For thousands of years, people believed that the earth was at the center of the universe, and that the sun and stars revolved around it.
Written by: Ariel Keres, young Galileo
The ancient Greeks tried to understand the secrets of nature, but they had almost no "scientific" tools for this, so they mainly used common sense and common sense, aside from observations that did not require elaborate instruments. At a time when everyone thought that the earth was flat - they realized that it was spherical because they watched the shadow of the earth covering the moon during a white eclipse and also a ship moving away to the horizon and only its tarna sticking out.
What's going on all of a sudden?
As early as 2,400 years ago, some ancient Greek sages such as Hyktas and Heraclides claimed that the earth rotates on its axis (although they did not claim that it revolves around the sun). These were completely absurd claims because in ancient times the "geocentric view" prevailed - the belief according to which the earth stands motionless in the center of the solar system, and the entire universe and all the heavenly bodies revolve around it every day.
Another Greek sage who claimed the earth's rotation was the scholar Aristarchus from the island of Samos, who lived 2,200 years ago. The wise Aristarchus observed nature, sunsets, sunrises and the changing seasons and proposed a new model - the heliocentric model, which states that the sun is at the center of the system and the earth circles it every year and enjoys its heat and light.
Aristarchus, Hycatas and Heracleides were right. It can be said that they were ahead of their time because the great philosopher Aristotle opposed these theories and claimed that everything we see in the sky revolves around the earth (it's hard to blame him, that's how it really looks to someone standing on the earth and looking at the sky). Instead of trying to understand the bold propositions of Aristarchus and his predecessors, people, and even the sages of ancient Greece, continued to believe in the erroneous models of Aristotle and Claudius Ptolemy, who claimed that the earth was in the center and the rest of the universe revolved around it. The important astronomer Ptolemy developed extremely complicated models to justify his position. He claimed that if the earth rotated on its axis, everything would be swept away and destroyed by the strong winds that would be created by the rapid rotation. His theory lasted hundreds of years, and few dared to oppose it.
Just an optical illusion
Why was it so difficult for humans to accept the fact that the Earth is not at the center of the universe? Today it seems ridiculous to us. We know that not only is our sphere not at the center of the universe, but that the universe has no center at all; And that the Earth orbits the Sun, which is nothing more than an average star that is in one of the massive arms of the Milky Way galaxy, which is also one of the billions of galaxies in the universe.
But in the old days, the scientists, and even more so the religious people, opposed the removal of the earth from the center. They considered the claim that the earth is not at the center of the universe - sacrilege! In 499, the beginning of the Middle Ages in Europe, the Indian astronomer Aryabhata wrote that the round earth rotates on its axis and that the appearance of the stars and the sun revolving around it is only an optical illusion. He compared it to a man sailing a boat and seeing the static and motionless things on the shore pass by.
Fear of the church's reaction
In Europe, people continued to adhere to the views of Ptolemy and Aristotle. It was only in the 16th century that a Polish astronomer named Nicolaus Copernicus arose and explained again that the earth revolves around the sun and that the reason we see the sun revolving around us every day is because the earth moves on its axis! Since science was in its infancy at the time, Copernicus did not have many scientific proofs for his claims, and he published them right before his death because he was afraid of the reaction of the church, which viewed with disfavor scientific revelations that contradict what is written in the Bible or the New Testament and the writings of Aristotle, which it consecrated.
A century after Copernicus, the Italian astronomer Jean Baptiste Riccioli argued against the rotation of the Earth on its axis because there was no eastward deviation of falling bodies. Riccioli was wrong, but he actually predicted the discovery of the Coriolis force, which indeed causes falling bodies to deviate to the east due to the Earth's rotation on its axis! And so, although the rotation of our globe on its axis is a simple answer to so many scientific questions, it took many more years and a lot of work by genius scientists such as Galileo, Kepler and Newton for the fact of the rotation of the earth on its axis and around the sun to be widely accepted.
The article was published in the October 2014 issue of Young Galileo
Want to read more? To receive a young Galileo magazine as a gift
More on the subject on the science website
Did Galileo ignore observations?
"The fool wants to turn the whole idea of astronomy upside down!"
153 תגובות
Israel
Link in a blocked response... in any case it's a PCI-x card that includes a GPS receiver. What you want is called "TSync-PCIe-011" by spectracom. Don't know price ….. but it's a tad over $20.
Israel
Here's a PCI-x card that might fit: http://www.spectracomcorp.com/ProductsServices/TimingSynchronization/BuslevelTiming/PCIexpressslotcards/tabid/1296/Default.aspx
Note that a GPS clock is accurate to 200 nanometers. For the precision you wanted, you'll need some cesium...
wonderful,
As always, you don't have to. As always, useful information.
I need the absolute time according to the scope clock or the counter.
If possible, a link that explains.
It will cost as much as it will. $20, $30 - Israel pays!
Israel
Communication satellites are at an altitude of 36,000 km. Most other satellites are much lower (including GPS). There is a satellite orbiting the moon but I don't believe it can be received without a large antenna.
Are you looking to measure time between two events, or do you need absolute time? You can use a scoop, but a counter is better. There are cheap counters up to 100 Mhz and more and more expensive... as much as you want. Well known manufacturers are HP, Stanford Research, Fluke and BK.
Well, let's hope we're done with psychology and we can get back to technology.
Miracles and all - I know that it is possible to receive radio broadcasts with amateur receivers from satellites. Is there a known source of further transmissions? Perhaps from some station or space vehicle from which signals can be received via radios but without a directional antenna?
Another question about determining the arrival time of a radio signal: I understood that this can be done using an oscilloscope. Does anyone have experience or a useful link? Maybe another method? Not a general reference but a specific one: an instrument that will show exactly when the signal arrived, preferably with nanosecond precision if possible.
Thanks.
The starling went to the crow,
Just be healthy
Albanzo
I agree with you.
Yoav
Your manner of speaking is irrelevant. Because of your way of speaking you were called a troll, not because of the content of your things. The content of your words is far beyond my understanding, and I try not to respond where I sound stupid.
Miracles,
I agree about Yoav: a severe case of dunning-krueger. I wrote him another comment that for some reason is not published. It is not clear why.
Regarding philosophy, it is very interesting. And there is no doubt that today a person who has no understanding of science can be taught a lesson and explain to him what it is through the writings of philosophers. I also learned about science in this way - long before I knew physics or mathematics, I heard from my father about Popper and Kuhn, and before I started my first degree in physics and mathematics, I was a philosophy student at the university.
But I don't believe it's a coincidence that philosophy of science (by the way, Kuhn defines himself as history of science and not philosophy) lags behind science. Science is a method - a method for solving problems, for distinguishing between true and false claims. As such, it finds a way (a bit like evolution). Philosophy is important in understanding why this or that thing works, and sometimes also how. But I look at myself and the dozens of scientists who surround me and work every day - they don't need the philosophy of science. I didn't mean to underestimate its importance or its level of interest - just to say that no philosophical argument can contradict the fact that you built a model, tested it against reality and discovered beyond reasonable statistical doubt that it is true, which means you advanced human knowledge and physics.
All this to try to make Yoav understand that no matter how many words he pours on the page, it will not change the fact that quantum mechanics - a mathematical creature that on the face of it seems super unintuitive and unrelated to our lives - works. So are a million other theories that were born as mathematical physics, and so is the idea of objects of size 0 (whether point-like, one-dimensional or even entire universes in space where the matrix is such that the distance between every 2 points is 0). That is, his criticism is not about mathematical physics or the scientific idea behind the theories he is so opposed to, but just another form of saying "I don't understand it, it doesn't seem to me, so it must be wrong and anyone who does understand it is A fake, he gets attention because of his loudness and not because of his abilities, he is a numerologist".
1. The anger is not fake.
2. The question was not confused. It was bright as the sun, and you avoided it for a long time because it shows the folly of the claims you made against mathematical physics.
3. I did not claim to be Einstein and I certainly did not call you Popper. A minimal amount of thinking ability would have shown you that I used Popper and Einstein as a tool to show you that philosophy has a lot of flavor and a lot of place in our lives, but it is not necessary to do science. Philosophy of science knows how to explain science but not to guide it. Therefore, philosophical reasoning on your part will never succeed in undermining the fact that this or that mathematical model produces predictions that are tested against the world and found to be true.
4. You have never written a coherent claim that can be addressed. To say "an object of size 0 cancels the perception of space and time" is not a claim, it is an assertion. First of all - this is nonsense. A little infinite and suddenly we learn how to build from an object of size 0 objects that are not of size 0 (Nisim and I even talked about this earlier). Secondly, even in classical physics there are objects of size 0, and of course also in quantum physics (every particle is a point in quantum mechanics). Thirdly, there is no reason to cling to ancient definitions of time and space - except that looking at larger physics, where time and space are more complex objects - is something you cannot imagine, and cannot understand, and therefore you oppose it.
6. I totally agree with your comment about ego. This whole argument revolves around your ego, and your unwillingness to admit that something may be true but just above your level. I mean, just because you don't understand something doesn't mean it's wrong.
7. The only one who resorted to personal attacks is you. All the things I said, even the ones that offended you personally - like the fact that you clearly don't understand what you're talking about - stem directly from the texts you wrote. This is not an attack on your character or characteristic, but a reference to your claims (what to do, pat yourself on the back when you say that scientists have decided that the building block of our space is the Planck size and that there are no processes below it?). To call me a "fake" and a "superposition of a real scientist", these are personal attacks. Not that I'm excited - my abilities as a scientist are judged (on a daily basis) by the quality of my scientific work, in the articles I write, in my promotion of the world of physics - and all this by people who took the trouble to sit down and study my works (and the necessary background for them). So your opinion, how to say... continue to hold on to it. Successfully.
Oh, and one last thing - if I am indeed a "superposition of a real scientist" then I am a real scientist. It turns out that you don't know quantum either (in fact, it turns out that you don't know linear algebra - but if I remind you that the physical theory of quantum is based on the mathematical structure of operator theory in linear algebra, you'll probably go into a panic attack and start mumbling things about the 0).
You talk about your work on string theory, but the two times I wrote about the injustice in describing a physical object that has zero size, you ran away from confrontation. But you're not the first fake I've met, maybe you're a superposition of a real scientist.
