, then it is invalid. According to the same twisted logic you could have said 100 years ago that Newtonian gravity is correct (because it predicts that an apple falls from a tree, and even with what acceleration it falls) and since gravity is different from Newtonian gravity then it is wrong.
Everything you said about strings is complete ignorance. String theory definitely predicts the existence of black holes. It definitely predicts the existence of an event horizon. It definitely predicts (in some cases) a radius that depends only on the mass. In other cases no, because black holes in string theory can have hair (that is, their structure can depend on what creates them), and this is rather excellent because the fact that classically this is not possible is one of the biggest problems in physics today. String theory not only predicts the existence of Hawking radiation, it also predicts it in a much more accurate way than field theory on the background of classical gravity, and some say (although one must be careful because this is a very new field that is taking shape these days) that it even solves the infamous information paradox created as a result of the *incorrect* description of general relativity. Instead of writing these mountains of mistakes, wouldn't it have been easier to Google black holes in string theory and learn a little about the subject?
And in general, instead of writing a whole paragraph about the work, if A leads to B and not B exists, then not A - wouldn't it be better to spend the time trying to understand something before you write about it? Or at least address my criticism of your circular reasoning.
I hope this won't block my comment, but I have a feeling you desperately need it, so I'm attaching a link to a video whose title isn't necessarily relevant, but it has at least one lesson you must internalize.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=jhQdYvz0VwQ
Shmulik,
1. First of all it is important to understand that field theory is not a quantum theory of gravitation. Yes, you can use some basic things (such as taking a quantum field theory and putting it on the background of classical gravitation, or writing a quantum theory of gravitation and cutting it off at a certain point as an approximation), but it is not a complete theory (and in many cases, not necessarily a good approximation either) .
Beyond that, the graviton is simply the matrix that becomes a local quantum field. This means that the graviton will affect any physical process like any field in field theory - through interaction. This means that in a weak field there will be Feynman diagrams that include gravitons just as there are Feynman diagrams of photons, electrons, etc. The most basic diagrams will reproduce the results of classical gravity and beyond them will be quantum corrections. That is, the formalism is a formalism of field theory and it is not easily evident from it that the field g is classically identified with space. It is important to remember that in field theory we only measure correlations of fields (which make up any physical quantity that can be measured). This means that the question in classical physics is very simple "What is the distance between point A and point B?", should be formulated a little differently in field theory by placing measuring devices and measuring their interaction with the fields in space. That is, the way in which the question is asked changes at the same time as the way in which the hammer affects the answer.
2. String theory is not field theory. There are attempts to write string theory which is field theory (the field is called - prepare for a surprise - string field theory), but so far there have been no resounding successes. LIGO's result is completely classical, and a feature of all quantum theory is that in the right limit it reproduces classical results (if it wasn't true in general, it wouldn't have taken so many years to realize that there was something wrong with classical mechanics). Of course, there are different qualitative phenomena (like for example the classic sun cannot burn, or the classical black hole does not emit any radiation) but gravitational waves are not part of these phenomena. Therefore, there is no difference between the classic yen and the quantum one. The mechanism that would theoretically explain the creation of the waves is exactly the same mechanism that we explained in section 1 - interaction of matter (in this case, of black holes) that causes the release of gravitons.
3. The connection between strings and fields is not trivial at all. String theory is *not* field theory, but it does reproduce field theory results. How this happens is quite complicated, but there is at least one thing that I think can be explained quite simply graphically. Imagine a string moving in 10 dimensional space. The string is an open string, that is, it has 2 ends. Those edges sit somewhere, right? So you can fix them by force to two points in space and the string will be stuck. But you can also let them move freely. Imagine that I let them move freely across a 4-dimensional canvas, but don't let them out of it. The ways in which the string can be connected to the sheet define something that looks like a field in 4 dimensions and the connection point of the string with the sheet will look like a particle (which particle? It depends on the quantum state of the string). This is how you can describe, say, a calibration theory like electromagnetism in 4 dimensions - with the help of a string whose end moves on a 4-dimensional sheet called a d brane.
"What you do is simply take a certain assumption (that we have no idea if it is true or not), determine that it is absolutely true, and use it as a tool to decide which Torah is true"
There are laws of logic, the correct use of which makes it possible to choose between contradictory assumptions.
There is a modus tollens (Modus tollens), in logic, it is the inference rule that allows us to conclude from the following two data:
1. (ie - if P exists then Q exists).
