The galaxy 13.4 billion light years away from us was discovered through gravitational lensing - a closer galaxy that increased its light
Research done with the help of the "Hubble" space telescope and the giant of ground telescopes, Keck in Hawaii, discovered the farthest galaxy from us (so far) - 13.4 billion light-years away from Earth. The celestial gram looks as it was only hundreds of millions of years after the "big bang" that gave birth to the universe about 14-12.5 billion years ago.
The research team "helped" a galaxy cluster that is between us and the distant galaxy. This served as a kind of "natural telescope": because of the self-gravitational force, which focused the light rays, like a lens, towards the human research tools.
The new galaxy is the result of research that traces "gravitational lenses". The researchers carry out a systematic study of small regions of the sky near galaxy clusters to discover signs of objects, distant and behind the clusters.
The target of the research was a rich galaxy cluster, in the center of which is a very heavy galaxy - a hundred times the size of the Milky Way. The cluster itself is relatively close to us - about two billion light-years and has been known for a few years as a "figure maker" of distant cosmic objects, behind it. The sign of this is the many arcs visible in the picture. These are distorted figures of very distant galaxies, the light rays coming from them are collected and concentrated by the gravitational force of the cluster.
The distortion of the background figures is caused because a gravitational lens is not an ideal lens. The distribution of matter in the cluster changes the course of the rays according to the amount of mass near the place where the ray passes.
In order to be able to correct the picture, the researchers must map the distribution of matter in the cluster. This is done by mapping the arcs that were also observed with the help of a spectrometer - so their distances behind the cluster are known.
Then, figures that are the same color were mapped (gravitational lensing affects all colors equally) and figures that could be of the same celestial gram were identified. This is how the pair of figures appearing in the magnification was identified as a possible image of that distant galaxy, the light from which split into two figures, passing through the galaxy cluster.
The confirmation that this is the same object was obtained from the observation of Kac - which showed that the two figures are at the same distance from us - 13.4 billion light years.
The new galaxy is 200 times smaller than the Milky Way and is visible to the giant telescopes only because the "natural telescope" (gravitational lens) has increased the visible light 30 times
The spectroscopic observation showed that the mass of matter is producing stars - and this is only 600 million years from the big bang. This is probably one of the building blocks of other galaxies, like the Milky Way.
587 תגובות
An unanswered question?
A photon is in a state of horizontal and vertical superposition before the measurement, which determines its state. If it is entangled with another photon, a measurement of one will also determine the state of the other. Let's assume for the sake of simplicity that if one is measured in a state we will call 1 out of two possible states in horizontal polarization, the other will also be measured in state 1 in horizontal polarization.
1. Is the above true? That is, when measuring the same polarization, both will measure in mode 1 or both will measure in mode 2.
2. If in one of the photons the polarizer is rotated by 90 degrees to a vertical position, the measurement of the two photons will always yield opposite results: if in one the state is 1 then in the other the state will be 2 and vice versa.
3. Until the measurement of the so-called "first" photon, the measurement can yield one of two results that we cannot know. After the measurement, this result is determined and can also be recorded and cannot be changed.
4. The measurement of the "first" actually also determined the results of the measurement of the "second". In practice, if we know the results of the "first" measurement and the state of the polarizers at both ends of the measurement, we can know the results of the "second" measurement even before it is measured, and the measurement will always only confirm what we already knew.
5. The distinction between "first" and "second" is made by synchronized clocks located near the measured photons. The first photon is the photon whose clock shows an earlier time at the moment of measurement. If for example the photons were measured at 4 o'clock in one and 6 in the other, the first one would be the one measured at 4 and the second at 6.
6. From the above it is implied that at hour 3 we do not know what the results of the measurement will be, at hour 4 we know what the first condition is, and at hour 5, after verifying the condition of the polarizers at both ends of the experiment, we know what the measurement will yield on the other side, 1 or 2, and our knowledge is confirmed by the measurement of the second at 6 o'clock.
7. And as said, the state of the photons will be the same if the state of the polarizers is the same, and different if the state of the polarizers is different.
8. It is said that in a spaceship that passes over the earth so that the gamma factor is equal to 10, there is a photon intertwined with a photon in the earth.
9. At the moment of the suit, the clocks in Israel and in the spacecraft show 0.
10. At 2 o'clock local time, the photon in the spacecraft is measured in horizontal polarization, and at 3 local time, the photon in Israel is measured in horizontal polarization.
11. The logic says that the measurement of the photon in the spacecraft in B2 is not affected by the measurement of the photon in Israel in B3 - the systems are symmetrical and the measurement in the spacecraft preceded the one in Israel in the Earth-spacecraft system.
12. Therefore we will accept that the polarization measured in Israel and in the spacecraft will be the same.
13. After a measurement result has been received, it is broadcast on the radio attached to the measuring device.
14. At 1 o'clock the spacecraft passes by a planet 10 light hours away from Earth. The time in the planetary clock synchronized with the local time - 10 hours.
15. In the spaceship they are informed that as far as the planet is concerned, the photon in Israel was already measured 7 hours ago and the results of the measurement were even broadcast on the radio and will reach the planet in 3 hours.
16. In the spacecraft it is decided to change the measurement polarization to vertical. Since this measurement is the initial one in a ground-spacecraft system, it is not affected by the measurement in the ground and can yield a horizontal or vertical measurement per photon.
17. That is why we got a situation where the polarization of the polarizer in the land is horizontal and the spacecraft is vertical, while the measurement results will produce different or identical results with equal probability, contrary to what is said in 2:
"2. If in one of the photons the polarizer is rotated by 90 degrees to a vertical position, the measurement of the two photons will always yield opposite results: if in one the state is 1 then in the other the state will be 2 and vice versa.'
18. Besides, if we see the earth as stationary relative to the background radiation (which is almost completely accurate), then in terms of the measurement in the earth it was affected by a future measurement in the spacecraft.
We can see this more clearly if we assume that the gamma factor is equal to 1000 and the measurement in Israel is conducted in 3 years and in the spacecraft in XNUMX years.
As far as Israel is concerned, the measurement in it took place three years after the space suit, while the measurement in the spacecraft, the one that determined the results of the measurement in Israel, will only take place in almost 1997 years, at a distance of about 2000 light years from Israel.
Well what happened to you all, no volunteers? Where are Nissim and Yoda and us and someone and Jesus, have you all gone crazy or have you all of a sudden become Ashkenazim and you have started to play it as respectable people who only comment on issues in the background of the universe such as asteroids and religious laws.
I have a burning question for you, so hang in there buddy, hang out.
Anyone volunteer to help?
A photon is in a state of horizontal and vertical superposition before the measurement, which determines its state. If it is entangled with another photon, a measurement of one will also determine the state of the other. Let's assume for the sake of simplicity that if one is measured in a state we will call 1 out of two possible states in horizontal polarization, the other will also be measured in state 1 in horizontal polarization.
Assumptions I would like confirmation on:
1. What was said above, that is, when measuring in the same polarization, both will measure in mode 1 or both will measure in mode 2.
2. If in one of the photons the polarizer is rotated by 90 degrees to a vertical position, the measurement of the two photons will always yield opposite results: if in one the state is 1 then in the other the state will be 2 and vice versa.
3. Until the measurement of the so-called "first" photon, the measurement can yield one of two results that we cannot know. After the measurement, this result is determined and can also be recorded and cannot be changed.
4. The measurement of the "first" actually also determined the results of the measurement of the "second". In practice, if we know the results of the "first" measurement and the state of the polarizers at both ends of the measurement, we can know the results of the "second" measurement even before it is measured, and the measurement will always only confirm what we already knew.
5. The distinction between "first" and "second" is made by synchronized clocks located near the measured photons. The first photon is the photon whose clock shows an earlier time at the moment of measurement. If for example the photons were measured at 4 o'clock in one and 6 in the other, the first one would be the one measured at 4 and the second at 6.
6. From the above it is implied that at hour 3 we do not know what the results of the measurement will be, at hour 4 we know what the first condition is, and at hour 5, after verifying the condition of the polarizers at both ends of the experiment, we know what the measurement will yield on the other side, 1 or 2, and our knowledge is confirmed by the measurement of the second at 6 o'clock.
7. And as said, the state of the photons will be the same if the state of the polarizers is the same, and different if the state of the polarizers is different.
Agreed so far?
Get over it, this is a statement without contradictions.
Israel
Perhaps special relativity is an excellent approximation under certain conditions - similar to Newton's theory. And quantum theory is an excellent approximation under other conditions.
Both - just approximations to one deeper Torah that we don't know.
"The special theory of relativity derives from logical assumptions".
Agree, made sense at the time, but do not agree with quanta and bang, later theories.
Israel
I don't understand enough physics to say that all physicists are wrong.
And no - I don't see a contradiction between special relativity and the uncertainty principle.
The theory of special relativity derives from logical premises. If there is a contradiction if a much more complex theory then I would think that the complex theory is wrong.
Negative, and the description as I mentioned is schematic. You can read about the full experiment in the link I provided and in the literature.
There is, of course, the possibility of fast communication on Orit: the measurement a year later did determine the interference pattern, but not a year ago, but at that moment from a distance of a light year.
But this contradicts relativity and thus we are left with an influence on the past..
But as you like, it does not contradict anything. It can always be said that as in the interweaving where the same particle is found both in Israel and in Andromeda and if you measured it here you also measured it there, so also in the Weiler experiment if we assume that there is an effect on the past (there is no contradiction to anything!). And fifteen sixteen dimensions (mainstream incarnate) and fifty sixty universes (there is extensive literature and many courses on this) so everything is fine and there is no need to give up the sacred assumption that the speed of light is the upper limit for the transmission of information..
But isn't this assumption - or special relativity itself - facing a big problem that quants face?
Remember the article in Scientific American "A quantum threat to special relativity"? Do you want us to go over the starting assumption of relativity and see if it fits with the uncertainty principle?
Israel
Did the result of the experiment change once you did the measurement?
Let's make sure we understand what happens in the delayed choice experiment.
Schematically it can be described as follows: a crack experiment, but instead of checking which crack the photon went through, we check its interlaced brother a year later, after we already received the pattern.
But how can the photon know whether or not a measurement occurred a year later? The pattern exists even before the measurement that decided what it is!
No influence on the past?
Do you see another possibility?
A nice solution, but then what about the crack experiment for generations? Maybe the fact that we got an interference pattern is not related to the fact that the electrons are waves but to something else?
And what exactly does it matter? As long as we have a clear distinction between an entanglement pattern when there is no measurement and a classical bulk when there is a measurement, we can simply refer to mode 1 and mode 2.
Israel
True, he did not come to contradict the experiment. But he says that the problem of supersonic communication stems from thinking that a photon is either a particle or a wave. If you drop this assumption then special relativity does not create contradictions.
To me it seems logical - the whole idea of wave function collapse is a mathematical exercise and does not describe physical reality. We just don't understand the reality yet.
Please explain, is a photon a wave or a 100% particle?
Nice, the article you brought did not come to contradict the Weiler experiment or to dispute it, it only describes an actual experiment of a thought experiment, like an aspect experiment that only confirmed Bell's inequality theorems..
Israel
What is the point of view that the article says should be given up?
Reverse Gota, Reverse.
Only if you pass the speed of light does not create an effect on the past.
Think about a detector in the experiment described in the article I brought about the effect on the past that is placed say a light year away from a beam splitter in the middle. If it is turned off, we will get interference on the ground, if it is turned on, then no.
The oddity is that measuring which path occurs a year after the photon has "decided" whether it is a wave (entanglement pattern) or a particle (no pattern).
Now if there is no velocity on Orit, then the late measurement affected the photon selection a year earlier.
But if there is speed on Orit, and the photon is actually a "long photon" that exists in the splitter and the detector at the same time, then there is no effect on the past but only instant communication.
According to the article you cited, the starting premise is that there is no speedy communication on Orit:
"Because this would be in strong tension with the special theory of
relativity, we believe that such a viewpoint should be given up entirely"
And so we are left with only the second assumption, an influence on the past. This is the essence of the Weiler experiment.
The same for multiple universes. We avoid the Grandfather Paradox of Siva and Subb Ai so that we assume that in every quantum event the grandson indeed shot the grandfather but the universe split into one universe without a (parallel) grandfather and the other with a grandfather (ours).
Since in many quantum scenarios we encounter what appears to be communication at high speed on Orit (interlacing for example) we encounter multiple universes. This is what Prof. Weidman wrote to me during the discussion we had about transferring information.
The two scenarios, influence on the past and multiple universes, are avoided if we assume a rapid transfer of information on Orit.
Israel
Is there a way to influence the past without going through the speed of light?
Nisimov, I speak Hebrew, English, and a little Spanish.
But for you I will also learn Turkish if you can show me where the article answers my question or even refers to it:
"Where, where is it written? Show me where the article dismisses influence on the past.
Nothing is written. On the contrary, the whole article deals with the influence on the past.
So here is your quote:
"Our results demonstrate that the viewpoint that the photon system behaves either definitely as a wave or definitely as a particle would require faster-than-light communication. Because this would be in strong tension with the special theory of relativity, we believe that such a viewpoint should be given up entirely
You can use any translation software you choose, as long as you extract the words PAST or AFFECT from it.
Thanks.
Israel
It's already tiring 🙂 But I'll quote it again anyway:
"Our results demonstrate that the viewpoint that the photon system behaves either definitely as a wave or definitely as a particle would require faster-than-light communication. Because this would be in strong tension with the special theory of relativity, we believe that such a viewpoint should be given up entirely"
And because I'm afraid your English isn't good today - and because I don't think you believe me, so here's the Google translation:
"Our results show that the point of view of a photon system behaving strictly either like a wave or strictly like a particle will require faster communication than light. Because it will be in strong tension with special relativity, we believe that this point of view should be given completely"
Not something... give up means to give up. In other words - in order not to cause a contradiction with the special theory of relativity, one has to give up (look up the meaning of the word in the dictionary) the approach that a photon is either a particle or a wave.
Now - I know you understand exactly what is written there.... So why are you just arguing? 🙂
". It's that if you drop the assumption that a photon at a given moment is either a wave or a particle - then there is no danger of the future influencing the past."
Where, where is it written? Show me where the article dismisses influence on the past.
Nothing is written. On the contrary, the whole article deals with the influence on the past.
If you measure light from Andromeda 2 million years after it exited and can affect it, then there are two possibilities:
1. Influence on the past.
2. Immediate communication.
What the article says is that because 2 cannot exist, we are left with 1.
but..
but..
Haven't we been through this before with EPR with the same firm but wrong conclusions?
Israel
The wiki article – https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wheeler%27s_delayed-choice_experiment
What is written in the article that I have already quoted several times, and you have also quoted it... It's that if you remove the assumption that a photon at a given moment is either a wave or a particle - then there is no danger of the future influencing the past (if you don't rule out relativity).
I'm trying to understand - you don't accept what is written in the article I brought, even though you quote from it? Or are you claiming that I don't understand correctly what is written there?
"You remove the discount and then there is no contradiction"
There is no contradiction.. with what?
I brought you an article about the Weiler experiment that shows that the future affects the past. So what exactly does your article show? And how is it related to the Weiler experiment?
Read your article, Nice. He says exactly what I said: either relationships, or influence on the past.
And where is the article from Wiki that links to the article you brought?
Israel
Where did I write that something contradicts the Wheeler experiments??
Israel
I didn't say there was a contradiction to Wheeler's experiment.
"What this means is that there are two options: superlight communication (at least 96 times the speed of light according to the article) or quantum erasure."
No, that's not what it says there. What was said there is that the problem arises when it is assumed that a photon at a given moment is - either a particle or a wave. You remove the discount and then there is no contradiction.
"Feel free not to read the article".
But I read, Nice, I read!
And you?
Are you arguing that the paper contradicts Weiler's conclusion of an influence on the past or just experimentally demonstrates the conclusion?
Because if he contradicts Weiler's conclusion - then where does it appear in the article?
As far as I understand, and of course I may be wrong, the article demonstrates exactly what I am saying and especially the quote you gave:
Our results demonstrate that the viewpoint that the photon system behaves either definitely as a wave or definitely as a particle would require faster-than-light communication. Because this would be in strong tension with the special theory of relativity, we believe that such a viewpoint should be given up entirely.
What this means is that there are two options: communication at super-light speed (at least 96 times the speed of light according to the article) or quantum erasure.
And since they assume ad hoc that speed on Orit is not possible:
Because this would be in strong tension with the special theory of relativity, we believe that such a viewpoint should be given up entirely.
So we were left with only the second option.
If possible, when you claim that there is an article on Wikipedia that contradicts the Weiler experiment - the subject of the discussion - try to bring that article from Wikipedia and not an article that supports the opposite thesis.
Israel
Wikipedia only has a quote from an entire article. I gave a link to the article itself. Feel free not to read the article.
Israel
It's not true what you say. The future affects the past only if certain things are assumed.
So don't assume these things, and the problem is solved.
Is it Wikipedia?
Something unclear in the article I brought? Who spoke of a contradiction? There is no contradiction, simply the future affects the past and that's it.
And Sahabak Gores: Ili Paath - by.
Israel
I'm starting to repeat myself... in the quote I brought from Wikipedia it says that if you assume that a photon is either a wave or a particle, then you reach contradictions.
Here is the whole article:
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC3557028/
what about:
https://www.hayadan.org.il/quantun-philospy-part-b-07121
Note that this is quite a commitment. If in a crack experiment you perform a late measurement on a photon, this forces it to choose to pass through the crack as a wave or a particle a long time before the measurement was made.
Israel
I don't accept that the future has an effect on the past. If a certain theory has an effect on the past, then I think the theory is wrong.
All true..
a question:
Do you get an effect on the past and multiple universes as something physical? There is no contradiction in that!
And if so - can you say what is the basis of which theories?
Israel
I have no idea what is wrong with what I said.
"That is - if you assume that a photon is either a particle or a wave, then you get a contradiction to relativity. The conclusion is that this understanding is wrong.'
A linguistic forensic laboratory urgently.
Haven't we been through this before with EPR? There, too, the conclusion that quantum regret was based on a contradiction to relativity.
But if you think "I'm trying to convince myself that this is so - if that physicist says something then that's it". So really, we must have exhausted ourselves. Believe in what you want, in multiple universes, back in time, dark matter, there is no contradiction in that!
Even when you catch a child with red hands near the jam jar and he says it's not him, there is no contradiction in that.
Remember the judge?
Israel
The difference is that what is written there is very different from what you say. The word "this" refers to:
the viewpoint that the system photon behaves either definitely as a wave or definitely as a particle would require faster-than-light communication
That is - if you assume that a photon is either a particle or a wave, then you get a contradiction to relativity. The conclusion is that this understanding is wrong.
He does not say for a moment that there is a problem with relativity - but quite the opposite.
You are saying, as I understand it, that because there is a problem of the effect of the future on the past, then special relativity is wrong.
I did not understand.
They don't write exactly what I said?
I am:
"If you accept the conclusions of relativity, then the future affects the past."
Wiki:
"Because this would be in strong tension with the special theory of relativity, we believe that such a viewpoint should be given up entirely"
What is the difference?
Israel
You always quote some random physicist, and try to convince me that this is so - if that physicist said something, then that's it.
So I assumed you thought all physicists thought the same.
Regarding Wheeler's experiments - the conclusion described in the wiki does not match what you say:
Any explanation of what goes on in a specific individual observation of one photon has to take into account the whole experimental apparatus of the complete quantum state consisting of both photons, and it can only make sense after all information concerning complementary variables has been recorded. Our results demonstrate that the viewpoint that the photon system behaves either definitely as a wave or definitely as a particle would require faster-than-light communication. Because this would be in strong tension with the special theory of relativity, we believe that such a viewpoint should be given up entirely.[24]
"So you claim that all physicists claim that there must be parallel universes"
Can I link to where I claimed this?
What is a bad name in multiple universes? That's a pretty mainstream claim, isn't it? And what's wrong with influencing the past? Or in a flat country?
Nisimov, did we overlap and not read the articles I linked to? What would Schneer say about it?
If you had read the article about Weiler's delayed choice experiment, you would understand that maybe you don't have much of a choice. If you accept the conclusions of relativity, then the future affects the past.
Good night.
Israel
So you claim that all physicists claim that there must be parallel universes. There is no point in this discussion.
"There are not necessarily parallel universes"
Explain it to Prof. Lev Weidman.
https://he.wikipedia.org/wiki/%D7%9C%D7%91_%D7%95%D7%99%D7%99%D7%93%D7%9E%D7%9F
"Certainly it is not required that there be any influence of one universe on another".
Even when they don't influence they are still parallel.
"You don't see something in this solution?"
We'll see, we'll see, but I have a non-contradictory and no less good solution: that everything will be in his word.
Something you don't like about this solution?
Israel
I gave you the solution. There are not necessarily receiving universes, and it is certainly not required that there is any influence of one universe on another.
Do you not see something in this solution?
"Explain to me again, where is the problem?"
The problem:
There is the private relationship.
And there are the quants.
The combination of both leads to parallel universes and influence on the past.
If you don't see a problem here and ask for an explanation, it seems to me that we are done, there are other problems that have not yet been answered, I am currently working on one.
Israel
There are many versions of parallel universes. In some of them there is no possibility of mutual influence between different universes.
If a certain model of parallel universes creates a contradiction, then this model can be discarded.
So, explain to me again, where is the problem?
Parallel universes and going back in time are not related to each other, but parallel universes and influence on the past from the future are related to each other, and the relationship is one of the known results of special relativity, the speed of light as an upper limit.
Israel
Parallel universes and going back in time are not related to each other, as far as I understand. The first is possible - the second I think not.
I don't remember that we talked about boosters or towers. Go on the thread, my reservation was only locations or going back in time, but never mind..
Israel
What will?? Are you putting words in my mouth again? 🙂
I didn't mention parallel universes, or going back in time. I noted some puzzling observations.
"You increase the energy 4 times in a particle accelerator, but the speed hardly changes. You put a clock on a tall tower and it runs faster. Light that passes by a large star changes direction"... strange observations that have an explanation in the theories of relativity.
"I said that the things are puzzling - but they are observed."
Do you know anyone who has viewed a parallel universe or gone back in time?
This will really be a slam-dunk proof..
Israel
Please don't put words in my mouth.
I said that the things are puzzling - but they are observed.
I never said supersonic speed didn't make sense.
So you claim that influence on the past and multiple universes are "puzzling but logical things". But speed on Orit does not make sense..
So be it. I think we're done.
Israel
True, there are many strange things in our world. You quadruple the energy in a particle accelerator but the speed hardly changes. You put a clock on a tall tower and it runs faster. Light passing by a large star changes direction. And there is more and more.
The observations are puzzling - I would be really surprised if there was a simple explanation for it.
Reading Comprehension..
What we were talking about is that the idea of multiple universes and a return to the past is based on the fact that without them we would get a contradiction to relativity.
Darsh: The belief that the speed of light cannot be exceeded leads to very puzzling conclusions, at least on the surface.
Israel
All physics is related to relativity, but that's not what we're talking about.
In relativity there are no contradictions. There are no contradictions within quantum theory, or between quantum theory and relativity.
What Dr. Weinstein is talking about is in the context of Everett's idea of multiple worlds. If there is a contradiction there, then something is really wrong, but I don't think it's special relativity.
Why do I think so? Because if there was a contradiction then physicists like Dirac or Feynman would shout Gewalt.
"Your claim is that the multiplicity of worlds results from a contradiction in special relativity, isn't it?"
Understanding what is read, or what is written: not a contradiction in the theory of relativity - a contradiction in the theory of relativity.
Don't you accept that multiple worlds and going back in time are also related?
Or maybe you are asking for the summary of the articles?
Israel
I read the article. It says there "If you cancel the collapse of the wave function and leave the only observer..."
I would love to understand what wave function collapse has to do with the classical world of general relativity. After all, your claim is that the multiplicity of worlds is due to a contradiction in special relativity, isn't it?
Why don't you just read the article until you get to the part of it I quoted?
"In addition, the special theory of relativity places a limit on the practical ability of that single observer because some experiments will have to be performed outside the observer's cone of light, which means that he will not be able to perform them at all. That is why we come to the conclusion that a plurality of observers in separate worlds are needed, when in each world an observer follows a causal sequence of events.'
It talks about the private relativity, doesn't it? At least that's what it says.
And why don't you read the second article that appears at the bottom of the first article (Quantum philosophy B, influence on the past)?
If you have trouble, I'm here to help.
Israel
I can't follow your train of thought. You said that multiple worlds arise from special relativity.
So please - show me this from the two postulates of special relativity. Don't get me started on Ebert's multiple worlds. Don't assume what you are trying to prove….
Israel
How do you understand that the present affects the past? In the article you linked to, it is about separate worlds, which have no mutual influence between them.
The cmb is a reference system regardless of light as I wrote here the other day a few comments ago:
"The speed of light is constant in any inertial system."
The link you requested:
https://www.hayadan.org.il/quantum-world-4-261212
of which:
"In addition, the special theory of relativity places a limit on the practical ability of that single observer because some experiments will have to be performed outside the observer's cone of light, which means that he will not be able to perform them at all. That is why we come to the conclusion that a plurality of observers in separate worlds are needed, when in each world an observer follows a causal sequence of events.'
Scroll down to Quantum Philosophy B, Impact on the Past.
Almost the entire article deals with photon trajectories that travel only at the speed of light, which leads to the conclusion that the present affects the past.
Israel
So the CMB is not a reference frame? I can't follow you.
I don't recall seeing a link to multiverses being related to special relativity.
"According to what you claim, the CMB was supposed to be used from nowhere"
I don't remember claiming it or even thinking it. Can I have a link?
What about multiple universes and going back to the past, did you look at the links and see the connection to relativity?
Israel
Let's assume this is true - what does this have to do with special relativity?
Which is probably true, but the effect is low: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ultra-high-energy_cosmic_ray
I am specifically asking about MM experiments. This experiment was performed on different dates, so the speed of the experiment compared to the background radiation was different. No change in results was measured.
According to what you claim, the CMB should have been used from nowhere, but that is not the case
"It is not enough to say that there is background radiation - you will see that it has an effect somehow."
What about warming up?
If you fly fast enough against the radiation, you will vaporize.
But then there will be no one to measure the impact..
Israel
Oh, only I have to answer yes/no?
If so - then why does this speed have no effect on mm experiments?
And by the way - there is no connection between the first postulate and the background radiation. The postulate says that physics is the same in any inertial system. If you claim that the postulate is not true, it is not enough to say that there is background radiation - show that it has an effect somehow. That's why I asked the question above. MM experiments were tested at different speeds (relative to the CMB) and no effect was found.
Beyond that - it should have affected the GPS system as well.
The speed of light is constant in any inertial system.
The solution of relativity requires an immeasurable shortening of length, compressed trains, and leads to an effect on the past, parallel universes and many other problems, see the article in Scientific American and my talk in Santa Monica.
The main assumption in it is that a beam of light has a certain position at a certain moment. See:
https://www.fourmilab.ch/etexts/einstein/specrel/www/
Since this assumption also holds for a single photon, we arrive at the assumption that a single photon has a definite position and momentum at a certain point.
Heisenberg squirms uncomfortably in his chair.
The other possibility in my opinion could be that a single photon does not have an exact location at a given moment and is actually spread in space with equal probability, as quantum mechanics tells us. The same for Keren Or.
With our devices, we are able to detect light only at a specific speed relative to it.
This simple assumption explains the results of the MM experiment and is in good agreement with quants.
It leads to other problems, but which are no more serious than parallel locations and short and wide trains.
Israel
I agree with you.
In the EPR experiment as proposed by Einstein in 1935, all the data is already in the system. This is why it was not possible to decide whether Einstein is right in his claim of hidden variables or that quants are right when they claim there are none.
And this was corrected by an assembly experiment: he introduced another unknown factor on the other side - the state of the polarizers. Since the only way to get the results in an experiment is to know the state of the polarizers at zero time, while the experimenters are determined without the knowledge of the other side, then the state of the polarizers is a data that is not in the system to begin with and there is no escaping the conclusion that one side influenced the other at zero time.
Israel
Yes I agree with you. If a spacecraft leaves Earth today, and flies at high speed to Andromeda, then it will find itself in the future.
Regarding EPR, you know the answer ... better than I do.
If our spacecraft leaves for Andromeda when gamma is equal to 2 million, it will arrive after a year in a future universe. If there is evolution in Andromeda at the same rate as on Earth, then the passengers of the spaceship will meet in Andromeda a culture and people 2 million years more advanced than those who left behind in the land, and this without defining simultaneity and synchronization.
What data is not in the EPR system or in any interweaving process?
Israel
exactly. In particular it says:
To Jill, C1, C2 are running slow, but remember they are not synchronized.
That is - during movement, the "clocks" of the background radiation are not synchronized! So how can you even talk about the age of the universe when you are in motion? The concept is not defined at all. In particular, the universe behind you is much older than the universe in front of you.
Regarding interweaving - the data is not in the system. That's the whole problem isn't it? (EPR...).
You can find the explanation at:
http://galileoandeinstein.physics.virginia.edu/lectures/time_dil.html
It begins after the sentence:
How, then, can Jill claim that Jack's clocks C1, C2 are the ones that are running slow?
He will make you happy because he leaves the relationship without contradiction.
On occasion, it might be useful to close the statement that no information is transferred in the interweaving, since "all the data is already in the system".
For example: if we separated a pair of gloves, then even though when I see that mine is right-handed, I know that yours is left-handed, and this without the transfer of information.
Or if we wrote two numbers on a note and separated them, I look at mine and know what yours is.
That is why we claim here, that since the experimenters met in advance and coordinated the polarization spins and the zebras, then what is the wonder that when measuring at separate ends you get a correlation between the measurements? After all, "all the data is already in the system", right? That's why there was no faster-than-light transfer of information because - you guessed it - "all the data is already in the system".
But is this statement correct?
Israel
"There is an explanation why even though he sees with his own eyes and even photographs the time that is higher than his on the remote clock, then actually the time on the remote clock moves slower for him, even though the photographs show the opposite."
What is the explanation?
A clock doesn't run fast or slow, a clock ticks tick tick tick tick tick tick tick..
If you move along a synchronized clock system, you'll see times ticking up and down on the clocks. This is why when the twin from the paradox reaches the point of no return, the time there is higher than his own even though he started at a point where time is the same as his.
There is an explanation why even though he sees with his own eyes and even photographs the time that is higher than his on the remote clock, then actually the time on the remote clock moves slower for him, even though the photographs show the opposite.
But it seems to me that you are aiming for something (not?), so whip.
Anyway, the problem you get is that if at the moment of the meeting between the two cars the time of both is the age of the universe, then the car moving against the radiation sees a universe whose time far exceeds its own, especially if it is a fast car like a Ferrari Turbo.
Not to mention the common tunneling neutrino, which if it passed through Cern 5 years ago, the universe it predicts now is quietly a good few trillion years old.
And we - here we come?
Israel
Clock runs slower at high speed. At the speed of light - the clocks stop.
Why do you say they run faster?
You say again and again: "Well, I'm supposed to see the fixed clocks moving slowly, but they moved faster!"
And I repeat: "What contradiction? Synchronized system clocks in terms of a system that moves relative to it does indeed move faster.'