Miracles
You have audacity! You called me a troll, without addressing any of the claims you made. do you know me
Each time I made actual claims: about physical objects with zero size, about the redshift, about the hysterical reaction to any claim that tries to deal with the Big Bang, I gave Zwicky as an example, but a large part of conspiracies about Einstein are from the same source.
About the situation created by the assertion that the quantum is a monde, I also talked about DE BROGLIE's motion and its relation to the Schrödinger wave function, and furthermore, there was no attempt on the part of either of you to address the matter, only personal attacks of the type of the darkest football fans.
Even when I was blunt at the beginning I did not refer to Albenzo personally. You treat me like I invaded your home. I was here long before you, there was an impressive group then, of which only Israel survived, who really has no one to talk to.
Albanzo
have a nice time - http://www.psmag.com/navigation/health-and-behavior/confident-idiots-92793/
Yoav
how do you speak You say nothing in a lot of words. You look down on people you don't know, and talk about subjects you don't understand.
Albanzo
I think there is a place for philosophy in science. The basis of that science that you yourself are engaged in is philosophy. Scientists usually deal with a very narrow field, and sometimes miss the big picture. A scientist (like you) does not need to justify his way of working - the amazing successes speak for themselves. But, sometimes you need people like Russell, Fireband, Popper and Kuhn to bring some order. And especially to get people who don't understand the details to accept that the method works...
I know I learned a lot in my philosophy studies. The most important thing is to always ask "Why do you think this is true?"
elbentzo,
I was very relieved, because actually the grief I brought for my blunt writing was directed at my father and Israel, people really appreciate it.
You, on the other hand, hide behind feigned anger. You just asked me to have the courage to answer a confused question about mathematics in science.
I'm not Popper and you're not Einstein, Einstein had simple and matter-of-fact writing, and you're not able to write anything matter-of-fact.
So it was all an inflated ego in the end.
You talk about your work on string theory, but the two times I wrote about the injustice in describing a physical object that has zero size, you ran away from confrontation. But you're not the first fake I've met, maybe you're a superposition of a real scientist.
Obviously I'm angry at your "miserable outburst": you out of hand called everything that I and several hundred other people invest their lives in "nonsense", and although you didn't use the word "charlatancy" (so I'll stop using it myself), you more or less said that when Compare the field to numerology, and all this when it's quite clear that you don't really understand the field at all. Your review was stupid and made no internal sense, and for about 10 posts you avoided responding to my answer to your review. Seems like a pretty good reason to be upset.
I am definitely not interested in confrontation or ego games. As far as I'm concerned - the confrontation is over, you can go home. But on the other hand, I'm also not interested in "wrestling" with you, as you say - because I don't think there's anything to wrestle with. I'm sorry - but you again resorted to a meaningless word-squeezer, to talk about mechanisms and wells (and of course, within that you again demonstrated that you do not know the field well enough to determine what is nonsense and what is not, when you claimed that physicists decided that there is no length smaller than Planck or that there are no processes below it but Only formulas - complete nonsense). You began to guess what this one's intentions were when he wrote that one -
Habibi, physics is an exact science. Build a model, make a prediction, test it against nature. There is no need for your words, and there is no need for struggles. want to talk? Want to wrestle? May you be perfumed. Successfully. But know that what you are dealing with is not science at all. Maximum philosophy of science, and as Popper said (in a slight paraphrase, my apologies) - "No scientist has ever needed a philosopher to tell him how to do his work". At the end of the day, Popper wrote his impressive work on the philosophy of science when he analyzed how Einstein worked, not the other way around (ie, Einstein did not achieve his achievements by following Popper's instructions).
So good luck with the mechanisms and wells. I'll stick with science. In particular - with the Torah nonsense that is string theory.
albenza,
I didn't use the word charlatan, so let it go.
Technology cannot move a micron without a measuring tool, but it has no reason to move a micron without an overall concept of a mechanism.
From the moment physicists claimed "we have reached the bottom of the well", this Planck unit represents the smallest possible thing in the universe, so all quantum phenomena are elementary particles built only from themselves, and as such they cannot have a mechanism, but only properties, so all that remains is to measure intensities, which according to their opinion are the properties of monads or elementary particles.
Planck didn't mean it of course, just as Hubble didn't mean he discovered the Big Bang.
The problem, in my opinion, started when people said: the mechanism does not need a chain of events but only a chain of formulas.
And since zero is a member like all members it can represent an actual size.
Mathematically it works, so it must be true. But if you describe an object whose size is zero, the whole perception of space collapses, along with the perception of time, and the continuation is known.
You must be aware of the cacophony that surrounds quantum physics, it proves nothing about it, in fact around anything that attracts attention these rattlers are found. Sometimes their voice is louder than the people who work seriously, and they are also skeptical about their work, as it must be.
The question is if you are ready to wrestle with me or what interests you is the confrontation and ego battles.
I don't know you, and if I try to answer as best I can, it seems to me that you are interested in a serious conversation, but it is still difficult for you to calm down from my miserable outburst.
Yoav,
At no point did we talk about the standard model. You entered the discussion with a sharp criticism of mathematical physics (you even called this field of science numerology, i.e. - charlatanism), you argued against mathematical manipulations and specifically you came out against several ideas (string theory, dark energy, maybe something else I forgot).
Now, after a few dozen posts, you openly admit that mathematical physics can produce real results and has even advanced humanity from a technological and practical point of view (not always in positive directions, if by chance we brought up examples of atomic bombs, but also many times in very positive directions). For example, the pure mathematical theory of operators and Hilbert spaces gave birth to quantum mechanics. Do you agree that the scientific community would have perceived Bohr as a charlatan and a "numerologist" when he proposed to replace the function that says where a particle is with some copy between two spaces of an inner product of infinite integers, whose eigenvalues can be probabilistically interpreted as positions, even though this means that a particle can be found in several positions At the same time, etc., etc. - today we were in a very bad situation and we did not have quantum mechanics.
So now please show the criterion. The secret criterion you hold that allows you to say "the mathematical work of the thinkers of quantum mechanics (and the multitude of other examples some of which we brought up here and some of which we did not get) are important works of real significance for physics in our world" and at the same time "the mathematical works of the thinkers of string theory, energy Darkness (and other ideas you dismissed) are not physics, they are charlatanism. Their inventors are a bunch of loud people whose credit does not come from excessive wisdom, and these works should be buried."
Two works in the framework of mathematical physics, one changed our lives beyond recognition and you recognize its importance, the other is charlatanism in your eyes. How do you know how to make the distinction?
I meant it:
https://www.hayadan.org.il/does-einstein-wife-coauthor-the-theory-of-relativity-2001126
Did you mean that?
http://he.wikipedia.org/wiki/%D7%A2%D7%99%D7%91%D7%95%D7%99_%D7%91%D7%95%D7%96-%D7%90%D7%99%D7%99%D7%A0%D7%A9%D7%98%D7%99%D7%99%D7%9F
Neither does she…
Idon't remember…
The Serbs claim that Milva Einstein is the real thinker of relativity and that stupid Albert was just plagiarising her.
On thickening contempt - have you heard Milba?
Israel,
Fascinating, I didn't know, thank you very much.
Although the use of C is problematic, although it works out if the ninety million but a kilometer and a second are problematic constants.
Yoav
An Italian industrialist arrived at the formula from theoretical considerations of Maxwell's ether theory.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Olinto_De_Pretto
The momentum of a photon is P=E/C
P=MV, momentum is speed multiplied by mass.
Therefore E=MC^2.
Yoav
This is my profession … don't underestimate, please…..
Miracles,
Einstein spoke about God as the knowledge that the universe has about itself, why are you pushing the synagogue. What I wrote about the Monte Carlo algorithm is true, regardless of what you understood or not on Wikipedia. And just get off me.
Yoav
It seems to me that you are a bit "threading" words for Einstein. Einstein did not believe in God who registers presence in a synagogue... He said he was talking about the subject of randomness, not the subject of knowledge.
A Monte Carlo algorithm does not generate random numbers, but uses such numbers for its calculations. You are right that a computer does not know how to generate random numbers without an external random source (if there is one at all...)
Albanzo
Aristotle's "Physics", Book VI. The paradox I was referring to is the paradox of dichotomy, not Achilles and the tortoise. The principle is the same - an infinite number of events must occur for something to happen in a continuous world...
Israel,
This is a situation where the result preceded the formula. 90,000,000 is the value German researchers got from observations of radium.
And none the less Japanese can no longer testify...
E=MC^2 was already published in 1903, 4 years before Einstein.
elbentzo,
If your example of a math-based assumption is Einstein's assumption of energy emission, then yes, all research into atomic energy was done this way and many Japanese can testify that the research was successful.
How you associate this with the standard model is not really clear to me.
Miracles,
The paradox is in the saying "Achilles will never catch the tortoise". An infinite number of events in themselves are not a paradox, and as evidence Zenon could simply say "I get up in the morning and brush my teeth." Then brush your teeth again. Then brushing his teeth again, then again…”, and here we got endless events. What is the paradox here? nothing. The paradox of Achilles and the tortoise is that Achilles is faster than the tortoise but can never catch up with him (when the word "never" of course contains the reference to time - that is, "he will never catch up" = there is no finite time after which both will be at the same point). I don't have the original, but I have Plato's writings at home and this evening I can verify the wording. But a fairly extensive check on the internet shows that this is the paradox in the original (Achilles' inability to get the tortoise).
dosh,
I think you are confusing "reason" with "what seems right to me". Logic is a set of logical schemes, and mathematics - which is built on the exclusive use of this set, is completely logical. This of course includes the Torah of statistics and probability. I think what is bothering you is some points that you are simply confusing.
First, like I said, you're confusing something that doesn't make sense with something that doesn't go well with your intuition. The difference is that logic is objective and does not depend on you, and your intuition is of course subjective. That is, if something is not intuitive to you - it is a problem that you must solve between yourself. If something doesn't make sense, then the problem is external.
Second, you are confusing randomness with a complete inability to anticipate anything concerning a particular process. Randomness doesn't really mean that - it just means that the result of a measurement (the value of a variable, for that matter) is not deterministic. She does not say "that every possibility is possible" and she does not say that "there is no ability to predict what will happen in the system". In fact, all statistical theory is only about random variables (that is, statistics can also be done for deterministic quantities, but it will be trivial). There is no problem with the fact that we cannot predict when any particle decays, but we can know what the *dispersion* of the decays is and therefore predict with high accuracy the average of the decays of a large amount of particles. It makes perfect sense, whether intuitive to you or not.