2. (ie – Q does not exist).
the following conclusion: P~
(ie – P does not exist).
-
One assumption is relativity. The existence of black holes follows from it as a necessary conclusion. So far assumption and conclusion. This is not enough to accept the Torah as an explanation of reality. You have to prove or disprove the conclusion. Black holes have been proven to exist.
Therefore, general relativity is accepted as a correct theory that explains the existing.
Now there is another assumption (another theory) string theory. Its conclusion is that black people cannot exist. Black holes cannot exist as relativity predicts, that is, with an event horizon and radius that depends only on mass.
A. The strings predict only uniqueness. It does not predict a black hole in the same sense that general coverage does. Not only that, but it rules out the possibility that black black will exist in the format of general relativity. (including Hawking radiation resulting from a combination of relativity and thermodynamics and quanta).
The facts prove that black blacks exist in accordance with the prediction of general relativity and in contradiction to the prediction of T. the strings.
The conclusion is (according to Modus Tollens) that string theory is incorrect!
albentezo,
Of course I don't expect you to teach me two physics degrees in one post. If the questions I asked "make sense" and there is a possibility for some kind of explanation, I would be happy
albentezo,
Thanks.
I have a few follow-up questions:
How is the shortening and lengthening of space under the influence of gravitational waves explained in the framework of quantum field theory (that is, how gravitons affect space-time)?
Is string theory a quantum field theory and how from its framework is the result of LIGO explained?
If string theory is field theory, I am very interested in the topic of how a string, which is a finite element, creates a field that is supposed to be infinite and is everywhere?
Shmulik,
I wrote you a comment but it was not published. Maybe it will be published later.
AP,
I can't understand why you say what you say. There is no doubt that general sponsorship and strings contradict each other. To settle which of them is correct (if any), you need an experiment or an observation that can be compared to two different predictions that they produce. What you are doing is simply taking a certain assumption (that we have no idea if it is true or not), determining that it is absolutely true, and using it as a tool to decide which Torah is true or not or how many dimensions our universe should have.
If you decide that one assumption or another is true, you can certainly use it to disqualify certain ideas. But then you don't ask "What is true about our description of the world?", you just draw a system for yourself that you like and demand that it be consistent with what you decided a priori is the truth.
Besides, as I explained quite at length in my response which you can read below, in string theory the problems of naked singularities are not so simple, and apparently they are not problematic at all (that is, because of other considerations that exist in string theory, singularities do not exist at all - naked or hidden).
Shmulik,
Regarding the first question, with your permission I will ignore the part after "who is right" because I did not fully understand what you are asking about what I once told you, and since I do not have access to history, I will simply try to answer the question and you will decide for yourself if it is consistent with or included in something else I told you.
It is a bit difficult to answer the question of who is right, because Nima does not justify his position (at least not in the few minutes I saw - I did not have time to see the whole lecture). I can guess what he means is that at the end of the day we see particles. Our measurements are kinematic, and we measure with resonant detectors that correspond mathematically to the particle. Since physical science explains observations and makes predictions for further observations, it is certainly possible (and correct) to think of it as something that has no meaning outside of measurements.
If that is the intention, I will have to deviate from my practice and say that I think Carroll is right. He puts it beautifully (with your permission, paraphrase): Quantum mechanics teaches us that what we see is not what is. There is another layer of reality that we do not measure. If so, how does it work out if physics is only meaningful within the measured world? Simply because non-measurable processes can affect measurements. Yes, that means they depend on circumstantial evidence. Yes, this means that we will never be able to witness them and turn them from a theory into a fact (just as the shape of the Earth began living as a theory and the day we lifted a telescope into space and photographed the Earth, it became a fact). Yes, this means that there is always an alternative explanation that leads to exactly the same predictions. But that doesn't mean it's not true.
The bottom line, in my opinion, is this: all we measure are particles, but in order to correctly explain the behavior of particles and produce predictions that correlate, we must mathematically describe a world in which a particle is only a certain aspect of something more fundamental (and there is no debate about this - in field theory, The field is elementary from the particle and the particle exists only under certain conditions). There are enormous amounts of evidence that field theory is correct. Is there an equivalent mathematical description, which does not include fields but yields the same predications (or even better predications)? Maybe, don't know. According to the knowledge we have today, this Torah provides the best description of reality in which what we call an electron is nothing more than a relatively marginal phenomenon of some field (not marginal because it is not important, but because it is really not fundamental).