If you like, let's go back to the thought experiment that led to relativity in Einstein's original paper. Not only do the clocks of the synchronized system move unnecessarily fast, but - heaven forbid! The speed of the moving body appears in it as c+v.
The original article of relativity actually relates beautifully to what we discussed earlier about the location of the photon, and its name - Mercifully, you really get a real contradiction, without interweaving and without non-locality.
Israel
"Let's assume there are two clocks in space, stationary relative to the background radiation and showing the age of the universe. The distance between them is a light year.
Let's suppose that I move at a speed gamma = 365 relative to them, from one to the other. In my opinion - it will take me a day to arrive, and my clock will advance 1 day. In terms of the fixed clocks - almost a year will pass.
So - as if there is a contradiction here, you say. After all, I'm supposed to see the fixed clocks moving slowly, but they moved faster!"
What do you think is the solution?
What contradiction? Synchronized system clocks in terms of a system that moves relative to it does move faster.
But this is a system as a system, nothing to do with a single watch.
Israel
Agree about the coins.
How do you resolve the contradiction I presented?
You are right, this is indeed what no-comm says, that information cannot be transmitted via interleaving, neither faster than light nor faster than the queue. No point is given.
But no-comm does not refer at all to the first part - how the particles communicate with each other, but only to the second part, sending information through the interweaving mechanism.
We have seen that it is possible to arrange the coins in the same situation using radios that transmit information, using synchronized gloves that do not carry information, and using entangled particles.
But as we agreed, sending information through the mechanism is another question that has nothing to do with the mechanism of the connection between the particles.
Regarding the watches, I also agree. But you still haven't answered me at what age I see the universe from my car at 8 o'clock.
Israel
From what I understand, no-comm means no information can be passed through the interleave. Interlacing cannot be used to transmit information above the speed of light.
It is necessary to correct for a speed relative to the background radiation. According to the Doppler phenomenon I can know what the real temperature (in the resting system) is of the background radiation. I don't need my watch for this purpose.
Let's assume there are two clocks in space, stationary relative to the background radiation and showing the age of the universe. The distance between them is a light year.
Let's suppose that I move at a speed gamma = 365 relative to them, from one to the other. In my opinion - it will take me a day to arrive, and my clock will advance by 1 day. As far as the fixed clocks are concerned - almost a year will pass.
So - as if there is a contradiction here, you say. After all, I'm supposed to see the fixed clocks moving slowly, but they moved faster!
Do you agree so far?
Regarding coins.
Do you accept that non-com deals only with the second part - sending information through the device, and does not touch at all on the question of how the communication between the coins was created (radio, entangled particles, gloves, socks, zebras)?
Can be copied.
But if the time in your car at 8 o'clock is the age of the universe - then what is the age of the universe in my car at 8 o'clock?
Israel
Regarding coins - yes.
Regarding the car - I keep saying the same thing: we know how to calculate the time on any watch. The universe has its own age, and once everyone synchronized their clock once - they always knew how to calculate the age of the universe.
Look at the twin paradox - the twin who returned young does not think the universe is younger. He knows how to do the math.
Now if we don't have entangled particles and there are radios but we removed the batteries, we won't be able to check for a match between the coins, accept?
Because we have two sets of communication that are not independent or even related to each other:
1. The communication between the currencies will only work if the radios are working.
2. Information that can be transferred using the device.
Do you accept that even if the radios work you will not be able to send information through the device because you do not know which side the coin will fall on your side?
Regarding the cars, I have not yet received an answer. If when they met at 7 according to their time then this time is also the age of the universe for the cars, what is the age of the universe for them at time 8 according to the clock of each car?
Now if we don't have entangled particles and there are radios but we removed the batteries, we won't be able to check for a match between the coins, accept?
Because we have two sets of communication that are not independent or even related to each other:
1. The communication between the currencies will only work if the radios are working.
2. Information that can be transferred using the device.
Do you accept that even if the radios work you will not be able to send information through the device because you do not know which side the coin will fall on your side?
Regarding the cars, I have not yet received an answer. If when they met at 7 according to their time then this time is also the age of the universe for the cars, what is the age of the universe for them at time 8 according to the clock of each car?
Israel
If there are no entangled particles, then I accept.
The clocks in our cars show the same thing, because we are both correcting for the relative speed of the background radiation. Instead of background radiation, take a GPS satellite watch. It doesn't matter - as long as we have a clock in an agreed reference system.
You are starting from the assumption that entangled photons are not a means of communication.
But let's say you don't have entangled particles either, just coins. Do you now get what is being said?
And how old is my car when it passes your car? Not the age of the universe? If not, does it have a certain age relative to the universe? 0? minus? 60 billion years plus or minus?
Israel
Your first assumption is wrong. I will have pairs of interlaced futons in each room. That way I can make sure the coins always fall on the same side.
Israel
The clock in my car is moving at a speed of about 370 km per second, in the direction of the "Aryeh" group. I know this from measurement, and I adjust the watch accordingly. If you do the same, then we'll both agree on the age of the universe.
In the meantime until you get an answer about the cars, a logic puzzle.
Do you get what is said in the following thought experiment:
There are two coins in different rooms with no communication between them. Is there a way to make the coins always fall on the same side? Negative.
Now we will connect the rooms by radio, and when one of the coins falls on a tree or tile, this information goes to the other room and a mechanical mechanism immediately sets the other one in the same position.
Now of course you can make the coins always fall on the same side. Has information passed between the rooms? Positive. The radios are the ones that transmitted it.
Is it possible to send information using this device? Negative. To be able to send information we must be able to influence which side the coin that fell first will fall and determine the state of the system. Since we cannot do this, the side on which the coin will fall is unknown information for us, so we cannot send information in this way.
https://www.reddit.com/r/askscience/comments/3mf4g9/physics_can_the_cmb_rest_frame_be_used_as_a/
Ok, let's use your car's clock. You claim it shows the age of the universe, right?
What about my car clock, it also shows the age of the universe, doesn't it?
So what happens when our cars pass each other at time 7 according to the clocks, at the moment of the switch do both clocks show the age of the universe?
And what time do the car clocks show at time 8 on the clocks?
there is a rest frame in the universe ≠ the universe* has a rest frame
*as a whole
Israel
I quote Israel "Let's ignore what is wrong with my claim - so what is wrong with my claim???".
Instead of background radiation - use my car's clock. All in all - it is also a watch. It also shows the age of the universe (by a simple calculation...).
Explain to me now - how is it different?
I read what Woking wrote and also what Hawking wrote.
Obviously the universe has a rest system, otherwise what are we talking about here? The question is how the background radiation system is synchronized with it.
To see the problem this leads to, consider the example I gave earlier of a spacecraft passing a planet with a gamma factor equal to a billion. Ofer Maged has a beautiful article "The Milky Way in 3 seconds" where it is even higher.
So when the spacecraft passed a year, for the planets a billion years passed.
But the spacecraft passed Planet A just as Planet A passed the spacecraft. Which systems are inertially balanced and in terms of relativity there is a difference between them (especially if we consider that in 1905 they didn't know about background radiation yet). If, as far as the spacecraft is concerned, the universe has aged by a billion years in a period of one year for it, how is it different for Planet A? Why hasn't the universe aged a billion years for her? Are the spacecraft and the planet in different universes or are they both in the same universe?
And please spare Israel the circular argument that the spacecraft moves relative to radiation and the planets do not. To show that the argument is not valid, it is sufficient to note that I did not say in the definition of the problem who moves and who rests relative to the radiation.
Israel
Our universe has a rest system, which is defined by the background ray. As I wrote before, my car in the parking lot also sets a rest system. The problem is that my car sometimes drives, and it really annoys the astronomers, they have to recalculate everything!
Read what Woking wrote…
The expansion of the Universe is certainly an inconvenience when it comes to thinking of simple pictures of how things work cosmologically! Normally we get around this by imagining a set of observers who are all expanding from each other uniformly, ie they have no "peculiar motions", only the "Hubble expansion" (which is directly related to their distance apart). These observers then define an expanding reference frame. There are many different such frames, all moving with some constant speed relative to each other. But one of them can be picked out explicitly as the one with no CMB dipole pattern on the sky. And that's the absolute (expanding) rest frame!
But how are they all synchronized and on the same rest system?
Israel
I don't understand what the problem is. All clocks show the time since the Big Bang.
It's a nice idea and doable.
Take a watch, attach a radiometer and doppler to it in each direction, and adjust it like this until the doppler is the same in each direction. That way you will be sure that it rests relative to the radiation.
are you done Do it with infinite clocks all over the universe.
Simple, logical, and not very expensive either. Furthermore, there is no doubt that this is exactly what happens in nature. My question is: how did the poor synchronization of the clocks with the radiation succeed?
Israel
How is this different from the following situation? Scattered in space are lots of synchronized clocks. The clocks are positioned so that they see the background radiation uniform in every direction, that is - they are stationary relative to the background radiation.
The movement is understandable, the adaptation to the drop in temperature is a little less so.
Israel
Still, I don't think Einstein meant that electromagnetic radiation is a wave in ether.
What is not understood about the movement relative to the background radiation?
http://www-history.mcs.st-andrews.ac.uk/Extras/Einstein_ether.html
According to the general theory of relativity space without ether is" "unthinkable
Albert Einstein, 1922.
I think you are right. The temperature measurement is the temperature measurement of the background radiation.
I would also be surprised if the background radiation temperature was different from the background radiation temperature.
But it is not about measuring the temperature of the background radiation. It is about movement relative to the resting system of the background radiation.
Capish?
Israel
This is not what Einstein said - he said that space has properties. Einstein must not have believed that there is an ether that fills space.
Why did they think there was a website? Because Weychen and others showed that light has wave properties.
The temperature measurement is the temperature measurement of the background radiation. I would be surprised if the background radiation temperature was different from the background radiation temperature.
Regarding the quote - this is also what Vicky says.
"It's really interesting, because there is no site, so there is no ocean of sites either..."
The ether was defined at the time as an entity that fills the entire universe and waves advance through it. In light of the multitude of fields and particles that fill the universe, it is very difficult to say that the universe is empty (what about the Higgs field?) Brian Green dedicates a chapter in his book to the return of the aether in modern science and Einstein says that there is no relativity without an aether.
But that's not the point. If you check, the original question was how could all the scientists until 1887 think there could be a resting system for the Earth, the existence of which was almost beyond doubt.
My question was about their considerations which I am quite convinced exist, because it is simply impossible that Maxwell Lorentz and Calvin missed such a fundamental contradiction.
Newton Berkeley and Mach refer to this indirectly, and perhaps the assumption was that because all the stars are concentrated in the Milky Way as they believed then, and their number is finite (Olvers paradox) then the rest system of the ether is the rest system of the Milky Way. But this assumption raises no less difficult questions.
"There is no symmetry about the spacecraft. The spacecraft has an absolute velocity relative to the background radiation. Anyone can measure their speed relative to the background radiation, and if they take that into account - they will get the same number for the age of the universe.'
Still, it does not explain quantitatively and through equations why the temperature drop is negligible relative to the rest system of the background radiation. Why her?
Israel
1. Your quote in Hebrew does not seem correct to me. The spread in space only talks about one axis. It doesn't make sense to say, in my understanding, that a photon is spread uniformly throughout space (space-time?) uniformly. It is created at a certain point and moves in a certain direction. This means it is not monochromatic.
2. This is really interesting, because there is no site, so there is no ocean of a site either...
3. There is no symmetry about the spaceship. The spacecraft has an absolute velocity relative to the background radiation. Anyone can measure their speed relative to the background radiation, and if they take that into account - they will get the same number for the age of the universe.
1. If you measured the momentum addition to the mirror, you know with almost absolute precision the photon momentum.
If it is ct away from the mirror, then you know its position with almost absolute precision.
Heisenberg raises an eyebrow, but Wiki holds that uncertainty does not normally apply to photons, see previous comment:
technically, photons cannot have a position eigenstate and, thus, the normal Heisenberg uncertainty principle does not pertain to photons
Or there is the option in the previous link:
"How do we understand the photon as a particle, where is the particle? From the theory of waves it is clear to us that for a wave
Having a well-defined frequency and wavelength, it is a plane wave that extends from negative infinity to infinity
the positive In other words, the wave extends throughout the entire space and passes us at the speed of light.'
2. If for every ocean the rest system results from constraints - then what are the constraints of the ether ocean's rest system? The system is infinitely open, homogeneous and isotropic, so why would there be constraints or a rest system?
3. The spacecraft passes the planet and the planet passes the spacecraft. Although the systems are apparently symmetrical, from the point of view of the spacecraft the temperature drops much faster than on the planet.
but why? What about Postulate 1? Because it moves against the background radiation? What is the relation of the rest system of background radiation to Lorentz?
Good night.
Israel
Some of the photon's momentum has moved into the mirror. But the photon will be returned in an unknown direction. And practically, you have no way to measure the added momentum of the mirror.
I agree about the sea.
Now I understand your temperature issue - and I agree. It is exactly the flying twin who returns to his brother and finds that he is older than him.
Each atom has a frame of reference, but a hydrodynamic system in which waves travel has a specific rest frame dictated by constraints.
Examples: Kinneret has the rest system of the earth and not the rest system of even one of the water molecules that make it up.
to the atmosphere the resting system of the country.
The wind has the rest system of a leaf blowing in the wind.
Pushing particles have Yoda's rest system. If they didn't, the Feynman friction problem wouldn't exist.
Give me an example of a calm ocean relative to which the waves move in it and I will show you what are the constraints that dictate that rest system.
Maxwell 101: A photon transfers its momentum multiplier to a sufficiently heavy mirror.
The temperature dropped by 1000 degrees for both the spacecraft and the planets. In a spaceship it took a year, in planets a billion years.
So doesn't that mean the drop in temperature is a billion times faster in the spaceship? Am I missing something?
Israel
We didn't close anything. Every atom everywhere is a frame of reference. What's wrong with that?
I don't understand why you claim that the temperature decreases with speed. And for the umpteenth time - I don't understand what temperature you mean?
Israel
Some of the photon's momentum has been transferred to the mirror. Which part? And how exactly do you check how much momentum was transferred to the mirror?
waiting
waiting Bottom line: the law of conservation of momentum.
What about a rest system for the ocean, we closed that there must be constraints?
And did you get that the temperature in the spaceship drops a billion times faster than on the planet? So apart from the contradiction to postulate 1 - relative to what is the spaceship moving? Why is the rapid descent not on the planet?
The Law of Conservation of Momentum, Elek.
From the link:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Photon#Wave%E2%80%93particle_duality_and_uncertainty_principles:
technically, photons cannot have a position eigenstate {\displaystyle |\mathbf {r} \rangle } |\mathbf{r} \rangle, and, thus, the normal Heisenberg uncertainty principle {\displaystyle \Delta x\Delta p>h/ 2} \Delta x \Delta p > h/2 does not pertain to photons.
You can also see it from Maxwell: p=E/c which is also the simplest way to reach E=mc^2.
Israel
"Put a mirror that will reflect the photon when it hits it. You will be able to know with any precision you want the time of impact, and the deterrent the momentum."
I don't think it's right. How do you know what part of the photon's momentum has been transferred to the mirror? Imagine you drop a marble from a great height on the Himalayas - what is the probability that the marble will land exactly upwards?
You also don't need to measure the frequency, it's enough that it exists even without the measurement.
Didn't you read the link? "How do we understand the photon as a particle, where is the particle? From wave theory it is clear to us that for a wave with a well-defined frequency and wavelength".
But special for you - put a mirror that will return the photon when it hits it. You will be able to know with any precision you want the impact time, and the deterrent the momentum.
So if the photon is a distance ct from the mirror after the moment of impact, you know with precision that you will want both its momentum and position.
And Heisenberg - where did he come from?
Israel
The frequency of a photon depends on the frame of reference, and I don't think there is any way to measure the frequency of a single photon. You can see that he is in a certain area, but no more than that.
waiting
From the link:
http://amitnet.org.il/innovation/wp-content/uploads/2013/08/%D7%94%D7%93%D7%95%D7%90%D7%9C%D7%99%D7%95%D7%AA%D7%92%D7%9C-.pdf
"How do we understand the photon as a particle, where is the particle? From the theory of waves it is clear to us that for a wave
Having a well-defined frequency and wavelength, it is a plane wave that extends from negative infinity to infinity
the positive That is, the wave extends throughout space and passes us at the speed of light. So where is the photon?
A similar question can be asked about the particle, which at least regarding its particle entity we have an understanding of its place
in space-time. But what is the translation of the particle's position in the wave aspect?
As a principle, today scientists work with mathematical tools, developed from wave theory, from this theory, wave -
A particle can be described by a wave packet whose packet velocity is the particle's velocity.
Or in short, even a single photon with a well-defined frequency is a wave packet spread throughout space. The group speed of the wave packet that makes up the photon is the speed of light, but the photon is spread with equal probability in space.
What about the photons from my green laser, why is their frequency not well defined regardless of measurement?
Albanzo, another one for you. You write:
"3. You have to decide if your question is about a laser - which is a coherent state that behaves in principle similar to a classical oscillator - or if you are talking about a single photon.'
So here are the original questions, it seems you didn't read them at all before you answered or you forgot. Of course you won't thank me for that.
"A. We have two synchronized clocks, one in Israel and the other in Mars. The distance between them for the purpose of the example - a light hour.
All the way between Israel and Mars, clocks are also synchronized.
At moment 0 on earth clock, I press the button of the device that launches a single green photon towards Mars. The photon reaches Mars in exactly one hour according to the Mars clock. No measurement is performed during the entire course of the experiment.
Questions:
1. Can we say that in one minute according to the clock in the center of the road, the photon is not in its vicinity?
2. We know that we can always find the photon at a distance ct from the earth, but can we say that the photon is spread with equal probability along the entire length of the track during the time of the experiment (hour)? If not, is there a certain probability distribution for finding the photon? The classical answer is of course negative, but what is the quantum answer?
3. If the answer to 2 is positive and the photon is indeed applied with equal probability before the measurement, is this different for a photon beam? If instead of a single photon I light a flashlight in Israel at time 0, is the flashlight beam also spread with equal probability?
A doctor of physics named Amir Zeit answered me at the time that the photon was theoretically found along the entire length of the track before the measurement.'
You write:
4. "A specific ocean I was asked about"? What are you talking about?'
Here is the original question:
"Can you give me an example of a hydrodynamic system such as an ocean where waves advance and has no rest system due to constraints? Bring me such a system and I'll show you the constraints under which the rest system exists.'
And even more so:
"Pacific? the atlantic Maybe some ocean on Mars? In Andromeda? Come on, find it.'
Once again didn't we read before answering Doctor? Could you perhaps now bring me an example of a specific ocean with a rest system without constraints?
You write:
"6. Are you suffering from selective amnesia again? Again you "choose" to forget that the mathematical proof has been explained to you a thousand times. Well, for the thousand and one time, mostly for miracles and not for you: the proof is the no-comm sentences. In information theory as mathematicians, engineers and physicists define it.'
Once again we drank a professor and forgot what is easy to forget? Did you forget that the question was presented in several blogs and the answer of several professors was that there is no consensus on the subject? Remember when you even tried to doubt the professionalism of those professors? show you where? It's not that hard, it appears in this article.
And I can also show you that the whole dispute between us is not about me claiming that you are wrong (after all, I don't pretend to know) but about me saying that the question of whether information passes between entangled particles is a matter of opinion, and you claim that it is a fact and that there is a mathematical proof for it.
Your seeing eyes, professors (Lev Weidman for example) claim that there is no consensus on the subject (he claims that the solution is parallel universes) and if you claim otherwise, then this is exactly what I am saying: an opinion, not a fact.
You will of course philosophize and appropriate all scientific knowledge and truth, as you did in the Scientific American article "Quantum Threat to Relativity" about which you said:
"The article does not mention a problem with the mathematical model. That's exactly what I'm saying, why don't you understand? In the article they talk about a certain tension, but this tension is in the philosophy of physics and not in its mathematics.'
Although the article clearly states:
"Quantum mechanics has shattered many intuitions, but this is the most profound of them all. And this particular shattering carries in its wings a threat whose shadow has not yet been removed, a threat to special relativity, one of the cornerstones of our 21st century physics.
The most alarming thing about non-locality, apart from the jarring strangeness inherent in it, is that this feature carries with it a threat to the special theory of relativity as we know it today. In recent years, this concern, which has finally gained entry into the hall of serious thoughts in the field of physics, has become the focus of discussions that may, in the end, tattoo, distort, reimagine, consolidate or disintegrate the very foundations of physics.
The bad news was therefore not the lot of quantum mechanics but of the principle of locality, and anyway, it seems, of special relativity, since, at least apparently, it is built on the assumption of locality.
It seems that the type of non-locality encountered in quantum mechanics requires absolute simultaneity, which poses a real and deadly threat to special relativity.
The state of special relativity, only a little more than a century after it appeared on the world stage, suddenly became a wide open and rapidly developing question.'
So you claim that phrases such as "disintegrate the very foundations of physics" and "a real and deadly threat to the special theory of relativity" are merely "a certain tension, but this tension is in the philosophy of physics and not in its mathematics"?
It seems so, after all you wrote:
"It is very, very difficult for me to see how in the content of the article there is any risk of combining private relativity and quantum mechanics."
Note the following sentence:
"The most alarming thing about non-locality, apart from the jarring strangeness inherent in it, is that this feature carries a huge threat to special relativity as we know it today. In recent years, this concern, which has finally been allowed to enter the hall of serious thought in the field of physics, has become the focus of discussions that may, in the end, tattoo, distort, reimagine, consolidate or disintegrate the very foundations of physics':
What do you think they are discussing there at Moked, a coalition with Shas?
And how is what is written in the article different from what I have been saying all these years? You can disagree but if you call me a lying moron, then how are Scientific American different from me? After all, they say the same thing only more firmly than I do.
What was good about that article was that the truth about your liar's claims against me was finally revealed, and that is that you are quite a rascal as I showed:
For years, I have accused Ai Albenzo of various claims, the first of which is that I am a shameless liar.
I asked him to apologize, but he refused and also provided 3 examples in this article that I am a liar:
"Yes, you definitely lied in the many discussions we had. It's funny of you to expect me to now know how to quote you exactly where, how much, why and how considering that these are discussions that some of them were 3 or 4 years ago, but I have a few examples in mind. One example is that for a long period of time you would go back and write a quote of mine over and over again, which miraculously would always get cut off in the middle of the sentence. I have explained to you many times that you are citing half a quote and thus completely changing what I said, but it didn't bother you. The first part of the sentence concerned the fact that there are people who do not understand quantum mechanics and therefore claim that it is wrong - and you have the same problem. The part you would have omitted made it clear that I am not accusing you of denying quantum mechanics but of the same kind of mistake - you do not understand something and therefore conclude that it is probably wrong. Another example is that during a long discussion about solving one or another coin puzzle with the help of interlacing, you claimed that I said it had a classical solution even though I explicitly wrote many times that it did not have a classical solution. I was just trying to explain to you that the quantum solution does not include information transfer because it requires the pre-synchronization of a huge number of entangled pairs - which is the quantum equivalent of pre-coordination of code, cheating according to the rules of the game. And yet you repeatedly accused me of claiming that there is a classical solution.'
It's a bit hard to know what he means because unlike me who always quotes in the source, there are no quotes here and you have to trust the writer that he knows what he is saying. But if someone asks, I'd be happy to bring those "quotes that miraculously always had a stamp cut out for you in the middle of the sentence". I remember them and also know where they are and believe that they will only worsen the situation of Albenzo and his liar's claims.
"Another example is that during a long discussion about solving one or another coin puzzle with the help of interlacing, you claimed that I said it had a classical solution even though I explicitly wrote many times that it did not have a classical solution. I was just trying to explain to you that the quantum solution does not include information transfer because it requires the pre-synchronization of a huge number of entangled pairs - which is the quantum equivalent of pre-coordination of code, cheating according to the rules of the game. And yet you repeatedly accused me of claiming that there is a classical solution.'
And here is what Albenzo wrote:
"There is no difference between this solution and any other solution of a pre-coordinated classical code (as some of the commenters here have tried to suggest), except that this code operates according to quantum laws, and in particular it is found in superposition (as we know, the secret of the magic of entanglement is that it is a state of superposition, and not just a special superposition which is not spherabile to pure subsystems)'.
I'm willing to bet anyone who wants to for any amount that if we take a random sample of 100 people and read them the last sentence, the vast majority will think that it means that there is no difference between a pre-coordinated classical code and the quantum solution, except for a few marginal details. Certainly not mainly as Albenzo also agrees - that through the quantum solution it is possible to influence from a distance in zero time, which is the subject of the discussion.
Bad wording by Albenzo, not my lie. If, as he said, "Your reading comprehension is flawed." When they say "there is no difference between Moshe and Danny except that Moshe is blond and Danny is red", does that mean that Moshe and Danny are the same? When you meet them, will you be able to tell them apart or not? " But if you forgot to mention that the Ginghams are known for their ability to influence from a distance in zero time, which is the subject of the discussion, then you understood your so-called Doctor Luca. It's like saying there is no difference between the movie Titanic from 1953 and the movie Titanic from 1997 except that in the movie from 1997 the heroes are blonde and redhead. These heroes - Jack and Rose - are almost the most important thing in the film.
"Here is an excellent example of a crazy distortion of my words and even an invention: "Are you claiming that in the subtext they actually meant the opposite and that there is no threat and that they are getting along great and that the authors of the article fabricated something imaginary to increase circulation?" You know very well that I never said anything like that. I did not write that they fabricated anything. I didn't write that they meant the opposite.'
And here is what Albenzo wrote a few days before:
"First of all, you have to remember that every article in a magazine - even a scientific one, and certainly in Scientific American, which addresses the general public and has a huge interest in selling copies - can fall into a natural tendency for sensational or bombastic headlines."
Not very similar?
"You have lied many times, because most of the time your arguments are empty of content, because of your strong tendency to talk about things you have no idea about. Just like what's happening now, when you write more and more things about information when it's clear to everyone - including you - that you simply don't know anything about information theory, including the most basic definitions of what information is or what is beyond information.'
Did I ever claim to know information theory? Or did I even know that information theory existed before Alessandro mentioned it? I was talking about information like everyone else here is talking about it.
And since reviewers and biologists and many others also use the word information without giving its exact definition, I don't feel particularly unusual, or maybe we are all actually shameless liars.
Bottom line, a person can say a sentence that is not true and that does not make them a liar. A liar is one who, under normative conditions, fails a lie machine. Albenzo said a sentence that is not true - "That information does not pass between interwoven particles is not knowledge. There is a mathematical proof.' Does that make him a liar? I don't think so, because that's what he believes, or at least believed at the time.
And there's also the article in Scientific, which says exactly what I always say, so if I'm a liar, they probably are too.
If there are errors and partial wording in the response, it's because of the crappy new format of the blog that doesn't allow editing or even viewing the response, let alone saving details or displaying comments in an appropriate way like before.
Why simplify if you can complicate?
Nice, what is the philosophy, what temperature on the Kelvin scale will a mercury thermometer show a second after the bang? 0?
Go through the example I gave. Are you claiming that for the spaceship the temperature does not drop at a rate a billion times higher than the rate it drops on Planet A?
Third time already. Answer the question or you will spoil all the credit you got as a straight cop.
Israel
It has nothing to do with acceleration at all. Look what's happening at the border. The acceleration increases and it slows down time - so at the limit time will stop, but for a negligible amount of time.
The explanation is actually the shortening of the distance. Just like in the twin paradox, or the story of the food created by cosmic radiation.
And no - I don't see the problem you are talking about. I don't understand why you think the temperature should decrease because of the speed.
Because then the spacecraft is not an inertial system. It accelerates, and this is in contrast to Eretz.
How do you solve the problem I raised? Do you understand what the problem is?
Israel
Why are you making it so complicated? Let's launch a spacecraft in gamma = million to Andromeda. As far as the spacecraft is concerned, two years will pass. In terms of terrestrial clock, clock on Andromeda, background radiation clock and also your mercury thermometer clock - 2 million years will pass.
Father, can you let me go?
Thanks.
Meaning that useless information is the same as unknown information. It's easy to show.
The mythological reviewer, by the way, talks about information without definition (O Gvald) and says that it is not possible to convey useful information through interweaving.
I believe that Scourai's useful information is the same as my unknown information.
waiting
Nice, without philosophy, what temperature on the Kelvin scale will a mercury thermometer show a second after the bang? 0?
Go through the example I gave. Are you claiming that for the spaceship the temperature does not drop at a rate a billion times higher than the rate it drops on Planet A? What if we have radiation meters that show the temperature and video that takes them together both in the spacecraft and on the planets. If you check the videos, won't you see a faster descent in the spaceship? What about postulate 1 which says that there is no experiment that can differentiate between inertial systems? So here's an experiment. Compare the rate of temperature drop between the 2 inertial systems passing each other, Planet A and the spacecraft.
If you released an atom in space from a spacecraft, its rest system is that of the spacecraft unless you gave it a velocity relative to it. The spacecraft is the constraint.
Does not deny and does not whisper.
When you are able to give a simple and clear answer to a simple and clear question, it will be worth arguing with you. Take an example from miracles.
By the way, you can take an example from miracles in a few other things. At the time I presented here the so-called "paradox of the twins paradox". The paradox was presented in several other forums and aroused quite a bit of interest and was answered by 4 physics doctors, some of whom are very well known and experts in their field.
The problem was that each answer was different and contradicted the other. I still keep the correspondences and would be happy to present them without revealing the names of the writers except for one who gave an answer consistent with the relationships: Prof. Yonatan Garnot.
The point is that our Nissim also brought a link that shed light on the solution (which is very strange by the way).
But what about those three, two of them professors, who gave wrong answers? Their answers cannot all be correct because each contradicts the other.
So as you can see, even experienced professors in the field can make mistakes, you are not the only one. And Nisim, who always at least answers straight and without much philosophizing, brought the link that led to the solution.
Prof. Granot is the only one who always gives correct and polite answers, and is therefore appreciated. He is also one of those who say that no-comm is not proof that information does not pass between entangled particles, but only that information cannot be transmitted through entanglement. I've explained the difference several times, I'd love to do it again.
For our purposes, my questions were perfectly defined:
1. I look at the clock, when it shows 07.00.00 I press the button of my green laser which points in the direction of Mars which is for the purpose of the example a light hour away from me.
There is no problem to do that. Even if my hands are shaking (which is true) the laser must have been activated
At 07:00:00 plus or minus a few seconds.
After a minute are photons from my laser also halfway to Mars?
yes/no/don't know
I will only mention that I bought the laser on Amazon, and now the question is perfectly defined and the answer should be one of the 3 options I presented.
Nissim replied that the answer is negative. I'm not sure he's right, but he answered with an unequivocal answer. You, I believe, will not answer yes or no, nor admit that you do not know. Start philosophizing that the question is not well defined, blame me and curse me. But an unequivocal answer will not answer, and rightly so, except that you simply do not know (nobody does I believe).
2. Every ocean has a relaxation system that is dictated by constraints. The rest system of the oceans in Israel - Haaretz. of air in the plane - the plane. of an ocean on Mars - Mars. The constraints are that it is a closed system that is affected by the forcing forces - gravity, the walls of the plane, etc.
