Guest post by Dr. Amir Segal. First published on Dr.Roey Tsezana's "Other Science" blog
A few days ago I found many copies of Chabad's weekly bulletin number 645 on the train. The presence of the leaflets on the train is a topic of discussion in itself, but this time I chose to focus on the surprising content of the leaflet. On one of the pages there is a short article discussing "quantum entanglement".
The main argument of the article is as follows: while the researchers at the universities observe in amazement hidden and inexplicable connections between particles that are at a great distance from each other (this is the "quantum entanglement"), there are those who have explained things a long time ago: the issue is clear to any average Jewish believer who recognizes the "unity" "The divine, because if nature and God are united, there may be hidden connections between the particles.
The article claims in several places that quantum theory describes nature but does not explain it, while the concept of divine unity is a simple explanation for the phenomenon. To discuss this statement there is no escaping the question of what is an "explanation"?
Prof. Zeev Bechler offers a definition for "explanation" in his book "Philosophy of Science" (Broadcast University Books). On one foot, the idea is this: when we witness a surprising phenomenon, an explanation is a story that sets our minds about the phenomenon, and gives us rest. It is possible that the story of divine unity will satisfy the person of faith, while the equations of the quantum theory will satisfy the atheist scientist. The opposite is also true: it is possible that the story of the quantum theory will not satisfy the religious person and therefore he will write that the quantum theory "does not explain" the phenomenon, and on the other hand, the story of the divine unity will not satisfy the atheist. As the saying goes: "Explanation" is a subjective term.
The article claims to give validity to the concept of divine unity, but in fact it presupposes that quantum theory is not an "explanation", while the concept of divine unity is an "explanation" for quantum interweaving - this is similar to the claim: God exists, a fact, so it is written in the Torah.
Many scientists recognize the subjective nature of any "explanation", and willingly admit that physics describes nature and does not necessarily "explain" it. May God grant that soon in our day the rabbis will show similar humility regarding the Divine Torah...
And for dessert, a correction to the article:
It is written in the article that quantum entanglement challenges the assertion that nothing can move faster than the speed of light. In addition, the "explanation" of divine unity for the phenomenon also explains how righteous people can bless and immediately influence events that are physically separated from them. This is an error. According to quantum theory (which includes quantum entanglement) information cannot be transmitted faster than the speed of light. To say: according to quantum theory, even the greatest tzaddik cannot affect distant events faster than the speed of light.
52 תגובות
The obvious conclusion from this article is not to ask for blessings from righteous people who are too many light years away.
Rachel,
Following Nissim's words, and referring to your words, "How dare you build theories..." The answer is simple: technology.
At its core, science is not here to tell us what is true but to tell us what is not true. Science of course steps on top of new theories, which contradict the old theories, but those new theories are not relevant to anything if they do not offer predications that distinguish them from the old theories. Testing the theory, that is, confirming the predictions, is a technology. A car is the technological product of a physical theory, medicines are, among other things, the technological product of the theory of evolution and even the large particle accelerator is not just a theoretical science but a technology.
Do we claim to have found the absolute truth, certainly not. Are we ready to change our minds? Yes, every moment. So how dare we? Because it works and, on the other hand, religion does not.
In honor of my dear Avi Bilzovsky
The argument you wrote in the article https://www.hayadan.org.il/sun-around-earth/#comments It is partly true, regarding rotation around, only it should also be true for rotation in a perfect circle and there is a difference when the central ball rotates around itself in addition
Thanks (but still I'm not sure of my words)
Rachel
You wrote a long, serious response, but not so consistent with reality.
You mentioned Heisenberg's Uncertainty Principle but you completely misunderstood the principle. The principle of uncertainty does not speak of a lack of knowledge but of a lack of determination. The knowledge is actually very high. The principle means, broadly speaking, that it is not possible to simultaneously determine both the size and the rate of change of certain physical data. This is quite different from ignorance. And why is the knowledge so high? Because we know how to calculate the distribution of data but - with incredible accuracy.