Regarding the gravitational waves, I'm not sure I understood what you're asking, but in principle there is no difference between the classical theory and the quantum theory (what you call a "particle description"). Gravitational waves created from the same event will exist in both. The difference will be in the nature of these waves, as in both the classical theory and the quantum theory of electromagnetism there are electromagnetic waves that move in a vacuum (and are created, for example, from a certain distribution of currents). The difference is whether the wave is just a wave, or whether it also has a particle (photon) description. Of course, the answer to this question has extraordinary consequences for physics, but this does not change the existence of the wave or the fact of its creation as a result of a certain process. LIGO does not know how to check whether the waves received by it are quantized or not, so there is no difference between the classical and quantum description.
If I didn't answer you, try to refine the question.
"If our universe has five or more dimensions - as expected according to string theory - Einstein's theory of general relativity is invalid. "
If there is a contradiction between two assumptions, there are three possibilities: one of the assumptions is incorrect (2) or neither is correct.
Hence the simulation result can be interpreted as a refutation of string theory and as further proof of relativity. When one assumption has many proofs and another assumption has no proofs, then the proven one must be chosen as true and valid. That is, to choose general relations as correct and string theory (at least in the version used in the simulation) as incorrect.
"If the cosmic censorship hypothesis is not valid in a higher-dimensional universe, we need to understand what in our four-dimensional universe causes a naked singularity to not form and general relativity to hold."
It can be understood differently.:
The cosmic censorship hypothesis answers the question why the universe has X dimensions and not X+1 or X+N dimensions.
The answer is that no other situation can exist.
Instead of trying to disprove the cosmic censorship hypothesis, it can be seen as an explanation for the existence of a universe with 4 dimensions and no other.
albentezo,
I have a few questions about gravitational waves vs gravitons. To laymen, what Ligo discovered is described as two bodies orbiting each other and producing gravitational waves that propagate through space. Gravitational waves are the result of the release of a lot of energy that this process creates and since it is equal to mass, gravitational waves are created. What is the equivalent particle description?
By the way, I have a pending question that I hope my father will release from the black hole of the comments
albantezo, hi,
I have a question about particles and fields
In the 22nd minute Nima says that fields are the products of our imagination and the basic element is the particle. Very firm about this.
https://youtu.be/_k_V8TNWTHg?t=1292
On the other hand, in the 9th minute, Shawn Carroll says that the basic element of reality are the fields
https://youtu.be/xv0mKsO2goA?t=562
In another lecture, Carroll describes that field theory provides an explanation for the decay of a neutron into a proton and an electron. Not just particles change, but one field affects the frequency of another field and from this he deduces the "basicity" of the fields.
https://youtu.be/gEKSpZPByD0?t=1898
So who is right?
I remember once you answered me something along the lines that you don't know what can be said about a phenomenon that has not been measured.
Therefore, is the answer to my question the answer you gave at the time? That is, it is possible to think of fields as an unmeasured phenomenon and when a field is measured, a particle is found and thus the two approaches can be reconciled?
Ofer,
I will explain myself.
I raised the possibility that although the received signal is a signal of gravitational waves,
But because of the weakness of the signal, it may not be all that creates gravity,
But there are also other ingredients that have not yet been discovered.
Gravitational forces create enormous forces,
And it should be expected that what creates them should also manifest itself with considerable force...
It's possible, I didn't understand your 'maybe', but it's almost certainly not possible...
While it is impossible to rule out *completely* the possibility that there was a failure in the interpretation of the signal, just as it is impossible to rule out the possibility that it was a 'fake' signal (with a very low probability, of course), but rest assured that the team in charge of the experiment sat on the bench and weighed every possibility that they could only imagine. Moreover, their achievement and interpretation were examined with a scrutinizing and suspicious eye by professional and critical referents.
Ofer
Thanks for the link.
The question is over:
If the gravitational wave is so weak, as you explained,
Maybe this is only a "substitution" wave and gravity is not only expressed in this wave?
Netzel
For those interested, FAQ's about Lego's achievement, here:
http://ofer-megged-phys-notes.blogspot.co.il/2016/02/blog-post_20.html
The achievement here is the combination between elegant mathematics to describe a universe with five dimensions and the computing power required to carry out simulations in practice and practice. What is all this and practice? is nothing!