I asked you for one and only example of a hydrodynamic system (hereinafter referred to as an ocean) that has a rest system without constraints. Nissim tried his best and failed, not because of his incompetence but because his ocean has no rest system without constraints.
So the only answer of those who don't know but are too proud to admit it is to bring formulas that are not related to the question, tell me as always to go study and call me a fool.
Even in the same link from a few years ago that you provided (which by the way says exactly what I said, namely that Stanford's online weaving course is beyond what is required of most master's students, at least in the US, but that does not mean that the person who took it has knowledge beyond a master's degree or even remembers what was in the same course I took 7 years ago), I told you that for a prescription I do not intend to study medicine or for a law contract.
3. The problem with background radiation and Lorentz transformations is quite fundamental but not simple. I will receive your answer one more time as "I don't know, I don't admit it and I have no interest in checking". Your right, although I think the answer is important (I don't find a solution but believe it exists within relativity).
4. Are you saying that the no-comm theorems are proof that information does not pass between entangled particles? Again I emphasize, not that it is not possible to convey information through interweaving.
So please say it clearly, not in the philosophic multiplication language you are so fond of.
By the way, after the long discussion about the definition of information, I asked some who deal with information systems if they studied information theory and know what the definition of information is. They didn't know what it was at all. My friend's wife, a PhD in statistical analysis of information at the University of San Francisco, had never heard of information theory. Neither do biologists who talk about information passing through DNA.
And only Israel who talks about information is a liar and an idiot who talks about what he does not know what its definition is (maybe you will finally come up with it?).
And the link I provided is one of many as I mentioned. You can save a lot of words and philosophy if you give a simple and direct answer to the simple and direct and defined question I presented in 1, and see what difficulties you will encounter.
5. Do you still claim that in weaving experiments, all the data is already in the system? Isn't this your claim that information does not pass between the particles, a fact, all the data is already inside the system.
And what is the relevance of the examples you brought with gloves that were separated or numbers that were separated for weaving?
6. Isn't a single photon composed of a wave packet?
Try, if you are able, to give unambiguous answers and not rambling answers that mean nothing except to those who specialized. Also try not to divert the topic from what was asked like you did with the Higgs field which was brought up only as an example of a system without a rest system and you used it to celebrate my ignorance, as if I pretended to be something more than what it is: an example of a system without a rest system.
The world is pensive and disappointed.
Albanzo
I don't have any problem with information not passing through the interweaving. For my part - everything that does not create a logical contradiction is possible (and Gell-Mann said that everything that is possible is necessary...). And if reality doesn't match my intuition, then reality probably knows something I don't.
Israel
So I probably don't understand how a thermometer works. From what I've learned, space has no temperature. And the temperature of the background radiation does not decrease with speed.
And I don't understand the concept of constraints either. If I release an atom in space then what constraints are there now? The atom is a reference system without any constraints.
Everything you wrote about the difference between a photon and an electron is nonsense of the first order. Nissim is right, there is no difference between them in terms of position and momentum. A photon has a defined wavelength only if it has a defined momentum (the difference between the two is a linear transformation, as operators they are equivalent) and as I have already explained to you between six thousand and ten thousand times, not every photon has a defined momentum. In particular, in a coherent state it does not have a definite momentum nor a definite wavelength.
The link you put does not speak in any way about "violation of the uncertainty principle for photons". He only explains that a photon cannot be placed well. This is true for any relativistic particle, in particular also for the electron. not related in any way to uncertainty. The question stems from the questioner's confusion when he tries to use quantum mechanics to describe a photon, and it seems to him that there are things that don't work for him. This is true but simply because quantum mechanics (in its original version, which he tries to use) is a non-relativistic theory. Quantum mechanics in its relativistic form (=field theory) describes photons and electrons in exactly the same way and neither of them can be precisely located. In the non-relativistic approximation an electron can be placed as well as you like, but in this approximation the photon is simply not well defined (it is massless). There is no difference in uncertainty here. This was also already explained to you when you asked me about the photon position operator a few months ago.
Israel,
1. I know physics. A large part of physics is mathematics. You deny it because you are not capable of it. Successfully.
2. Yes, you talked about a coherent state. A laser is a coherent state of a photon. As usual, you hide behind your ignorance.
3. You have to decide if your question is about a laser - which is a coherent state in principle behaving similar to a classical oscillator - or if you are talking about a single photon. Your question is like asking "If I take a bottle full of liquid nitrogen, is the atom in two places at the same time?". If you are asking about the bottle, then no. The bottle behaves classically. If you want to study a single hydrogen atom, then yes, but the set-up of your problem is wrong. It is impossible to study a single hydrogen atom by performing an experiment on a bottle full of liquid hydrogen. when will you understand I will never answer the question you asked because it is not well defined. Instead of getting upset, you will learn.
4. "A specific ocean I was asked about"? What are you talking about? I gave you the example of the infinite ocean for an infinite, homogeneous system that has a rest system. Again, you don't know math in sailing so you don't understand it, but the example I gave you is exactly like that, only in one dimension. Regarding the question "what is his resting system", I don't understand what answer you are looking for. do you want a name Moses? Danish? Israel? A rest system is a choice of a coordinate system, that's all. You obviously don't understand that. For the system I wrote, you can choose a coordinate system in which all the particles rest in their place and the total 1-momentum is 0. Rest system. In this case, the Lorentz transformation that needs to be performed to arrive is the only operator, i.e. trivial.
5. Regarding the background radiation, I already told you that I will not answer, because I missed the original question and I am not interested in repeating it. In principle, don't you think it's pretty funny the way you're a million percent convinced that I'm your private tutor and that if God forbid I ignore something you said and don't immediately run to give you a private lesson that says something terrible about me?
6. Are you suffering from selective amnesia again? Again you "choose" to forget that the mathematical proof has been explained to you a thousand times. Well, for the thousand and one time, mostly for miracles and not for you: the proof is the no-comm sentences. In information theory as mathematicians, engineers and physicists define it (and work with it and do extraordinary things with it), there is no such thing as unknown information. If you study the Torah and see what information is within its framework, you will understand that a system in which a message cannot be passed between two points is a system in which information does not pass. The only reason you don't get the proof is because you choose to work in "alternative" information theory (a gentle word for "doesn't exist, which you made up for yourself during story time and actually has no value") and in which there is a difference between "known information" and "unknown information" , and therefore the fact that there is proof that a message cannot be passed between two points is not equivalent to proof that "unknown information" does not pass between them. Sorry, the world of science is not going to change its concepts to suit you. I made it clear to you from the first moment that I am speaking in terms of information theory and that if you feel like it, you are welcome to invent another theory. In this framework, the proof has been provided to you a thousand times. You refuse to accept it because you would rather not (God forbid) try to learn the Torah and discover that you are incapable of it.
Take a normal baby thermometer and put it where you want a second after the bang.
What will he see?
And how is it related? It is said that what you are measuring is the background radiation temperature. Don't you see that in the example I gave it drops quickly for the surveyor who is in motion? Movement relative to what?
What about a resting system for waves in a hydrodynamic system, what we called an ocean? Do you accept that any such rest system is due to constraints? Do you see that in your exploding balloon example the rest system of the spreading cloud is the rest system of the balloon before the explosion? Can you give an example of an ocean rest system without constraint?
Israel
I don't know a temperature like you describe. I know two types of thermometers. One receives radiation from the environment, and can measure from a distance. The other measures by touch.
The measured temperature is of something in space, not a property of space.
I really don't understand what you are talking about. What exactly does your thermometer measure?
You don't need to measure anything. Quantum claims that a quantum particle simply has no properties before you measure them, so your electron simply has no wavelength before you measure it.
The photon on the other hand has, whether you've measured it or not. A violet photon in a certain frame of reference is violet, not green. This is the difference between it and an electron.
The temperature is not only of the background radiation. Why do you think that a minute after the big bang a standard Kelvin thermometer would have read 0? So what's the difference after 13.7 billion years?
And it doesn't matter either. Do you see in the example I gave how the temperature drops rapidly for an observer in motion? So motion relative to what, the background radiation? Why?
Israel
The electron also has a wavelength, which depends on the momentum. And I don't think it's true that you can accurately measure both the frequency and the position of a photon. This is also explained on Wikipedia.
And yes - I bet you'll never find the photon halfway to Mars after a minute.
Regarding the temperature, I don't understand what you are talking about. I understand that there are two "temperatures". One is the background radiation and the other depends on the speeds of the particles in space. Both of these temperatures depend on the speed of the meter. In my understanding it is equivalent to the following case: you have fast boats in the sea and two watches. The first is a regular mechanical watch on some island in the field of view. Matan the genius will explain to you how this clock can be seen from anywhere in the ocean.
As a second clock we will take the water temperature, assuming that the earth cools at a constant rate, as claimed by Matan's friends.
In my very limited understanding, the Friedman equation talks about the temperature of the background radiation.
1. Not for the electron - for the photon.
And you don't have to measure it, it exists even without you measuring it.
But it seems to me that we will not agree and the topic is a bit broader than it seems at first. My original question was: does the uncertainty principle also apply to photons? If the answer is positive, it means that if a photon has a certain momentum then it does not have a certain position.
In quantum, the particles have no distinct properties until the moment of measurement. A photon, on the other hand, has a certain wavelength even if we haven't measured it. Photons from my green laser have a wavelength and therefore a different momentum than violet photons, whether you measured them or not.
But a short twist brings up sufficiency in connection with the application of the uncertainty principle to photons, and for exactly the same reason I mentioned:
https://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/34947/does-the-uncertainty-principle-apply-to-photons
there is much more.
I want to make sure - are you saying that the answer to the question I presented regarding the presence of photons from the green laser after a minute halfway to Mars is negative?
2. From the previous response from a few days ago:
B. We have two planets a billion light years apart whose clocks are synchronized. Time - a billion years after the big bang.
At time 0 on the clock, Planet A passes by a spaceship that is also at time 0 in the direction of Planet B. A gamma factor is equal to a billion.
The spacecraft will reach Planet B in about a year according to the season and a time of four billion years according to the Planet B clock. The universe cooled at this time by 1000 degrees.
The spacecraft sees the temperature falling rapidly for it (1000 degrees per year), while the planets see a slow change (millionth of a degree per year).
Besides the obvious contradiction to Postulate 1 - both the spaceship and Planet A are inertial systems that pass each other at time 0 according to their weather, so why is the temperature drop slow on Planet A and fast on the spaceship?), there is also the question of what would happen if we switch between them, and say That Planet A is the drive towards Spacecraft B, so why don't we experience it
The explanations I have received so far are that the planets are stationary relative to the radiation and the spaceship moves relative to the radiation, and if we switch and the spaceship is at rest relative to the radiation and the planets are in motion relative to it, then indeed the slow decrease in temperature will be in the spaceship and the fastest in the planets.
But this explanation requires a direct correlation between Lorentz transformations that dictates the lengthening of time and the background radiation, and I am looking for this connection or link.
Israel
What do you mean the electron has a definite momentum? You mean you measured his momentum with infinite precision?
And regarding the photon - if you created it at a certain moment, then it does not have a "defined" momentum. In the green laser, its color is about green... A characteristic of a clean sine wave is that it has no beginning or end.
It seems to me that you are trying to prove something, and assuming all kinds of things to prove it. A photon is not a wave moving in a medium, like a sound wave or a wave in the sea. If you think otherwise, then you have to prove it.
Israel, what temperature decreases with speed? I can tell you that in flight the measured temperature actually increases with speed.
I know what coherence is.. This is not the problem in the case of photons.
The electron also has an equal probability of being everywhere if it has a defined momentum, a consequence of the uncertainty principle.
Therefore, in my understanding, until the measurement it simply has no properties of position or momentum.
With a photon, the situation is different, since it has a momentum defined only by its wavelength, and it also exists without measurement.
Therefore, according to the uncertainty principle, it is everywhere.
And it wasn't me who talked about a single photon in a coherent state.
Your gas balloon exploded in a certain location and had a certain speed relative to the country. What are the constraints that dictate the rest system of the gas cloud in which the waves move. Mainly the speed relative to Israel.
Believe it or not, you can also measure the space temperature with a regular thermometer, but that's not the point.
The point is that the temperature drops rapidly for a motion observer. Do you see it? And the question is in motion relative to why.
If the answer is relative to the background radiation, then how exactly is it related to the lengthening of time, that is the question.
Israel
1. Coherence, in the context of a laser, describes the situation where all photons are at the same frequency and at the same instance. The concept is not defined for a single photon.
Equal probability means that there is the same probability of finding the photon everywhere. This is only true if you don't have any data on the photon. Simple logic. If you have no idea where your keys are, then they could be anywhere. If you only know they are in the house, then there is an equal probability of finding them anywhere in the house.
This is not the case with your photon.
2. Imagine a balloon of very cold gas exploding in space. You now have a slowly expanding cloud of gas. Inside this gas there can be sound waves, which will advance at a speed that is easy to calculate. There are no constraints and there are waves.
3. What temperature are you talking about? A vacuum has no temperature. In space there are some unfortunate atoms, whose temperature is equal to their speed "randomness". That is - if you move at the average speed of these particles, then the temperature is relative to the average of the absolute speeds (RMS).
If you are talking about the temperature of the background radiation, then I have already explained that it defines a reference system that should be taken into account.
You did indeed answer, and you answered beautifully. I wish everyone here would give direct answers to direct questions.
1. But this means that the photons from the laser are always ct away from it.. So what about the equal probability of inventions in space? Note also that in the previous question we asked about a source that emits only one photon, so when is there an equal probability? When the photon is coherent? And a single photon emitted from the laser is incoherent? And what is meant by it being created everywhere. In space, it was created with my laser, wasn't it?
2. Every system in which waves travel has a rest system dictated by constraints. The rest system of oceans and ponds in Israel is the land, and the constraint is gravity and the sides of the ocean or pond. On Mars, Mars. If the pool is in a moving limo, the limo. All rest systems arise from constraints, get it?
The MM experiment tried to find the rest system of the ether ocean. My question is: What constraints exist in an open, infinite, homogeneous and isotropic system as believed about the universe in 1887? Why would there be a rest system, and it is said that they would have found it - so why exactly this one and not another? Where are the homogeneities and isotropics?
Therefore, the MM experiment could not succeed, and this for logical reasons.
So could Michaelson Morley and Lorenz have missed such a glaring contradiction? unlikely. What I asked for was to know the considerations that guided them.
3. When a body moves relative to a synchronized system, time moves slower. Therefore, it will experience a faster temperature drop than a body at rest.
But moving or resting relative to what? Why precisely relative to the background radiation, how is it related to Lorentz?
That's my question.
Israel
I said I understood.
1) In the situation described, the photons are particles. They are a light minute away after a minute. There are of course small inaccuracies. I've said it many times already, so why just blame?
2) "Without constraints" is a concept I do not understand. Do you mean spatial constraint? If so then imagine a planet made of water that is not in a solar system. The only "constraint" now is gravity. I am of course ignoring the hydrogen bonds and the covalent bonds, but if you want - they are also constraints.
3) The speed of the meter relative to the background radiation affects the wavelength of the background radiation, in addition to the expansion of space. This is a normal Doppler effect. At high speed, the theory of relativity must also be taken into account. I have said this several times already.
Maybe I'm wrong. But you can't keep saying I didn't answer.
Miracles
So what do you say, to the question I presented:
"After a minute, are photons from my laser halfway to Mars?"
Is the answer yes, no, or don't know?
Do you see another option?
Or maybe you too will become a politician lawyer who only talks around the issue and never about the issue itself?
And what about an ocean, could you give me one and only example of a physical ocean that has a rest system and that without constraints?
And how does the lengthening of time in relationships have anything to do with background radiation?
What questions did I present? If you were able to figure out the answer from Albenzo's words, please share with me.
Except that I'm not sure but if I remember correctly, a single photon also consists of a wave packet. I presented the question in the forums, I wonder what curses I will catch if the answer is positive.
Israel
In my understanding, what you describe is a classic situation. At a certain time you sent a photon of a certain color in a certain direction, that is - you know approximately the momentum, and the position at a certain time. Depending on the approximation, you can locate the photon any time you want. If you stand in front of the laser then there is also a good chance that you will see the same photon.
It is only necessary to emphasize that you do not know anything about the photon with high precision, except for its speed.
If I'm wrong - I'd love for someone to correct me.
Slowly and surely, you lose touch with physical reality and move into a world full of imagination.
Did it ever occur to you that all the objects I'm talking about - the earth, Mars, lasers, clocks, oceans, photons - are actual physical objects and not just mathematical abstractions?
And how did you once again manage to answer what you wanted and not what was asked. How come I'm not surprised?
Who asked you about a photon in a coherent state? Here is the question once again, who is counting anymore.
"I look at the clock, when it shows 07.00.00 I press the button of my green laser which points in the direction of Mars which is for the sake of the example an hour of light away from me.
There is no problem to do that. Even if my hands are shaking (which is true) the laser must have been activated
At 07:00:00 plus or minus a few seconds.
After a minute are photons from my laser also halfway to Mars?
yes/no/don't know'.
Did you see anything here about coherence?
And you still complain about repeating yourself. Undoubtedly repeats, but about what you want, not about what is asked.
And who's willing to bet that even this time you won't answer the question asked but whatever you want?
And what is the connection between the formula you brought to the resting state of a specific ocean which is what you are asking about? Do you even understand what the MM experiment was trying to do? Do you even understand the problem with what he was trying to do?
"The calculation, which is really trivial - is activation of a general Lorentz transformation and comparison to 0. If there is a set of parameters (hyperbolic rotation) for which there is a solution to the equation, then there is a rest system.'
Good, so what is that rest system? If the calculation is so trivial, then edit it for any ocean you choose and tell me what its rest system is, and this without constraints.
And what about background radiation? Once again you dodged and answered something else?
And you're talking about Dabil, are you? If you weren't a doctor, maybe it would be possible to respond leniently to the nonsense you produce. So indeed you are a doctor, but a stupid and buffoon doctor.
If you keep cursing me, we'll start making a list of all your bullshit, starting with that obscure mathematical proof that no information passes between entangled particles, through your stupid assertion that "all the data is already in the system" and ending with the assertion that the Scientific American article which clearly states that quantum mechanics is dangerous The relationship does not.
My daughter and son-in-law both have PhDs from one of the best universities in the world, not some university number 200 in the Levant. And woe betide me - and them - if they start grabbing everyone's ass like you do, Dr. Damicolo.
Good luck.
1. The question was clearly defined, I agree. It is so clear that anyone with a basic knowledge of quantum mechanics understands (what I am trying to explain to you) that it is not well defined. If you look at a green laser like the one in the lab, it does not consist of a photon in a pure state but a wave packet (funny, I feel like someone has already said that sentence once or twice). For such a wave packet, a geometric optics approximation is valid and therefore it can be tracked in space. In other words, it behaves like a classical light beam, and it is located in space to a reasonable degree (of course not coherent, but usually below the resolution of our measurement tools) and it also has a dominant color (again, it does not have a well-defined momentum in the quantum sense, but the approximation is green) . When you look in the lab at a laser, you can see the light beam for this very reason. For a single photon in a pure state this is simply not true. That is, for the interesting part of quantum mechanics the experiment you define so clearly is irrelevant. You don't get it, I see. I know. In the same matter, this part of acting as if your opponent does not understand something or does not know something (as you tried to do to me in your previous comment) - it only works if your opponent really does not know. For example, when you do this to me, it doesn't bother me (kind of funny). On the other hand, when I explain to you again and again that you don't understand a word of what you are talking about... well, then come explain to me again how the Higgs field is a magical force field that resists movement through it? ;)))))))
2. Here.
ds^2 = dx^2- dt^2
\rho = \rho_0
H_0=p^2/2m
Find the constraint please.
3. It turns out that I was not accurate. What you said is not that you have knowledge of braiding at least at a master's degree level if not more, but that you did a course on braiding that is above and beyond what is required of a master's degree student. It's funny that in such a course they didn't teach anything other than maximum interweaving. In the courses in Israel, this is usually done in the second or third lecture.
https://www.hayadan.org.il/hapiness-equasion-0310149/comment-page-2#comment-563913
4. The calculation, which is really trivial - is activation of a general Lorentz transformation and comparison to 0. If there exists a set of parameters (hyperbolic rotation) for which there is a solution to the equation, then there is a rest system.
5. I don't answer you not because I don't know, but because you are not worth my time. You know the truth inside of you. I don't think anyone else is reading our correspondence because everyone is already fed up, but if there really are - do you really think they don't understand which of us knows what he's talking about and who is a fool whose frustration made him lose his mind? 🙂 You understand.
Successfully.
A day passed.
Two days passed.
And there are no comments.
And the reader is embarrassed and confused: where is the photon? Is it a ct away from the laser? So what does the matter of smearing with equal probability in the universe mean? And how does the existing laser photon differ from a photon in a coherent state? Why is it incoherent? And is it because of the coherence of the situation that it is not spread with equal probability in the universe?
And what ocean in the universe does not have a rest system dictated by constraints? Does such a physical object exist or is it just an abstract mathematical object?
And we haven't mentioned the background radiation yet. How is it related to Lorentz transformations?
I know, I know, it has already been explained to me dozens of times (in great detail and patience). (Bullshit, neither explained nor plastered over. Every time the discussion reached the stage of difficult questions, the explainer disappeared, like now).
So maybe someone volunteers to explain? Miracles? admit? someone? anyone?
The world wonders and is bored.
Alright I got it. I think we all understood.
But you shouldn't feel bad about it. It's not simple stuff and many people struggle with it, you're not the only one.
The question was defined with an incomparable clarity:
"I look at the clock, when it shows 07.00.00 I press the button of my green laser which points in the direction of Mars which is for the sake of the example an hour of light away from me.
There is no problem to do that. Even if my hands are shaking (which is true) the laser must have been activated
At 07:00:00 plus or minus a few seconds.
After a minute are photons from my laser also halfway to Mars?
yes/no/don't know'.
The only thing I don't understand is: why is it so hard to just say: I don't know. I have no idea. I don't know where the photon will be. If it is spread with equal probability it can be anywhere. On the other hand, classical physics says it will be at a distance of ct. If it is at a greater distance than that, it moves faster than light.
Instead of being honest with yourself and everyone else and saying you don't know the answer, you attack me with accusations as usual.
So just to connect you to reality and show you that you are the one running away to straw men, show me that ocean that has a rest system without constraints. Pacific? the atlantic Maybe some ocean on Mars? In Andromeda? Go ahead, find it. On the occasion, also prepare for us the same "mathematical calculation that every first year student knows how to do, which clearly shows how to find a rest system even for an infinite system", and I will be happy to show you that if you found one, you used constraints.
And - this should surely make you happy - introduce Clooney in the plural and show the place where I testified about myself in the past that my knowledge of braiding is at least a master's degree.
Come on physicist, the world is holding its breath.
It has already been explained to you in the past (in great detail and patience) that the green laser system you have in the laboratory launches a wave packet and not a photon in a coherent state. In your eyes, there may be no difference, but quantum mechanics does not agree with you so much...
I actually know the difference between a closed system and an open one. Will bet a little better than you. I also know when the person I'm talking to runs away to straw men (accusing me of not knowing the difference between an open and closed system even though at no point did I talk about it so that God forbid he doesn't have to admit that he's simply not able to perform a mathematical calculation that every first year student knows do, which clearly shows how to find a rest system even for an infinite system). In fact, I'm already almost completely convinced that you just don't know what a rest system is. Hint - this has nothing to do with any constraint. On the other hand, I'm also quite convinced that you don't know what a constraint is.
Finally, I would expect from a person who has testified in the past that his knowledge of entanglement is at least a master's degree level, if not more, that he knew that entanglement is actually a quantitative quantity - particles can be very entangled, a little entangled, not entangled at all, etc. The entanglement you always talk about - where the state of one particle is determined with certainty by the state of another particle - is called maximal entanglement. A particle that is maximally entangled with another particle cannot be entangled at all (maximally or not maximally) with any other particle. A system of three entangled particles is possible, but all the particles will be non-maximally entangled with each other, which will require talking about their entanglement entropy. But since there are already several responses, I can't make you understand that in quantum mechanics there is no photon that leaves point A with momentum P, it seems to me that I won't succeed much with entanglement entropy either. As usual, you preferred to argue, to insist and, god forbid, to admit that you don't understand rather than listen and maybe learn something. Good luck later.
Why complicate matters?
I look at the clock, when it shows 07.00.00 I press my green laser button which points in the direction of Mars which is for the purpose of the example one light hour away from me.
There is no problem to do that. Even if my hands are shaking (which is true) the laser must have been activated
At 07:00:00 plus or minus a few seconds.
After a minute are photons from my laser also halfway to Mars?
yes/no/don't know
Every physical ocean has a rest system that is dictated by constraints. The reason is that the system in which the ocean is located is a closed system - on the earth, the earth. On Mars, Mars. In the plane, the plane. Do you claim otherwise? Can you give me an example of a hydrodynamic system such as an ocean where waves advance and has no rest system due to constraints? Bring me such a system and I will show you the constraints under which the rest system exists.
And if you don't see the difference between a closed rest system and an open one such as the universe, then probably the discussion really boiled down to the MM experiment.
What about the extension of time? How and why is it related to background radiation?
What about 3 particles intertwined? If I measured one then do I know the status of the other two? How can it be said that it doesn't matter who I measured first? If I measured one before the others, then doesn't that require that the measurement of the first caused the collapse and the measurement of the others only revealed the results of the collapse?
Good, Israel. I think there is nothing more to go on. I can't get the message across to you and I don't have the patience to repeat myself word for word. You may be upset about this, but when I write to you that quantum mechanics does not allow a photon to be emitted from a specific point (=known location) and also with a specific momentum (that is, with a specific color or in a specific direction in space) and your answer is "OK, then let's do a thought experiment on it" We emit a photon from the Sun to Mars and the photon has a green color", as far as I'm concerned, this means that either you don't read what is written to you or that your gap in understanding matter is so basic that you don't understand what it means that a photon is in a certain place or has a certain momentum. Likewise regarding homogeneity - the use of terms you invent for yourself such as "rest system dictated by constraints" is due to the fact that you insist on treating physics as if it were a discipline from the humanities or an art. she does not. It is an exact science. All the things we talk about here have precise mathematical definitions and if you studied them and checked them you would not even think of arguing about these things. But here I am again repeating word for word what I wrote to you before.
The last sentence:
"Now a quick descent on Planet A and not in a spaceship?"
Unnecessary, and entered because of the editing difficulties in the new blog format.
Albanzo
With your permission, I will concentrate the comments that are important to me in this article, that way we will not be entertained by dozens of articles.
ELBENTZO
March 12, 2018 at 23:19 p.m
Israel,
It is impossible to give you a yes or no answer, because as I am trying to explain to you - your question is not well defined. Your premise is a photon emitted from point A towards B. That is, a photon that at a certain initial moment is located at A *and* also has a definite momentum (you claim that it was emitted towards B, therefore it must have momentum from A to B). Before you asked the question, you already disproved quantum mechanics. This question cannot be answered within the framework of the theory.
If you look at a photon emitted at a certain moment with momentum P, then it was not emitted from a certain point in space and there is no meaning to the question of how far it traveled. It was spread in space at the moment of emission, and it remained spread in space after 3 seconds. If you would like to give up the second assumption (that is, a photon that is emitted from point A but does not have a defined momentum) then in order to give meaning to its position after 3 seconds you need to perform a measurement, that is to intervene and change the quantum system. This measurement result will always yield some point 3 light seconds away from A but as I have said repeatedly, this is a measurement and as such is a destructive act to the system. That is, there is a whole world of physical effects that are beyond measurement (like the interference in the two-slit experiment), so that the measurement at point A during the emission and the measurement at a point 3 light seconds away after 3 seconds are really not enough to describe the entire system. This is true in classical physics, but not in quantum mechanics. During the 3 seconds that the particle was not measured it could perform quantum interactions with its environment.
This whole line of questions has already been answered before.
1. I have no idea what you're talking about and I'm not going to dig back in the comments. Lorentz transformation is a type of symmetry. What does it mean "what is the relationship between CMB and the Lorentz transformation"? What does Saturn have to do with rotational symmetry?
2. As far as I know, no, but I'm not an expert in the field. I'm answering from the hip and maybe I'm missing something. In principle, if you measure radiation from a source without knowing what its emission characteristics are (such as intensity), you will not be able to know what the distance is. There are other emission properties (eg if you know the spectrum of the emission and you know the relative velocity you can use the doppler effect to find the distance), but you always need some amount of information about the emission and the environment.
3. I already explained to you before, including explicit examples. There is no contradiction between the existence of a rest system and homogeneity. If you take, for example, paper and draw on it a grid of particles at equal distances, it will be homogeneous (at every point the density of points is equal). If you do a Lorentz transformation, it will still be homogeneous, although the distances between the particles will no longer be equal in both axes. The density will remain independent of the location and therefore the medium will be homogeneous.
Let's define thought experiments precisely:
A. We have two synchronized clocks, one in Israel and the other in Mars. The distance between them for the purpose of the example - a light hour.
All the way between Israel and Mars, clocks are also synchronized.
At moment 0 on earth clock, I press the button of the device that launches a single green photon towards Mars. The photon reaches Mars in exactly one hour according to the Mars clock. No measurement is performed during the entire course of the experiment.
Questions:
1. Can we say that in one minute according to the clock in the center of the road, the photon is not in its vicinity?
2. We know that we can always find the photon at a distance ct from the earth, but can we say that the photon is spread with equal probability along the entire length of the track during the time of the experiment (hour)? If not, is there a certain probability distribution for finding the photon? The classical answer is of course negative, but what is the quantum answer?
3. If the answer to 2 is positive and the photon is indeed applied with equal probability before the measurement, is this different for a photon beam? If instead of a single photon I light a flashlight in Israel at time 0, is the flashlight beam also spread with equal probability?
A doctor of physics named Amir Zeit answered me at the time that the photon was theoretically found along the entire length of the track before the measurement.
B. We have two planets a billion light years apart whose clocks are synchronized. Time - a billion years after the big bang.
At time 0 on the clock, Planet A passes by a spaceship that is also at time 0 in the direction of Planet B. A gamma factor is equal to a billion.
The spacecraft will reach Planet B in about a year according to the season and a time of four billion years according to the Planet B clock. The universe cooled at this time by 1000 degrees.
The spacecraft sees the temperature falling rapidly for it (1000 degrees per year), while the planets see a slow change (millionth of a degree per year).
Besides the obvious contradiction to Postulate 1 - both the spaceship and Planet A are inertial systems that pass each other at time 0 according to their weather, so why is the temperature drop slow on Planet A and fast on the spaceship?), there is also the question of what would happen if we switch between them, and say That Planet A is the drive towards Spacecraft B, so why don't we experience it
The explanations I have received so far are that the planets are stationary relative to the radiation and the spaceship moves relative to the radiation, and if we switch and the spaceship is at rest relative to the radiation and the planets are in motion relative to it, then indeed the slow decrease in temperature will be in the spaceship and the fastest in the planets.