It is important for me to emphasize to you - there is no connection between the principle of non-admission and our lack of knowledge in science. On the contrary.
You claimed that the age of the universe changes from new to tomorrow in the range of hundreds of millions of years. This is your private invention. The age of the universe in 2008 was estimated at 13.72 billion years with an error of 120 million years. In 2012 the age was estimated at 13.77 billion years with an error of 60 million years. And today the value is 13.8 billion years with an error of 37 million years. That is, the accuracy of the age increases steadily and in addition - the data is always within the error range of the previous measurement.
The research methods that examine long periods back do not perform backward extrapolation as you describe. We have tools to know what happened many, many years ago. More than that - we have several methods and we find a wonderful match between the methods.
You invest a lot of effort to damage the credibility of evolution and cosmology. But two areas that show that man is not a "preferred creation", he is not at the center of anything, he is an animal like all other animals, and he can become extinct as 99% of species have become extinct to this day.
In particular - evolution is not a "theory" in the sense that it may or may not be true. We know that evolution can happen - we understand how it works and we know that the conditions for evolution are indeed met. Beyond that, we have a lot of evidence that it did happen and continues to happen.
Rachel - evolution explains things that there is no other (reasonable) way to explain them. Why are there no elephant fossils in Australia? Why are there no kangaroo fossils in our area? Why is spoiled meat poisonous?
And on the other hand - there is nothing that evolution does not explain.
You need a very good reason not to believe in evolution. I will be happy to hear….
Rachel:
As usual you are sure of wrong things.
But I know you won't answer and I only respond to kick a dead horse
From there, tap on “year comments”. There is another comment there that you probably haven't seen yet.
Miracles, nothing is absolute in science.
I appreciate your serious and respectful attitude. That's why I'm sure you'll forgive me if I say that sometimes getting busy with details may actually disconnect from the logic underlying science. I think it's important to go back there from time to time to straighten up. One of the most beautiful things in modern science is Heisenberg's uncertainty principle. A concept that redeemed science from the paradigmatic Stone Age of all-knowing and all-powerful science from the previous century.
Miracles, existential science no longer claims absolute truths or certain conclusions. Precisely the achievements of science during Heisenberg's time led to a radical change in the assessment of science itself, by pointing out its essential limitations. Since then, we only talk about high probability and not certainties (laws), even in the fields of applied science, not to mention hypothetical theories based on extrapolation such as those discussing the creation of the universe, the appearance of life and more.
All the more so in the pure sciences, where everything is based on conditional assumptions that say (exclusively!) that if we assume so and so, then the result will be so and so. And there is also an important scientific need to distinguish between empirical science (whose occupation is limited to the description and sorting of the phenomena observed in the field or in the laboratory ) and theoretical-speculative science that offers possibilities of interpretation for unknown phenomena that happened in the very distant past and in any case does not have the ability to observe them or reproduce them in the laboratory, such as: the formation of the universe, matter, life, etc. not this…) .
When discussing theories such as these, we only have at our disposal the extrapolation method, which is a weak method.
In this method hypotheses are built regarding what is far beyond a known range, based on certain variables within a known range. For example: based on what we know about the conduct of the stars and the earth, the conduct of matter and life in something like the 5,000 years of observations of recorded history (the known range, in which we more or less know the geophysical conditions such as radioactive temperatures, etc.) based on this tiny range we try to estimate How unknown scenarios played out, about which we have no direct evidence. Scenarios that occurred in a time frame, spaces and conditions that were certainly completely different than you.
The uncertainty increases as the distance (time, etc.) from the known range increases.
To this it should be added that the weakness of the extrapolation is more pronounced when it comes to theories concerning the proposed and the age of the universe if you remember that a rule deduced from a known result, regarding its unknown cause, is more speculative than a conclusion flowing from the cause to the result.
Added to this is another difficulty that governs all methods from the particular to the general (induction). When the known data are impoliative (projected onto areas in the unknown range), then it has any value only on the presupposition that "everything else remains constant". That is: that all the controlling conditions, their actions and reciprocal reactions are similar to the variables in the known range, both in terms of degree and type.