Finally, I will comment that just because something doesn't work out for *you* doesn't mean it doesn't work out for anyone else. And even when there is something that is not intuitive to researchers, it makes sense to continue investigating it because nature is not subject to our intuition, but it does seem to have a very high correlation to our logic (note that I did not say that it is subject to our logic, because what we call logic is a generalization of principles that we learned from observing nature. That is, we adapted our logic to nature and not the other way around). So if something is logical but not intuitive, it can still tremendously advance our understanding of the universe around us.
Yoav,
There is some progress on your last post and I very much hope that later today I will have a spare moment to address the points you made there. But that's not enough - why can't you (or don't you want to) answer the explicit question, the yes-or-no question, that I put before you?
Miracles,
It's hard to know what you came for thought Einstein, but it is clear that the matter was important to him, and in his statements about God he emphasized that God knows, I mean for God Schrödinger's cat is not dead and alive at the same time, he knows what the condition of the cat is. As the computer "knows" what the random number is going to come out using the Monte Carlo method.
Israel
interesting. This pretty much buries the wonderful explanation of a pressure sensor…. It's hard for me to see another explanation for what you showed.
dosh
And regarding Einstein - I think it was his intuition. I think randomness is illogical (don't use the term logical contradiction - it has a completely different meaning).
On the other hand, unlike Einstein, my intuition is nothing 🙂
dosh
You are absolutely right about the coin - the toss really isn't random. And in computers there is really no randomness, even though there are systems that know how to hide very well those variables you spoke to, for example by relying on atomic noise, and even cosmic radiation.
But regarding the previous issue there is no contradiction: the distribution of a random variable is not random. Let's say we have a random coin and flip it 4 times. Because of the randomness we assume that the probability of each possible outcome is the same. The possible results are: TTTT, TTTH, TTHT, TTHH, THTT, THTH, THHT, THHH, HTTT, HTTH, HTHT, HTHH, HHTT, HHTH, HHHT and HHHH. If we summarize according to the number of the tree (H) we get:
0 times – 1
Once - 4
Twice - 6
3 times – 4
4 times – 1
That means the probability of getting 50% wood is 6 out of 16, which is 38%. In the general case, the formula that gives us the probability of getting exactly 50% of a tree after n tosses is n partial assembly (n half assembly) squared, divided by 2 to the n power.
For example for n=100 we will get about 8%.
There is no contradiction here...
Miracles
The GPS wasn't really excited by the bag, it just made me not vomit. The refrigerator didn't particularly impress him either.
The map shows me reception from 10 satellites. This explains why combining certain of their positions actually leads to a decrease in the observed height.
I sent Rafi Moore the supposed contradiction between the relative time of relativity and the absolute time of the bang. If anyone can solve the problem, Rafi is the man.
elbentzo
You wrote "This process continues forever and therefore Achilles will not catch the tortoise. This is a mistake! ". This is not the argument - the argument, as far as I know, is that there are an infinite number of events, and is not related to time at all. The meaning of infinite events is that they have no end...
That's how it is in philosophy... dealing with nonsense 🙂
Miracles,
Einstein also thought like you, that randomness is not possible. What I'm interested in understanding is why he was so sure of that. Who told him that his logic, for all its brilliant genius and all, was not limited. Maybe paradoxes really are possible. We may never understand. We do have to believe in ourselves and try to understand. But who said we will reach full understanding?
If you know, then I'm really curious.
It seems to me that Einstein said it simply out of intuition. A bird whispered to him that there is logic in the whole universe, and you just have to look for it.
Nissim, thanks for the response.
There is no contradiction to the laws of physics, because we formulate them according to the observations of reality, and this is indeed reality.
There is a mathematical contradiction in my opinion, because tossing a coin is not truly random, there are "hidden variables" that affect it,
Starting from the wind in the room, through the way of the shot, up to the psychology that affects the person how to cast it. Computers is your field - but as I imagine there is no randomness in the randomness of the computer either, this is again the use of "hidden variables", i.e. variables that are hidden from the human eye, but which can be known in principle.
If a coin toss were indeed completely random, then random means: any outcome is possible. If so, the total toss of a hundred coins would also bring: any possible result. Hence, the statement that most of the times, there will be approximately 50-50, is a logical contradiction to the statement: any result is possible, since "any result" includes the possibility that there will always be a majority for the tree in all the tosses of the coin.
But as mentioned, the physical facts are in your favor.
dosh
You wrote "For example, the fact that there is a random decay of each isotope, and together with that statistics when the total number of electrons will reach half of what it was, is a logical contradiction"
There is no contradiction here - not logical, not mathematical or physical.
Logical contradiction - meaning that something is both true and false. That's not what's happening here.
Mathematical contradiction - something that contradicts mathematics is laid out. According to your claim, it is incorrect to say that the probability of getting a tree in a fair toss of a coin is 50%/
Physical contradiction - something that contradicts the laws of physics. There is no contradiction of the laws of physics here.
I personally think that randomness does not exist in reality. But I don't understand much in the field...
Miracles,
Definitely a nice paradox, I didn't know him. Thanks!
Regarding inventing numbers, what was said is that no matter how fertile my imagination is, it will be possible to describe the numbers I invent using the ones we have already found
Of course there is no flaw in the accounting theory. But there is an educational problem here. Mathematics teaches us to think. But if within the formula itself there is a logical contradiction and I ignore it - this is education not to think.
For example, the fact that there is a random decay of each isotope, and together with that statistics when the total number of electrons will reach half of what it was, is a logical contradiction. I have no problem accepting the fact that according to all the findings we have the contradiction does exist, that both facts are true: the randomness and the legality. But I'll say since it doesn't make sense - I'm in trouble. This is something that I as a rational being cannot accept and will continue to research as much as I can to understand. The same applies to infinity bounded by a boundary, or a wave that is a particle. And other things that laymen tell us. This is an educational problem and perhaps also a fundamental one. It seems to me that it is obligatory to say: it is not understandable and according to our logic it is also not possible, but in the meantime these are the findings with which we are working.
elbentzo,
You are right, I "started" and I regret it.
Regarding my opinion on the math-based theories, this is a long discussion and I will try to present my opinion briefly.
Our technology does not allow sub-quantum observations. The basic research has to consider this dimension as the end of the road.
One can call these objects elementary particles, as some do, or refer to them as the current technological horizon, as others do, and that includes me.
In any case, all that can be done in quantum research is to measure, Calvin said even before "all that remains is to measure", an unfortunate sentence in my opinion, but which sums up the whole controversy.
I think that the thought of "we are getting closer to discovering the secret of creation" is very Calvinistic, arrogant and irresponsible.
If a person says: We only have measurements, let's try to make sense of them, because that's what there is, I think it's a reasonable statement, but if he says: "Physics and mathematics are just that, then this is Torah nonsense, in my opinion of course.
There is the problem of DE BROGLIE motion, and the Schrödinger wave function that follows it, but more on that another time, even though it is the most interesting part of the story.
Please elbentzo, it's on the edge, just so you know where I stand, and I don't think I've proven anything.
Miracles,
Let's start from the end: Zenon, as you say, builds an argument based on a chain of logical deductions. On the physical level (we will address the metaphysical level in a moment), I think I have shown quite clearly where he has a wrong conclusion, and if it was not clear, I will clarify: Zeno says that Achilles should "catch" the tortoise, but until he reached the target point he set for himself ( the position of the turtle a moment ago), the turtle has already moved. So he sets a new target point to catch the turtle, but by the time he gets there, the turtle has moved, and so on. This process goes on forever so Achilles will not catch the tortoise. This is a mistake! This mistake is based on a mathematical intuition that says if we keep adding more and more to a certain size (in this case, the time it takes Achilles to catch up with the tortoise) then it means it will grow to infinity and we will never reach the goal. But this intuition is wrong, and a correct definition of limits shows us that even the distance between Achilles and the turtle at the moment of adhesion can be divided into infinite segments, their sum is finite. Therefore, even though Achilles has to go through infinite stages on the way, it takes him a finite amount of time to go through them.
The claims can also be addressed on the metaphysical level - and so in the article you attached. The article is indeed interesting, but it does not contradict anything I said. He actually claims that Zeno's paradoxes are in fact parables that are not talking about the movement of bodies at all, but rather a struggle with philosophical concepts that were common at the time (one-many). I won't repeat the words of the article, I assume you read it more carefully than I did, but this is the gist - mathematical solutions miss the point because they solve the problem on a different playing field than Zeno intended, by using tools that have no analogy in Zeno's true intention (the discourse on the transition from one to many). On this metaphysical level, the mathematical solutions do not seem to have any meaning. But why are we even talking about it? On the metaphysical level, the paradox is also not relevant at all to what we have discussed so far, which is the connection between the mathematical model and the physical truth.
I don't think anyone has ever said that the universe and its physics derive from the same axioms as mathematics (which, I understand, is what you say in your last comment that is not true, and I agree with you). Everything that is said in physics - if we build a mathematical model, and see that it has a connection to reality, then it is very possible (and worth checking) if purely mathematical aspects of the model that have not yet been tested, also have a connection to reality. And with that statement I can't really understand how anyone can argue
Yoav,
What is left to say? To teach you that there is no connection between trolling and choosing an online nickname? Remind you that the most aggressive response here so far was your first response, where you entered the discussion with your fingernails pulled out and more or less said that half of modern physics is pure nonsense (because that's what you decided)? That my mention of being a physicist is not "waving", but was mentioned as a relevant point against your argument (I mentioned being a physicist as an explanation for the fact that I see with my own eyes the success of mathematical physics as part of my work every day)? No. The only thing left worth saying is this:
You are still too cowardly to answer the question. Do you believe there is a fundamental flaw in mathematical physics? If so, explain why you think quantum mechanics, relativity, lasers and so many other scientific theories that have been proven in the laboratory and have even become everyday technology should not be thrown away. If not, explain how you know how to distinguish between mathematical theoretical works that one day will be proven to have physical significance (as in the case of quanta, relativity, lasers) and such works that are, in your words, "Torah nonsense".
elbentzo,
I wrote about the red shift, and about the necessary examination of the photon's photoelectric values.