But this explanation requires a direct correlation between Lorentz transformations that dictates the lengthening of time and radiation
The background, and this connection or link I'm looking for.
third. Indeed, according to existing physics, we cannot know the distance of a source of electromagnetic radiation without knowledge of its intensity. Otherwise we could build a single satellite GPS.
d. We've gone over this point several times and we probably won't agree.
Every ocean has a relaxation system that is dictated by constraints. The rest system of the oceans in Israel - Haaretz. of air in the plane - the plane. of an ocean on Mars - Mars. The constraints are that it is a closed system that is affected by the forcing forces - gravity, the walls of the plane, etc.
But what constraints exist in a completely open system? In an infinite homogeneous and isotropic universe? If we take two land coordinates with different speeds, then each ocean has a different rest system but if we combine them we will get a new rest system that will weight the speeds of the two coordinates. If we add more matches we will get a new weighted system.
But what weighted rest system will we get if we meet infinitely many matches at infinite speeds at that moment? And if we accept - then why exactly this one and not another?
In my opinion, an infinite system cannot have a rest system. And so a MM experiment that tried to find this rest system could not succeed. Now a rapid descent on Planet A and not in a spacecraft?
GPS does that. What can help is a transmitter that I can see with a device the exact distance to it (remember the ADF in airplanes? So it's not, but the principle is similar.
Israel
Every meter change in your position can change the time by 3 nanometers. You need a local clock to get such high accuracy.
Negative. It's just a logical inference. And there is probably no way to contradict the same logical conclusion, because there is no contradiction in it. It just doesn't add up. It is the immediate simultaneity that does not fit with relativity.
Well, find some remote signal that can be measured with nano precision so that we can close the matter.
Israel
So yes, I agree.
Regarding the crash. Let's assume that both sides have no clocks. Do you think there is a way to check who checked their photon first?
The first is a mistake. I chose the second.
Israel
You wrote "a GPS satellite will see the earth's clocks moving faster than its own, at least on that you agree?"
And now you write "If there is a satellite video camera, won't it record its own slow-moving earth clock?"
Choose...
If there is a satellite video camera, won't it record its own slow-moving earth clock?
And if Haaretz takes a video of the hour and the satellite clock together without making any changes, won't it see the time moving faster than its own? It's a simple experiment that can be done, but you don't have to. It is enough to take a video of a clock that is 100 meters above you, you will see the time moving faster than yours.
You don't see a collapse, but the inference is logical. Section 2 that we agreed on means that the collapse started on one side and the measurement on the other side only revealed the results of the collapse, even without us seeing it with our eyes.
Israel
Let's split in two.
1. Because of the relative speed - each will see the other's clocks lagging by 7 micros per day
2. Because of gravity - the satellite clock will advance the clock on earth by 45 micros per day.
I don't see that we've seen a crash issue. I don't see that we have reached a contradiction.
A GPS satellite will see the earth's clocks moving faster than its own, at least on that you agree?
I need a device that receives signals from a distant station and displays them with nano precision. GPS devices do this, and as I expected devices in fast motion show different time than devices at rest. The question is what will happen if we move closer or further away from the radiation source. I can't do this with GPS devices.
And what happens with the collapse of our wave function? Who causes the collapse, the spacecraft in one year or the earth in two years?
Israel
GPS clocks run slower because of speed, about 7 microseconds every day. It is true that gravity has an effect, and this effect is greater (which is why in practice the clocks run faster). Today's clocks are so accurate that you can see the effect even at city driving speed in a car (not in Los Angeles of course... where time doesn't move at all on the road..)
Meowons reach the ground from an altitude of 20 km, although their life time should not allow this.
Israel - You cannot take a picture of a clock on an object 2 million light years away.
I don't understand - the discussion is whether there is a relative slowdown in time or not? Are you claiming that time moves faster in a fast body?
A watch with nano precision? Every 30 km Yossi range, go a nano-second, so how will that help you? If anything - there are local clocks that provide very high accuracy.
And your GPS satellite, if it takes a video of its clock and the Earth's clocks together, will see the Earth's clocks advancing faster than its own.
Which reminds me: do you know a system that shows the time similar to the GPS system and with nano precision but with stations in Israel? The WVV does this, but its accuracy is low. I also need only one station signals.
How exactly do the clocks see each other?
But we will flow with you. A powerful telescope is mounted on our spacecraft and a video camera is attached to it. When the spacecraft passes over the Earth, the camera captures the clocks of the spacecraft and Andromeda together.
Will she not see that a year has passed in the spaceship and 4 million years in Andromeda? So at least according to the video from the spacecraft, the clock on Andromeda spins 4 million times faster than the one on the spacecraft.
Israel
Yes - this time is called proper time, but that's not the point.
In Wikipedia it says:
As a result of the nature of spacetime, a clock that is moving relative to an observer will be measured to tick slower than a clock that is at rest in the observer's own frame of reference
This has also been tested empirically. The clocks in GPS satellites for example. Particles in accelerators for example. Muons created by cosmic radiation for example.
"So it's clear that on the train as a system time passes faster than with you" - it's not clear to me. I guess I don't understand what you mean.
read in:
https://www.fourmilab.ch/etexts/einstein/specrel/www/
chapter One'
It is essential to have time defined by means of stationary clocks in the stationary system, and the time now defined being appropriate to the stationary system we call it "the time of the stationary system."
If when the first car passes you, the photo shows 0,0, and the clocks of the whole train are synchronized, so the time is 0 in them too, when the second car passes you, the photo shows 1 in car 10, when the third car shows 2, 20, and so on, then it is clear that on the train as a system, time passes faster than at your place.
Israel
How did you infer what the video would show? Are you claiming that time runs faster on the train passing by?
Israel
There is a train passing by me. The tractor and Masaf have two synchronized clocks - will I see the same time on both clocks?
The meaning in the last sentence is the measurement in the spacecraft.
According to Einstein's definition of synchronization, if two clocks are synchronized in an inertial system, then both have the same time throughout the duration of the experiment. See Einstein's original paper on relativity, Chapter I, Synchronicity.
Therefore, if the time on the clock in Israel is 0, then the clock on Andromeda that is synchronized with it is also 0. If 117, then 117.
If two trains pass each other and the clocks of each train are synchronized with each other but not with the other train, there can be only one moment, 223 for example, when all the clocks on the trains show the same time, and that is the moment when the locomotives pass each other, and only If they both show the same time on their watches in a joint photo at the moment of the suit.
If from the spacecraft's point of view the time for the Milky Way passes more slowly, then how is it that a video recording of the clocks it takes on its way show a time higher and higher than its own? If at time 0 you plant identical trees on the planets in the spacecraft's path, the video will show seedlings that quickly turn into seedlings, then young trees, old trees, and finally dead trees. If we are talking about twins, then if at moment 0 identical twins are born on the planets, then the video shoot will show that baby in all stages of his life in fast motion turning into a boy, a boy, a man, growing old and dying.
So how does time move slower there?
As we defined at the beginning:
1. If we have two entangled particles neither of which is measured, we can say that the wave function connecting them has not collapsed in space. getting?
2. If particle A is measured before particle B, it can be said that the measurement of particle A caused the wave function to collapse and the measurement of particle B only revealed the results of the collapse. getting?
(Note that this is what differentiates between entangled particles and a pair of separated gloves, where each measurement of each side only reveals the hidden variables already present in the system, and it doesn't matter who was measured first).
3. If we have two pairs of entangled particles, A with B and C with D, and A is measured first followed by C, then we can say that in the space where the C-D wave function collapsed at a given moment, the A wave function also collapsed '-B'. getting?
4. If we take two entwined particles A and B, put them on a spaceship and when one passes the other they will see the same time, then if particle A is measured before particle B we can say that before its measurement the wave function has not yet collapsed and when it is measured Particle B The wave function has already collapsed earlier and the measurement of particle B only revealed the results of the collapse. getting?
Therefore, if the measurement in the spacecraft after one year preceded the measurement in Israel after two years, then it is the one that caused the wave function to collapse. But if when the spacecraft arrives at Andromeda the wave function has already collapsed in it because of the measurement in Israel during two years, then the measurement in Israel is not the cause of the collapse contrary to what is written in section 2.
Israel
I don't understand what the "synchronization setting" is. There is no time when the 4 clocks show the same value. "moment" see "time" depending on the reference system. There is no such thing as global time, or general time.
Suppose a clock every daylight hour. A spacecraft passes quickly between the clocks. As far as the spacecraft is concerned, time for the Milky Way moves more slowly. This is exactly our traveling twin brother, who ages more slowly than his brother.
"But when the spacecraft arrives at Andromeda at time 2 million in Andromeda, it is already almost 2 million years after the wave function collapsed at time 2 in Andromeda."
Good question…. Let's assume the wave function collapsed at time 2 of Earth/Andromeda. Where is the problem?
"No, it's not a moment at all. But 3 "place-moments".
Can you point to another time during train progress where all the clocks according to the synchronization setting show the same time?
"As far as we're concerned, time with the neutrinos has barely advanced. As far as the neutron is concerned, time has barely advanced with us.'
lets see. The Milky Way system is about one hundred thousand light years in size. So let's put synchronized clocks at a distance of one light hour from each other and let the passenger passing by quickly take a video of his and her clocks.
So if when he entered it his watch and the first watch showed 0, when he left it his watch showed one hour and the last watch showed 100 thousand years. Every clock along the way showed an increasing time. If there is evolution in the planets, it develops very quickly in the video.
So how can you say that time in the Milky Way system does not move faster than the traveling time? We even have a video that shows it.
"When the spaceship arrives at Andromeda, the time with her is a year. The time in Andromeda is 2 million. As far as the Earth and Andromeda are concerned, time in the spaceship moves very slowly. Therefore - I don't see a contradiction here.'
But when the spacecraft arrives at Andromeda at time 2 million in Andromeda, it is already almost 2 million years after the wave function collapsed at time 2 in Andromeda.
So the spacecraft arrives at Andromeda when the wave function has already collapsed, which is contrary to our assumption that the measurement in the spacecraft at time 1 is the one that caused the collapse.
Israel
"This is a unique moment that will not return again in the future." - No, it's not a moment at all. But 3 "place-moments".
"With neutrinos, the gamma factor is quite close, I believe 2 million. Therefore if a neutrino passed the earth 2 million years ago, it is now between 4 trillion years, not to mention a neutrino that passed 2 billion years ago.
And this is far beyond the age of the universe in which the same neutrino also lives.”
As far as we are concerned, time with the neutrinos has barely advanced. As far as the neutron is concerned, time with us has hardly advanced.
"If the spacecraft and the Earth carry with them interwoven particles and conclude that the spacecraft measures the time of one year according to the season and the Earth in the time of two years according to the season, then the time of two years in the Earth is also the time of two years in Andromeda and the wave function there collapses in the time of two years, almost two million years before the spacecraft arrived and measured the time of a year on According to the spacecraft's clock."
When the spaceship arrives at Andromeda, the time with her is a year. The time in Andromeda is 2 million. As far as the Earth and Andromeda are concerned, time in the spaceship moves very slowly. Therefore - I do not see a contradiction here.
I think we are in sync. But note: when the spaceship and Earth pass each other, the time on their clocks is 0. Since Andromeda's time is the same as Earth's time, its time is also 0 and so is Kron's time 2 million. This is a unique moment that will never come again.
Note the first problem that arises from this description:
As we saw when the Haaretz clock shows a year, the Krone 2 million clock shows 2 million years. Since the carriage is synchronized with the spacecraft, this is also the time of the spacecraft. When the earth's clock will show 2 million years, the clocks of the car opposite and with it the spacecraft will show 4 trillion years.
For neutrinos, the gamma factor is quite close, I believe to 2 million. Therefore if a neutrino passed the earth 2 million years ago, it is now between 4 trillion years, not to mention a neutrino that passed 2 billion years ago.
And this is far beyond the age of the universe in which the same neutrino also lives.
The second problem is a little more complex.
If the spaceship and the earth carry with them interwoven particles and conclude that the spaceship measures a year in time according to a season and the earth in a time of two years according to a season, then a time of two years in the earth is also a time of two years in Andromeda and the wave function there collapses in a time of two years, almost two million years before the spacecraft arrived and measured the time of a year according to Spaceship clock.
Therefore, when the spacecraft arrives, the wave function in its environment has already collapsed, and this is contrary to the condition that says that the wave function does not collapse before the initial measurement - which chronologically was done in the spacecraft.
So which measurement caused the function to collapse - in the spacecraft (one year time) or in Israel (two years time)?
Any answer will lead to a contradiction.
Miracles
"The spacecraft is synchronized with Krone 2 million, and the distance between them is 2 million light years."
Ok
"Haaretz is in sync with Andromeda, and the distance between them is 2 million light years."
Ok
"The spacecraft passes over the Earth, and the Earth passes over the spacecraft."
Ok
When the spacecraft arrives at Andromeda, the time in the season is one year and the time in Andromeda is 2 million years.
"Ok"
"When the country reaches 2 million caravans - what is the time on the Haaretz clock and what is the time in the caravan?"
The time on Earth shows a year, and the time in the last trailer shows 2 million.
And if you didn't get a year and two million years - what is the difference between the 2 systems?"
There is no difference.
But pay attention: when the spacecraft passes over the Earth: from the point of view of the spacecraft - the clock on Andromeda shows almost 2 million years, and vice versa. As far as the spacecraft is concerned - Andromeda time hardly advances during the flight (and time on Earth hardly advances either).
And of course - also the other way around.
As far as the spacecraft is concerned - the clocks of Haaretz and Andromeda are not synchronized, and vice versa. They progress at the same rate, but at any given moment (moment of the spacecraft) there is a difference of almost 2 million years between them. and vice versa.
The spacecraft is synchronized with Krone 2 million, and the distance between them is 2 million light years.
The earth is in sync with Andromeda, and the distance between them is 2 million light years.
The spacecraft passes over the Earth, and the Earth passes over the spacecraft.
When the spacecraft arrives at Andromeda, the time in the season is one year and the time in Andromeda is 2 million years.
And now you tell me:
When the country reaches 2 million caravans - what is the time on the Haaretz clock and what is the time in the caravan?
And if you didn't get a year and two million years - what is the difference between the 2 systems?
Israel
Yes.
But... there is no symmetry here. One of the systems has two points that are synchronized in the same system. They are not synchronized in the other system. do you get that
Miracles
Do you accept that in the spaceship system - Krone 2 million, the Earth is the one that moves, just like in the Earth system - Andromeda, the spaceship is the one that moves?
Israel
I can't understand what you are saying. You wrote: "When the spaceship moves from Earth to Andromeda, then points it passes along the way will show higher and higher time than itself. But the spacecraft will see a system where time moves 2 million times faster."
Right.
You wrote: "Therefore if there are carriages behind the spaceship that are a light year apart, then the country will count 2 million carriages passing in front of it for a year, and in exactly one year it will find in front of a number 2 carriage where time is 2 million years.
I understand that the distance of a light year is in the space system. After a national year - car number 2 million passes - I agree. The clock in the car will show 1 divided by 2 million. To understand: if a spacecraft was moving at c then the clock would not advance at all.
From the side of the spacecraft - 2 million years pass, and this is what the clock will show in the 2 millionth trailer. The trailer will show that 4 trillion years have passed on the terrestrial clock.
It's like the flight to Andromeda, and like the nutrients that penetrate the atmosphere, and like the twin paradox - this situation is not symmetrical. You determined a distance in one axis system, this distance is smaller in gamma in the other system.
Let's take an example, which is based on the twin paradox. A spaceship flies at a constant speed and passes the sun and then Sirius, let's say 10 light years. The spacecraft flies at gamma speed = 10 and different zeros when crossing the sun.
From the point of view of an observer on Sirius - the spacecraft arrives after 10 years, and the time on the spacecraft - one year.
As far as the pilot is concerned, the distance is only a light year. On his watch, a year has passed, and he will see a time elapsed of only 0.1 year on the clock on Sirius.
Now - there seems to be a contradiction, right? In both systems - the time on the spacecraft clock is one year. this is how it should be. But - there seems to be no match between what everyone sees on a Sirius watch.
The reason is simple - the sundials and Sirius are not synchronized in the spacecraft system 🙂
The event is the measurement of time in the spacecraft. Andromeda is irrelevant.
And if you say that at this moment the time in Israel is 2 million, then even at the moment you measured time in Israel 1, the time in the spaceship is 2 million.
If you don't see it, think about a small country that you can call a spaceship, and a big spaceship that you can call a country.
What is the difference from what we described?
It seems to me that we are not in sync about what the extension of time is.
When you say "time in the opposite system moves more slowly" you mean only a synchronized system that observes a point moving relative to it. To the point, time in the synchronized system moves faster.
As the spacecraft moves from Earth to Andromeda, then points it passes along the way will see higher and higher time than itself. But the spacecraft will see a system where time moves 2 million times faster.
The same in the other direction as well.
Therefore, if there are carriages behind the spaceship that are a light year apart, then the country will count 2 million carriages passing in front of it for a year, and in exactly one year it will find in front of carriage No. 2 million where time is 2 million years.
And since this carriage is synchronized with the spacecraft, then this time - 2 million years - is also the time of the spacecraft.
Israel
and you don't listen
When the spacecraft passes by Andromeda - then we have an event. The spacecraft will measure in season 1, and the national clock will show 2 million on the ground.
If you want to measure as you said - let's define a point in space - a light year away from the Earth (measured in the Earth system).
At this point - the time on Earth is 1, and the time in the spacecraft: 1 divided by 2 million.
You wanted a number... 0.0000005
No.
But you disobey orders. Consider yourself reprimanded. If you wrote that when the spaceship passes by Andromeda, the time in season 1 and in Israel 2 million have passed, then when the time in Israel is 1 how much time has passed in the spaceship?
Number, number, number!
just a number
Israel
There is no way to check the clocks at the same time - except at the crossing point. Do we agree to that?
Time in Israel, according to Israel time. Time in the spacecraft according to the spacecraft clock.
And if you wrote - and you wrote - that when the spacecraft measures its particle at time 1 in the spacecraft, then 2 million years have passed in Israel, so when the earth measures its particle at time 1 in Israel, 2 million years have passed in the spacecraft.
And if the earth measures its particle in 2 million times, then 4 trillion have passed in the spacecraft.
No?
Israel
What does "time in Israel is 2 million" mean? According to which clock?
Each sees the other's clock slower. Therefore: if in place X the time is t then in place Y the time is t divided by 2 million. so
- If the spacecraft measures 2 million times, then according to the spacecraft the time in Israel is 1.
- If the spacecraft measures 4 trillion times, then according to the spacecraft, the time in Israel is 2 trillion.
- If in Israel time is measured as 2 million, then according to Israel the time in the spaceship is 1.
- If in Israel time is measured at 4 trillion, then according to Israel the time in the spaceship is 2 trillion.
Of course there is symmetry.
You have a spaceship and the earth that passed each other at time 0 in both. symmetrical.
At time 1 the spacecraft checks its time.
If at this moment the time in Israel is 2 million, then why when in Israel the time is 1 the time in the spaceship is not 2 million?
Israel
does not accept There is no symmetry here. The spacecraft flies from Earth to Andromeda. As far as the Earth is concerned, the distance to Andromeda is 2 million light years. In terms of the spacecraft - the distance is a light year.
If you put two spaceships, then there is no way to synchronize the 4 clocks.
It's just like the twin paradox.
This means that if the earth's clock shows 2 million years, then because of the symmetry in the spaceship 4 trillion years have passed.
I just switched between the earth and the spaceship.
getting?
Israel
You say you are now flying to a point 4 trillion light years away. 2 million years will pass in the spacecraft and 4 trillion years will pass on Earth.
What does it mean to switch between the spacecraft and the land?
Reporter:
Miracles
February 19, 2018 at 18:06 PM
Israel
The spacecraft crosses Andromeda and examines its photon. Let's say gamma 2 million. On the clock of the spacecraft during the crossing - a year has passed. On Earth's clock (and Andromeda's clock too) 2 million years have passed.
I agree with that.
So here is the question once again:
The same as what you wrote, but instead of a year, write 2 million years.
So you won't accept that 4 trillion years have passed in Israel?
And if we switch between the spaceship and the earth, then when the earth checks its photon in time of 2 million years according to the time of the earth - then doesn't that mean that 4 trillion years have passed in the spaceship?
Israel
Let's look at it from a different angle. How do you synchronize watches between distant points? Simple - send an information pulse with the time and distance (that is, the flight time). At time 0 they sent pulses, and it arrived 2 million years later to Andromeda. Therefore, in Andromeda, the clock is set to a time of 2 million years. Now the 2 clocks show the same thing - 2 million years.
But what does the pilot see? He sees the pulse coming out, and he sees that the distance between the stars is a light year. And in addition - Andromeda is approaching very fast. The pulse will reach Andromeda after six months. So from the point of view of the pilot: the time on Earth: half a year. The time on Andromeda: 2 and a half million years.
"If you say that when the time in the spaceship is one year then in Israel the time is 2 million years, then when the time in Israel is 2 million years what is the time in the spaceship?" All the time here - according to whose clock?
It depends, it depends, but I think you're missing the point.
If you say that when the time in the spaceship is a year then in Israel the time is 2 million years, then when the time in Israel is 2 million years what is the time in the spaceship?
Please, answer with numbers only. No simultaneity, no reference system. just a number
Israel
How do you measure the temperature? If you want to use the background radiation then you set up another reference system, and everyone has to correct their time accordingly. If you measure the speed of the particles in space then you have also defined a reference system.
Let's just put a clock in space and we'll all refer to it. But wait, this watch also defines a reference system.
Instead of getting into trouble, tell me what's wrong with what I said. Are you claiming that temporality is independent of frame of reference?
Ok. Let's collect the temperature clocks to clarify the matter.
The two engines meet at the moment when the universe is exactly 13 billion years old, for both.
A camera captures their 2 watches together, 0.
What is the time in Massif at that unique moment?
Israel
You keep trying to talk about a point in time common to two reference systems. There is no such thing. Look at the example I gave about the process of resetting clocks. It only works within a frame of reference, not between frames of reference.
But if the arrays show the locomotive times and the locomotive times are 0 at the moment of the change - then doesn't that mean that at that moment the time of the 4 clocks is 0?
Israel
I answered. Inside each train - the collector shows the same time as the locomotive.
Between trains - the collector's clock is ahead of the locomotive's clock (on that train). This promotion is permanent.
Not related and you didn't answer the question.
If when the locomotives pass each other their degrees show 0 - what is the time in masses?
Israel
Each train sees its clocks synchronized.
Each train sees the clocks in the different cars of the other train show different times.
Look at it this way. I stand on the tracks and see a train coming at high speed from the left. At a certain point the central train activates a flash.
As for the cars - the flash was visible in the first car and the last car at the same time.
As far as I'm concerned - the flash reaches the last trailer at c+v speed. It reaches the front trailer at speed cv.
Think - if the train is very fast then the pulse will arrive very late to the front car. Therefore, I will see the front clock lagging behind the back clock.
They don't need to be synchronized. If two trains pass each other and the clocks in the cars of each train are synchronized with each other, this does not mean that the trains are synchronized with each other.
But there is a unique moment when the locomotives pass each other and the time in both is 0. At this moment and only in that moment the time in all the cars is 0. If not, then tell me what the times are on the clocks of the two massifs when the locomotives pass each other.
Israel
"Do you accept that when the spaceship passes over the surface of the earth the clocks on both show 0?"
- Yes.
"You accept that if the country is synchronized with Andromeda then if the time in Israel is 0 then also in Andromeda?"
– In the star system, yes. In the spacecraft system - no.
"So why don't you accept that if A is synchronized with B then if the time comes is 0 then so is B?"
– If A is synchronized with B in the reference system of the spacecraft, then they are not synchronized in the reference system of the stars.
Do you accept that when the spaceship passes over the earth the clocks in both show 0?
You accept that if the country is synchronized with Andromeda then if the time in the country is 0 then also in Andromeda?
So why don't you accept that if A is synchronized with B then if the time comes is 0 then so is B?
Israel
There is no such special moment - because there is no such "moment". If a viewer in spaceship A sees all 4 clocks synchronized then a viewer in Andromeda will not see it.
Distances are also a problem. From the point of view of spaceship observers - the distance between the spaceships is 2 million light years, and between the stars is a light year. As far as stargazers are concerned, the distance between the planets is 2 million light years, and the distance between the spacecraft is a light year.
We are back to the ladder paradox in the barn 🙂
But A and B are synchronized with each other, so if the time in A is 0, doesn't that mean that B is also?
This is a unique moment when all 4 clocks show the same time, there is no need for synchronization between the 2 systems.
The question is whether you accept that:
When B reaches Israel (or the country reaches B) the time in B is 2 million and in Israel 1.
Israel
"When A passes over the land, the time is 0 on all four clocks - A, B, the land of Andromeda."
There is no such thing. If the Haaretz and Andromeda clocks are synchronized with each other, in their movement system - then they are not synchronized in the spacecraft's movement system. and vice versa.
Let's say that in your example behind the spaceship there is another spaceship (B) in the system of spaceships A-B the clocks are synchronized and the distance between them is 2 million light years.
When A passes over the land, the time is 0 on all four clocks - A, B, the land of Andromeda.
When A arrives in Andromeda, the time in season 1 and in Andromeda is 2 million years.
When B reaches Israel (or the country reaches B) the time in B is 2 million and in Israel 1.
Do you agree with that?
A practical question about GPS.
When I connect the output of the 1pps from two GPS devices to two inputs to the oscilloscope, I see the signals are synchronized with an accuracy of 10 nanometers. This is reasonable, because it is the global time that comes from the GPS satellites and therefore it is synchronized everywhere and is the same for both of my receivers.
The question is whether this is the time that the device receives at that moment from the satellites, or it took some time to reset and after that even if we disconnect the antenna, the device will continue to be synchronized with the satellites.
Israel
No - you can't say that.
Let's say the Earth clocks and Andromeda clocks are synchronized (for example - both saw an explosion half the distance between them). I assume here that Andromeda does not move relative to the Earth (in reality it is approaching us).
The spaceship crosses the Earth and clocks are synchronized. We have defined here one point in space-time. In particular - the clocks in the spacecraft, on Earth and in Andromeda show 0.
When the spacecraft crosses Andromeda - the spacecraft clock shows a year, while the Earth and Andromeda clocks show 2 million years. This is a second point in space-time.
What do the residents see? A spaceship has been flying for 2 million years at a distance of two million light years, with very little time.
What does the pilot see? He flew a light year away (Lorentz contraction) for a year. But notice something important - for him, the clocks of the Earth and Andromeda are not synchronized!
Everything is well defined here.
"The spacecraft passes Andromeda and checks its photon. Let's say gamma 2 million. On the clock of the spacecraft during the crossing - a year has passed. On Earth's clock (and also Andromeda's clock), 2 million years have passed.'
A bit strange sentence. If 2 million years have passed on Earth's clock, Gamma is equal to 2 million, and during the spacesuit's time on the surface of the Earth, the spacecraft's and Earth's clocks showed 0 - then it is equally possible to say that if the time in Israel is 2 million, in the spaceship it is 4 trillion, right?
The lengthening of the times is only relative to a synchronized system - in case you present an Eretz - Andromeda system whose clocks are synchronized. But I am talking about the collapse of the wave function at a given moment in inertial systems that are not synchronized - the spacecraft and the earth.
If you agreed that measuring at a given moment according to the clock of the spacecraft while on the moon causes a collapse at the same moment according to the earth's time, how is Andromeda different?
This is why the article in Scientific reads "it seems that the type of non-locality encountered in quantum mechanics requires absolute simultaneity, which poses a real and fatal threat to special relativity".
Israel
The spacecraft crosses Andromeda and examines its photon. Let's say gamma 2 million. On the clock of the spacecraft during the crossing - a year has passed. On Earth's clock (and Andromeda's clock too) 2 million years have passed.
I agree with that.
You don't see the problem because I haven't presented it yet..
How will you know about the photon test? from the explosion?
The point is that even if you have no indication such as an explosion, if the photon is measured in Andromeda at a certain moment according to the clock of the spacecraft in Andromeda, then at that moment according to Israel's time the wave function collapsed in Israel as well, even though we have no indication of this.
Just like with the spacecraft on the moon, only further away.
We didn't say according to the spacecraft clock. Let's assume that the spaceship is flying at almost the speed of light. The distance to Andromeda is 2 million light years. If the photon is tested in the Andromeda suit then we will know about it on Earth after 4 million years.
If a little after 2 million years we check the photon on Earth, its state is indeed "determined" already. But, we don't know what the measurement result is.
As far as the spacecraft is concerned - the opening time is almost 0. If the spacecraft turns back, it will reach the Earth almost immediately, and then you will see the opening on the Earth (assuming that they opened after 4 million years of the Earth's clock.)
I don't see the problem yet.
So if we agreed that in the Earth system - a spacecraft near the Moon, early measurement according to the spacecraft's clock causes the collapse of the wave function at that moment in the Earth according to the Earth's time - then why not in the Earth system - a spacecraft near Andromeda?
Israel
I think there is no difference.
So what is the problem then if the crash in the spaceship happened on Mars and not on the moon? Where is the difference?
And if there is no difference - then 10 light years away?
Israel
In the Earth system - yes, you are right.
"You can't talk about what came before what in different systems. You can only talk about the order of events in the same system of attribution.'
If in the previous example the spacecraft measures the moon and after an hour the Earth measures, is there any doubt that the spacecraft measured first?
What different systems are not in the same reference system. The measurement event on the moon preceded the measurement event in Israel, even if in Israel it is not known when the measurement on the moon took place.
Israel
You can't talk about what came before what in different systems. You can only talk about the order of events in the same frame of reference.
Let's take two passing trains, which reset clocks halfway through. Each activates a flash after one second.
Each train will see the other train's flash later than it will see its own.
Summarizing, but there is no contradiction slam here - a dunk of yes and did not explode at the same time. This is not evidence, but only a logical inference of data.
9 o'clock in the spacecraft is 90 o'clock in Israel, and 90 o'clock in Israel is also 900 o'clock in the spacecraft (we already said that this is strange) but if the spacecraft measured at 9 o'clock, has the function already collapsed at 10 o'clock in Israel? I believe the answer must be positive, although in Israel there is no way to know this.
The question is here: which side caused the function to crash, and which side just measured the results of the crash that had already occurred.
Israel
Let's take gamma=10. Hour 9 of the spacecraft is hour 90 on Earth. The terrestrial viewer will see the spaceship explode after 180 years.
Any time before 180 years - is in a state of risk.
agree?
Ok, so if the particle in the spacecraft is measured at 9 o'clock in the spacecraft which is say 20 in Israel, what happens at 10 in Israel? Has the wave function already collapsed there or not?
There are two options:
1. Since from the point of view of the country, 11 o'clock in the country is said to be 4 in the spaceship, so actually the measurement in the country at 11 is the initial one and precedes the measurement in the spaceship.
But this means that when the spacecraft measures 9 then the surrounding wave function has already collapsed. It doesn't fit with the symmetries of the systems - previous late measurement.
2. The measurement in the B9 spacecraft is the initial one, but it did not cause the collapse of the function in Israel in B9. But then the measurement in Israel can yield 2 results as opposed to the fact that the two measurements are the same.