Otherwise, it is almost certain that conclusions drawn in this way are worthless.
how. Tell me, how on the basis of such a small span of maybe 100/200 years of serious science, dare to build theories using a weak extrapolation method, and even more from the result to the cause, which are supposed to encompass and extend (according to them) over billions of years?!
How can factors accepted by all scientists dealing with this be ignored so easily, and they are: that in the first period of the bang there were crazy temperature, pressure and radioactivity conditions. You will know how time and space were conducted "then" "and there", and what another flood of unknown revolutionary factors that everyone admits were completely different from those that exist and are known to us in the current situation.
No wonder that of all the loose theories, those dealing with the origin and age of the world (and yes, also the origin of life) - are the weakest. And for evidence: these theories do not agree with each other, and the "age" of the universe varies by several hundreds of millions of years here and there.
Miracles,
You are doing holy work
An explanation is a word, that's all and by itself is irrelevant. The only thing that is relevant are the predications that the explanation offers. If predications do exist, we say that we have understood reality on one level or another. Just throwing the word God around and deciding it's an explanation is intellectual laziness
What exactly could I not show?
Miracles:
I see you are unable to show it. You see?
It's because you tried to jump over the navel and missed the fact that you can't jump over the navel
I have a pokey pendulum is it a garden ok ????
?
Rachel:
How did I know you wouldn't answer the questions this time either?
I think it's because you don't have answers and not because you let your house write.
Dear Nissim, Hello
Summarize Wikipedia for me
And after you understand how much they suck, I'd love it if you came back too
With respect, I mean I don't feel like it
Water blowing
Go read about the Poco pendulum. After you understand, come back here.
How do you know that he is spinning around himself and not the other flying "straight" momentarily
Sincerely
The problem is momentary
Someday he will fly out
או
Once he will fly in
??
Water blowing
It is very easy to see that a body rotates around itself. what is your point
Again to illustrate my point
If just two bodies
או
Two bodies and one rotating around itself
The problem from another point of view - momentary
...let's start from the end: for example "we know how to show".
Who is we?
I don't know how to show such a thing.
You know? If so please show.
(And don't refer me to other sources that show, but show yourself)
To everyone's opinion, the dignitaries or however they say it
The meaning of the "momentary" power
Thanks again
Water blowing
What does "how a body feels" mean? We know how to measure accelerations and detect rotation.
Dear Ms. Rachel, Hello
I'm interested in how two bodies feel about the difference between
A when one revolves around a central body and
b when the central body only rotates faster around itself
That is, how they feel the centrifugal force in the difference between the two things.
And I have some way of thinking about it, but it's a bit complicated for me
Thanks and regards
What fact exactly did I miss??
You shouldn't have responded at all
Anyway, check the facts.
I didn't mean to respond twice……
Rachel
What you wrote is not true. Rotational motion is an accelerated motion, so it is possible to detect such motion without any need for other bodies. We know how to show for over 150 years that the earth rotates on its axis. And we also know how to show that we revolve around the sun and not the other way around. There are several ways to show this.
Rachel
You are wrong about the theory of relativity. Circular movement is an accelerated movement, so there is no problem in my opinion as to who goes around who.
Now - they knew this long before Einstein.
There is a number of proofs that the speed ball revolves around the sun and not the other way around. One way is to photograph the stars every night after the Earth rotates on its axis (which is not 24 hours!!!). What you will find is that there is an aberration in the star image that clearly shows that the Earth is moving in a circle.
A second way is to look at Venus - Venus has phases like the moon - this can only be explained by the fact that we and Venus revolve around the sun.
Nor did they know in the Torah that the earth rotates on its axis. It is very easy to see with a pendulum. The rotation is absolute - and not relative to anything.
I'm sorry Rachel
Nisim - Another topic you brought up: Move, move?