If you are referring to what I wrote about then. I did not rely on any authority, simply Einstein's assertion is accepted by everyone, and Zwicky relied on it and was treated with contempt, what is philosophical about that?
You don't know me, although my name is Yoav, elbentzo is probably not your name, so who is the troll here?
It's you who flaunts your scientific pursuits, what does it belong here? Ah, authority.
I am certainly not a martyr or a martyr, but your and Nissim's aggression is ugly, and does not indicate that you are capable of having a meaningful discussion.
Israel
I'm not sure there really is such a thing as a random number. And what about the GPS in the bag?
Miracles
You forgot Rando - the leader of the rebellion of the random, uninteresting, unbeautiful, imperfect, irrational numbers, the proletariat of the number axis that make up the vast majority.
Shmulik
Yes, you explained what I was saying. Regarding the numbers - Kroenker once said (so they say) that God created the wholes, everything else is the invention of man. If you want, you can always invent a new type of numbers.
It reminds me of a nice paradox: the interesting numbers paradox. An interesting number is a number that has a unique property, for example: 2 is the only even prime, 16 is the only number that satisfies x^y=y^x, the number 18 is the only number that is sometimes equal to the sum of the digits that make it up. If not all the numbers are interesting, then there must be an uninteresting number that is preceded by an interesting number - and it is indeed interesting 🙂
Israel
I tried to give this solution in a test once... it didn't work...
elbentzo
You can assume that I know how to summarize an engineering column….. The problem is not that. Zeno wrote (the truth - Plato wrote that Socrates said that Zeno said...) a number of premises and with the help of them he expressed a claim. In order to refute the claim, one has to refute the inference method or one of the claims. The paradoxes are in the realm of metaphysics and a mathematical "solution" is irrelevant.
Albenzo, I think we both agree that mathematics is a wonderful tool that has provided and continues to provide insights into the world. But, and perhaps this is what Yoav was trying to say in his gentle language, mathematics cannot be an explanation for the world (in my opinion). I don't think we will ever find a system of equations that will generate the elementary particles from Piano's axioms. As I learned in philosophy - it is impossible to prove the existence of something in the world (it is interesting that the only thing that does "prove" its existence is God, ...but I digress).
And I think Zeno's paradoxes say exactly what I said. If it interests you, you can read here: http://philsci-archive.pitt.edu/2304/1/zeno_maths_review_metaphysics_alba_papa_grimaldi.pdf
And there are many more articles….
albentezo,
To continue what I think Nissim is getting at is that if the description of the problem is correct, Achilles, in physical reality, should catch the tortoise an infinite number of times. He does not enjoy the ability to perform a mathematical trick that shortens his path to the solution and the turtle, but he literally has to catch the turtle an infinite number of times.
Can performing an action an infinite number of times be a reliable description of reality?
If I understand correctly, in the discrete world the paradox disappears because there is a finite ("atomic") distance that cannot be reduced (or perhaps time is "atomic") and this is the reason why Achilles gets the tortoise (only to die in the Trojan War).
Regarding new math,
Once at the university, in a kind of corridor conversation, I heard that there is a proof that all types of numbers have been found (natural, rational, real, imaginary...). Is that so or the question doesn't even make sense?
Miracles, have you already forgotten Zenon's short poem?
On the summit of Mount Olympus I will sit,
And a paradox on the back of a written turtle I wrote.
Suddenly the column gathered together -
And this is the end of the paradox.
But I understand your reservation about the paradox solution. Why would the infinitesimal - a mathematical object - necessarily also work on physical objects that by their very nature do not aspire to 0 but have a finite limit?
And yet, see the button paradox. pestle.
And by the way, no one "said" a converging column. I didn't get rid of the problem (I got rid of it in the sense of getting rid of it, that is to decide that it is not important) because it has a converging column, but I *solved* the problem with a converging column. You are welcome to do the calculation yourself and see that given the definition of the limit (which as its name is, a definition and nothing else - it is not an assumption or a new axiom), it is possible to explicitly calculate the time it will take from the start of the race until Achilles and the tortoise stand at the exact same point, and get a final result (literally a number, which of course depends on the speed ratio between them and the initial gap). If you don't know how to do the math, tell me and maybe later today I'll have time to write it up and post it here (although something tells me Google will do the job too). It's a calculation of about two lines.
There is no waving and no hand here. The tool of a mathematical limit makes it possible to perform calculations even when there are infinite terms, which is what bothered Zenon when he tried to discretize the race. The exact calculation shows that although there are infinite terms, their sum is finite. That is, even though Achilles has to "catch" the tortoise an infinite number of times, it takes him a finite amount of time to do so (and a sufficient condition for this is that both move at a constant speed and Achilles is faster). This solution is just as real as a solution of the sum 1+1=2 (which is the mathematical model for the question, "If I have one apple and I get another one, how many apples do I have?").
Regarding the fact that new and/or other mathematical tools can be developed, then I don't think at any point I (or anyone else who deals with mathematics) said that the mathematical tools we have are the only ones that will have or have no alternatives.
elbentzo
Of course I accept that mathematics provides important results in physics, and also in chemistry and biology. What I'm saying is that mathematics is a collection of tools that man has developed, and there may be mathematical tools that we don't know about that can provide even deeper insights. Both Newton and Einstein developed mathematical tools to explain their physics.
Regarding Zenon, I think you are wrong, and it is related to the topic. Here we found a mathematical tool that shows that an infinite column can converge to a limit. So what? Still, you have to go through an infinity of events, and the infinity of events has no end.... Here, in my opinion, we tend to let the math confuse us. In my opinion, the discrete world solution is the only solution we know of to Zenon's paradoxes. To say "converging column" is a bit of hand waving, and not a real solution.
Miracles,
I don't know the person or the book you mentioned. But I have the feeling that it doesn't matter, because the question here is not at all about "whether it is possible to formulate certain physical principles without a mathematical description". This is a completely opposite question, more or less: "Do mathematical results matter in the physical world?". Even if you could formulate quantum mechanics without any mathematical magnitude, it would not change the fact that a purely mathematical process (beyond the analysis of operators instead of functions) revealed to us an almost infinite amount of knowledge and beauty in the physical world in which we live.
I don't know why you call "real". Our mathematics is bound by a limited number of axioms and logical rules. There is no guarantee that any of them are correct, but in a system where they are correct the math is tautological. That is, consistent. By "real" do you mean "reflecting physical truth"? So the answer is, "at least sometimes, yes". I don't know if always, but as has already come up in this discussion numerous times, there are many examples of mathematical developments that led to physical and engineering discoveries. Assuming that this is not a cosmic coincidence, we can conclude that at least sometimes the mathematical model describes reality, and then the investigation of the model will lead to insights into reality.
Regarding Zenon, by the way, you are wrong (twice, actually). First, there are physical descriptions of a universe in which space is discrete (of course we have not been able to test yet and we have no idea if these ideas are correct or just mathematical descriptions that do not reflect reality). Second, Zenon's paradox is also solvable in a continuous world. With the help of the limit concept it can be shown that the time it would take for Achilles to catch up with the turtle converges to a finite size (and this by plotting finite running segments, regardless of the behavior of the space: whether it is continuous or discrete). Precisely in continuous spaces the paradox is not really interesting because the continuity (which contains the concept of limit in its definition) forces the two curves to meet at a finite time (assuming that the initial difference between them was finite). The paradox actually talks about a transition from continuous mathematics to discrete segments and that *apparently* this transition makes the race impossible.
elbentzo
How do you relate to Hartry Field's Torah? Field wrote a book called Science without Numbers, in which, among other things, he gives an axiomatic basis for Newton's theory without numbers and without functions.
I also have a feeling that our math is not "real". I think on another planet, there might be a completely different mathematics than ours. I guess number theory won't be any different, but the whole calculus subject could be completely different. For example, in my opinion, Zeno's paradoxes are only solvable in a world that is discrete, and we (to my understanding) assume that the world is continuous.
Yoav,
1. Your comments lack scientific content. Beyond the fact that you try to appeal to authority, appeal to emotion, etc., you end up just talking *about* science. You say words, but those words are not science. They are at most philosophical arguments, and even as such they are bad arguments in my humble opinion, but I really won't argue with you about it. The bottom line - you resort to word washing ("through" or "with the help"? Really?) because you have no scientific basis for your claims, and I will expand on this in the following points.
2. First, I do not believe that Einstein expressed the information you attribute to him. True, he said he was bad at math (by the way, the full quote is, and forgive me for the paraphrase, "I'm bad at math and that's why it took me a decade to formulate the theory of relativity"), but that's why he believed that math can't guide us in doing physics. Even if you brought references to quotes and proved your claims that this was Einstein's position - it wouldn't change anything. This is just an appeal to authority: nobody cares what Einstein said, we only care what he did. And what he did is exactly what I explained in previous comments - he built mathematical models, checked that they corresponded to reality, and often developed predictions about reality from them even in aspects that were not tested. So with the theory of relativity (which is simply a geometric theory, and many of its predictions, including Einstein's preoccupation with black holes, arose solely from mathematical properties before we discovered that reality corresponds to mathematics), so with Einstein's coefficients of spontaneous and forced emission (yes, yes, also the laser that is so Much of our technology is based on it today, it began its life as a mathematical game in Einstein's notebook, before someone decided to build a device based on mathematics that would produce a laser beam), and more.
3. Of course you continue to ignore the point (and this is because, I suspect, you simply have nothing to say): I have asked you several times already, do you believe that all theoretical-mathematical physics is invalid (that is, any predication about nature that stems from a mathematical model only and not from observation) , or is some wrong and some not? If your answer is "yes", how do you deal with the successes of mathematical physics, for all the many examples I have already listed (lasers, quantum, relativity and many more)? If the answer is "no", please present a criterion of how you can predict the future and know which mathematical models will prove to be related to physics and which will not. Please answer the question and don't start evading, "If you already mentioned Einstein, then he once said that..." Can you answer "yes" or "no"?
4. I worship no one. I'm just a person who deals with science from morning to night, so I know that your position is ridiculous. Half of the achievements of modern science rest on theoretical physics. It's funny that you think you know better than people in the field who is "rattle" and who isn't, and who gets their "power" from intellectual achievements and who doesn't.