It is important to emphasize this point because it practically contradicts any possibility that a measurement on one side does not cause an immediate collapse at the same moment on the other side, and if both sides are temporarily synchronized and symmetrical, then any late measurement according to the other side's clock takes place after the function has already collapsed on it.
Israel
From the point of view of a terrestrial viewer, the 9 o'clock in the spaceship will be much later than the 9 o'clock on earth. If it occurs before 11 a.m. local time, then the result is "determined" and if after, then not.
The particle in the spacecraft was measured at 9 hours according to the spacecraft clock. The particle in Israel is measured at 11 hours according to local time.
Question: Has the wave function around him already collapsed at 10 hours local time and the measurement at 11 only revealed the results of the collapse?
I believe the answer must be positive, regardless of the spacecraft's speed.
Because of the symmetry, if we take condition 1:
1. If we have two entangled particles neither of which is measured, we can say that the wave function connecting them has not collapsed in space.
Therefore, until time 9 at both points, the earth and the spacecraft, the function did not collapse. Otherwise we would get asymmetry.
If after it collapsed at time 9 in the spaceship it did not also collapse at time 9 in Israel, then after 9 in Israel a measurement in Israel can produce 2 results with equal probability. Since only one result is possible to get the same result as in the spacecraft, then it is assumed that it also collapsed at time 9 in Israel and the measurement at 11 only revealed the results of the collapse which are the same as the results in the spacecraft (or the opposite in the case of entangled electrons).
Therefore, if the earth had sunk and measured at 8 instead of 11, then the measurement at 9 in the spacecraft would only reveal the results of the previous collapse.
getting?
Israel
I'm trying to understand. There are two interlaced particles. One on Earth, the other on a fast spacecraft. Time 0 is when the spacecraft crossed the Earth.
What happens now?
Of course not. You don't need woven particles for this, gloves will do (but not socks).
If you know in advance even before the measurement what the state of your particle is, you will know how to make the right choice.
But that is not the question. The question is whether measuring a particle at an early time caused the collapse of the wave function in the vicinity of the second particle even before the measurement.
If the spacecraft continued its journey and reached Pluto and measured its particle an hour before the measurement in Israel, did the function collapse in Israel with the measurement on Pluto, and if not when?
Israel
Let's say at 0 o'clock the spaceship passed by me and our clocks will synchronize (we both see 0). If the explosion happens in transit near the moon I will see one second (approximately) on my watch.
Therefore - I will not do the test.
Let's make it simple:
The spacecraft moves at 0.9999c. When it reaches the moon you see in your telescope that it exploded, meaning that the polarization it measured is vertical.
You should measure yours in just an hour.
Will you take the risk that your horizontal because of any relative calculations for the vacation in Hawaii? I do not. I am convinced that mine is also vertical despite the high speed of the spaceship.
If, on the other hand, nothing has happened to her, I measure with joy and travel in Shashon.
No?
Israel
If the moon and the earth are in the same reference system then you can say that. If a spacecraft is moving at high speed, no.
Do you not accept that if a particle is measured on the moon an hour before its brother in Israel, then the wave function collapsed in Israel immediately after the measurement on the moon and not during the measurement in Israel?
So at what distance from the country does the trick stop working?
And if a spacecraft that passes over the earth at time 0 in the spacecraft and in the earth measures its particle when it passes over the moon an hour before the measurement in the earth, won't that cause a collapse in the earth before the measurement in the earth?
So at what distance from the country will the trick stop working?
Israel
I guess I don't understand the moon example.
But this happens in a nearby system like the Moon, so when and where does the magic stop working?
Israel
In the same reference system, 9 o'clock comes one hour before 10 o'clock. But if we have different reference systems, whose clocks are synchronized at 9 o'clock - it is not guaranteed that 10 o'clock in one system comes before 11 o'clock in the other system.
So how does it happen when a spacecraft reaches the moon? When does the magic stop working? After all, it's clear that 9 o'clock comes before 10 o'clock, so if the wave function collapsed at 9 in the entire universe in spacecraft A, doesn't that mean that it also collapsed in spacecraft B?
Israel
I don't think anyone understands what will happen in such situations. In my understanding, the interweaving experiments are performed in the same reference system. If you are trying to measure in reference systems at relative speeds, then I have no idea what will happen. 0 o'clock is acceptable to both sides, but not 9 o'clock.
Let's sharpen the point: two ships pass each other and both clocks show 0. They agree between themselves that when the clock on ship A shows 9 o'clock, the particle on ship is measured and on ship B at 10 o'clock.
Therefore, at 9 o'clock according to A's clock, the wave function collapses and although B cannot measure the collapse, he is in the space where the collapse has already occurred.
If B gets smart and measures his particle at 8 instead of 10, then A's measurement is no longer initial and for a certain time he is in a space where the function has already collapsed and this without his knowledge because he believes that his measurement at 9 is the cause of the collapse.
getting?
getting
It is understood that this is an entanglement like with photons, where both sides get the same measurement result.
Let's say that the experimenters decide in advance that if the spin is up the device explodes, and if it's down then they get a vacation in Hawaii.
The spacecraft with particle A passes over the earth. Earth and spacecraft clocks show 0. When it reaches the moon, the spin is measured. In Israel they measure only after a year.
If they see an explosion from the direction of the moon, they pretend not to measure. Can't see, making suntan cream.
But the people in the spaceship do not have the privilege of prior knowledge, which shows that even in distant systems and in motion the principle of precedence operates.
getting?
Israel
1 - yes
2 - yes
3 - yes
4 - no. You can't talk about Bozmania in different systems.
So:
1. If we have two entangled particles neither of which is measured, we can say that the wave function connecting them has not collapsed in space. getting?
2. If particle A is measured before particle B, it can be said that the measurement of particle A caused the wave function to collapse and the measurement of particle B only revealed the results of the collapse. getting?
(Note that this is what differentiates between entangled particles and a pair of separated gloves, where each measurement of each side only reveals the hidden variables already present in the system, and it doesn't matter who was measured first).
3. If we have two pairs of entangled particles, A with B and C with D, and A is measured first followed by C, then we can say that in the space where the C-D wave function collapsed at a given moment, the A wave function also collapsed '-B'. getting?
4. If we take two entwined particles A and B, put them on a spaceship and when one passes the other they will see the same time, then if particle A is measured before particle B we can say that before its measurement the wave function has not yet collapsed and when it is measured Particle B The wave function has already collapsed earlier and the measurement of particle B only revealed the results of the collapse. getting?
From the same article:
"In recent years, this concern, which has finally been allowed to enter the hall of serious thoughts in the field of physics, has become the focus of discussions that may, in the end, tattoo, distort, reimagine, consolidate or disintegrate the very foundations of physics."
So apparently they are really making things up. They say "this concern, which finally got to enter the hall of serious thoughts in the field of physics, the focus of discussions".
What do you think they are discussing there at Moked, the Settlements Law? They say that serious physicists are discussing the problem raised in the paper.
Do you understand that according to relativity, an impact on Orit quickly means an impact on the past? So maybe you don't get a cozily contradiction like in the grandfather paradox but still, an action in the present affects the past, the grandson came to grandfather's wedding but regretted and didn't shoot him..
Here are more non-contradictory versions:
To one lady on the bus
I made room out of politeness,
But due to overcrowding and suffocation -
I put her thid in the purse.
One day I meet a tourist
who wanted to invest in something,
So I sold him a house that wasn't mine -
Because I didn't want him to leave with a negative attitude.
And since you say "I really don't attribute to one article, in an unprofessional newspaper" a short scroll brings up several more such unprofessional references (some 4000, but who's counting?)
http://www.gsjournal.net/old/science/mueller.pdf
Mr. Judge! Mr. Judge!
This is the truth and the whole truth.
So why do you give me a prison impression?
I'm not guilty, I'm not guilty.
Israel
I really do not attach much importance to one article, in a non-professional newspaper (not that it is a bad newspaper), by two reporters who are not physicists. I understand that you are enthusiastic about the article because it reinforces what you think is true.
The article does not say "we found a contradiction in special relativity". Nor does it describe an experimental result that disproves the assumptions of relativity.
And on the other hand, the article says that there are at least two solutions to the discrepancy between what we think comes from the two theories.
You are constantly amazed at the compatibility of Maxwell's equations with the theory of relativity, and on the other hand ignore the ability of the theory of relativity to explain a large variety of observations.
The strange thing about relativity is that space and time have properties. extremely strange But - it explains even stranger things.
The solutions you talk about are suggestions for a solution only. If I'm wrong, show me where.
If "the article does not say what you say" then please explain to me what the following sentences that appear in the article mean:
1. A quantum threat to relativity.
2. It seems that the type of non-locality encountered in quantum mechanics requires absolute simultaneity, which poses a real and fatal threat to special relativity.
3. The most alarming thing about non-locality, apart from the jarring strangeness inherent in it, is that this feature carries a grave threat to special relativity as we know it today. In recent years, this concern, which has finally gained entry into the hall of serious thoughts in the field of physics, has become the focus of discussions that may, in the end, tattoo, distort, reimagine, consolidate or disintegrate the very foundations of physics.
4. The state of special relativity, only a little more than a century after it appeared on the world stage, suddenly became a wide open and rapidly developing question.
Are you claiming that phrases such as "disintegrate the very foundations of physics" and "a real and deadly threat to special relativity" do not mean what I say but in a more blatant and extreme way than I do?
Israel
I read the article. It says there that there is no single solution that combines relativity and quantum theory. It says there that there are *two* solutions. And if there are two then there must be more.
The article doesn't say what you say. I think that's also what Albenzo told you.
Read the Scientific article "A quantum threat to the theory of relativity", it is well explained there.
Israel
Relativity does not need to explain non-locality. She just needs to stay out of the way.
I still don't understand why your theory is better than special relativity.
By the way, don't you see that in the event that what I say is true, then Maxwell's theory is a special case in a certain reference system?
So why not see relativity as a private case as well? It can be shown that it is equivalent to Maxwell's theory.
The theory of relativity does not explain non-locality, and a few other things.
My "Torah" does not explain why it is not possible to pass c because according to it it is possible to pass c.
There is an explanation for the lengthening of time and the increase in mass, but it is only qualitative and I am not particularly interested. What interests me is to pass c. Is that so much to ask?
Israel
So, if there is a phenomenon that your theory does not explain, and the theory of relativity explains without batting an eyelid - why not prefer the theory of relativity?
Your idea explains in a certain way the constancy of the speed of light. But it doesn't explain why c can't be passed, why the mass increases and why times get longer. So again, why is this idea better than relativity?
I have no idea what the Higgs field is. What I do know is that the Higgs field does not know what "knows" is.
Photons are not muons, and this is not my "explanation", just a possibility I raised.
It seems to me that we are missing the main point, like in the discussions about Lesage where the general picture disappeared from the many details.
If the approach that says a theory should explain everything was correct, the Copernican heliocentric theory would not have been considered because of the epicycles and the model of electrons surrounding the nucleus as in the solar system would have been rejected with contempt like Newton's theory.
In practice, although some theories are good, they are not perfect because we lacked details.
The idea I brought up doesn't have to be perfect and explain everything, just give direction. It explains the physical reason for postulate 2, allows non-locality and also solves the friction problem in Lesage. You may also be the source of inertia.
By the way, how does the Higgs field know that a body is accelerating?
Israel
Wasn't that your explanation for muons? How do you explain that they penetrate the atmosphere? Didn't you talk about "Eka"?
Regarding the projectiles - if they explode then the speed has an effect. If they are just iron - then above a certain speed they will penetrate the tin and there will be a hole. There may be speeds where they will do more damage to the structure, but the hole is what is dangerous.
Einstein meant the site in a very specific sense, not that it is a medium in which light waves travel. he wrote
"according to the general theory of relativity space is endowed with physical qualities; in this sense, therefore, there exists an ether. According to the general theory of relativity space without ether is unthinkable; for in such space there would not only be no propagation of light, but also no possibility of existence for standards of space and time (measuring-rods and clocks), nor therefore any space-time intervals in the physical sense. But this ether may not be thought of as endowed with the characteristic quality of ponderable media, as consisting of parts which may be tracked through time. The idea of motion may not be applied to it.”
Notice the last sentence…
I don't understand why you call sound waves "information". That is - it is only one type of information that passes through the air. In the sea there are (at least) two types of waves - longitudinal waves and transverse waves. These waves move at different speeds. And by the way - even in the air I can transmit information at a speed higher than the speed of sound. In a bad jet engine, the air coming out of the nozzle moves above the speed of sound - no information passes there? I agree that it is the "mediator" that moves above the speed of sound - the fact that the speed of sound is the speed of a single type of information.
Alocality does not contradict relativity. It does rule out certain conclusions that supposedly derive from the theory of relativity - apparently these conclusions are wrong.
An electron is a particle just like a proton is a particle (and a proton is a blood wave - there is even a proton microscope). Why doesn't your calculation work in the case of an electron?
Photons get tired? Who wrote such a thing? Let them rest in the afternoon.
"What's wrong with relativity? That there are some strange things?' That it does not include non-locality. See the EPR article and the article in Scientific. An active website allows.
"Perhaps there is movement at all on the site, and there are places where it moves at different speeds? Maybe the site rotates with the earth? Describe to you a similar experiment at sea, carried out on the circumference of an eddy of its size, or the measurement of the speed of sound in balloons?'
Maybe. Maybe not either. I don't understand what the relevance is. Einstein says that without an ether it is impossible to understand relativity, only a rest system must not be attributed to it. That's exactly what I'm saying, just giving an explanation of how it happens.
"Infinity is important - because in my opinion it rules out the idea. Everyone reacts only to a certain range of speeds (actually to only one speed for some reason), but still the energy associated with each volume unit of the range is infinite.'
I did not understand. Detail, explanation, explanation.
"McQuessel talks about transverse waves and you talk about particles. How do you throw from one to the other?'
The heads of the chapters in Maxwell's article:
Part I: The Theory of Molecular Vortices applied to Magnetic Phenomena
Part II: The Theory of Molecular Vortices applied to Electric Currents
Part III: The Theory of Molecular Vortices applied to Static Electricity
Part IV: The Theory of Molecular Vortices applied to the Action of Magnetism on Polarized Light
That's why I wrote "infinite "particles" - the "molecules" in Maxwell's model". What doesn't work?
"You didn't turn the second postulate into a sentence. You turned it into an explanation (like evolution). But now it is worth clarifying why the explanation is correct. Your analogy of a ballistic pendulum does not explain anything, it only shows that there is a chance that you are right.'
The question is from geometry, there are no theorems in physics. There may also be an explanation. Most likely I'm wrong, only an experiment will prove.
"Perhaps explosive projectiles will not have time to explode and there will only be holes" What about non-explosive projectiles? From which bullet N.M. Not explosive are you more afraid - the one moving at a speed of 1000 m/s relative to you or 100000 m/s?
"Information moves through the air at every possible speed. If I am 10 km south of the explosion and you are 10 km north, and if there is a north wind - I will hear the explosion in front of you. If the wind is strong enough - you won't hear the explosion at all.'
Information moves through the air at the speed of sound relative to the rest system of the air. Wind is a movement relative to the earth, if you move with the wind then as far as you are concerned the air is at rest.
In an active site it doesn't matter how fast you move relative to anything, it is at rest for you. Therefore an electromagnetic wave will always travel at the speed of light relative to you.
And what is the diameter of the electron according to the same calculation? Oops….” An electron is not matter and has no diameter. (Why a diameter at all? Maybe it's even a trapezoid?)
Israel
I still haven't understood - what's wrong with the theory of relativity? Is there some weird stuff? Isn't it strange to say that photons "get tired"?
Israel
"But as we said, if the MM experiment was "successful", and the rest system of the ether was discovered - then what about the homogeneity and isotropy of the infinite universe?"
What is the universe in this case? The site is inside a space. Perhaps the smear itself is isotropic and infinite. Maybe there is movement at all on the site, and there are places where it moves at different speeds? Maybe the site rotates with the earth? Describe to you a similar experiment in the sea, done on the circumference of an eddy, or the measurement of the speed of sound in balloons?
Infinity is important - because in my opinion it invalidates the idea. Each reacts only to a certain range of speeds (actually to only one speed for some reason), but still the energy associated with each volume unit of the range is infinite.
McVessel talks about transverse waves and you talk about particles. How do you throw from one to the other?
You did not make the second postulate a sentence. You turned it into an explanation (like evolution). But now it is worth clarifying why the explanation is correct. Your ballistic pendulum analogy doesn't explain anything, it just shows that there's a chance you're right.
My phantom will take a lot of damage from very fast projectiles. What's more - maybe explosive projectiles won't be enough to explode and there will only be holes. But that's beside the point.
Information moves through the air at every possible speed. If I am 10 km south of the explosion and you are 10 km north, and if there is a north wind - I will hear the explosion in front of you. If the wind is strong enough - you won't hear the explosion at all.
And what is the diameter of the electron according to the same calculation? oops…..
Dig in, dig in, don't dodge.
Of course Edison didn't invent it, everyone already knew that a wire passing through it has an incendiary and illuminating current
US Patent#223898: Electric-Lamp. Issued January 27, 1880.
Awarded to Edison who was the first to succeed in making the idea practical and commercial (despite his war with Tesla and the exchange stream).
After you dig deeper, also note that this model in which particles move faster than light but information only travels at the speed of light in a certain frame of reference, also exists in other hydrodynamic systems. For example, air molecules move at speeds according to the Maxwell-Boltzmann distribution, and many of them move faster than sound, but information in air moves at the speed of sound.
And if you look at a sound wave passing through a tube containing colored gas, or particles, you can even see the sound wave moving forward:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=N8q4xAL2WpU
So what is the difference between such a compressed wave and a particle? Won't it exhibit wave and particle properties?
Note for example:
If all quantum particles are waves then:
In quantum theory: E = hf.
In electromagnetic waves lf= c, the speed of light is equal to the frequency of the wave times its length.
E=mc^2, Einstein.
A combination of both yields = l=h/mc
If we see the proton as a standing wave, its diameter will be the formula above.
now:
proton mass = 1.67262158 × 10^-27 kilograms.
the speed of light = 299 792 458 m / s.
Planck's constant = 6.626068 × 10^-34 m2 kg / s.
It turns out that the diameter of the proton is approximately 1.324x 10^-15 meters.
I don't know if it means anything, but this is indeed the approximate diameter of the proton.
Compton Elk..
Israel
I'll dig into it tomorrow. Just one point - Edison did not invent the electric lamp.
Of course infinity, I just didn't want to get into a secondary discussion about momentum 0.. it is not 0 and indeed the momentum of all balls - like their mass - is infinity.
But this is not the photon. This is the medium - the ether - through which a photon propagates as an electromagnetic wave as shown by Maxwell's model and as any measurement will show.
So what's new? Let's go back for a moment to the "failure" of the M-M experiment. After all, he tried to find the rest system of the ether that Maxwell described in his model and Hertz found experimentally.
Let's take a trivia break. In my lecture I brought the response of Professor Halholmetz from the University of Berlin to the Hertz experiment:
Maxwell's model of electromagnetism was praised by the scientists of his time, but there were no experiments which could support his theory. In 1879, the year he died, the streets were mostly dark at night (the light bulb was invented by Edison in this year) and most of the transportation was handled by horses. So you expect people to believe some mysterious waves, unseen and untouched, moving at the speed of light? what other idea those crazy physicists will come up with, maybe that people would be able to drive their cars in America and use electromagnetic waves to talk live to their friends in India and see them too? real lunatics..
Hermann von Helmholtz, the head of the physics department in Berlin, offered the BERLIN PRIZE to the person who will experimentally demonstrate Maxwell's predictions. The years went by and no one seemed to make good on the mission. Helmholtz was about to give up, but then, his brightest student, Heinrich Rudolf Hertz, succeeded in 1886 to transmit and receive what will be known as radio waves, and also to confirm that they are moving at the speed of light, are polarized and the rest of Maxwell's predictions.
Of Hertz's demonstration of electric waves, Helmholtz told the Physical Society of Berlin: "Gentlemen! I have to communicate to you today the most important physical discovery of the 19th century.
The most important discovery of the 19th century.
But as we said, if the MM experiment was "successful", and the rest system of the ether was discovered - then what about the homogeneity and isotropy of the infinite universe?
This is where the principle of the ballistic pendulum comes in: even though there are an infinite number of "particles" - the "molecules" in Maxwell's model - and they move at all speeds from minus infinity to infinity - matter, and with it measuring devices, only reacts to a limited range of all those speeds, as it only reacts For a small number of shells passing through it out of an infinite number of shells at infinite speeds, although even in this example it can be seen that beyond certain speeds it no longer matters if it is infinite because the DNA, or matter, no longer reacts to them.
This is not an invention just to arrange the numbers that will work out - this is a natural principle that can be seen in many cases: the uranium nucleus will only disintegrate at a limited speed of neutrons: the ones that are too fast or too slow will not explode it, only those in the middle. Even your Phantom won't take damage from slow or too fast projectiles, but only from those in a limited range of speeds.
So if we take Maxwell's model and apply to it the principle of the ballistic pendulum with infinite particles at infinite speeds, it seems that no matter what speed it is, the speed of the ether relative to you will always be 0, and an electromagnetic wave will move away from you at the speed of light.
In fact, it will move away from you at all speeds, but the only one you can measure with your devices is the speed of light relative to you.
This is the explanation for postulate 2, which, if the explanation is correct, changes it from a postulate to a sentence. No more a postulate - an axiom - that we must accept without explanation. There is a logical and Newtonian explanation for why the speed of light is the same for every measurer regardless of the speed of the measurer.
And this is also the explanation for why the M-M experiment "failed". Because in a given frame of reference - and the MM experiment was conducted in a given frame of reference - we accept that light moves in what is called Emission theory
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Emission_theory
"Emission theory, also called emitter theory or ballistic theory of light, was a competing theory for the special theory of relativity, explaining the results of the Michelson-Morley experiment of 1887".
And if this explanation is correct, it physically explains what quantum mechanics tells us: the photon - the basic unit of the electromagnetic wave - moves at all speeds and is everywhere before the collapse, but we, using our devices, are able to detect only the part that moves relative to us at one and only speed - speed the light.
Israel
And why not infinite balls?
Israel
Yes, I agree with that.
There doesn't have to be an infinite number of balls, you only react to a limited area anyway. The idea is that for you, no matter how fast you move relative to the cluster, you are always in the same situation and the bullets you are "sensitive" to move away from you at the same speeds. do you see that
Israel
I can see one ball, 10 balls and even a million. An infinite number of balls requires that everyone's momentum be 0. And if the distribution is uniform (let's assume...) then there will also be an infinite number of balls behind me.
Let's say you shoot at instant 0 a ball at a certain speed. At every moment the ball has a definite position and speed.
Now shoot 0 instant 10 bullets or a million or infinity at all speeds. What is the position and speed of the cluster at any moment?
And as we described before, if your means of detecting the balls is a tunnel through the poles, then at whatever speed you move, you will be able to capture only the balls moving relative to you at a certain speed. Everything else is "transparent" as far as you are concerned. getting?
Israel
That is - the wave has all the amplitudes at all the points?
The details - mass, charge, torque - are secondary. The main thing is that through this model Maxwell linked the three constants.
Maxwell's equations are also built on this hydrodynamic model (although they are just a recycling of Gauss and Ampere). That's why the electricity "flows" and we have a magnetic "flux".
A photon is a wave, an electromagnetic wave. There is an explanation for why it moves at all speeds, which also explains the results of the M-M experiment.
Israel
A little yes... He writes that there are particles that allow his vortices to be very close to each other. Where are these particles? What is their mass? The cargo? How did we not discover them until today?
But let's go - according to this explanation, how does a single electron have a magnetic moment? And how about a single proton? And how does a neutron have a magnetic moment?
I understand that you claim that a photon is always a particle, right? Otherwise, how can you talk about his speed? Sorry, speeds…
analogue? Take another look and tell me if this complex model in any way resembles Ptolemy's epicycles and divergents.
https://en.m.wikisource.org/wiki/On_Physical_Lines_of_Force
Maxwell didn't think this was an analogy, belief in ether before the Michaelson Morley experiment was like belief in atoms today: almost unassailable.
But since M.M. mentioned, and you asked "a photon has all the speeds - and it does seem logical to you" - let's take a moment to look at M.M.'s experiment: does it make sense? After all, he came to find the rest system of the site.
But why would you have a rest system site? If the universe is infinitely homogeneous and isotropic as believed in 1887, then why would it have a certain rest system? Let's say that the experiment was "successful" and the rest system of the ether would have turned out to be the rest system of the background radiation or any other rest system - so why this one? What about homogeneity?
Israel
Ptolemy's epicyclics and deferents were also dressed in a stamp. An analogy gives clues, but it proves nothing.
Newton's assumptions also hold true - so are they correct? Newton thought that light was particles, and where he thought it was waves. Everything will be dressed up - so are both right?
You wrote that a photon has all speeds - and does that make sense to you? He must not be in two places at once, but... actually he can be everywhere at once... I'm confused….
And the currents? The pressures? the swirls? All regret?
So how did it dress Bull?
Israel
13.7 billion years is the time since the Big Bang, according to all kinds of models that we both don't understand. The Big Bang defines a reference system that a number of things are measured relative to. Time is one of them, and speed is another.
About Maxwell. There are two constants there, epsilon and mu. For Maxwell these are independent variables, from which the speed of light can be deduced. With Einstein, the order of calculation is reversed, for example - you can deduce Mio from the speed of light and epsilon.
So what is this, what is this number 13.7 billion years, not the age of the universe?
No. Substantial, let's move on to Maxwell. I looked at his model:
https://en.m.wikisource.org/wiki/On_Physical_Lines_of_Force
And I didn't see anything there about relativity, maybe because it was 40 years before relativity. What I did see was a completely hydrodynamic model of currents, pressures, and eddies. So if there is no site, and the model is fictitious and wrong, (an amazing development that includes more than 150 equations and illustrations, much more complex than relativity), then how did he manage the relationship between the three different constants? Look at the model, it's not Ptolemy, if he was wrong then it's a colossal mistake.
Israel
We don't know if the universe has an age. If you want, you can ask how long ago the big bang was.
The Friedman equation includes the Hubble constant, which defines the time until the big bang. A bit circular, isn't it?
And with regard to Mekvessel - I don't know why we keep coming back to it. We have already said that there are two parameters, the relationship between which is determined by the special theory of relativity.
So is there or is there no age to the universe?
Is there any system where the age of the universe is 50 billion years?
In 1905, when they meet each twin can claim that their time is "right". Today, only the time of the rest - the slow relative to radiation - is the age of the universe which cannot be passed, the time of the traveler is not natural time.
No matter, there is a solution. The problem as always is the collision with the quanta, and also the question: if Maxwell's ether model is wrong, then how did he manage to use it to link the magnetic electric constants and the speed of light?
I didn't say simple, I said a theory that is not strange, and a theory according to which the length of a ruler depends on the reference system is a bit strange to me.
Israel
According to your link - the age of the universe is calculated according to the background radiation. In order to calculate the background radiation, you have to take into account the speed of the movement compared to the background radiation, due to the deviation to blue/red.
And so, to my understanding, everyone agrees on the age of the universe.
The fact that you think a theory should be simple, does not require that the theory really be simple.
There is the Friedman formula for the dependence of the age of the universe on temperature:
http://hyperphysics.phy-astr.gsu.edu/hbase/Astro/expand.html#c3
But it doesn't really matter. If there is an age to the universe - it is about 13.7 billion years - and it is exact and the same at every point in the universe (otherwise what is the "age of the universe?"), then according to the clock the twin is relatively slow to radiation, that is, it is in the system that it discovered to be the age of the universe, its brother has passed this age.
This is not a contradiction of relativity, just as we said before, it is extremely strange.
By the way, I thought for you of other non-contradictory but strange versions:
I once saw a balcony without light,
I climbed her along a pipe,
I just wanted to check the condition of the lamp -
Suddenly who appears? the police.
and also:
I had a horrible neighbor
who didn't want to live in peace with me,
When I was chopping wood, suddenly the poor man came
and put his head under the axe.
Consistent and non-contradictory versions that there is, or is not left, anyone to contradict them as evidenced by the Gors:
Mr. Judge! Mr. Judge!
This is the truth and the whole truth.
Therefore, although some versions are without contradiction, just strange, the unexpected response is a bit surprising:
So why do you give me a prison impression?
I'm not guilty, I'm not guilty.
And the analogy: it deserves a physical theory that is not only free of contradictions but also clear, logical, elegant and..without contradictions.
Israel
How do you measure the age of the universe?
Let's say that the traveling twin left for the distant planet and arrived there after a year according to his watch. Gamma is equal to 10, so 10 years have passed on the planet and with his brother.
Do it now with a gamma equal to a billion, and the traveler rests relative to the radiation. A year has passed with him, a billion with the brother.
So if the fireplace clock shows a billion years ahead, and both started in 2018, then the fireplace clock shows an age of the universe of 14.7 billion years, right?
50 billion is also possible if you are in a hurry.
Therefore every neutrino that left the laboratory is much older than the universe in which it lives.
No?
Israel
It doesn't matter how fast you're moving, you'll always calculate the same age for the universe. You will measure the radiation frequency in every direction and find out what your speed is relative to the background. After that you can calculate the age of the universe.
We don't measure the temperature of the background radiation - we don't put a thermometer there... instead we put blackbody radiation and from the frequency we decide what the temperature is.
Could anyone have thought in 1905 that non-locality was a real thing?
On the other hand, was anyone able in 1861 when Maxwell brought his model to think that one day you could drive in America and talk and see your friend in Delhi? Science fiction, isn't it?
So if we got used to the idea of communication at the speed of light, we should adapt to the idea of instant communication, which today sounds like science fiction.
Have you noticed that in the twin paradox if the gamma factor is large enough each twin knows after a short time that he will probably no longer sip a cup of tea with his brother? And if one of the twins is stationary relative to the background radiation (you, me, all of us) his brother is already in the future? whose age is higher than the age of the universe in which it is located?
You can look at the following link:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=hgq8-RrEDPc&t=6s
As far as I understand, the data that appears at about minute 2 is a weighting of all the signals from all the GPS satellites that the device receives. Is there a way to isolate the signals of just one satellite and know the time of arrival (TOA) at the antenna as shown on the video oscilloscope?
ARC-51 mentions oblivion... . But it was an information transfer system.
You think Einstein was wrong. me too. I just think his mistake is small, and you don't.
ARC-51 mentions oblivion... . But it was an information transfer system.
You think Einstein was wrong. me too. I just think his mistake is small, and you don't.
Communication mechanism..
At least we have progressed from "the particle is in two places at the same time" or "the particles communicate in another dimension" or parallel universes or an influence on the past or a stud on the mouse.
communication mechanism. Like Arc 51 in Phantom.
And according to the example of radios and coins, it is quite clear why it is impossible to transmit information through it, even though information passes between the particles or the radios in the example.
I hope we finally got around.
Israel
I think that "communication mechanism" is not equal to the transfer of information.
we
With all the new and modern design of the site where every comment appears 2-3 times, your original comment was lost.
Yes, that's what it means. Where did you get it before? interesting..
"The faster-than-light part of the photon." – Do you mean 'the part where the photon moves at supersonic speed'?