Well, in order to solve this puzzle, we had to wait (again) two thousand years... until Einstein (do you remember well? Depends on who you ask. There are many Japanese who will say no) until Einstein - as an integral part of his relativity method - proved with signs and miracles that when two bodies in space are in motion relative to each other, we can never determine with certainty which one rotates the other unless we treat a third body as fixed. In this case, the Torah claims that not only the sun but the entire cosmos as one body revolves around the earth and no constant is mentioned there that would allow a fair physicist to prove which of the two (the earth, or the rest of the cosmos) revolves around the other. By the way Orha includes Sages and describe in this determination additional universes that are not known to science at all. They are described as being composed of other "materials" (or in his language "bodies") that we cannot see measure or respond to. All this: see in the "Book of Science", the first of the XNUMX books of the Mishna Torah "to the Harambam".
Sound familiar? It may be that some of this is now being approached in Sarn in the study of dark matter and energy. The cosmic overlaps of course because time and space are also perceived "there" differently. A table of comparisons between our universe and the other universes (in Kabbalah: worlds) appears in Zohar using the word "flight". A term describing their speed (relation to time and space) compared to ours.
Keep asking, just remember it's easy to ask, but complex and responsible to answer.
Michael for a moment I didn't think you were made of uranium since we empirically proved that when you heat up you (don't explode but) spray venom. By the way, the previous response was typed at my request by my home since my computer was dead on Friday.
Miracles in response to your words
In the Torah it is not written that the earth stands on foundations. As we know, the sages had a precise tradition about the spherical shape of the earth. These words appear explicitly in the Pirki Darbi Eliezer and the Radal section there. In Yerushalmi Abode Zerah Rish, chapter XNUMX, and in Midrash Rabbah, chapter XNUMX.
All of these are approximately two thousand year old sources and of course rely on earlier sources. And in the new era: in the well of the exile to Meharel Amud Kal-Kalev (400 years ago)
What is written in the Mishnah (Firki Avot, chapter XNUMX) and perhaps this is what you meant: "The world stands on three things: the Torah, the work, and giving kindnesses") which are spiritual foundations of course. (Although there are interconnections between the spiritual and the physical). And now for the (un)sanctified heliocentric model.
Even though they knew that the sun revolves around the earth based on the verse: "And the earth will stand forever" Hassel managed to predict the birth of the white for thousands of years ahead (!) with an amazing accuracy of 29.53059 days. Six digits after the dot, that is, with an accuracy of half a minute. And this is despite the fact that it is not possible to observe the moon from the earth 12 hours before the birth nor in the 12 hours after it (since there were no telescopes). The birth always takes place in the dark (time 0) Their predictions have recently been recognized as incredibly accurate by satellite observations, measurements of sealed clocks and data processing by NASA's supercomputers. By the way, the Sages themselves point out that that half a minute is not because they could not be more precise, but because the moon itself is not precise "twice comes long and twice short" today it is known that these minute changes do exist and result from inconsistent spatial changes of the moon's orbit around the earth's orbit that occur because a ball The earth is not completely round.
Michael Rothschild
You updated me. Thanks!!!
Rachel
In the Torah it is written that the earth stands on foundations and that the sun surrounds it. It is written that the sky is hard and separates water from water.
Ezbi - it is written that the world was created in 6 days…….and we are required to rest on the seventh day, so that each day is not billions of years……
Rachel:
My "breakthrough" is due to the fact that I am composed of uranium (the type of uranium that knows Hebrew).
I guess if you had answers you would have answered and not chosen the devious path of baseless personal attacks.
Michael:
No, you are not mocking me. And not arrogant either.. I would just like to understand where your fantastic fluency comes from that allows you to summarize and extol the teachings of "all the greats of Israel" who lived and worked in the past thousands of years? Have you already finished reading (and understanding) all of what they wrote? Because if we're already talking about a liar, Michael-am hand on heart: Does your education in Judaism (apart from the Torah lessons of the teacher Baraka in the second grade) amount to dripping the cumulative venom of our very trending journalism? This is not the platform on which to start this discussion, but the first step to learning it of all eyes is to agree to admit that you do not know.
and stop looking down on him
That's it for now, I'm going to start cooking on Shabbat. If God wills, we'll start studying as best I can on Sunday. Shabbat Shalom!