Your approach tries to take us back 400 years to the days of Bacon's empiricism, when England froze in place for almost a century because of the insistence of scientists to engage only in science that can be measured immediately and directly, and draw conclusions based only on what they saw with their own eyes in the laboratory.
5. Please don't try to play the martyr. You are neither holy nor martyred. You may not be a troll, but you're not a martyr either.
Israel
Interesting, but not necessarily contradictory, because maybe the receiver provides the last data it received, including the height.
Try something simple. Put the receiver in a sealed bag where there is reception, and apply pressure to the bag. This seems to me a more decisive test.
In airplanes, even in high load figures, there is no GPS error that I know of. It doesn't mean much, because your load figure seems higher to me...
A little about mathematical models and calculation methods:
We had Jacek the librarian in the barn. "Yacek" - they say to him - "how did you manage to count the entire herd in the blink of an eye, there are 6897 cows in it!"
Wiacek smiles and answers: "Oh, it's very simple, I counted the legs, added the ears, subtracted the tails and divided by five."
Miracles - where the blue tooth does not receive satellites (in the office) there is also no change in the observed height when the fan rotates.
elbentzo,
Here is an example of trying to hurt a person who does not align with the "accepted" opinion.
I hope you will agree with me that a person's right to express his opinion without being tried to hurt him, and to call me a troll is an ugly insult, just as trolling is an ugly phenomenon.
Nissim's behavior is not only an attempt to hurt me but also my father who manages the site in such a respectable manner.
Am I a troll? I will run a trolley!
Ask Israel if I am real or just some miracles.
Albanzo
Why are you feeding the troll? He can't learn from you. You treat him like someone who has an opinion of his own, but he doesn't even have anyone else's opinion.
elbentzo,
Our disagreements lie in the fact that you say using the math, and I say using the math.
It is strange that you bring the theory of relativity to strengthen your claims: one of the famous ones is that Einstein used to present himself as not understanding mathematics, obviously he understood that mathematics is a trivial thing, but he opposed the idea that mathematics allows the discovery of the mechanism, and he also claimed that understanding the mechanism leads to finding the formula.
I don't want to quarrel with you, SA your writing is clear and pleasant to read. But your worship of a group is very noisy, and has a power that originates not necessarily intellectually, but a minority among all practitioners of the craft.
Basically everything stems from the big bang, the whole basis of which is the redshift.
These are photons that traveled for millions of years, you accepted the fatigue of light in its passage through Einstein's gravitational waves, but you claimed that his calculation was insufficient. In the name of the non-existent God! He proved that light gets tired. When Zwicky brought this reasoning, the way to deal with him was to make fun of him, and to tell that they heard his wife say "the pigs have arrived", or something like that. The man was a prolific physicist and had an impressive humanity. Interestingly, when it comes to Börner Heisenberg, details a little more embarrassing than his wife's unfortunate sentence are well hidden.
The proof that the redshift originates from the Doppler phenomenon is easy to obtain. The photoelectric properties of the photon do not change as a result of the phenomenon, only the absorbed wavelength. A simple measurement will show if there is a match or not.
It is hard to believe that such a banal measurement was not done. If so why not publish? And if not, why exactly?
Yoav,
First of all, where exactly did I write to you "go study"? All I wrote is that because there are achievements that have been proven in the laboratory to be correct, your criticism is not valid unless you bring a criterion to differentiate between mathematical ideas that will be matched in the laboratory (and therefore have physical meaning) and those that will not. I didn't tell you to go study, I didn't say you don't understand physics. I just said you didn't understand what I said.
It is clear that many mathematical ideas throughout history have been rejected. This is why we do not accept every mathematical idea as a physical truth, but *test* (!!!) in the laboratory. But before testing, you need to develop the idea. The mere fact that some have failed does not mean that they all fail. Your logic is simply broken and does not correspond to reality.
Regarding Higgs, so here I really have to tell you to go study. Not disrespect, but simply because from your response it seems that you don't know how to check if we actually found a particle or not. The whole idea, all the huge investment of money and time and energy in the detectors and people of the project at CERN boils down to the question "How do we know that we really found the Higgs boson?". You can complain from today until tomorrow that I'm sending you to study and that I'm avoiding the question, but the truth is that you can't just state that what they found is a coincidence or doesn't really verify the idea of spontaneous breakage without checking for yourself *why* the scientists claim that it does verify and that the discovery is not accidental .
Today the only contribution of the Higgs boson is to our understanding of how the matter in the universe is built, and what are the basic interactions in it. But there was a stage in history when all we knew about the Electron was that it existed and we didn't yet know how to harness the electrical power to our advantage. If you don't see the power of understanding the universe around us and the potential of knowledge to one day become reality, then your problem is neither with me nor with mathematical physics. It is much more serious.
Finally, you chose to ignore my main point - how do you deal with all the successes of mathematical physics found in the laboratory? You chose only one, the Higgs boson, and all you had to say was "it doesn't contribute anything" (really wise to say that something hasn't yet developed into technology barely two years after it was discovered) and "maybe they didn't really discover, just a flash of energy" (really wise to make such claims without studying the detectors, the detection methods and the processing methods and seeing if they are really flawed or not).
What about the positron, which was predicted mathematically and today we know how to produce it in the laboratory? What about nuclear power, which was predicted from purely mathematical considerations in the theory of relativity and today is responsible for a huge part of global energy production (by "nuclear power" I mean the energy produced by nuclear fission, not the strong force)? What about the theory of relativity, which was born as a purely mathematical idea and today is responsible for our entire understanding of gravity (including technological developments such as GPS)? What about all of quantum mechanics, which started as just Planck's mathematical idea about how to solve the black body problem, evolved into a mathematical idea, and today is the basis of half of the most advanced technology, including chips found in computers?
How do you differentiate between all these ideas that started as mathematical physics, "numerology" as you say, and proved themselves to be physical truth (up to the scientific limit where we never really know what the truth is), and changed our lives from end to end, and ideas like strings, dark energy?
It's just food for thought. I have no desire to continue discussing this because there is no chance that either of us will change the other's mind (I mean, there is no chance that you will change my mind because I have seen with my own eyes actual physical successes and measurements of mathematical physics and therefore I do not accept that there is anything inherently wrong with it, and I feel that neither do you You will not change your mind because it is not based on logic but on emotion. If I am wrong, my sincere apologies).
elbentzo,
That's it, that's what I expected: you don't understand, go learn. How predictable.
You probably know that many mathematically correct theories have turned out to be empirically incorrect. One such proof is enough to conclude that mathematics is a tool, only a tool, and quite banal, and that mathematical physics is not a science but an intellectual pastime.
Regarding the Higgs boson, come on, find a measurement that fits the Higgs calculation, no wonder if the huge amount of energy that pushed everything appeared there including "bosons" that other "physicists" thought were the real divine boson.
Besides Higgs' bank account, what else did this "discovery" contribute to?
I actually said. Again, you missed the point.
I will say again in a more direct language - theoretical physics and mathematical physics have a series of significant achievements, and I refer only to those that have been tested in the laboratory and cannot be denied. True, there are teachings and ideas within these fields that we have not yet been able to prove or disprove, but based on what exactly do you decide which mathematical idea should be investigated and which should not? Are you gifted with the foresight that allows you to know that the search for the Higgs boson was worth investing many years (even though it was only a mathematical artifact of the mechanism of spontaneous symmetry breaking, i.e., a phenomenon arising from the theory of bunches), but strings are not worth investing in?
Your criticism is because you don't understand, and you hate what you don't understand. If you offer a clear criterion for when mathematical physics is valid and when it is not, we can talk about it. But you randomly discard a number of ideas from it that you don't like. So either you will say loudly and clearly that in your opinion the whole thing should be disqualified (including the things that were tested in the laboratory and found to be correct) or you will present the criterion in question.
elbentzo,
I appreciate your consistency, you didn't say anything this time either.
Yoav,
Now that I have seen your brilliant argument, which includes words in several different languages (!!!), I am completely convinced that you are right, and that we should abandon theoretical physics and mathematical physics for all their amazing successes, explanations, predications, connections between different fields of physics, all of which have been tested in the laboratory And they were found to match reality at a fantastic level - all in the trash. worth noting. Gurnish, nada, nothing, etc.
Good luck later,
elbentzo
Zero, friend, it's nothing, gornicht, nada, nothing, rien, niente. in any language you want. The fact that it is technically integrated into the operations of the account does not make it a real existence. But there is a technicality, and if you were interested in knowing why, you would find out that the famous invention of the zero was intended to enable a cyclic arithmetic method that enables complex calculations.
Mathematics is an extremely important tool, but a tool, not a magic box of surprises, that turns nothing into something.
Numerology is mocked, even when disguised as science, and brings us physical objects that have zero volume like your strings that have long been buried near the membranes, the monopoly, and reserve space for dark energy, which will make way for the next Torah nonsense.
dosh,
One of the dominant features of modern physics, which some say is its greatest beauty and some say is its strongest criticism, is its expansion into the abstract plane.
When the science of physics was in its infancy, it only tried to describe the phenomena we see with our eyes and hold in our hands with the help of mathematically formulated laws. That is, all physics was intuitive, in the sense of dealing with the processes we know from everyday life. Note that if you take a question in Newtonian mechanics, apart from a handful of trick questions, and put it in front of a person without any physical education, he will usually know the answer. He didn't know how to explain it, he didn't know how to calculate the times or lengths, but he usually knew if the wheel should fall down, or if the carriage would start moving. This is because all his life he watched such processes in one way or another.
Over the years, the mathematical tools we can use have advanced, and with the help of new and more powerful mathematical tools we have discovered that we can simplify and reduce the description of a variety of phenomena to a few basic principles. On a scientific level, it seems like the right step: why write dozens of different laws, when you can describe them all with the help of a single differential equation? Intuitively, on the other hand, the treatment of problems moved away from everyday life and moved to the plane of the relevant mathematical teachings.
The transition is somewhat gradual. Although no one has seen an electron, the mathematical description of a point that carries a certain property ("electrical charge") has been able to accurately describe many phenomena. Although we are not familiar with electrons from everyday life, it is not difficult for us to imagine a very small sphere attracting or repelling other spheres. But over time and with the complexity of mathematical tools, we achieve huge results in reducing the laws of physics and finding incredible connections between things we would never have guessed were related, and pay the price of the mathematical treatment. Therefore, it is not uncommon to find in modern physics things that are well defined mathematically, and that a person who knows mathematics understands them, but it is impossible to imagine them at all, and to a person who does not have a proper knowledge of mathematics, they seem counterintuitive and even illogical.