Because that's what I meant, when I put it here, some years ago.. 🙂
Even two coins that always fall on the same side in separate rooms do not require a communication mechanism. Maybe it just happens?
Israel
And I thought we agreed that non-locality does not contradict relativity.
Miracles
The shortening of the length is due to the lengthening of time, but it is at least as strange as a photon moving at all speeds, isn't it?
Influence from the future on the past:
https://www.hayadan.org.il/quantun-philospy-part-b-07121
Why c? Why exactly the speed of sound? Tsunami wave speed?
What is the mechanism why we measure precisely and only c? Think about shells moving at all speeds from 1 km per second to 100,000. They pass through a tunnel in the desert between the poles. Who will be captured? Only those whose speed is up to 11.2 km per second, the escape speed.
If the earth moves at a speed of 20,000 km per second, then the situation will be the same, only those that move at the same speed relative to it will be captured and the rest will be transparent.
This is the case with the speed of light, or rather the measured speed of light. We measure "capture" only that part of the photon that was captured by our measuring device and all the rest of the photon is transparent to us.
Israel
"The alternative is a train full of passengers a centimeter long and actions in the future affecting the past."
The first half of the sentence does not create any contradiction. The train seems shorter - so what? It actually nicely explains various observations, such as collisions of certain particles.
The other half is not clear to me. Where in relativity does the future affect the past? Such an action can create a contradiction, and in the theory of relativity there are no contradictions.
If photons move at any speed - then what is the mechanism that ensures that we always measure the value c? And why exactly c?
Miracles
From what I read here, strings actually contradict the relativity.
And in contrast to the indirect contradictions we pointed out earlier (interweaving, non-locality) here we are dealing with the root of the problem: the assumption underlying relativity.
Because as in the article of the quantum threat to relativity where it was written that in EPR the basic premise was that non-locality is not possible and everyone agreed on that until Bell, in my opinion the basic premise of relativity should also be tested.
Let's see what is the basis of relativity. For this we will go back to our light second long train traveling on the track at half c. Its clocks are synchronized with each other and also the rail clocks with each other, but not which ones with which.
At instant 0 a photon is emitted from the last car in the train towards the locomotive. It will take him a second to reach the locomotive to which he will arrive in time 1 second, but since he is moving at the speed of light relative to the track, he will also reach a point on the track that is a light second away in the track system in time 1.
Since in the meantime the train has advanced a long way, then time 1 on the track clock cannot be time 1 on the car clock on the train which is opposite the track clock, because as mentioned the photon arrives at the locomotive at time 1 and therefore it arrived at the car in less time.
The photon can also emit from the strip on the track opposite the last car, even then it will move at the speed of light relative to the train and the track, but in different colors of course.
From this comes the lengthening of times, the shortening of the length and all the rest.
Is it binding? The answer is negative. Quantum shows us that the photon is not necessarily in a certain point, but can be found in several points at the same time. That is why he can be on the track clock at 1 second, on the wagon clock in front of him at 1 second and also on the locomotive clock at
1.
It is understood that Einstein would have been alarmed by such an interpretation and rightly so, who in 1905 could have imagined a local and simultaneous multiphoton? But we know that this is probably the reality.
Note that such an assumption, i.e. that the same photon moves essentially at all speeds from 0 to infinity, solves the problem of non-locality and the influence of the future on the past.
imaginary? Maybe. The alternative is an inch-long train full of passengers and actions in the future that affect the past.
The conclusion: it is possible to exceed the speed of light, but we do not have the technology to discover the faster-than-light part of the photon.
Israel Shapira:
"...you must choose between the two or you will get a contradiction." – …I have so much to say about this…. 🙂 🙂
The difference is, in my opinion (if I understood you well), that in one there is superposition and in the other - it is not.
(If I understand correctly: the whole difference between the Copenhagen interpretation and Einstein's, boils down to the fact that in one the photon is a fundamentally static particle and in the other the photon is in constant motion).
Israel
Maybe there is a third option that manages to combine them? From what I've read, string theory is such a possibility. And even if not string theory, then maybe something we are not even able to think about today?
Miracles
"Do you know anyone who claims that there is no problem in combining relativity and quantum theory?"
Yes.
"What exactly are you doing?"
shows the root of the problem. If you accept that relativity requires a photon of definite momentum to be in a definite position, and if you accept that the uncertainty principle, the fundamental principle of quantum, forbids it, you must choose between the two or you will get a contradiction.
Israel
Do you know someone who claims that there is no problem in combining relativity and quantum theory? What exactly are you redoing?
Miracles
Does the fact that the uncertainty principle was not recognized mean that it did not exist?
How does it work out, that's the question.
If you look, you will see that this is exactly what stands at the center of the contradiction that may exist between relativity and quanta.
And I went through the article again that talks about the quantum threat to relativity. There is no consensus among physicists that such a threat does not exist. On the contrary, here is the Hebrew text that appeared in Hidan:
https://www.hayadan.org.il/quantic-threat-on-einstein-theory-060912
"It seems that the type of non-locality encountered in quantum mechanics requires absolute simultaneity, which poses a real and fatal threat to special relativity."
And that's the trouble.'
and the end:
"The state of special relativity, only a little more than a century after it appeared on the world stage, has suddenly become a wide open and rapidly developing question."
Anyway, I have sent the question to other blogs. Let's hope they give a factual answer.
Israel
The uncertainty principle was unknown at the time Einstein wrote his paper.
And yes - this is also true for photons.
Anyone volunteer to help?
The uncertainty principle states that a quantum particle has no distinct properties prior to measurement. Is this also true for photons? If this is so, then how does it fit with the theory of relativity in which Einstein says in his original article:
Let a ray of light depart from A at the time ta, let it be reflected at B at the time tb, and reach A again at the time t'a
http://www.fourmilab.ch/etexts/einstein/specrel/www/
After all, here we are talking about the fact that a light beam (it can also be one photon) is at a specified place - point A - at a specified time - t'a - and its momentum is specified - Planck's constant divided by the wavelength of the photon.
So how does it work out?
one and a half
Didn't you say you were going?
walking dead
It will not help . Israel is in a terminal mental state.
Israel
happily. Just go back and don't mention me or tell stories or lies about me.
The sad thing is that you don't understand that globally I was trying to help you understand what they are trying to tell you.
Not a wiki - a wiki.
Vicky
I think there is some kind of release party today, releasing all the comments.
You say: "Why do you think I have any interest in what you have to say?"
Can we conclude that we are done reacting and referring to each other and we are both returning to the orders of the General Staff?
If you're interested, I'll give you the last word and then we'll be released too.
chow
Moderated, like almost every other response.
Israel, where is the link to the article you wrote with Meir Amiram that describes your theory?
I'm still waiting.
one and a half
Maybe you should go to the beginning of the thread in this article or any other article to see who here starts cursing and insults and who responds. But if you can somehow get Albanzo to stop treating me, you've done your part.
Comp
The discussion with you is pointless. Have the last word and let go.
Avi Blizovsky
My comments are moderated.
Is there perhaps a situation where you require some kind of code of statements on the website? Are slurs such as moron, liar, crook, instigator, etc. what you would like to be the normal way people communicate with each other here?
Can you inform everyone that from now on those who start with irrelevant comments and go into personal lines will have their comments blocked?
Thanks.
elbentzo
In your idle arguments with Israel, you lose a lot of your dignity. What do you need it for? Isn't it a waste of your time? You can do more productive things.
Israel
You wrote about the words: - "What I asked of you is a quote for what I said or wrote - not for your stupid conclusions."
I mean, you understood very well that this was my conclusion. I also wrote this on a previous page specifically as follows: ""Therefore, the conclusion from your words is: "When the photon is absorbed by B after 10 years, spacecraft C will be at a distance of 10 SA from the photon, because "the distance of a photon from the lantern is always ct"."
It is explicitly written that this is a conclusion. So why do you jump in like a deaf-blind person and write: "But you didn't say a conclusion, you said it was my calculation, didn't you?" I wrote that this is also a conclusion and it is based on a calculation you did. I wrote absolutely clearly.
But this is your method - pretending not to understand and not remembering.
You think if you didn't say it doesn't exist? This is how you conduct your discussions?! Afraid to commit! - Claims you didn't say so you won't be wrongly accused?
So you think that the failed arguments and blatant contradictions are only in the opinion of the interpreter of your words? - Who are you kidding?
You are having a discussion of fools here. worthless and purposeless.
You opened the discussion about what you said, if you said it, at what distance you said it, according to what calculation you said it, when it is completely clear to you what it is about, without asserting any clear claim of your own on the subject, just to forget the issue. You are the master of pranksters!
So what do you say? - "Then your conclusion is wrong." - Come on, show her wrong!
When the photon is absorbed by B after 10 years, what will be its distance from spacecraft C at that exact moment, and how does this fit with your statement that this distance is always CT?
A.M.
http://vixra.org/abs/1510.0065
This is not "my" article - but it has part of the basic idea.
The resulting experiment is also different from mine.
Meir also has his own website and many articles:
http://vixra.org/author/meir_amiram
Israel, please provide a link to your article on Meir Amiram's website.
Maybe it will also help a little to understand where you are rowing.
"So where is the calculation that "spacecraft C will be at a distance of 10 SA from the photon" - my calculation, in my words, not your interpretation of my calculation."
This is not your calculation. This is a conclusion that follows from your words "the distance of a photon from the flashlight is always ct".
conclusion..
But you didn't say a conclusion, you said it was my calculation, didn't you?
So your conclusion is wrong. At least you admitted that I did not write such nonsense in my own words, but that this is your interpretation. This is much better than the other liar who, when told that there is no consensus, begins to brag that fact and mathematical proof is philosophy, and that ever before he wrote that it was a fact, he talked about philosophy.
I will ask you a simple question to see if there is anything to work with at all:
A light-hour long train passes an identical train. The clocks of each train are synchronized with each other but of course not with each other.
When the collectors of the two trains converge at time 0, a photon of light is emitted at their intersection.
At what time will the photon reach the end of the first train according to one season and at what time per second:
1. When he is ejected from "assumption".
2. When he is ejected from "drive".
3. When "Moving" is traveling in the opposite direction.
poker.
"So where is the calculation that "spacecraft C will be at a distance of 10 SA from the photon" - my calculation, in my words, not your interpretation of my calculation."
This is not your calculation. This is a conclusion that follows from your words "the distance of a photon from the flashlight is always ct".
Therefore, after 10 years from the photon's exit from spacecraft C, the distance between them should be 10 S.A.
This is obvious from your words. And there is no need for your approval to understand and accept it as true.
"And anyway, until you answer a completely simple question, what's the point of arguing with you at all?"
There's no point - I've already explained why and what the conditions are.
"What, D doesn't move relative to A just like C, only in the opposite direction?"
It's true and I already explained to you that the opening conditions determine, but as usual, what is uncomfortable is forgotten.
Addendum: The photon moves in the opposite direction to D, therefore the place of its exit is the location closest to B from where B can observe D moving away from him.
-
"What is the distance of a photon of light from the flashlight"
Don't ask me what I asked you in the first place.
Your answer CT is incorrect except for one private case. Answer the questions below to find out. In the second article, a question awaits you about the topic that you have not yet answered.
In order for your words to be worthy of trust and more than trust, they will be a convincing explanation of the goal and the absence of contradictions based on a calculation that proves it, an explanation using exact calculation and formulas, show how the distance between a photon and its source is always CT and depends only on the time period T:
Answer the question as it is observed from reference system B, and separately answer the same question regarding reference system C.
1. In system B:
The distance traveled by a photon from the spaceship G L B when it was near A is 10 S.A. Time of his journey 10 years:
Calculate the distance between the photon in the RG recorded in B and C at that moment, which in the meantime has traveled 9.95 S.A.
Write a formula where the distance between the photon and spacecraft C is X, the time the photon moves is T, the speed of the spacecraft V.
It was proved that X=CT as soon as the photon reached B.
2. In system C:
The distance traveled by a photon from the GLB spacecraft is 1S.A during the year of its journey of G:
2.1 Calculate C's position in relation to B after a year of travel. 2.2 Calculate the distance of the photon from B after a year of travel.
2.3 Calculate the distance of the photon mXNUMX after a year of travel.
Calculate the distance of the photon from C as the difference between 2.1 and 2.2. Is the result the same as 2.3? Prove using a formula that the results are the same in both calculations.
The distance between the photon and the spacecraft is X, the time the photon moves is T, the speed of the spacecraft V.
Note: Contradictions are strictly prohibited.
Albanzo
waiting
Comp
"Can you get the quote for this calculation of mine?"
The quote is verbatim:
"Answer to your questions:
"1. You said that the spacecraft is visible from a distance of 10 light years and near A in the original problem, how far is it actually from B when viewed near A, and how is it possible that it is seen in two different places: A and close to B at the same moment?''
(Here's your calculation!)
C moves at a speed of about 0.995c. Since B sees it in a time of 10 light years, C managed to pass 9.95 light years in this period of time and is at a distance of 0.05 light years from B - about 2.5 light weeks."
no no. you said:
"Are you saying, when the photon is absorbed by B after 10 years, spacecraft C will be at a distance of 10 s.a from the photon (as if frozen in place) and not 0.05 s.a as you calculated before"?
So where is the calculation that "spacecraft C will be at a distance of 10 SA from the photon" - my calculation, in my words, not your interpretation of my calculation.
"There is certainly a contradiction, the second possibility is that you don't understand your own words and you've already been told that."
Thank you for associating yourself with the group of people who told me this.. Soon the blowing water will also join you in Hatamba.
"In order for your words to be worthy of trust and more than trust, they will be a convincing explanation of the goal and the absence of contradictions based on a calculation that proves it, an explanation using exact calculation and formulas, show how the distance between a photon and its source is always CT and depends only on the time period T:
Answer the question as it is observed from reference system B, and separately answer the same question regarding reference system C."
Another one who gives me homework.. Tronchus, if you answer the simple question - what is the distance of a photon of light from the flashlight - maybe some light will be revealed to you.
And in general, until you answer a completely simple question, what's the point of arguing with you?
If you claim that at the moment of the meeting between A and D, B sees C at a distance of a light year or a tenth of a light year - then how is it that he sees both A and D at a distance of 10 light years? What, D doesn't move relative to A just like C just in the opposite direction?
Aren't you tired of talking?
"1. As I explained in the previous comment (you really don't read what is written to you, huh?) I previously explained to you the philosophical question (as walking death claimed). And no, it's not an opinion because you haven't shown that you have another reasonable definition for information."
When did you explain the "philosophical question" you color-changing chameleon? Who is even interested in philosophy?
"You have not shown that you have another reasonable definition for information."
I showed, I showed. Just because you don't get it or don't understand doesn't mean I didn't show.
Skorai also uses "information" and "useful information" without defining what information is. So Skorai is also an idiot liar with a delusion? Maybe we'll send him to read Scourai?
And in general, didn't you say that you study information theory only after Skorai? So why does this crook use concepts he or the students don't know about? And why are his terms so similar to those of Israel the deceiver?
"your lie"
Let's make an assumption and say that your wonderful reading comprehension, through which you understood that I claim that quantum mechanics is a religion, was also applied to understanding the term "lie".
A person who says no truth is not necessarily lying. He can be wrong.
Even a person who says untruth consciously, is not necessarily lying. If not, then a person who calls himself elbentzo or walking death is a liar (which is true, although as I mentioned you both deserve a blow for choosing the nickname. You are undoubtedly Elbenzo, Wookie is undoubtedly walking death).
On the other hand, a person who says "You are not tired of repeating the same tired arguments" or "There is nothing that indicates a lack of content more than a person who cannot simply say what his idea is. You don't notice that 99% of the time you don't say anything, but only leave questions in the air that you hope that given the empty space that remains, people will think you're right,' and then claims that what phrases are completely innocent and that he's trying to make peace - he's either a liar or a fantasist. Apparently both.
"You base your lie on the fact that I said that there is no difference between the quantum solution and the classical solutions of pre-coordination that the commenters tried to find, *apart from the fact that the quantum solution is quantum and allows for superposition and therefore you can do things with it that cannot be done with classical code*. Like, how much of a liar can you be?"
Psychopath, you still don't get it, eh?
You can see this in your next rant:
"This sentence - the selective quote that even you must distort to invent the lie that I claim that a classical code can be found that solves the riddle - is taken from an explanation I wrote to you at the time. To remind you, you asked me if I give you a number (eg 7123), so did I give you information or not. I answered that it depends on the mechanism - for example, if each of us received a piece of paper with 7123 written on it and then we each moved away to a different planet and at the same second we pulled out the notes - then even though there would be complete coordination between the number I see and the number you see, no information was passed. You agreed that information did not pass, but you said that this is clearly not the case in the quantum solution."
In the case you described, is there any possibility that me reading my number will affect your number in any way? Will it suddenly be able to change from 7123 to 5478?
Haven't you realized yet that this is exactly what happens in weaving? Does measuring spin on one side affect the measurement on the other side?
"So I wrote you the explanation - yes, it's exactly the same principle. The quantum solution requires 300 pairs of entangled spins, and you just assume they exist. The explanation states that in order to reach this situation - that I am in the Earth and you are in Mars, and each of us has one of a pair of intertwined particles (multiplied 300 times, a pair for a coin) - we had to meet beforehand, perform a joint measurement, and share the measurement information. So basically your starting point - which each has 300 spins and are interwoven - is actually the midpoint. You came to it after coordination work, and it's like coordination of a classic code. Of course, I also explicitly wrote that this coordination - this code - is quantum and allows for superposition, so it is possible to do things with it that cannot be done with classical code."
But no, Tronchus, it's not the same principle. It doesn't matter that you met before, it doesn't matter that you took a measurement together, it doesn't matter that you shared the measurement, it doesn't matter anything. There is no - no - possibility that you will get the percentages of mismatches that you get in an aspa experiment without the transfer of information (unknown or useless, as you wish).
"So here are two explicit examples of how you lie, distort, quote selectively and even ignore the second half of the sentence that you are quoting, all in order to distort the criticism that is passed on you. So that God forbid, you won't have to deal with it."
Schizophrenic, it is not possible to copy all your long and tedious responses. That is why they are quoted in part.
"Of course my suggestion that you suggest to Yoni Granot to quote him was said with humor" - you're suddenly becoming an entertainer for us, eh? Come tell a joke to the forum. Also tell your dry friend, the walking carcass, to learn from his wife how to write in a somewhat amusing way.
"Ask him if it is possible that the answer he gave you is not in line with the opinion of people from the field of quantum information".
But I didn't just ask him, Prof. Weidman also said there was no consensus, did you forget?
And as I showed you, even your mythical reviewer talks about information and useful information without defining it.
So maybe what many see and understand, that the results of a soccer match for example are information even without defining what it is, is it simply true?
Read the article I told you to, kid. Do not return to class without an explanation of the mismatch percentages.
To Israel, who pretends to be a dumb fool who doesn't know/remember what the whole discussion was about for a month:
Exactly on the topic of your question - "So maybe you can already tell us what is the distance of a photon emitted from the flashlight?" which is the question of what is the distance of JM B.
"Can you get the quote for this calculation of mine?"
The quote is verbatim:
"Answer to your questions:
"1. You said that the spacecraft is visible from a distance of 10 light years and near A in the original problem, how far is it actually from B when viewed near A, and how is it possible that it is seen in two different places: A and close to B at the same moment?''
(Here's your calculation!)
C moves at a speed of about 0.995c. Since B sees it in a time of 10 light years, C managed to pass 9.95 light years in this period of time and is at a distance of 0.05 light years from B - about 2.5 light weeks."
https://www.hayadan.org.il/is-the-universe-ramdom-0405168/comment-page-34/#comments
-
"And of course there is no contradiction in what I said"
There is certainly a contradiction, the second possibility is that you do not understand your own words and you have already been told this.
In order for your words to be worthy of trust and more than trust, they will be a convincing explanation of the goal and the absence of contradictions based on a calculation that proves it, an explanation using exact calculation and formulas, show how the distance between a photon and its source is always CT and depends only on the time period T:
Answer the question as it is observed from reference system B, and separately answer the same question regarding reference system C.
1. In system B:
The distance traveled by a photon from the spaceship G L B when it was near A is 10 S.A. Time of his journey 10 years:
Calculate the distance between the photon in the RG recorded in B and C at that moment, which in the meantime has traveled 9.95 S.A.
Write a formula where the distance between the photon and spacecraft C is X, the time the photon moves is T, the speed of the spacecraft V.
It was proved that X=CT as soon as the photon reached B.
2. In system C:
The distance traveled by a photon from the GLB spacecraft is 1S.A during the year of its journey of G:
2.1 Calculate C's position in relation to B after a year of travel. 2.2 Calculate the distance of the photon from B after a year of travel.
2.3 Calculate the distance of the photon mXNUMX after a year of travel.
Calculate the distance of the photon from C as the difference between 2.1 and 2.2. Is the result the same as 2.3? Prove using a formula that the results are the same in both calculations.
The distance between the photon and the spacecraft is X, the time the photon moves is T, the speed of the spacecraft V.
Note: Contradictions are strictly prohibited.
Want an example? No problem, get 2.
1. As I explained in the previous response (you really don't read what is written to you, huh?) I previously explained to you the philosophical question (as walking death claimed). And no, it's not an opinion because you haven't shown that you have another reasonable definition for information. For example, the definition in information theory defines information only as something from which a predication can be deduced for some kind of measurement (there is of course a mathematical definition that does not enter into it, what I am describing now is a bit of an abstraction of it - which I have also provided you before). If you extend this definition also to the fact that information passes between spins - even though there is no experiment in which you can apply it (and this is explicitly proven in no comm, that there is no unitary transformation that can produce any predication for any experiment), then according to the new definition it can be That your child will come back from school one day, and tell you "today I absorbed a lot of information". You will answer, “Yes? What questions can I ask you today that you can answer better than yesterday?" And he will answer "there is no such question". Therefore, before you explicitly see a definition of information under which information passes between intertwined spins and is also logical, your claim is empty of content.
2. You keep repeating the lie that says I "claim that some classical code can be found to solve the puzzle". It's just a lie. From the beginning I argued that classical cannot be solved without transferring information. Even you yourself brought a quote of mine saying this two or three days ago -
https://www.hayadan.org.il/is-the-universe-ramdom-0405168/comment-page-8/#comment-707524
You base your lie on the fact that I said that there is no difference between the quantum solution and the classical solutions of pre-coordination that the commenters tried to find, *apart from the fact that the quantum solution is quantum and allows for superposition and therefore you can do things with it that cannot be done with classical code*. Like, how much of a liar can you be? You take one sentence from a complete explanation I wrote for you (we'll remind you in a moment what it is), and then ignore the second half of the sentence. I specifically wrote, "There is no difference between X and Y except for Z" - that means there is a difference between X and Y, and that difference is Z. You simply ignore that and claim that I said there is no difference.
This sentence - the selective quote that even you must distort to invent the lie that I claim that a classic code can be found that solves the riddle - is taken from an explanation I wrote to you at the time. To remind you, you asked me if I give you a number (eg 7123), so did I give you information or not. I answered that it depends on the mechanism - for example, if each of us received a piece of paper with 7123 written on it and then we each moved away to a different planet and at the same second we pulled out the notes - then even though there would be complete coordination between the number I see and the number you see, no information was passed. You agreed that no information was passed, but you said that this is clearly not the case in the quantum solution.
So I wrote you the explanation - yes, it's exactly the same principle. The quantum solution requires 300 pairs of entangled spins, and you just assume they exist. The explanation states that in order to reach this situation - that I am in the Earth and you are in Mars, and each of us has one of a pair of intertwined particles (multiplied 300 times, a pair for a coin) - we had to meet beforehand, perform a joint measurement, and share the measurement information. So basically your starting point - which each has 300 spins and are interwoven - is actually the midpoint. You came to it after coordination work, and it's like coordination of a classic code. Of course, I also explicitly wrote that this coordination - this code - is quantum and allows for superposition, so things can be done with it that cannot be done with classical code.
So here are two explicit examples of how you lie, distort, quote selectively and even ignore the second half of the sentence that you are quoting, all to distort the criticism that is passed on you. So that God forbid, you won't have to deal with it.
Of course my suggestion that you suggest to Yuni Granot to quote him was said in humor, I didn't mean for you to weave a conspiracy of lies. But since it was not clear, I will write explicitly - ask him, if you have the courage to face the truth - if he has experience in the field of information theory, and if he thinks he is a sufficient authority to answer the question. Ask him if it is possible that the answer he gave you is not consistent with the opinion of people in the field of quantum information.
A request from Avi Blizovsky.
It seems to me that since all comments without exception are published in recent comments, certain commenters get irritated by comments of a certain nature.
Is it possible to arrange for comments not to appear in recent comments? In this way, it will not upset those commenters, and whoever wants to enter an article in which comments are written that make him or her angry, will do so at their own risk and will not be able to complain.
Albanzo
"As usual, you "forget" everything that you are not comfortable with, distorted and partially quoted."
example?
"This is exactly what they are trying to explain to you - there is a freedom here whose nature is philosophical to decide what exactly is called information."
So if there is freedom here that is philosophical in nature to decide what exactly is called information - can we perhaps also say that the fact that information does not pass between interwoven particles is an opinion and not a fact? After all, philosophy..
"You can define another definition that also includes all kinds of "unknown information" and other nonsense, and it is possible that under this definition information will pass between the two particles."
What about useless information? Is that nonsense too?
'And by the way, I have a proposition for you. I suggest that you send an email to Yoni Granot and tell him that you are writing an article for a popular science newspaper, and that you want to quote it.'
But I'm not writing an article for a popular science magazine, and I don't want to cite it. So why would I write something that is not true? What am I, some Albanzo or Wookie pretending and lying that I will write something that is not true? You write to him.
Have you already read the article from the link from my name? Are you still claiming that some classical code can be found to solve my puzzle? So explain the mismatch percentages.
Israel
When my waiting list is released, ignore the first section. You don't have to ask him anything anymore.
Israel,
As usual, you "forget" everything that is uncomfortable for you, distorted and partially quoted. Then, you are surprised and offended when you are accused of dishonesty.
I have explained to you *many* times that the proof that information does not pass between entangled particles is within the framework of information theory, and therefore - surprise, surprise - refers to information as it is defined in information theory. I made it clear to you *many* times that if you want, you can define another definition that also includes all kinds of "unknown information" and other nonsense, and it is possible that under this definition information will pass between the two particles.
This is exactly what they are trying to explain to you - there is a freedom here whose nature is philosophical to decide what exactly is called information. The definition of information theory is very intuitive (once you learn and understand it), and under this definition the mathematical theory has led to phenomenal achievements in physics and engineering. I have made it clear to you *many* times that you can define another definition under which the sentence might not be true, but then you will have the task of showing that your definition is no less reasonable than the current definition and manages to reproduce at least all the achievements of the current definition (if not more). Otherwise, all you do is make the desired assumption - for example, you can define information as "something that passes between interwoven particles", and voilà - you have proven that information passes. Of course this is just a play on words, because this definition is meaningless.
And by the way, I have a suggestion for you. I suggest that you send an email to Yoni Granot and tell him that you are writing an article for a popular science magazine, and that you would like to cite it. Tell him that you want to write "Prof. Granot from the Open University says that there is no decision regarding the transfer of information between entangled particles and that there is no theorem within the framework of quantum information theory that sheds light on the subject." See if he agrees that you quote him. Alternatively, you can go to his website and look at the entire list of his publications, research areas and interests. I don't know him personally, and he may be a smart and good person in his field, but you may be surprised to find out that not only has he never dealt in the field, he is more or less as far from it as you can be. I'm willing to bet that when you offer to quote him in the article, he will answer you without hesitation that he is not an authority in the field and that he is not ready for you to quote him.
Israel
"No doubt that's what you understood, but that's not what Albanzo said."
I'm talking about the big picture. What you choose not to understand is already your choice. You are welcome to ask him.
"So you claim that fact and mathematical proof are philosophy? break up That's why you understand called."
Well we are back to the part where you are delusional in your understanding of whatever you want.
"We agreed a long time ago that as long as we accept that an action on one side immediately affects what happens on the other side (as opposed to the gloves being separated) then we can also call it Moshe."
I can only guess that you think you have a relevant point here.
"I defined it quite nicely, including the difference between information passed between the particles (unknown or useless) and the ability to send information (known or useful). See last response to Maya, with the radios.”
A beautiful fantasy. Want to guess why you didn't get an answer to this?
"I understand what you write"
Do you know the magical princess? never happened
"Lies and delusions are more your side."
Since you don't have a single example of my lie we can only see the claim here as evidence of your lies and delusions.
"You must have meant mildly amused?"
True, that's why you went on a long campaign of slander, blasphemy and lies against me even when I completely stopped referring to you. I envy your ability to lie to yourself.
"Oh, just stop responding. That's all I've ever asked for"
Are you trying to lie to me or yourself here?
"You certainly don't expect someone to respond to what you say, do you? When have you ever even said anything other than trying to get down on commenters?”
1) Which commenters here have I ever tried to get off? What illusion world do you live in?
2) If you have ever tried to pay attention to something other than yourself you might have an answer to this question.
"You have to remember that your understanding is a bit - creative? For example, when Feynman says that unlike relativity, which is difficult but understandable, no one understands quanta, you understand that he was joking."
1) Lie, that's not what I said
2) It is interesting that with my very strange and creative understanding most of the commenters agreed and with your direct and opaque understanding they did not. Will the coin drop at some point so you can realize that your reading comprehension is broken?
"No one explained."
If you really asked, your human environment is probably as understanding as you. I asked if it was clear and received a positive confirmation.
"The only place I mentioned you was in a quote from a year and a half ago intended for Albanzo."
excuses. stop sulking
"In that ancient quote a question was addressed to you (which you have not yet answered)."
Why the hell would I answer this question?
Soon you will also probably tell/lie that I didn't explain to you my position towards Feynman's words. My answer then is also completely valid for his quote that you brought this time. So understand a little thing. Just because you don't understand doesn't mean the person you don't understand is wrong.
"If I were to remove the reference to you from the quote, you would probably say that I edited and distorted the quote."
Not true at all, and just shows that you knew and were aware of what you were doing.
"But no, I didn't turn to you first. This is in contrast to you, how many times have you started with me."
What fun, we're back to fantasy again.
If you say something that I think is wrong and I see fit to point it out to the other readers here, it doesn't count as me starting with you. Not everyone who corrects a wrong thing you say starts with you. If so you think you need a serious home inspection.
"If you are still interested in understanding what happens with the transfer of information, you should read the link from my name."
You have been dealing with the matter for I don't know how long (like five years?) and your understanding and your claims have not progressed an inch. You ask questions and completely ignore what they answer you and try very hard not to understand a word of what they say. Why do you think I have any interest in what you have to say?
Comprands
I wrote to you:
"Israel Shapira
"Are you saying, when the photon is absorbed by B after 10 years, spacecraft C will be at a distance of 10 s.a from the photon (as if frozen in place) and not 0.05 s.a as you calculated before"?
mmm…
Can you get the quotation for this calculation of mine?'
I did not ask for your interpretation. I asked for the quote for my calculation, not what you think I calculated.
And of course there is no contradiction in what I said, open any introductory course in relationships this is among the first things that are explained there.