Rachel:
It's not nice to lie.
For the avoidance of doubt - this line was not written in a mocking tone but as a rebuke.
For some reason, no one - including the Torah greats (yes! Those who discovered before everyone else that a cow's trachea splits into three parts, one of which reaches the liver, and also that mice are created from earth!) knew nothing about these subjects before they were discovered (mercifully for them) by gentiles.
But you are welcome to prove the opposite (waves of hands will be rejected in disgust and unsubstantiated statements will not be accepted).
The language of Kabbalah/Hasidism and the language of modern science, and know how to parallelize them and cross information. But there are some.
Maybe that's why he was scared too. I will try to ignore the mocking and irrelevant tone of some of the comments. The answer is yes, and by and large. The Torah can explain eight phenomena and much more, the problem is that there are not many people who know both languages:
Miracles:
Although it doesn't seem to me that Rachel was trying to claim that Einstein believed in God, but in any case, it turns out that in his lifetime Einstein was much more blunt than it appears from the familiar quotes on which you rely.
Read here how much he despised the whole idea of God:
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2012/10/24/einstein-god-letter-sold-for-just-over-3-million-anonymous-buyer_n_2012282.html?icid=maing-grid7%7Cmain5%7Cdl1%7Csec3_lnk2&pLid=225830&utm_hp_ref=fb&src=sp&comm_ref=false
It's good that you wrote the article (Rachel) entered the discussion!
Not only because it shows us that there are people who are unable to convey information even in a conventional way by commenting on a website that at no point exceeds the speed of light, but also because there is a chance that you will read the rabbi and try to answer it:
I did not read the extensive correspondence that appears here, but in Roy's article and in all the comments that I did read, it seems that a very important point was missed.
An explanation of something is obviously something from which the description of the explained thing should derive.
Let's say that science only describes (I disagree with that, but let's say). Does the "explanation" provided by religion allow us to predict the description of the behavior of mass and energy at the quantum level?
Is it possible to derive the wave function from this "explanation"?
Does this "explanation" allow us to understand the energy levels of the hydrogen atom?
Or is this just another noel attempt by extremists to appropriate the achievements of science to religion?
Rachel
Einstein clearly said that he does not believe in a personal God. I guess you didn't read a word of what he wrote….
And there are many contradictions between religion and science. You have to choose between them. Otherwise you will come to a contradiction.
Continue. In private supervision (sorry) the title indicates that even Einstein was frightened by this.. and for our purposes: it cannot be. A real contradiction between true religion and true Torah. And this is because both come to reveal the truth. Science - from the human point of view, and the Torah - from the divine point of view.
Hello Alex and Matan, I am the one who wrote the article by Chavd from the train. Did you notice the panicked reactions? To the point of a strictly "scientific" denial from the heart of the meaning of the interweaving (error. No
.a mistake and not a mistake at the same time!) Aka the liberation from the tyranny of the speed of light.. unprofessional for God's sake. What's funny is that in a paraphernalia (sorry) the title is nan
giving
You're right..
From the technical point of view, indeed as "it is written in the article that quantum entanglement challenges the assertion that nothing can move faster than the speed of light".
And Roy is not accurate when he says: "This is an error. According to quantum theory (which includes quantum entanglement) information cannot be transmitted faster than the speed of light."
This is not an error. Indeed in quantum entanglement something travels faster than light - in fact at infinite speed. What passes is the information about the spin state of the electron or the polarization of the photon.
However, this does not contradict the statement of the theory of relativity that information cannot be sent faster than light.
The information undoubtedly gets through, but you - or I, or anyone who tries to send specific information - will not be able to do so.