That is why I strongly recommend (and I have done this more than once on the site) to suspend judgment regarding advanced topics in modern physics until the development of familiarity with the mathematical models. It is very easy to say about a certain phenomenon in relations or quantum that it is illogical, improbable, incorrect, etc., but we must not forget that these teachings are first and foremost mathematical teachings (relativity is a geometric theory and quantum mechanics is largely built on linear algebra and functional analysis - Hilbert spaces, operators and so'). One cannot expect or even hope for a good understanding of them without studying mathematics.
Dear Mr. Dosh, imagine a row of pages, it doesn't matter what the length of the page is and even infinite, you can fit it in the top of your head, if you see a dimension above
dosh
The scope of the flake is infinite. You are talking about a certain process for its construction, and it is indeed an endless process. The idea was to show that there are infinite things within a finite volume. But - I definitely agree with you about the particle / wave. Like many other things, it doesn't add up in my head either...
Albanzo
Nice, I read.
More important than the question of whether I understood (and I partially understood), or whether it satisfied me or not (and it satisfied a lot),
The fact that you invested time to "go down to the people" and explain.
Even so, I won't understand today, I will understand tomorrow, and maybe it will even lead me to delve deeper into the subject.
So really thank you.
Oh, ok, miracles. I have not heard of Koch's snowflake until today. My problem with these demos is that they still don't solve the problem intelligently. That is: the circumference of the flake has an end at any given moment. He just grows bigger and bigger every moment. So in general it is impossible to imagine a literal infinity that is contained within something.
That is why I get the impression that the mathematical models do not come to describe reality in a way that is perceived by the senses or the mind, but come to describe certain and partial phenomena of it. Sometimes it behaves like a particle, and a particle we understand. Sometimes like a wave, and a wave we understand. But how does it go together? How does it look? What is its nature? It is impossible to understand her presence in the meantime.
I hope I am right…
For your judgment, your honor.
Israel
I already looked for information on this receiver, and I really didn't see that it has a pressure sensor. On the other hand, both my phone and the wristwatch have such a sensor...
Miracles
I don't see the point of the barometer, but I will try to put the blue tooth in a pressure or vacuum chamber, we'll see if it reacts.
Here is her specification:
http://gps.dualav.com/explore-by-product/xgps150a/
I haven't seen anything about a barometer, and it's hard for me to see how they would put it in. Soon I will try with rotation without a fan to see if there is a difference.
The height deviation in the DONT GET LOST software is about 120 m, more or less according to the calculation of the expected deviation in relation to the fan rotation speed. In ALTITUDE the deviation is much larger, about 700 m, but it is reasonable if it communicates with more distant satellites.
This is not proof of anything of course, just barely supporting evidence. But it is encouraging, and gives direction to a much more complicated experiment, but clearly unequivocal.
Colonel - Isn't it time to go back to the rehab program for Sleepers Anonymous?
"Hello, my name is Colonel and I'm an anonymous snoozer."
Everyone: Love you snooze! Why are you anonymous?
I... I don't understand exactly what Nissim and Israel are talking about... and I'm afraid that if I try to respond objectively, everyone will see how embarrassed I am... that's why I'm anonymous..
Chorus: We love you stupid coward!
Colonel… something not worth remembering
Who asked you?
This site is not intended to tease people who have an interest in things beyond the Football League. It is intended for thinking people, who want to know about the world we live in.
Please continue to read in Maariv for the youth, and do not publish your rudeness in public.
Something about a cup of coffee and going back in time, after an idea on TV in a parallel world about the company that stayed in the snow and Hassan from the ants, I was asked what I would like from going back in time, I thought maybe a cup of coffee, in short my friend ordered capsules and I'm walking down the street and someone asks in this world if I'm for coffee, I said " A friend of mine ordered capsules. In short, the person I met already brought the capsules to her work, and this "micry" belongs to time returns. Try not to laugh because respectfully water blows
Nissim, Israel Shapira
Two bored pensioners who have nothing to do in life and talk endlessly about Yod's thorn and Yod's thorn's uncle and cousin. Buddha will help you
Israel
What further strengthens my feeling that there is also a barometer is that at a stop it takes a good few seconds to decrease in altitude. This is a prominent feature of barometric pressure sensors.
The error in the location is 70-80 meters and it doesn't seem to me to be directly related to the rotation of the receiver.
Israel
I think your receiver has a barometer. The rotation of the aerator creates a negative pressure which manifests itself as an increase in height. An increase in height is expressed in a change of ref.
If the receiver does have such a sensor, and I'm not going out of my way here, I'll explain why the change in height is also expressed as a change in position.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=7iHXFWBEKBM&feature=youtu.be
Israel
GPS has a built-in speed limit, but the limit is something like 2000 km/h. What is your radius and speed of rotation?
Did you also check between shelters at rest?
Miracles
between an antenna at rest and rotating.
Israel
Between what and what is the comparison?
Miracles
You will get a deviation of much more than a few meters, from experience.
dosh
The extent of Koch's snowflake is infinite, even though the area inside the flake is finite. Therefore, you will never return to the point from which you left, regardless of the area of the flake.
dosh,
I'm not sure what you mean when you say "understand". There is no doubt that physicists understand the model. If your question is - can physicists imagine this in their head?, then the answer is as far as I know no. I mean, I can testify for myself that I cannot imagine an infinite space, regardless of its scale. I can understand the mathematical description, the physical meaning and even develop an intuition regarding what causes such phenomena, and how objects moving in such spaces will behave. But I've never met a physicist who could imagine infinite space in his head.
But there are tricks and analogies. For example, let's assume that our universe was two-dimensional (one spatial dimension plus the time dimension). Now we can ask what this two-dimensional universe looks like if we look at it in the context of a larger, three-dimensional space (just as we look in our three-dimensional space at an object like a sheet of paper. In mathematical language this is called embedding).
At the moment of the big bang, the universe is a point - its coordinates are t=0 and its x-coordinate is not well defined, but as I explained in previous posts, it consists of an infinite number of points the distance between which is 0 and therefore in the context of the three-dimensional space the entire universe will appear as a point. At the moment of the big bang, time begins to flow on a real axis from t=0 onwards, while the x-coordinate no longer sits entirely at one point, because the distance between any two points on the x-axis is no longer 0, meaning that a real x-axis is obtained that stretches from minus infinity and to infinity. So the Big Bang looks in this system like a point that "explodes" and becomes the upper half of an infinite plane. Now, we don't know how to imagine an infinite plane, and we don't know how to imagine instantaneous expansion in 0 time. But we can imagine a really, really, really fast expansion of a point to a finite but really, really big plane (like a giant plate). Now you have only to explain to you, even if you cannot imagine it, that the expansion is instantaneous and the flux is infinite.
If your question is specifically focused on the dual description of infinite space centered on a point, then let's try the following analogy (I emphasize - analogy. What I am writing is not the physical Torah).
We will look at a universe shrinking to a point, i.e. the opposite process from the big bang. If we understand this, then we can imagine the same thing just run the movie in our head in reverse and then we will understand what is a universe expanding from a point.
Suppose you are sitting in Rabin Square. The universe around you is infinite - you can choose any direction you want and start walking in it, and there will never be anything to stop you, and you will never come back to the point you were already at. At eight o'clock in the morning I jump you and open a clock that counts down one hour. You start running and after an hour you find out that you managed to reach the Babli neighborhood. The next day, we repeat the same exercise: I jump you at eight o'clock from Rabin Square and you run for an hour. This time you find out that you managed to get as far as Herzliya. The next day, you reach Haifa, then Sidon. Every day you run for exactly one hour, but it seems as if the distances you run shorten under your feet. You keep improving until you reach a point where within an hour you can reach any point in the universe you want. And then within half an hour. Your improvement brings you to the point where in 0 time you reach every point in the universe.
Now imagine that not only you have improved in running, but every person in the world, every atom in the universe, they have all improved to this level. In fact, it's not you who has improved at all - space has changed in such a way that all distances have become shorter, and they have become so short that anything moving in the universe can reach any point in the universe in 0 time. Practically speaking, you can say that everything in the universe is at every point in the universe at every moment. Distances have lost their meaning and our universe is one big point.
Now run this analogy in your mind last in time - a universe that started in a state where all distances are 0 and it is slowly (or quickly) expanding so that the distance between every two points increases.
But even in a snowflake, if I go and go and go one day I will repeat myself. It is circular and finite.
How can a human mind even perceive a reality of infinity that converges within something limited or worse: zero.
My question is do the physicists understand this, or are they like us: lacking in understanding. And all the difference between us and theirs is a kind of evidence for this apocalypse.
Thanks for the demo.
Israel
Military devices... yes, there are.
dosh
I understand it this way: it is impossible to shrink an infinite universe in three dimensions into a small three-dimensional volume. But we are talking about four dimensions. Let's go down one dimension and look at the universe as the shell of an ordinary rubber balloon. We are two-dimensional and live inside the shell of the balloon. If the universe is finite then it could be a spherical balloon. If the universe is infinite, then the balloon could be a XNUMXD model of a Koch snowflake. It is an infinite surface that fits into a finite volume.
And now, shrink the balloon for your enjoyment. You can reduce it as much as you want without damaging its infinities.
Alessandro will probably laugh at the explanation, but it helps me.
Dear Mr. Dosh, the universe can theoretically, and in my opinion also practically, have infinite dimensions and infinite size, and you can measure an infinite distance in the upper dimension in an area that tends to zero, with the respect of blowing water
Well, miracles, what do you say?
Is there a way to explain and strip down how an infinite universe fits into a zero position? Because of one scale or another?
Or you have to study long for it (let's say a recommended and interesting textbook).
It's not that I'm not patient (to wait for an answer from Albenzo) I'm just curious (and you have answers with beautiful examples. A flatterer like me).
For those interested in the field of astrophysics, even at a beginner's level, I recommend the website Astropedia, which tries to explain simply.
And military?
Israel
Civilian receivers calculate location about 5 times per second. At 100 meters per second, this is an error of 5 meters...