Yesterday I wrote:
"And here is a small challenge for the forum:
Who is willing to bet that Joe Hambin, Yossi Comprands, will curse, shout, wave his hands, threaten, explode - but will not answer what I asked him but what he wants?"
Well Yosla, so maybe you can already tell us what is the distance of a photon that is launched from the flashlight?
"It seems strange, because for example in our case, even though C has almost reached B, the same photon is far from it and from A the same distance, ct, and this even though A is 10 SA away from B. So how can the same photon be the same distance from two objects so far apart?"
This is what I said - "In any case, your words include a contradiction, but you are used to it, aren't you?":
Israel Shapira has no problem accepting contradictions.
waiting
understand called
"It's amazing the lengths you will go to in order not to answer a simple question."
I answered, I answered, several times already. Sorry if you didn't understand.
"I will ask something about the philosophy of physics?
All my questions are only about pure physics."
Here's the point you probably missed. The question you ask about the transfer of information between the interwoven particles as you ask it is a question in the field of the philosophy of physics. This is what Professor Gernot wrote to you and it is also what I understand elbentzo is trying to explain to you.'
No doubt that's what you understood, but that's not what Albenzo said.
What he said is that information does not pass between particles is a fact, not an opinion. It has a mathematical proof.
And that's what I asked Granot. Is there proof, and is there a consensus.
So you claim that fact and mathematical proof is philosophy? break up That's why you understand called.
"The information you are talking about is different from the information we are talking about when we talk about information in information theory. As long as you do not define the concept of information you are talking about in a well-defined way, the question you are asking will remain in the realm of the philosophy of physics.'
We agreed a long time ago that as long as we accept that an action on one side has an immediate effect on what happens on the other side (as opposed to gloves that were separated) then we can also call it Moshe.
I defined it quite nicely, including the difference between information passed between the particles (unknown or not useful) and between the ability to send information (known or useful). See last comment to Maya, with the radios.
"Now good luck with this fun part where you manage to understand what you want to understand from what I say and build a whole world of lies and delusions on what I told you."
I understand what you write, not what you think, and answer accordingly. Lies and delusions are more your side.
"I understand that the things I said about you hurt you" - surely you meant mildly amused?
"And it's hard for you that other people have started to understand them so that they no longer respond to you either"
Oh, just stop responding. That's all I've ever asked for. The trouble is that they respond almost only to me. Do you see any other comments here for anyone else?
You certainly don't expect anyone to respond to what you say, do you? When have you ever even said anything other than trying to get down on commenters?
I understand that I hurt you terribly by saying that you don't understand my words when you don't understand them (however true it is sometimes difficult)
I asked others to explain what you were saying because maybe I didn't understand. It should be remembered that your understanding is a bit - creative? For example, when Feynman says that unlike relativity, which is difficult but understandable, nobody understands quanta, you understand that he was joking.
No one explained. Next, ask the General Staff to edit your questions.
"But if you really want me to leave you alone, then try not to mention me and tell lies about me (maybe you didn't notice, but I didn't tweet here at all until you decided that you really need to mention me again, you probably miss me terribly if you have to mention me every so often time even when I don't talk to you or even refer to your existence)
The only place I mentioned you was in a quote from a year and a half ago intended for Albanzo. In that ancient quote a question was addressed to you (which you have not yet answered). If I were to remove the reference to you from the quote, you would probably say that I edited and distorted the quote.
But no, I didn't contact you first. This is in contrast to you, how many times have you started with me.
If you are still interested in understanding what happens with the transfer of information, you should read the link from my name.
Israel
It's amazing the lengths you will go to in order not to answer a simple question, but whatever, work with the material that is available.
Are you wondering how elbentzo told you exactly the same thing that Prof. Yonatan Garnot said?
Well, let's start here:
"I will ask something about the philosophy of physics?
All my questions are only about pure physics."
Here's the point you probably missed. The question you ask about the transfer of information between the interwoven particles as you ask it is a question in the field of the philosophy of physics. This is what Professor Granot wrote to you and it is also what I understand elbentzo is trying to explain to you.
The information you are talking about is different from the information we are talking about when talking about information in information theory. As long as you do not define the concept of information you are talking about in a well-defined way, the question you are asking will remain in the realm of the philosophy of physics.
Now good luck with this fun part where you manage to understand what you want to understand from what I say and build a whole world of lies and delusions on what I told you. I understand that the things I said about you sting you and that it's hard for you that other people have started to understand them so that they no longer respond to you either, and I understand that I hurt you terribly by saying that you don't understand my words when you don't understand them (as true as it is sometimes) but If you really want me to leave you alone then try not to mention me and tell lies about me (maybe you didn't notice but I didn't tweet here at all until you decided that you really needed to mention me again, you probably miss me terribly if you have to mention me every so often even when I don't talk to you or even refer to your existence).
Comp
Once again you linked to the wrong comment..
"Therefore, the conclusion from your words is: "When the photon is absorbed by B after 10 years, spacecraft C will be at a distance of 10 SA from the photon, because "the distance of a photon from the lantern is always ct".
Do you understand the difference between what I wrote and what you say I said:
"Are you saying, when the photon is absorbed by B after 10 years, spacecraft C will be at a distance of 10 s.a from the photon (as if frozen in place) and not 0.05 s.a as you calculated before"?
What I asked you for is a quote for what I said or wrote - not for your stupid conclusions.
A.M. - This might answer your question, are everyone here stupid? I talked to you about idiot number 1, Yossi Comprands.
He writes:
"Are you saying, when the photon is absorbed by B after 10 years, spacecraft C will be at a distance of 10 s.a from the photon (as if frozen in place) and not 0.05 s.a as you calculated before"?
Then when they ask him for a quote, he gives:
"C moves at a speed of about 0.995c. Since B sees it in a time of 10 light years, C managed to pass 9.95 light years in this period of time and is at a distance of 0.05 light years from B.
and interpreter:
Therefore, the conclusion from your words is: "When the photon is absorbed by B after 10 years, spacecraft C will be at a distance of 10 SA from the photon, because "the distance of a photon from the lantern is always ct".
But this is the idiot's conclusion, not what I wrote.
And for those who are interested:
In relation, the distance of a photon from a lamp is always ct.
This seems strange, because for example in our case, even though C has almost reached B, the same photon is far from it and from A the same distance, ct, and this even though A is 10 SA away from B.
So how can the same photon be the same distance from two objects so far apart?
That's what the Lorentz transformations are for. c is the only constant, while time and distance vary according to the frame of reference.
one and a half
Beauty.
The page you were looking for:
https://www.hayadan.org.il/is-the-universe-ramdom-0405168/comment-page-34/#comments
Recommended reading for all commenters.
-
You wrote that in any frame of reference the distance between the photon and the flashlight moving at speed V is CT, at any speed and in any direction. Do you continue to cling to your stupidity in the hope that reality will suit your needs?
-
You will continue to write nonsense and it doesn't matter what is written to you. The same compulsive pathology of not understanding what is being said to you.
You wrote: "The distance of a photon from the flashlight is always ct"
"When did I write anything about the distance of the photon? You understand the difference between a g and a photon"
C is the spaceship C is the lantern in question, which sends out a photon when it is near A, at a distance of 10 S.A from B.
Therefore, the conclusion from your words is: "When the photon is absorbed by B after 10 years, spacecraft C will be at a distance of 10 SA from the photon, because "the distance of a photon from the lantern is always ct".
1. If you say that the spaceship passed 9.95 Cs.A, after a time of 10 years, and is at a distance of 0.05 Cs.A from B, while B receives the photon, then this is a contradiction in relation to your claim that "the distance of a photon from the flashlight is always ct" according to which There should be a distance of 10 SA between the photon (that reached B) and the spacecraft after 10 years.
2. If you say that the spaceship is at a distance of 10 SA from the photon observed from B as a result of your claim: "The distance of a photon from the lantern is always ct",
So she seems to have frozen in place while the photon moved for 10 years, and is not at a distance of 0.05 AU as you thought.
In any case, your words contain a contradiction, but you're used to it, aren't you?
-
½1 – My opinion is your opinion.
Israel Shapira
I feel sorry for you. It's been a while since I've been following the style of your statements and your unbridled outbursts and I have the impression that today won't go away and someone from your family will have to get guardianship over you. I wish you would die. This is my last response.
one and a half
You're half right.
So why don't you really go and comment on one of the dozens of articles that are here on one of the dozens of topics that are offered here and take your good friend and spiritual supporter, Yossi Comprands, with you?
Yossi Comprands
You mentioned that Israel Shapira is a compulsive pathology. In fact it is much worse. He entered a phase of terminal cognitive remission. I have the impression that he did read a book or two in quantum theory and maybe he also took some course and thinks he is smarter than everyone else. Many are drawn into fruitless arguments with him and it's a shame. The use he makes of hatred and defamation of those who react to things increases exponentially, which probably indicates some kind of problem. You will see how he will make an intifada against me when he reads these things. My understanding is that he lives in the US and for several days he reacts in a frantic manner, which raises the concern that he has been sitting at the computer for days without sleeping at all.
Miracles
that's what I said? I offered to give you a link to Meir's article. The main points are there.
If you want, I will give you more links.
I don't market alternative physics if I'm not almost 100% sure that what I'm saying is true, or at least I'm reinventing something.
But if you are interested - on your own initiative and of your own accord - to dive into Lala - Land - I have no problem.
Do you think it has been long so far? This is just the beginning.
So isn't it better to wait and see if the experiment is successful before breaking your head over what is almost certainly wrong?
You have the choice.
I clicked on the link, I got "page not found".
You can't even copy and paste properly, Yossi, my boy, are you successful?
lets see:
Write a name:
"C moves at a speed of about 0.995c. Since B sees it in a time of 10 light years, C managed to pass 9.95 light years in this period of time and is at a distance of 0.05 light years from B.
And you claim that I said:
"Are you saying, when the photon is absorbed by B after 10 years, spacecraft C will be at a distance of 10 s.a from the photon (as if frozen in place) and not 0.05 s.a as you calculated before"?
So I see that I wrote "He (G) is at a distance of 0.05 light years from B"
How did you conclude that "the photon will be absorbed by B after 10 years, spacecraft C will be at a distance of 10 s.a from the photon (as if frozen in place) and not 0.05 s.a as you calculated earlier"?
When did I write anything about the distance of the photon? Do you understand the difference between G and photon, Yossi, my boy is successful?
Israel
In all the hundreds of comments here, you have not shown any problem with relativity. You didn't present any real paradox.
Anyone who has graduated high school knows that there are many open questions, and also knows that things happen that are completely counterintuitive.
And finally, when you are asked what alternative solution you have - there is no answer...
Can you get the quote for this calculation of mine?
- You calculated the distance of the JM B spacecraft when the photon emitted from it 10 years ago was seen:
"C moves at a speed of about 0.995c. Since B sees it in a time of 10 light years, C managed to pass 9.95 light years in this period of time and is at a distance of 0.05 light years from B.
https://www.hayadan.org.il/is-the-universe-ramdom-0405168/comment-page-
34/#comments
You wrote that in any frame of reference the distance between the photon and the flashlight moving at speed V is CT, at any speed and in any direction. Do you continue to cling to your stupidity in the hope that reality will suit your needs?
-
You will continue to write nonsense and it doesn't matter what is written to you. The same compulsive pathology of not understanding what is being said to you.
PS: I already told you that I will not answer your questions, especially those that I answered, especially when I specified under what conditions, especially when your senility became a regular phenomenon.
Here's a demo:
"But I didn't ask you from what distance B sees C." You already said that."
And in the same response, the question appears afterwards:
"2. At what distance does B see C?"
A.M.
https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=3l8u1qm_0Og&persist_app=1&app=m
Miracles
Let's not brag to other districts. If you want, I will give you the link to Meir's article, there is some material there.
In the meantime, it is much more important to conduct a slam-dunk experiment. Because of this crappy disc herniation I'm a bit neutralized, but there is some promising new direction, we just have to hope it will also hold.
But as you can see after reading the article I linked to, I am not the only one who claims that there is a problem with relativity.
Israel, it's nice that you try to identify people by their level of niceness, please give a link to your experiment on YouTube, we'll see what it's about.
will correct you
So far you have not given any contradiction. There is no assumption in special relativity that contradicts interweaving.
But it doesn't matter - if you have a better model than special relativity - then tell me.
Generally, if you encounter a contradiction, you should update the assumptions, right?
Otherwise, what's wrong with a flat earth surrounded by the sun, as every child can see with his own eyes?
Israel
I agree that movement above the speed of light is movement towards the past and damages causality.
So there are problems in physics that we don't know how to solve. There are so-called contradictions between different models.
What's new?
I'm not talking about the paradoxes - I tried to explain 2 points in my long response:
1. Why sending information faster than light sends it into the past.
2. Why non-locality in quantum entanglement, although it does not contradict relativity, puts it to a difficult physical test, perhaps even too difficult.
That's what we talked about, didn't we?
Israel
The point is that because clocks that are synchronized in one system are not synchronized in another system solves the paradox (the twins, the barn and the ladder).
of course not.
Point?
Israel
I will try to explain again, by asking a question.
Let's say that a photo of train B is taken from two cameras installed on train A, a light year apart. The photographs are taken simultaneously.
In the front camera you see a clock on train B that shows the time 18:00. Also in the second camera you see a clock on train B.
Do you also see the time 18:00 in the second photo?
"Are you saying, when the photon is absorbed by B after 10 years, spacecraft C will be at a distance of 10 s.a from the photon (as if frozen in place) and not 0.05 s.a as you calculated before"?
mmm…
Can you get the quote for this calculation of mine?
"PS: You really don't see that I am writing here specifically from what distance B sees C? (Written inside the quotes themselves)".
But I didn't ask you from what distance B sees C. You already said that. Here are the questions in my last response:
"So what according to you is the distance of a photon from a flashlight?
And at what distance does B see the flash from D? What is the difference from A?"
When you start quoting instead of interpreting what's in your head, and answering what you're being asked instead of what's in your head, maybe you'll finally get the hang of it and you'll see what's even going on here.
So here it is for the 80st time:
You are moment 0, the moment of meeting between A, C, and D:
1. At what distance does B see A?
2. At what distance does B see C?
3. At what distance does B see D?
And after you answer, also answer at what distance they see B from them.
And here it is for the 180th time:
In relation, what is the distance of a photon from the lamp that produces it?
And here is a small challenge for the forum:
Who is willing to bet that Joe Hambin, Yossi Comprands, will curse, shout, wave his hands, threaten, explode - but will not answer what I asked him but what he wants?
"The distance of a photon from the flashlight is always ct"
Are you saying that a photon that left C when it was in A, will move away from C 10 s.a. and this after 10 years of travel, at a speed of 0.995C in the direction of B?
Are you saying that when the photon is absorbed by B after 10 years, spacecraft C will be at a distance of 10 s.a from the photon (as if frozen in place) and not 0.05 s.a as you calculated earlier?
It's interesting what you say. Very interesting.
-
PS: You really don't see that I am writing here explicitly from what distance B sees C? (written inside the quotes themselves).
That means you have been preventing yourself from seeing for about 3 weeks now.
I'm sorry, but you have a serious problem.
Comp
Not only that the distance of a photon from the flashlight is always ct - even in Newtonian physics the distance of a bullet from the plane that shoots it is vt, where v is the speed of the bullet relative to the plane, regardless of the speed of the plane relative to the ground or any other factor.
So what do you think is the distance of a photon from a flashlight?
And at what distance does B see the flash from D? What is the difference from A?
we
fun though, isn't it?
And one more thing
"So first of all, good luck, and again I ask, isn't the thing you're trying to show, if it's true, the kind of thing that wins people a Nobel Prize? Wouldn't this be considered a revolutionary description in the field of physics and quantum theory?"
Right.
And since "so first of all good luck" kind of mentioned your identity (no, our dear biologist?) so since you've been following the project for several years, let's see what the progress is since the last time we spoke.
Two years ago we talked about a GPS experiment. The reason was that if such an experiment had failed, it would have been a slam dunk against the theory and ruled it out.
After much trial and error, the experiment was carried out and its results are consistent with an active site. I have uploaded a YouTube of the experiment here, if you ask I will be happy to bring it again.
But this is not a slam dunk in favor of the theory. I'm currently working on the unequivocal slam dunk here or there, and I mean right now. Sonriente (Smiley in Spanish), my talented Salvadoran worker, is currently installing a satellite dish to receive him from communication satellites. The next step is to pick up signals from solar flares and even radio storms in Jupiter.
It requires a lot of time and money, but what is not done for science?
What's more, there is no greater fun than these experiments, just as there is no greater fun for a radio amateur than calling on ssb devices with other amateurs instead of simply calling on an iPhone.
"Will you publish this in professional forums that deal with physics? Seriously, aren't you interested in hearing criticism from people who are really knowledgeable in the field instead of fighting here like Dean Quixote on windmills?"
If you want, I will direct you to a site full of articles on alternative physics. You can also just go to our Yoda website. Meir Amiram whom I met here on the website prepared an article on the theory (reference if there is demand) and he also has his own website.
So like your previous name - what does it matter?
Nothing matters except experiment. As mentioned, we are working on it at our own pace, and it really doesn't matter to me when or if at all it will be successful. Of course I would be happy if he succeeds, but even if he doesn't I'm still extremely happy to be involved in this project.
Go away, you write nonsense as if I have not explained my position and as if you have never read it - and it is written in my comments in such a detailed way that only a rogue with compulsive pathology who cannot understand would find contradictions in it.
"According to relativity, the distance of a photon from the lamp that produces it is always ct."
And here you are again proving that you have no idea what you're talking about.
For me, a discussion based on this assumption would be fundamentally wrong.
Your desire to open a discussion based on a false assumption is complete stupidity, your infantile pathology, as all those debating with you have already come to know.
Your old-new strategy is to pretend not to understand and twist my words to get me to respond.
I have no interest in your words until you admit all your mistakes and answer everything you are asked.
Only on the topic of interweaving did I comment here for the first and last time.
"Immediate information transfer is not possible, nor is immediate information possible": Blink https://www.hayadan.org.il/distant-galaxy-found-04110/comment-page-7/#comments
Israel
It's amazing the lengths you will go to in order not to answer a simple question, but whatever, work with the material that is available.
Are you wondering how elbentzo told you exactly the same thing that Prof. Yonatan Garnot said?
Well, let's start here:
"I will ask something about the philosophy of physics?
All my questions are only about pure physics."
Here's the point you probably missed. The question you ask about the transfer of information between the interwoven particles as you ask it is a question in the field of the philosophy of physics. This is what Professor Granot wrote to you and it is also what I understand elbentzo is trying to explain to you.
The information you are talking about is different from the information we are talking about when talking about information in information theory. As long as you do not define the concept of information you are talking about in a well-defined way, the question you are asking will remain in the realm of the philosophy of physics.
Now good luck with this fun part where you manage to understand what you want to understand from what I say and build a whole world of lies and delusions on what I told you. I understand that the things I said about you sting you and that it's hard for you that other people have started to understand them so that they no longer respond to you either, and I understand that I hurt you terribly by saying that you don't understand my words when you don't understand them (as true as it is sometimes) but If you really want me to leave you alone then try not to mention me and tell lies about me (maybe you didn't notice but I didn't tweet here at all until you decided that you really needed to mention me again, you probably miss me terribly if you have to mention me every so often even when I don't talk to you or even refer to your existence).
Israel
I read but try not to respond. It's not pleasant to talk in a deaf forum. And it's not right to show presentations in a blind forum. And the worst part is peeing on the ceiling.
Comp
"I argued throughout the discussion that - as soon as the flash was seen from A, spacecraft C was seen from B at a distance of 0.1 SA, and not from a distance of 10 SA, as you claimed throughout the discussion."
This argument of yours leads to the following contradiction: after all, you said yourself that if C flashes at the moment of meeting A, then B will see this flash before any other signal that comes from C.
Therefore, it does not matter at all where C is actually at the moment B sees the flash from him, because the flashes came out simultaneously from A and C.
As I recall, Nissim initially proposed a handshake event.
So at what distance will B see the same historical handshake? 10 s.a or 0.1?
Answer already what I ask you all the time: at the moment of the meeting between A, C and D, at what distance does B see them, and at what distance do they see him.
The contradiction you will reach will also explain to you why if we don't consider quantum effects, according to relativity the distance of a photon from the lamp that produces it is always ct.
A.M. - Response later.
Israel,
"His claim seems logical and acceptable on the face of it: if at time 0 on all the clocks clock C sees clock B at a distance of 10 light years, then because of the symmetry this is also the distance that B sees C, right? symmetry."
I never made that claim. You can search and check all my claims on the subject. The word symmetry is not included in any of them!
My repeated claims regarding the subject of the discussion are expressed in the following quotes:
"I argued throughout the discussion that - as soon as the flash was seen from A, spacecraft C was seen from B at a distance of 0.1 SA, and not from a distance of 10 SA, as you claimed throughout the discussion."
"Spacecraft C is visible from B at a distance of 0.1 SA, and not from a distance of 10 SA, as you claimed throughout the discussion. agree/disagree?
Israel Shapira's answer - as of this moment - "I don't agree."
My last argument regarding them:
"I asked you to prove your position that C is visible to B from a distance of 10 SA, without using contradictions, but you did not succeed in your task.
Your assumption that B sees C from a distance of 10 hours after 10 hours has been proven to be a colossal failure of yours!"
-
Those who want to check should start here:
https://www.hayadan.org.il/is-the-universe-ramdom-0405168/comment-page-30/#comments
"And by the way wasn't there some experiment you wanted to perform?" Do you foresee unusual results that do not appear in the physics textbooks? … nice that you follow. Yes, I am trying to show that there is another possibility to interpret postulate 2 in relations, which would also include non-locality. I'm the first to admit that chances are I'm wrong. It is still one of the most fascinating challenges and although it is almost certain that nothing will come of it, I am learning a lot along the way, at my own expense, and I am not bothering anyone in the process."
So first of all, good luck, and again I ask, isn't the thing you're trying to show, if it's true, the kind of thing that wins people a Nobel Prize? Would this not be considered a revolutionary description in the field of physics and quantum theory?
If so, I would love to understand why, instead of wasting your energies here in a deaf conversation that is not progressing for any reason, don't you sit down and write an article detailing your original ideas, including the experiment and what you think it is supposed to prove, and publish it in professional forums that deal with physics? Seriously, aren't you interested in hearing criticism from people who are actually knowledgeable in the field instead of fighting here like Dean Quixote windmills?
Miracles
A somewhat long explanation that I already gave earlier, about the transfer of information and the problem that I think Einstein encountered when he wrote the EPR article.
First we will see why it is not possible to send information faster than light without violating the principle of causality (causality, Elek). For this we must return to the transgalactic double railroad, the same railroad whose construction cost the lives of thousands of unfortunate slaves and slaves.
On each track out of the two parallel to each other runs a train that is 10 light years long in its own rest system, so that the relative speed between them is such that the gamma factor is equal to 10. Train A travels on track A and train B on track B. Each train sees itself as stationary and the other as submissive, and each train's clocks are synchronized with each other but of course not with the other train.
At instant 0 on clocks 2 the locomotive trains pass each other.
According to the twins' paradox, when the locomotive of train A arrives at the collector of train B, its clock will show one year and the clock of the collector will show 10 years. Because of the symmetry, the locomotive of train B will also meet the collector of train A at a time of one year according to his clock and 10 years according to collector A's clock.
It is said that at the moment of the meeting with Massif B, Massif B transmits a message to Locomotive A, which is adjacent to it, and Locomotive A could have sent a message to Massif A on the super space radio faster than light, for that matter at infinite speed.
Masaf A would have received the message in a year's time according to his watch. Since he meets Locomotive B at a time of 10 years according to his clock, he still has 9 years to wait for the meeting with Locomotive B when he received the message, and at the moment of receiving the message he sees only the track of track B in front of him. He meets Locomotive B at the time of a year according to Locomotive B's clock, and he has no problem passing on to him the message he received from Locomotive A, and this is because at the moment of the shift, Collector A and Locomotive B are adjacent to each other.
It therefore follows that locomotive B receives the message that was sent in 10 years according to Masaf B in no more than a year according to his watch (possible even less). He now transmits the message at 0 time to the array B, which also receives it at a time of one year according to his clock.
This is how Masaf B receives a message that he himself sent, 9 years before he sent it.
No wonders wonders? No magic spells? Didn't you try miracles? Not a prohibited violation of cosiness?
That's the principle. The speed can be reduced to the speed of light, but at any speed higher than the speed of light we will get the same violation of causality.
Not to mention that if V is greater than C, the denominator in the Lorentz transformation becomes imaginary, and with it the entire expression.
In interweaving it is not possible to send information, but we agreed that the measurement of particle A immediately causes an effect on particle B. If we use the previous example but instead of a radio in space we use entangled particles, then at a time of 10 light years according to the clock of Masaf B, which is the time of a light year according to the clock of Kater A, he will measure his particle and that of Kater A, which according to the previous logic , will cause the particle in array A to collapse. Since Array A meets Locomotive B at a time of one year according to Locomotive B's clock, it follows that at the time of the meeting, which is one year's time in Locomotive B, the state of the particle in Array A has already been determined, and this is due to a measurement conducted 9 years later in Array B .
confusing?
Trust me, but I find no flaw in the argument.
And one more thing
"They already told you, if you want a private conversation with Nissim, you have an email for that, this is a public forum."
I have no problem with commenters, as long as they speak and behave politely, or respond accordingly.
"I see two possibilities in general, either everyone here is stupid and after many months of explanations and hundreds of messages they still can't understand what you actually want to say, or your ability to explain things is just bad."
Everyone here is stupid. If they weren't stupid, then instead of shouting and cursing they would ask about details and try to see if there is a contradiction in what I said.
Well, not everyone. You can distinguish idiots by the decisive writing style which is usually accompanied by a lot of exclamation marks and slogans.
One of the best ways to investigate the truth is the Socratic method of questions and answers. If you come to a contradiction, it means that your path is wrong.
Take for example the discussion I'm having with idiot number 1, Yossi Comprands who is also an A.P./A.P.P./physicist and some 20 other nicknames.
His claim seems logical and acceptable on the face of it: if at time 0 on all clocks clock C sees clock B at a distance of 10 light years, then because of the symmetry this is also the distance that B sees C, right? symmetry.
No matter how much you explain to him that there is no symmetry here, that clock B is synchronized with clock A but not with C, it will not help. He knows everything and our place is in the school for idiots because we are not qualified to understand his claims.
so what are we doing? leading his claims to their inevitable end: a contradiction.
This is done by adding another clock, D, moving in the opposite direction from G and asking it how far B is from M and vice versa.
Now he is caught. He says that D is far from B 10 S.A., like A. From his words:
"Actual distance of spacecraft D: 19.95 S.A." The distance B will show it as 10 S.A.
But if B sees A and D at a distance of 10 S.A. As Comp claims, then why does he see J precisely at a distance of one light year, or one tenth of SA, depending on when you ask him. Where is the symmetry here?
We have reached a contradiction. If Comp really wanted to understand what was going on, he would have stopped and tried to find out for himself, or asked.
But Comp is not interested in the truth. What motivates him is to prove what his mother always told him, that Yossi is my successful child, and all the rest are idiots.
So he starts to divert the discussion. Throws endless tasks at me, curses, shouts, threatens, and of course everything is accompanied by announcements and exclamation marks:
"Write the correct formula for the problem I gave you. Do not ignore the velocity V given in the question.
Does the distance X change with time and depend on the speed of light and the speed of the flashlight?'
But I already gave him the right formula, so what does he want now?
Then comes the turn of the announcements:
"My words speak for themselves!
Your words speak for themselves!
The truth is the judge!
He just needs to add:
It's good to die for our land!
Our strength is in our righteousness!
Slino on our shoulders!
All in order not to write the distances that I am asking him to do, so that they will immediately see that he is wrong.
So one of these will affect me what to write? Or one like Wookie who writes:
"Strange, do you realize that's exactly the same thing elbentzo told you?"
And then when you answer him:
"No, what Shagnot said is not what Albanzo said.
Albanzo said that there is no transfer of information between particles is a fact, not an opinion.
There is usually a consensus in academia on facts, but not on opinions.
Therefore, for the time being, at least as far as the academy is concerned, what Albenzo says is an opinion and not a fact.
Albanzo said there is a mathematical proof that information does not pass between entangled particles.
Hanon Communication Taoram talks about the impossibility of sending information that is something else.
And that's why Garnot doesn't know the proof either. She doesn't exist.
Therefore Granot did not say exactly what Albanzo said, contrary to your claim.'
He continues to dig:
"You want to tell me that suddenly you're ready to admit that you don't understand what you're reading, and that maybe you don't believe that you understand exactly what I wrote?"
What remains to be done? Continue to develop what I'm interested in, and ignore Hatamba, a bunch of absolute idiots.
"And by the way wasn't there some experiment you wanted to perform?" Do you foresee unusual results that do not appear in physics books?'
It's nice that you follow. By the way, this is the first thing I looked for in Ofer Maged's crackpots guide, but it doesn't appear there.
Yes, I am trying to show that there is another possibility to interpret postulate 2 in relations, which would also include non-locality. I'm the first to admit that chances are I'm wrong. It is still one of the most fascinating challenges and although it is almost certain that nothing will come of it, I am learning a lot along the way, at my own expense, and I am not bothering anyone in the process.
Israel
I explained why I agree and why I don't. I also showed you a number that there is no paradox in a train suit.
You've already been told, if you want a private conversation with Nissim you have an email for that, here it's a public forum.
So what is the purpose of all this discussion? I see two possibilities in general, either everyone here is stupid and after many months of explanations and hundreds of messages they still can't understand what you actually want to say, or your ability to explain things is just bad.
And by the way, wasn't there some experiment you wanted to perform? Do you foresee unusual results that do not appear in the physics textbooks?
Nobel prize? funny laugh laughed My entire compartment is full of Nobel Prizes, there is no room left at home, and you want to add more?
But if you know maybe some anti-snoring spray, you can definitely find a use for it.
Got it, so don't you have some original idea that might win you a Nobel Prize? Are you just desexing here for your enjoyment on familiar and well-known topics without any particular purpose?
And one more thing
The problem with you and your ilk is that you don't even read the links you link to. In our case - Ofer Maged's article.
Because if you had bothered to do so, you would have found there:
14. 10 points for expressing fear that someone will steal your ideas from you.
22. 25 points for thinking you deserve an award for your ideas. 25 extra bonus points if it's a Nobel Prize.
And since I passed the whole test and got a very small number of points, I believe that I do not fall into the category of compulsive troublemaker.
The problem is with little snoozers like you, who never come up with a single idea and don't understand at all what it is about (as you did bother to point out) but know with confidence that it is a mistake.
Israel, I don't understand. Aren't you afraid that someone will steal your idea and get a Nobel Prize in your place? If you have an idea so original and unusual that no one has thought of it before, why don't you run to register a patent on it? Or will you publish an article where you will present your idea to the world?
What's the point of all the fussing here that has been going on for months and no one still understands what exactly you want?
What pitfalls? I need to make sure you get the times of the clocks and the carriages so we can move forward with the argument, and that you're even interested in this whole story.