See also
https://www.hayadan.org.il/free-speach-20100800/comment-page-36/#comment-356737
Based on my (little) knowledge this sentence
"According to quantum theory (which includes quantum entanglement) information cannot be transmitted faster than the speed of light."
It is not true because all the problems and admiration of quantum entanglement come from the fact that one particle affects another immediately regardless of the distance between them and if the second particle changes its state then it is considered a transfer of information right?
I would appreciate it if someone could explain to me what I did not understand
Thanks
giving
And let them explain where God was when Amnon Yitzchak was not elected to the Knesset!
Attention science lovers:
As long as various religious people try to "prove" that their religion has been claiming for "a long time" what science claims is fine, because it shows that they feel inferior (and rightfully so) in their worldview in relation to science.
They know or understand that science defeats their world view and therefore show that in fact "everything is already written in the Torah" and other gibberish and twisted interpretations.
I will start to be concerned when scientists try to claim otherwise - that nature or reality or the world - is well and accurately explained by religion. For example, these are "scientists" who oppose the theory of evolution and create as if an alternative science such as "creationism". When real and institutional science allows such charlatanry to enter human culture will freeze or even retreat into religious coercion.
Please see friends, where did we go, on a site that reviews research innovations, it's a shame. Regarding your comment, father, numerically you are right, but does quantity become quality when it crosses a certain threshold? Please see there are more than a billion Muslims in the world, and what is their contribution to progress and enlightenment?? The same applies to Chabadnik's
Most of the commenters here took the matter in a completely different direction... we are not dealing with Chabad and their exploits...
But in an interesting connection, which is getting stronger between physics and metaphysics. The majority of the human population is limited by a simplistic perception that separates the two things and denies the other... A common believer denies the theory of evolution by saying: "So why don't people come out of the forest today?" And a brain researcher will say: "that there is no free will and that consciousness is the placenta"... the problem is that they have not learned about the other side, they specialize in their field... nothing else exists... but there are brave people who think otherwise. A good example is an article published in the Journal of Modern Physics by I. Orion and M. Laitman (physicist and rabbi) called: The Double-Slit Experiment and Particle-Wave Duality: Toward a Novel Quantum Interpretation. Kabbalah presents many interesting ideas in a field that today's science does not know how to touch... the future is already here, you just need to understand it...
I can understand religious people, some of them I even appreciate and love.
However, I do not like people (of any stream) who tell me that I am wrong and that their whole purpose in life is to bring me back to repentance.
I also believe to a certain extent,
It is more correct to say that I hope.. I hope that there is a God. That there is someone who understands all the complications of this world and that he can explain it to me one day.
Chabad is becoming more radical and I will not forget that on Independence Day, when that Chabad man lit a torch he said "To the glory of the State of Israel"
That is, they are not Zionists either.
It's a shame that we all here deal with the natural sciences, we need someone from the social sciences/psychology to explain to us how people who live here safely and comfortably, vote for the Knesset and even convince other people to vote like them... turn out not to be Zionists?!
Yuval, this is the largest Hasidism in the world, which has grown fourfold in the 4 years since the death of the Lubavitcher Rebbe (according to the film last week on Channel 20), and the main increase is through the conversion of our children, it is important that they read so they know where they are entering.
In addition, little children don't lie, in the film we interviewed two of the apostles who came to Kitana in Israel, and asked one of them where he wanted to be an apostle when he grew up - his surprising answer was Petah Tikva. That is, they are building the massive array of messengers not to help the Israelis in remote places but to take over the State of Israel.
Anyone who reads the Chabad magazines will be reminded of the well-known proverb "He who goes to bed with dogs will wake up infested with fleas". Religion contradicts progress and enlightenment. Why should we refer to it on the science site??
It is ridiculous to try to explain something that is above time and place that is supposed to be permanent and eternal..
Using theories that can change from one day to the next..
As if they are desperately seeking justification for their belief.
And explain where God was in the Holocaust?
There is a fondness for pseudo-rabbis (or pseudo-scientists) to try to justify and explain their religion/belief by scientific means..