In theory, there is no connection between the practice and the Gregory-Laflame instability equations (Einstein's gravity in high dimensions where D => 5 – dimensions) because the universe we know of 4 dimensions is dynamic and unstable and is unable to "curl" additional dimensions into it. Moreover, string theory was ahead of tying crowns and demonstrated why additional dimensions would still be discovered, if only for the second particle, in the large hadron accelerator (at a power that I can't remember the number at the moment). To their disappointment such an event has not yet occurred and as of today all equations simulating a universe between five dimensions and more are theoretical speculation and nothing more.
Lorem,
If it is possible to expand on Dana's response (which is correct), then first of all - let's put some order in the dimensions. We notice 4 dimensions around us (in classical physics there are 3 dimensions, and relativity treats time as a dimension as much as the other three, which leads to its amazing results). String theory has 10 dimensions, but not all of them have to be big. For example, it is possible to write in the formalism of string theory a description of a 10-dimensional universe of which only 4 are not very, very small. If this could not be written, there would be no point in string theory. The number 26 is not really relevant - it is the number of dimensions in string theory which only contains bosons (I will assume you know the difference between the two types of particles in nature, bosons and fermions, and if I am wrong you can ask). This is a Torah that clearly does not describe our world, but it is very simple and serves as a toy model for string teachings because everything in it is much simpler.
As Dana wrote (it's interesting if the discussion from the comments is the same as the discussion from the article itself, because the response hits home but the article itself does not present the problem well and even contains wording that may not be quite accurate), the emphasis here is on the fact that the singularity is naked. The singularity of a black hole is so named because it possesses a mathematical property called a singularity, which makes it in a sense mathematically ill-defined. Since singular solutions to Einstein's equations were first presented, it has been clear to everyone that they are not an accurate description of reality because we assume (and so far we have not been able to disprove this assumption) that reality is indeed well defined. Mathematically, this means that infinite or singular sizes will appear in physics only in very special cases when there is a way out of the mathematical problem (where one of the famous examples is that in the modern version of quantum mechanics many infinite sizes appear, but they can be subjected to a procedure called renormalization, which "cleanses" the infinity and leaves a final and well-defined part). Therefore, basically every singularity indicates the incompleteness of general relativity.
But, if all the singularities that exist are behind the curtain of the event horizon, it doesn't matter so much to us. This is because it is clear that Einstein's equations are not valid close to the singularity, but the physics outside the horizon is disconnected from what is happening inside and therefore the incorrectness of the theory near the singularity does not leak out. Relativity, as a scientific theory that provides predictions for the behavior of our universe, could still be true beyond the horizon. The problem with a naked singularity is that it is not obscured by an event horizon, and therefore not completely separated from the region where we expect to be able to make predictions. In particular, the existence of stacked singularities at any points in space-time necessarily means that long-term predictions of the kind on which all modern cosmology is built cannot be made.
Still, the whole topic must be qualified with an important note that says that the structure of space-time that allows the existence of such objects is not trivial. Yes, you can just take general relativity in 5 dimensions, but that is clearly not something that is relevant to our world. In this case, it would be an interesting toy model but unlikely to have extraordinary implications for how we understand gravity (there are many, many such models, such as topological gravity in three dimensions, singular field theory in two dimensions, etc.). It is more interesting to understand the phenomenon of black rings in the background of string theory, which can both contain 5 (or more) dimensions and correctly describe our world, but in this case the statement will be much weakened because to begin with string theory gives different predictions from general relativity near high curvature, and in particular It has the mathematical tools to "smooth out" singularities that in classical physics would have caused trouble.
In a universe of four dimensions, the singularity that accompanies the collapse of the laws of physics exists within the black hole, beyond the event horizon, and therefore, as one of the researchers quoted in the article says: "It does not cause problems and general relativity is preserved." In this simulation, in the high-dimensional universe, the singularity exists outside the event horizon of the black hole, where it can be observed, and therefore the collapse of general relativity can be observed. This is the innovation and it is very significant.
A universe of 5 dimensions? Allow a video/article that explains what it actually is /: preference for Hebrew
I even thought that our universe was a four-dimensional brane inside a space of 26 (or some other large number) dimensions, to which the strings are attached. Where does that put the five dimensional simulation?
And besides, it is known that in the singularity of a black hole all the laws of physics, and general relativity in general, do not hold. So what does the new simulation innovate? And how will this affect what we see outside the black hole?