Miracles
At the time you wrote: "The second is the low intensity that causes the noises. Here the correction is by a scheme of signals. After the scheme you get a lot of information, including (relative) time and position of the satellite. In order to calculate a position you need 3 or 4 satellites, depending on whether or not you know your altitude.
It is desirable that the satellites are not close to each other, otherwise you get a significant damage to the accuracy.
In addition, there is a problem of accuracy in time measurement by the receiver that arises from the electronics, which is 3 meters, or 30 cm in military receivers.
The point is that your location is not known immediately but only in retrospect. The measurement rate of receivers is something like 5 times per second. That's why there is a big error in speed measurement, about half a kilometer per hour.
So what will happen if the GPS antenna rotates quickly? Will we get a significant deviation in our position reading? Suppose the antenna is on a rotating wheel whose tangential speed is 100 m/s. What will be the difference between the observed position when the wheel is rotating or at rest? Centimeters? meters? Will there be any difference?
How did you get to that? Two other gyros will set a different system.
Israel
If the angle is fixed then we have a preferred frame of reference, at least for rotation
Miracles
My head says - yes. The angle is always fixed, unless you have changed it.
The point is that you don't need a gyro in a massless universe apart from it. Mach states that what stabilizes the gyro is the surrounding masses.
Israel
Why philosophy? 🙂 You have two rotating Jero's. Each defines a vector. Is the angle between the two vectors necessarily constant?
Miracles
The only angle I can think of between two gyros in an empty universe is a right angle. Maybe you mean the angle between the angular velocity vectors? According to Mach in an empty universe a spinning gyro has no advantage over a gyro at rest, but Einstein and Meier would raise an eyebrow.
The only favored movement system in the universe that I can think of is the boss rest system.
It is actually appropriate for him to establish it as a preferred rest system.. That way he will not be disturbed during the rest hours with all the sacrifices and prayers.
Israel
You ask what a massless universe would look like. Can there even be a space without .. something in it?
Let's think of an empty universe except for two gyros - will they maintain the angle between them? What do you think?
Raphael
Assume that Krauss is not lying and assume that Albenzo is not lying. Then, maybe, you'll realize that a little modesty won't hurt you, because you'll realize that the mistake is in your understanding.
Then, instead of scoffing, maybe you'll learn…
Israel
The GPS receiver does not contain an accurate clock, but it assumes, correctly, that the satellites have an accurate clock. Let's take a one-dimensional world. If I had an accurate clock then a transmission from a single satellite, including location information and launch time would give me my location. Because I don't have an accurate clock, I need two satellites to get a location. And a little more math...
In our world, 4 satellites are needed to get a position in 3 dimensions.
What's more, I also get an accurate watch as a bonus.
colonel…
I think I was 14 years old, he visited Israel, and I met him, along with 4 friends, at the Weizmann Institute.
albenza,
Interesting explanations, thanks.
I have a layman's question about modern physics:
I get the impression that she talks a lot about nonsensical terms (like scale zero size. parallel universes),
And I asked if she does it out of "necessity" (for example: we proved (or at least this is the best assumption) that there is a rock. And we proved (or assumed) that the universe was of zero size. It is proven that there is a rock of zero size), but without "understanding" (axiom) . Or is it understandable. And if it is understandable - can it be explained to laymen?
Albenzo I'm sorry to get on your nerves but this site is not only for scientists but also for science lovers. What should a layman like me understand when he hears Lawrence Krauss say that a few fractions of a second after the big bang the size of the universe was much smaller with everything in it smaller than an atom and then it grew inflationary? Did he lie or did he not understand or did he round the reality a bit so that others would understand? Should I have understood from his words that immediately after the big bang the size of the universe was infinite but its scale was small? Why does he attribute it to the size of an atom? What is the relationship here? If you feel like answering, answer but without nerves.
Well, there is a limit to how much you can explain the same thing to a person who doesn't listen.
According to the Big Bang model, the universe did change from one point (zero size) to infinite space in an instant. This is exactly the meaning of the phrase "singular point". And that's exactly what the scientists say. By the way, I didn't bring it up until now because I only wanted to respond matter-of-factly to the content of your claims and not appeal to authority, but if it's so important to you to constantly grasp "what the scientists say", then maybe it's worth clarifying that I'm a physicist who deals in the field of cosmology (in the framework of strings) . So if all you are interested in is "what the scientists say", then here is a scientist from the field standing in front of you and telling you.
The gradual expansion is in *scale*. Do yourself a favor, sit down and read about the Big Bang Model. Why embarrass yourself over and over again by insisting on talking about things you've obviously never studied, and have no clue about?
What bothers me, and the reason why I get angry and go beyond the bounds of good taste, is not that everything you say is wrong. It's okay, everyone makes mistakes, especially people who haven't sat down for years and studied the subject. You're allowed to make mistakes, you're allowed to ask questions, and it doesn't make you stupid or anything like that. What bothers me, what annoys me, is the arrogance. It's the fact that you defiantly ask questions but don't bother to read the answer (I answer an answer that starts with the words "we don't know the size of the universe" and then you write that I refuse to admit that I don't know). It's the fact that even though you have no idea what the model says (and you didn't even know what the scaling factor is that is the basis of the big bang model), you argue. I'm not saying that you should blindly believe me, but Rabak, a man in the field tells you that you are wrong - can't you at least listen, go learn, check if what I say is true or not? You must ignore and argue over and over again, repeating the same completely wrong mantra?
Not knowing something is fine, it's on the ice. Not knowing but arguing with everyone and insisting on your ignorance is despicable.
Good luck in life, the Nobel is around the corner.
If the distance between any two points is finite then the total distance between all points is finite. Unless there is a collection of points and there were also infinite points at the beginning. But if we say that there were infinite points even in the beginning then when they started to move away from each other even the smallest distance then immediately the space would become infinite. And that's not what the scientists say. They say there was a gradual expansion. Conclusion - the initial number of points was finite and therefore the universe is finite. (Note that I ignore the insults and reprimands).
Raphael,
I'm sorry that I wrote a text, I started from the assumption that you know how to read.
I wrote the answer to your question explicitly in my response, and I will repeat it again because I see that although you have no problem accusing people of idle talk or evading an answer, reading what they write to you is a big deal on you.
Today - the distance between any two points is the distance you measure between them with a ruler. That is, between any two defined points in space there is a finite distance (infinite distance exists only as a mathematical limit and it is not something we measure). Once upon a time (according to the big bang model), there was a point where the distance between any two points was 0. This is what is called the singular point.
ALBENZO Why so much text? All in all, I asked whether in the model of the stretching scale that you described - two points whose distance between them was zero in the beginning - is the distance between those two points today finite or infinite according to that model?
"A result of the invention of mass in the universe" or Mach's principle in the vernacular.
But what about the mass homogeneously distributed throughout the infinite universe and moving at every possible speed? What rest system will you get there?
It is true that the Olvers Paradox opposes infinite non-dark mass in a stable universe, but an expanding universe solves the problem, doesn't it?
The GPS manages to know when the satellite signal reached it, otherwise how can it perform the calculation?
So what he knows, that's what I need.
Teller? We have a lot of these at the neighborhood bank.
Miracles
How old were you when you met Edward Teller and in what language did you speak with him Hebrew or Hungarian? I understand that you were of Bar Mitzvah age at the time.
The rest system, as I understand it, is a result of the invention of mass in the universe. Again, think of two jeros. The angle between them will remain constant, and from this it can be concluded that there is a "preferred" system.
I once met Edward Teller and asked him exactly that question, and this was his answer. It was 40 years ago, but I don't think people think differently today. Effert - he said that the star system we see actually constitutes a reference system.
Israel
You can't just pick up a signal from a satellite and know what time it is. The signal is too weak and you need multiple samples. This is the idea of the PRN.
Raphael,
And finally, I will refer you to the first response I wrote in this thread, the first claim of which began with the words: "We don't know the size of the universe".
Oh yes, and of course if you don't understand something I said, then it's because I'm trying to confuse you. It's impossible, heaven forbid, that you just don't understand.
Raphael,
In the previous response I said that if you want to understand the matter in depth, I recommend you study physics. Now I realize I should have sent you to learn to read.
I wrote, in black and white, that I do not pretend to tell you whether the universe is finite or infinite. It's just that of all the models we put forward and tried to compare to measurements (that is, to reality) the model with the best results, which is now in consensus, is a model of an infinitely expanding universe. I also explicitly wrote that this does not mean that over time (and with the collection of new and more accurate data) we will not discover that there is a better model that describes the universe and in which the universe is finite, and therefore the theory that is currently in consensus will be invalidated and replaced by another theory of a finite universe.
But what do you care, the main thing is that you came with zero knowledge about the subject and made absolute assertions (and not just assertions, but nonsense assertions that have no support in physics today, such as the universe having a center or that it was once a finite size).
good luck with that.
Why would an infinite homogeneous and isotropic universe have a preferred rest system? If there is, why this one?
What I need is this:
Displaying the exact time when the GPS satellite signal arrives digitally as accurately as possible.
If I understood correctly, this is what the GPS device does, except that it processes the signals of all the satellites and weights them to the N.C. specific.
I only need arrival time from only one satellite.
I don't think the universe is isotropic. It has a preferred reference system. Turn on a gyro, it provides a reference system, for directions
Each satellite transmits at a basic frequency of 50 Hz. 1500 bits is a frame, which takes 30 seconds. 25 frames is a block, 12 and a half minutes. It's more complicated than that, and there's a layer below that called .. PRN.
This is what I remember in the retrieval except that the base frequency is a little over 1.5 gigabytes.
Miracles
The sea is not isotropic in terms of a system in motion, because it has a preferred rest system:
The GPS test results are consistent with an active site, if that means anything. Do you know what the time period is between the signals sent by each satellite?
Raphael
A little integrity won't hurt you...
Your response "Any body that started from a singular point and grew and expanded must have a center."
Explain to you that this is not true and that it does not describe what we know about the world.
and you are yours……
Israel
The sea is also homogeneous and isotropic, approximately.
I finally got an answer we dont know
ESA: Is the Universe finite or infinite?
Joseph Silk:
We don't know. The expanding Universe theory says that the Universe could expand forever [that corresponds to a 'flat' Universe]. And that is probably the model of the Universe that we feel closest to now. But it could also be finite, because it could be that the Universe has a very large volume now, but finite, and that that volume will increase, so only in the infinite future will it actually be infinite.
ESA: It sounds like a game of words, doesn't it?
Joseph Silk:
no. We do not know whether the Universe is finite or not. To give you an example, imagine the geometry of the Universe in two dimensions as a plane. It is flat, and a plane is normally infinite. But you can take a sheet of paper [an 'infinite' sheet of paper] and you can roll it up and make a cylinder, and you can roll the cylinder again and make a torus [like the shape of a doughnut]. The surface of the torus is also spatially flat, but it is finite. So you have two possibilities for a flat Universe: one infinite, like a plane, and one finite, like a torus, which is also flat.
What do you do when you are asked a question that you do not know the answer to?
1. Gives a long and convoluted answer in order to confuse the questioner.
2. Scold the questioner and tell him that his question is stupid.
3. Saying "I don't know"
In the meantime I received answers 1 and 2.
Miracles
The grid defines or did the grid define?
If there is a rest system for the grid, let's say that of KDA, then why this one? Where are the homogeneities and isotropics?
Conclusion: Don't be greedy.
Israel
Let's assume an infinite XNUMXD grid. The grid defines a rest system, and is homogeneous, isotropic and infinite.
But if the universe is infinite homogeneous and isotropic - then why would it have a preferred rest system?
Therefore it is also clear why the Michelson Morley experiment failed. If they managed to find the rest system of the ether, it's like finding the midpoint of an infinite straight line, isn't it?
Raphael
Stop being clever and start listening. you are welcome.
The universe didn't necessarily start with size 0. And beyond that, I don't know how you talk about the concept of "distance" in the early universe.
I see no substance in your claim. And surely it is impossible to understand why you deny what you yourself say.
Are you ready to write one claim that can be addressed?
Raphael,
At no point did I claim "that the universe is infinite and has always been infinite". At no point did I say what I was claiming. I was just saying what the scientific consensus is today. At no point did I claim to know the absolute truth or that I think that further measurements in the future will not teach us new things that are not reflected in the current model.
As for the rest of the scientists, then all the scientists agree that the *current theory* claims what I said. But of course in physics, as in any science, we strive to improve our theory - to study nature with the help of more measurements and then finding a correct way to describe what we found. There is no refutation that the universe has a finite size, but at the moment the most suitable model for measurements is of an infinite universe in which all that changes is the scale that determines the distance between 2 points.
When the scale is 0, it can be said that there are infinite points in the universe but they are all at a distance of 0 from each other, so it is actually one point. Immediately after that, the scale is no longer 0 (no matter how small it is, it is not 0) and the universe is described by an infinity of non-overlapping points. Such a discontinuous transition is called in mathematics (and the mathematicians will forgive me for the extreme abstraction) a singularity.
You don't seem to fully understand the concept of Scala. You can take a ruler today and measure the distance between 2 points of your choice. Let's say you got the distance to be X cm. Now you can ask yourself, "What length would I get if I took the measurement yesterday"? The answer is X multiplied by some scale. This scale is a positive phoenix that started life at 0 and has been growing monotonically ever since. Today it is equal to 1 (by definition, if I measured today and got X cm, then it is clear that the distance is X cm. That is, to get from my measurement to the distance between the two points today, you have to multiply by 1).
That is, the scaling is relative. There is no such thing as "the distance between 2 points is 1 or 2 or 3". The distance between two points depends on who those two points are! But if the time, the distance is increasing. If you go back 14 billion years, you will reach a point where the scale is 0. That is, if you measure a certain distance today and you want to know what it was 14 billion years ago (roughly) during the time known as the Big Bang, you have to multiply it by 0. Since any distance that you multiply by 0 will yield a result of 0, we got seven big bangs the entire universe basically sat at one point.
Again, this is an extreme simplification of a not very simple physical matter. It is recommended to study properly and not be satisfied with the explanations of a few lines on the Internet.
I mean you say the universe is infinite and has always been infinite. Not sure that all scientists claim this. If the distance between two points at the time of the big bang was 0, was there a time when the distance was 1 or 2 or 3? Is the current distance between two points a finite or infinite number?
Raphael,
They are not wrong. They just don't say the things you claim they say.
Every finite size you have ever seen for the universe refers either to the visible universe (something completely different, as I explained) or to the scaling factor - how many times larger are the distances between 2 points. In the current cosmological model (which is not necessarily the absolute truth, we are trying very hard to replace it with a better model) the universe is infinite. What changes is the scale - i.e. the distance between every 2 points and at the time of the big bang the distance between every 2 points was 0. If you don't understand how this is possible, I suggest you study the subject of the big bang instead of going to the internet and writing all kinds of assertions about the fact that the universe "must to be a center" or to have a finite size.
Inflation refers to the way the scale increases. The entire scale multiplies a three-dimensional Euclidean space that is not blocked, i.e. infinite. Inflation has nothing to do here, so please stop with the name dropping.
Did I say three-dimensional body?
Did I say starting from scratch?
I said spreading in three-dimensional space?
No!
I said that scientists know how to specify a certain size of the universe a few particle seconds after the big bang. And they also say that it has expanded in an inflationary manner. Are they wrong?
Raphael
You look at the universe as a three-dimensional body that started at size 0 and expands in three-dimensional space. This is not true.
You are talking about the size of the universe. This concept of "size" is not defined for the universe at all.
Please specify which facts I mentioned belong to reality.
The scientists are not fools. It is agreed. And I didn't say the universe started from scratch. And the scientists who aren't idiots know how big the universe was a few particle seconds after the big bang. That is, at what point did it have a final size that kept growing in an inflationary manner. How big is it today? do not know. But it is certain that if he was final at some point then he is final now too.
By the way, it is Albenzo who said that the universe was infinite in the beginning with zero size. So he will explain how it can be.
Raphael
Listen to Albenzo…. Except that the facts you describe do not belong to reality, so there is a contradiction in your words: if a finite array cannot reach an infinite value, then an array of 0, cannot reach a value other than 0. Naa demands, Naa fulfills.
And anyway, we don't know that the universe started from size 0.
I suggest you leave the assumption that the scientists are not complete idiots.
1. We don't know the size of the universe now, but we knew what it was a few fractions of a second after the big bang. That is, it had a finite size and therefore even now it has a finite size that we do not know.
2. Are you saying that the universe started from zero and became infinite in an instant?
Raphael,
Everything you wrote, without exception, is wrong.
1. We don't know how big the universe is. We know how to say what the size of the visible universe is, that is, how far away from us we can see (or could see at any given moment from the big bang until today). This size is due to the finiteness of the speed of light and not the finiteness of the universe.
2. Expansion of a body does not indicate finality. If you were to study the big bang model, you would see that the universe is infinite but expanding - that is, you can go in any direction you choose an infinite distance and never reach the end or edge, but the distance between any two points is constantly increasing. That is, infinite space that expands.
3. Your original statement - that if there was a beginning from a singular point then there must be a center - is also wrong. Again, if you were to look at the model you would see that the universe is described by an infinite space (centerless, all points equal to each other by a sliding transformation) in which the scaling changes. The singular point is the point where the scale is 0, so it is an infinite centerless universe of size 0. For those who do not understand mathematics, this statement sounds a bit silly, but in mathematics it has meaning (a very problematic meaning, hence the name singular point).
Science does know how big the universe was in every particle a second after the big bang. If the universe was a certain size at some time then it cannot be infinite. A thing that was finite cannot be infinite. It defies the laws of mathematics. It can grow and expand in any accelerated way, but the very fact that we say it expands means that it is finite.
Raphael
I can't tell the size of the universe at any time. Maybe the universe is infinite, maybe not?
If you can say what the size of the universe was at a certain time then you must say that it also had a center. Or or.
Raphael
This is simply not true. This is true for a three-dimensional body in a three-dimensional space, and even then I'm not sure it's true in all cases.
Every body that started from a singular point and grew and expanded must have a center.
to miracles and Assaf,
Both the Coriolis force and the centrifugal force are imaginary forces that are felt only inside rotating systems. completely simulated.
Miracles: in accelerating systems (including a rotating system) Newton's second and third laws are not valid at all. And yet it is possible to 'adapt' to the second law and then use it, as is usually done.
Asaf
"Coriolus force" is a force because it moves bodies with mass. The force is the product of the acceleration times the mass. The acceleration is (twice) the vector multiplication of the body's velocity by the rotational velocity.
There is no direct connection to gravity - the Coriolis force causes the air to move in circles around a low pressure center, regardless of gravity.
Actually the "centrifugal force" is not a force 🙂 it is a simulated force that a body feels because of a centripetal force. Centripetal force is the force that pulls an object to a center of rotation. The body "feels" that it is thrown out from the center, along a radius, but this is not true. In the event that the centripetal force stops, the body will continue perpendicular to the (last) radius and not along the outward radius.
"Coriolis force" is not a force but a phenomenon that is affected by gravity and centrifugal force.
In my humble opinion, there is some wrong myth here regarding the term "center of the universe". Ultimately, the center of an observer's universe is his rest system (that is, himself): after all, the universe expands from him.
Water blowing.
What you say is true, but it is really negligible. The Coriolis effect is significant in movement over large distances, so the distance from the center of the Earth will change appreciably.
Falling from a height has much more effect on the wind.
Dear Nissim, a ballet dancer takes her hands out in a rotation and puts them in, her rotational speed changes, in addition, something that touched my heart, the water in the sink is affected by Coriolis, but a little bit, in respect of blowing water
The mention of the Coriolis force is wrong. The force does not cause a falling body to deviate to the east, and does not affect a falling body at all. The force causes a deflection to the right in the northern hemisphere, and a deflection to the left in the southern hemisphere. To illustrate - assume that there is a low pressure area in a certain place. If the earth did not rotate then the wind in that area would be towards the same point. Because of the rotation of the earth - the wind is deflected to the right and eventually circles the point counterclockwise. And no - this has no effect on the water in the sink...
In the newspaper called "Galileo the Younger" they attribute to Galileo only "a lot of work" regarding the rotation of the earth around the sun? So we give the young people half the story and that's it. There is half a historical story here with almost no scientific explanation. In my opinion, from an educational point of view, the youth should be given explanations at a level that they can understand about each stage in the development of scientific understanding and thus the historical story will become interesting.