Israel
I wrote what I get and what I don't. Unlike you, I'm not trying to hide traps.... 🙂
N.C.
Albanzo was the only one who solved my riddle. I faxed him a check.
I just remembered that in the previous puzzle you said that even one contradictory example would collapse the whole puzzle, and I was hoping that you might have one.
By the way - indeed there is. Do you know what it is?
Don't worry, it will all come together in the end.
Right now I'm breaking the argument into steps so as not to jump too far at once. What's more, it is possible that there is another commenter and a half reading, maybe even us and a half, and it takes some time to digest the argument.
So you get all the discounts in the previous comment?
Israel
A root of a negative number is an imaginary number. Right. In electricity I worked a lot with simulated numbers. And in the world of flight they work with quaternions. So?
We've already agreed that there really isn't a paradox in the barn story, haven't we? The closing of the doors comes simultaneously in the barn system and not simultaneously in the ladder system.
Israel,
I understand that you count people who have not found a solution to your challenge. Cheers, and don't forget to count Magneto and Professor Xavier!
No particle should move in our example either, wait until the end.
Did you get that if v is greater than c the denominator, and with it the entire expression, becomes imaginary?
Let's get back to our trains.
Remember the barn and pole paradox? At time 0 in the barn door clocks you can close both, and if gamma equals 10, a rod 10 times the length of the distance between the doors is locked inside the barn. getting?
So it was said that the distance between the doors is 10 light years, they will have a rod 100 light years long between them. getting?
And if the rod moves from left to right, then when one end of it reaches the right door and its time is reset with it, then the time in both is 0 while the end of the rod 100 light years away from that end is in front of the left door where the time is 0, but the time at the end of the rod is different from 0. getting?
Israel
The Lorentz transform talks about motion. No particle moves in our case.
Your example is really unclear. I understand you are saying the following:
The two trains are moving at a relative speed gamma=10.
The trains reset clocks in the locomotive suit.
After a certain time, car 10 on train A passes car 100 on train B and vice versa.
I accept that.
Miracles
Look at the Lorentz transformation. What happens to the denominator, and with it to the fraction and the entire expression when v>c?
Let's go back to our long trains, A and B, 1000 light years long and carriages XNUMX light year long.
At time 0 the diameters of A and B are opposite each other. Time in both 0.
In front of car 10 in A at time 0 in car 10A, there is car 100 in B. getting?
Because of the symmetry, in front of the 10 B car at time 0 in the 10 B car, there is a 100 B car, accept?
Israel
1 - yes
2 - no.
Miracles
1. Do you accept that if there is an immediate effect of what happens at one point on another point - this is completely different from a classic coordination such as a pair of gloves that have been separated where there really is no effect from one side on the other?
2. Do you accept that according to relativity an influence from one side on the other faster than light means an influence on the past?
to the commenter and something else
If a person wants to express his ideas freely and without interference in some remote article at the end of the universe -
If a person specifically asks certain commenters not to bother him with that article -
If out of dozens of articles on dozens of topics and dozens of commenters, everyone chooses precisely the same particular article and the same person -
So who is the troublemaker here?
Israel
What happens at one point has an immediate effect on another point. Doesn't really make sense, does it? We don't know how to explain it, either.
Then?
In short, N.C. You did not find a single contradictory example.
I just wanted to make sure.
Yes.Rael, my take on your puzzle is worth 2 cents: your "proof" is simply not convincing.
After all, I told you something else at the time besides the fact that there is a counter example. What I said is that you have a logical fallacy. The logical fallacy is not related to the conditions of the riddle or the amount of the prize or the year in which the experiment is performed. You can't throw from something classical to something quantum, just because "you can win a prize". If both a watermelon and a melon win the "sweet fruit of the summer" award, it cannot be concluded that a melon is red on the inside because the watermelon is red on the inside.
Since I had the impression at the time that you were making yourself not-understand/not-remember, I preferred to stop the conversation between us.
Wookie
let me go, okay?
Israel
I wrote you specifically what I want from you here - https://www.hayadan.org.il/distant-galaxy-found-04110/comment-page-8/#comment-708869
You want to tell me that suddenly you are ready to admit that you don't understand what you read, and that maybe you don't believe that you understand exactly what I wrote?
I don't think that wrestling is simpler than weaving, certainly not in the context of a partnership.
"Something's going on, yes."
Pay attention to what is written in the link from my name:
In this situation, a non-local reality means that what happens at Miss A's SPOT detector–whether this particular photon registers as “1” or “0”–cannot depend on causes in Anaheim alone but must somehow depend also on the setting of Mr. B's distant detector in Baltimore. To explain results like these only a non-local reality will suffice.
What this means is that a polarization change in Baltimore immediately affects a measurement in Anaheim, or on Mars if the other end of the experiment is there.
No matter what you call it, no classical code can cause one side to influence the other.
And so something passes from one side to the other, in contrast to separated gloves where everything is already predetermined.
Israel
Something is happening, yes. Something similar also happens in the wrestling experiment, which is a simpler situation. So why not try to understand the simple situation first?
Miracles
Do you understand and accept that an interweaving action on Mars immediately affects what happens in Israel and it doesn't matter if we call it transfer of information or as I suggested at the time, Moshe. This is the important point. Everything else, kalam padi.
Regarding Wookie - I'm really trying to understand what he wants and I can't. I thought you might be able to help.
Israel
I think saying that an electron is a wave and that's how to solve the problem is irrelevant. It is more correct to say that the electron has both wave and particle properties. This is already something that an electronics engineer can understand - the Fourier distribution of a pulse gives properties of a particle and a wave.
I have no intention of getting into this argument of yours. It does not contribute anything to those who read here.
Miracles
If you're talking about quantum clashing with relativity, meaning that information, or anything in general, moves faster than light, then almost anything quantum poses a serious challenge to relativity.
In the slit experiment, the electron demonstrates its wave nature, but I don't see why there is anything more fundamental here than the entanglement collision. Feynman also said that all the strangeness of quanta can be learned from this experiment, but in my opinion, field and non-locality are the most difficult challenge to relativity.
Can you possibly understand what Wookie wants? He is constantly asking for an answer to something and everything I write to him is not good. He says "strange, do you realize this is exactly the same thing elbentzo told you?" but doesn't write what "it" is. I write to him:
"No, what Shagnot said is not what Albanzo said.
Albanzo said that there is no transfer of information between particles is a fact, not an opinion.
There is usually a consensus in academia on facts, but not on opinions.
Therefore, for the time being, at least as far as the academy is concerned, what Albenzo says is an opinion and not a fact.
Albanzo said there is a mathematical proof that information does not pass between entangled particles.
Hanon Communication Taoram talks about the impossibility of sending information that is something else.
And that's why Garnot doesn't know the proof either. She doesn't exist.
Therefore Granot did not say exactly what Albanzo said, contrary to your claim.'
But he continues to claim that I did not answer him.
Maybe you or someone can tell an answer to which question he is asking? I couldn't figure it out, but I'm a known moron.
N.C. If you are already here -
Did you maybe see my puzzle with the prize? Could you perhaps find one and only example of a solution other than the quantum solution brought by Albanzo or communication as you said existed in the previous puzzle?
Which suits some commenters on this site:
http://ofer-megged.blogspot.co.il/2015/10/blog-post.html
Test yourself: are you eccentric (written in the context of physics).
http://insti.physics.sunysb.edu/~siegel/quack.html
Best regards!
Israel
Does one of your waiting lists have the answer I asked for or are you also there once again just wasting your time preaching?
Israel
I'm talking about the experiment of the interference of an electron with itself, through two slits.
Miracles
Specify what kind of interference, inside or outside the atom?
Israel
You are not answering my question 🙂 just diverting the conversation...
Why don't you resent a particle struggling with itself?
Nice, past.
One and a half right and a half.
He is also serious.
You are wasting your time instead of making easy money.
Meanwhile, because no one has won the prize for several weeks now, it has already accumulated to half a billion.
So if as Albenzo says:
"There is no difference between this solution and any other solution of a pre-coordinated classical code (as some of the commenters here have tried to suggest), except that this code operates according to quantum laws."
So why not mobilize all your resources and your father too, find some pre-coordinated classic code and win the prize? Maybe something with computers connected to gyroscopes with a baby's placenta and a blessing whisper from the rabbi of the Milky Way?
Miracles
Most of the electrons I know spend their best years in atoms.
Confirmation of de Bruy's hypothesis.
One of the most striking confirmations for this hypothesis is the fact that the lengths of the radii allowed for the electron in its movement around the nucleus of the atom are only the radii where the circumference of the circle is equal to a whole number of the electron's wavelength. In this way the electron wave does not struggle with itself in a destructive struggle but remains in a constant state.
It seems to me that the article you brought Shmulik already brought at the time.
Wookie
They don't release the maniacs' comments to me, but no, what Shagronot said is not what Albanzo said.
Albanzo said that there is no transfer of information between particles is a fact, not an opinion.
There is usually a consensus in academia on facts, but not on opinions.
Therefore, for the time being, at least as far as the academy is concerned, what Albenzo says is an opinion and not a fact.
Albanzo said there is a mathematical proof that information does not pass between entangled particles.
Hanon Communication Taoram talks about the impossibility of sending information that is something else.
And that's why Garnot doesn't know the proof either. She doesn't exist.
And so Granot did not say exactly what Albenzo said, contrary to your claim.
Waiting (for the third time already) but read your first comment and explain to me why what Prof. Granot said is exactly what Albenzo told me.
Wookie
Prof. Granot wrote:
walking dead
"Prof Yonatan Granot for example said:
"Quantum question to Prof. Granot Prof. Jonathan Granot 17:33 08/05/15
Shalom Israel,
I agree with Guy that this is a bit too heavy a question for this forum. The same thing bothered Einstein a lot, so you're in good company. The answer, of course, depends on what exactly is meant by the transfer of information, and since it is not a transfer of information in the conventional sense (you will not be able to conduct a telephone conversation with the help of this effect), there is no contradiction to the theory of relativity. Still this contradicts classical intuition. As far as I know, there is no consensus in the entire scientific community regarding the interpretation of this issue, and as long as it is an interpretation and not a prediction of the results of an experiment, it is more a philosophy of physics than pure physics. Hope this helps you in some way.
Best regards,
June""
How did you conclude that:
Weird, do you realize this is exactly the same thing elbentzo told you?
June 12th, 2016
Israel
what??? Can an electron pass the speed of light in an atom? And how does this relate to the interference experiment? It happens outside the atom.
Read an interesting article on our topic here –
http://www.wired.com/2014/06/the-new-quantum-reality/
A pack of lunatics arguing about nothing. Urgently for her peace.
Israel
Stop the excuses please. There is no psychology here.
Weaving is much easier to handle because of the large distances involved. I believe this is also why Einstein chose it for his paradox.
As with the speed of sound: the speed of a single air molecule can exceed it by a lot, but the total sum of the speeds is about thirty percent above the speed of sound, and there is no "leakage" of speeds from the fast molecules.
Miracles
I will fix myself. Struggle of an electron with itself usually happens in an atom. In this case, there is no problem with passing information faster than light because of the short distance.
Israel
So why the insistence on discussing an interweaving, rather than a seemingly simpler situation?
Miracles
Probably
Wookie
Is there perhaps a situation where you simply write what "this subject" is and save me the psychology?
Wookie do 1 + 1 need to know that they are 2?
If not, then why are you feeding the troll who floods articles with intellectual filth?
Wow, how difficult it is for you.
Reporter:
"What is 'this issue'?"
I answered you:
"seriously? Sorry, I don't understand why it's not clear to you. What do you understand from what I wrote? Put it in a sentence that supposedly answers the question you asked.
What is the conclusion? what do you have to write me
Answer: You should write an answer to your question about what the topic is, according to what you understand I am trying to tell you.
Why am I asking this question?
Answer: Because you say - "I understand exactly what you wrote, I believe" - and I have no way of knowing what you understand if you do not express it in words that represent your understanding.
Israel
And doesn't that put the theory of relativity to a hard test?
In general - as you know me, I will ask something about the philosophy of physics? of morality? of zebras?
All my questions are only about net physics.
I asked
Wookie
It's a bit hard to understand what you're asking, or if you're asking at all.
Where is there any question in what you wrote:
The thing that you probably fail to understand is the different contexts that are being talked about.
We are talking about two different contexts here:
1) Philosophy of physics.
2) Net physics.
And how does it even relate to what I wrote and blogged about? I came up with a *mathematical formula* and a *consensus* Granot answered that he does not know a formula and that there is no consensus.
So what exactly is your question?
Put the b between two >< only with the opposite direction and at the end the same only with / inside also next to the b
Israel
Answer what I asked you or I won't answer you. point. Tired of these games where you answer a question by answering 500 questions for me before I answer you. To be honest I didn't even bother to see what your questions were.
Where do you put the b?
Regarding the accentuation of words put "with b inside at the beginning of the section and "with b inside at the end
"Wookie"
Regarding the accentuation of words, put "with b inside" at the beginning of the section and "at the end."
Miracles
of course.
I understand exactly what you wrote, I believe:
The thing that you probably fail to understand is the different contexts that are being talked about.
We are talking about two different contexts here:
1) Philosophy of physics.
2) Net physics.
Regarding the first (philosophy of physics) elbentzo told you exactly the same thing.
Regarding the second (physics), he is, to my understanding, trying to explain to you that the concepts you use (or the way you use them) and the conclusions you reach are not acceptable.
And here are my questions for you:
1. Do you understand that I asked for the mathematical formula that Albenzo said exists for the fact that information does not pass between entangled particles? Yes No.
2. Do you understand that Garnet does not know or does not bring the formula? Yes No.
3. Do you understand that I am asking Granot if there is a consensus in academia that there is no transfer of information between the particles themselves? Yes No.
4. Do you understand that formalism means that there is no consensus in academia regarding 3? Yes No.
5. If you answered yes to 1-4 - do you accept that there is no transfer of information between particles is an opinion and not a fact? Yes No.
With regard to the emphasis on the words "sheim" at the beginning of the passage and "at the end" but without the "seam".
Regarding the emphasis on the words 'heaven' ' at the beginning of the section and ' "In the end" but without the profits
Regarding the emphasis on the words "heaven""at the beginning of the section and "” at the end
Regarding the emphasis on the words 'heaven'' at the beginning of the section and '' at the end
Israel
In the interference experiment, information does not pass in zero time?
Already waiting for a second.
Avi? Avi?
Waiting, but I will try one more time to bring Granot's original response:
I received 3 replies including from two physics professors saying that there is no consensus in academia on this matter.
Prof. Yonatan Garnot for example said:
"Quantum question to Prof. Granot Prof. Jonathan Granot 17:33 08/05/15
Shalom Israel,
I agree with Guy that this is a bit too heavy a question for this forum. The same thing bothered Einstein a lot, so you're in good company. The answer, of course, depends on what exactly is meant by the transfer of information, and since it is not a transfer of information in the conventional sense (you will not be able to conduct a telephone conversation with the help of this effect), there is no contradiction to the theory of relativity. Still this contradicts classical intuition. As far as I know, there is no consensus in the entire scientific community regarding the interpretation of this issue, and as long as it is an interpretation and not a prediction of the results of an experiment, it is more a philosophy of physics than pure physics. Hope this helps you in some way.
Best regards,
June"
Now maybe you can tell me what "this issue" is?
seriously? Sorry, I don't understand why it's not clear to you. What do you understand from what I wrote? Put it in a sentence that supposedly answers the question you asked.
I'll make it easy for you, here is the original quote:
"Due to the lack of clarity, I posed the following question in several blogs:
no-communication theorems forbid the transfer of information through entanglement, although is there a mathematical proof that information does not pass between the entangled particles themselves? Is there a consensus in academia on this?
I received 3 replies including from two physics professors saying that there is no consensus in academia on this matter.
Prof. Yonatan Garnot for example said:
"Quantum question to Prof. Granot Prof. Jonathan Granot 17:33 08/05/15
Shalom Israel,
I agree with Guy that this is a bit too heavy a question for this forum. The same thing bothered Einstein a lot, so you're in good company. The answer, of course, depends on what exactly is meant by the transfer of information, and since it is not a transfer of information in the conventional sense (you will not be able to conduct a telephone conversation with the help of this effect), there is no contradiction to the theory of relativity. Still this contradicts classical intuition. As far as I know, there is no consensus in the entire scientific community regarding the interpretation of this issue, and as long as it is an interpretation and not a prediction of the results of an experiment, it is more a philosophy of physics than pure physics. Hope this helps you in some way.
Best regards,
June"
Now maybe you can tell me what "this issue" is?
Wookie, third time;
What is "this topic"?
And how do you emphasize words?
I don't know why it wasn't clear here:
https://www.hayadan.org.il/distant-galaxy-found-04110/comment-page-7/#comment-708839
But here's another try. A minimum of words so that there is nowhere to get confused.
"As far as I know, there is no consensus in the entire scientific community Regarding the interpretation of this topic , and in a moment This is an interpretation and not in predicting the results of an experiment, It's more like a philosophy of physics than pure physics.”
individual.
And he answered: On what topic did Prof. Granot claim that there is no consensus?
Israel
seriously. Why do you ask questions if you don't want to understand or try to understand the answers to them?
OK, we understand.
When Prof. Garnot writes:
"As far as I know there is no consensus in the entire scientific community regarding the interpretation of this issue"
Can you clarify for us exactly what subject it refers to?
And after Barath, if according to him there is no consensus on "this" issue - doesn't that mean that a lack of consensus means that perhaps there are opinions here and there? Isn't there a certain opinion that is better than the other?
Do you think there is no consensus in the scientific community that the earth orbits the sun and not the other way around? Is it round and not flat? Do all bodies fall at the same speed regardless of their mass?
So what is the difference from the case before us where there is no consensus?
And you are wrong about the article. The Space Articles Convention clearly states that those who reach an abandoned article in space have the right of first. I came across this article for the first time after 15 years of no one commenting on it. Upon landing, I immediately stuck my flag in its arms - the Israeli flag. I am the sovereign here and the one who drafted the article's constitution.
I tried with all my might to keep the article innocent because I believed in my innocence that tourists who would come here would respect the rules of politeness and decency with which I conduct my conversations with example miracles.
But foreign and uninvited invaders broke the laws with a rough foot, as their own people from that country whose flag I planted in the prairies of our writers do wherever they go. The violence, the cursing, the lack of culture, the arrogance, the shouting, the profanity, the dirt, the impatience, the lack of tolerance with which they are used to leading their lives from time immemorial, they brought here too, unfortunately.
That's why I have no choice but to fight back and try to throw these damned invaders out of my letter, and offer them to find their own sleazy articles, stick their flag in them, determine what laws they want, and wait for tourists and commenters if they want to come.
I promise to respect every law in the article I reach, just as I have never responded to someone who asked me not to respond to him anymore, according to Albanzo in the previous article.
Would you like a cup of tea at recess?
By the way, it's time to stop with the "I ran away to a distant galaxy..." nonsense. People comment on the basis of the most recent comments much more than on the basis of which article it is in. At least ninety percent of your comments have nothing to do with the content of the articles in which they appear. It's nothing more than an empty rant.
Israel
There is no subtext here. There is, as usual, a reluctance to understand on your part.
It's no coincidence that your quote is partial.
"As far as I know, there is no consensus in the entire scientific community regarding the interpretation of this issue, and as long as it is an interpretation and not a prediction of the results of an experiment, it is more a philosophy of physics than pure physics."
The thing that you probably fail to understand is the different contexts that are being talked about.
We are talking about two different contexts here:
1) Philosophy of physics.
2) Net physics.
Regarding the first (philosophy of physics) elbentzo told you exactly the same thing.
Regarding the second (physics), he is, to my understanding, trying to explain to you that the concepts you use (or the way you use them) and the conclusions you reach are not acceptable.
A question for Wookie in reading comprehension:
If Prof. Granot writes:
"As far as I know there is no consensus in the entire scientific community regarding the interpretation of this issue"
By subtext did he actually mean that there is a consensus in the entire scientific community regarding the interpretation of this subject?
Albanzo
When you landed here with us in the farthest galaxy, after the passports and customs, didn't they sign a form explaining that you are no longer a teacher and I am not your student?
So please don't give me homework, okay?
"Do you think anyone here has forgotten that you claimed that quantum mechanics has a different logic from the rest of physics? Or other laws of mathematics?'
Do you want to bring this quote of mine? Maybe from the same place where according to you I claim that everything that cannot be described in 3 dimensions is not physics?
Do you want to embarrass yourself one more time with your inability to understand what irony is as evident in every sentence in your dry writing?
Maybe stop dodging already and answer the basic question which is the heart of the matter:
"How can a solution of a pre-correlated classical code mean that a change in the state of the polarizer on one side can immediately affect the measurement on the other side?"
Do you think that a change in the state of the polarizer on one side in an aspa experiment (you probably didn't read the link from my name, you who assign me assignments and send me to buy books) does not affect the measurement on the other side?
Or even in this challenge of yours - doesn't measuring spin on one side on Mars affect the results of the measurement in Israel?
And if so - do you not see the difference between such an experiment and the solution of a pre-coordinated classic code where there is no possibility of a measurement on Mars affecting what happens in Israel?
You who always lecture us about information theory and demand a definition but never define yourself - do you understand the difference between useful and useless information? Do you understand that what passes between the particles is useless information like the information that passes between the radios in the example I gave Maya? that no-communication theorems only prohibit the passing of useful information? (which I called known information).
If you are ever able to answer the question of the percentage of mismatches in the Aspa experiment, you will perhaps understand what I keep claiming: no matter how you define it and how you explain it, there is a critical difference between a solution of a pre-coordinated classical code and what happens in the Bell experiments: in the Bell experiment, measurement in Israel immediately affects measurement on Mars. In the solution of classical code no.
And this last sentence is also intended for "immediate transfer of information is not possible and not immediate is not possible", this clown who always changes his name but can always be recognized by his sloppy writing style.
Do you accept that in the Aspa experiment, changing the state of the polarizer on one side immediately affects the measurement on the other side?
Effective immediately? Not when one polarizer is tilted 30 degrees a meter away from the source of the entangled photons and the other is a light year away.
When the measurement starts and ends at the near pole it hasn't even started far.
How could the state of the near polarizer affect the distant measurement that has not started?
Worse, the first measurement (which is performed at 30) is final and cannot be considered and affect the choice of the second measurer to measure at 30 or 0 degrees, and cannot be influenced by it, so how is it possible that when the second measurement is at 30, the two measurements know how to consider each other as if they happened At the same time?
Therefore, immediate information transfer is not possible, nor is immediate information possible.
Well, I was wrong to give you even an iota of credit and assumed that you understand that what a polarizer does is collapse the phonon into a certain state (depending on the polarization), which is exactly what a measurement does. The measurements in my challenge can be implemented using polarizers. But fuck you for the evasion - you don't need to be able to do a basic calculation that any 19-year-old can do easily, because I didn't write the word polarizing.
Israel, as usual - you don't work for anyone. You just know nothing and it shows. You change the subject, you ask questions, because you cannot provide answers. Do you think someone here forgot that you claimed that quantum mechanics has a different logic than the rest of physics? Or other math laws? That you have no idea what has been done in the last eighty years but you don't even blink when you state "nothing fundamental has changed"? that you have no idea what is physical in a wave and what changes can be made to it that will not affect reality in a non-local way? I'm sure there were a few more things I can't remember now.
The attempt to avoid criticism and turn the discussion around by directing questions to the critics did not work yesterday, did not work yesterday, and is not working now. All you have to offer are clearly unstable responses, which I can only wish you read after you calm down and realize how much you need help.
2 am - good night.
Miracles
Unless that someone performs a slam dunk experiment whose results cannot be argued with - something like a MM experiment or an assembly experiment.
Oh Albanzo, you were a fool and you will remain a fool.
Didn't you forget something fundamental in your challenge? The presence of the polarizer?
If you had done what I asked you to do, you would have seen the difference between your challenge and the assembly experiment (link as you remember from my name).
Because in your challenge there is no polarizer at all, and if you went through an assembly experiment you would see why it is impossible to solve my riddle in 1940.
I'll ask you a question to see if we're even in sync:
1. Do you accept that in a collection experiment, changing the state of the polarizer on one side immediately affects the measurement on the other side?
2. Do you see the difference between your challenge when it includes a polarizer and what you wrote:
"There is no difference between this solution and any other solution of a pre-coordinated classical code (as some of the commenters here have tried to suggest), except that this code operates according to quantum laws."
How can a solution of a classical pre-correlated code cause a change in the polarizer state on one side to immediately affect the measurement on the other side?
Israel,
As time goes by I realize more and more that you simply cannot distinguish between "obviously this can never be tested, but if the problem had been presented in 1940 it would have been easily solved because all the knowledge needed to solve it was available" and "the problem was solved in 1940 And Einstein didn't know that."
Really, how stupid do you have to be to write a sentence like "Don't you realize that if the puzzle I brought up had been solved in any way before 1963, it would have eliminated the EPR paradox?"? Like, are you reading the comments here? Did someone say the solution was introduced before 1963? You're really, really dumb, huh?
I will leave you with a challenge. Well, it's not really a challenge, for two reasons. First of all, it is something so easy that any student in an introductory quantum course can do it (and not at the end of the course, maybe already in the middle). But the more important reason, is that we both (and every other reader here) know that you wouldn't do it even if your life depended on it. I will even make it easier for you and divide the problem into really, really small and simple parts:
1. Write the state in the Hilbert space of a pair of entangled particles, one in Earth and one in Mars. Since we all know you have no idea what an entangled particle really is (other than the literal term), I'll refer you to the spin 1/2 singlet state, where the total spin is 0. Can be found in any book on quantum mechanics, including Sakurai.
2. Make a measurement in the DDA of the spin. You can do the measurement in any direction you want, I recommend parallel to the z axis for simplicity. Write explicitly the quantum state after the measurement, in particular of the particle on Mars.
3. Make a measurement of the spin on Mars, but not in the direction of section 2, but tilted at some angle in relation to it. Find the probability of getting each result of the measurement.
4. After proving that the correlation between the two measurements is always the square of the cos of the angle between them, find where in this (trivial) development you needed knowledge that did not exist in 1940. Some action or calculation, some assumption, some thing you couldn't do. Where were you supposed to "know if the reason why entangled particles are always in the same state is because they have hidden variables"?
You see, this is also why you have an obsession with "what they knew in 1940" or "what was the solution before 1905". It's because you don't have a clue about physics and you can't really understand or show anything, so you escape to the history of physics and the philosophy of physics. That's why your arguments are never well defined and you run away from anything rigorous like fire. When there is no knowledge, it should be replaced with nonsense.
And that's exactly what you are. A big pile of crap. Good luck with the calculation for week 4, year XNUMX. 🙂
Israel
It doesn't seem to me that someone without a serious education in physics can contribute anything....
That's what we're here for, to help.
Israel
I don't think there is anyone who claims that special or general relativity is the final theory. The world is complicated 🙂
And it is also possible that it will have to be revised to include non-locality, something that Einstein did not believe in.
In this case the special theory of relativity as we know it today will only be a special case of non-local relations, as Newton's theory is a special case of the theory of relativity at low speeds.
Israel
I read the article. Physics is a complicated and non-intuitive thing.... What's new? Non-locality is really not intuitive! But, according to the article, this is what happens. And according to the article, apparently the theory of special relativity is correct...
Miracle Island you are not serious, you are missing all the action.
We ran to the edge of the universe to the farthest galaxy but it didn't help. Shoin
But maybe it's for the better. We were just about to discuss what I always told you: interweaving does not contradict relativity - but it puts it to a hard physical test, maybe even too hard.
So here it is:
http://www.sciam.co.il/archive/archives/5732
Promo:
Walter Isaacson's 2007 best-selling biography of Einstein reassures the reader that Einstein's criticism of "quantum mechanics has since been shelved. And that's not true'
"It seems that the type of non-locality encountered in quantum mechanics requires absolute simultaneity, which poses a real and deadly threat to special relativity.
And that's the trouble.'
And the summary:
"The state of special relativity, only a little more than a century after it appeared on the world stage, suddenly became a wide open and rapidly developing question. This situation has arisen because physicists and philosophers have finally followed the rough edges of that forgotten debate of Einstein's with quantum mechanics - further ironic proof of Einstein's genius. It is quite possible that the late Guru was wrong exactly where he thought he was right and right exactly where he thought he was wrong. In fact, it is possible that we see the world through a glass that is not so opaque, contrary to the stubborn opinion that has been ruling in the Kippa for a long, long time.'
""Question in quants to Prof. Granot Prof. Yonatan Granot 17:33 08/05/15
Shalom Israel,
I agree with Guy that this is a bit too heavy a question for this forum. The same thing bothered Einstein a lot, so you're in good company. The answer, of course, depends on what exactly is meant by the transfer of information, and since it is not a transfer of information in the conventional sense (you will not be able to conduct a telephone conversation with the help of this effect), there is no contradiction to the theory of relativity. Still this contradicts classical intuition. As far as I know, there is no consensus in the entire scientific community regarding the interpretation of this issue, and as long as it is an interpretation and not a prediction of the results of an experiment, it is more a philosophy of physics than pure physics. Hope this helps you in some way.
Best regards,
June""
Weird, do you realize this is exactly the same thing elbentzo told you?
"Prof Yonatan Granot for example said:
"Quantum question to Prof. Granot Prof. Jonathan Granot 17:33 08/05/15
Shalom Israel,
I agree with Guy that this is a bit too heavy a question for this forum. The same thing bothered Einstein a lot, so you're in good company. The answer, of course, depends on what exactly is meant by the transfer of information, and since it is not a transfer of information in the conventional sense (you will not be able to conduct a telephone conversation with the help of this effect), there is no contradiction to the theory of relativity. Still this contradicts classical intuition. As far as I know, there is no consensus in the entire scientific community regarding the interpretation of this issue, and as long as it is an interpretation and not a prediction of the results of an experiment, it is more a philosophy of physics than pure physics. Hope this helps you in some way.
Best regards,
June""
Weird, do you realize this is exactly the same thing elbentzo told you?
Israel
Which article? I don't read all the rants….
Miracles, where did you disappear and disappear?
Have you read the article on the quantum threat to special relativity? I came across it by chance yesterday when I was looking for a Maya explanation of the wave function.
Not exactly what we talked about here last month?
Oh Albanzo, what a fool you are.
and Cloles.
I didn't threaten you - I just said that if you continue to treat me with all your violence, I too will stop the pleasant and cultured manner in which I usually write and answer you in your own language.
With an Englishman they speak in English, with a Georgian in Georgian, and with an Albanzo - in Whip.
But that's not the main problem. I really understand what your problem is: you don't understand what Bell did at all, eh?
Don't you realize that if the puzzle I brought up had somehow been solved before 1963, it would have eliminated the EPR paradox?
Don't you understand that before Bell's theorem and Aspa's experiment it was impossible to know if the reason why entangled particles are always in the same state is because they have hidden variables - programming, information, code - as Einstein (and you) claimed, or if their state was determined only at the moment of measurement as Bohr claimed?
So let's say my riddle was asked in 1950 - how could you solve it without knowing Bell's proof of his inequality theorems?
So stop whining. Explain the issue of percent mismatches in the Aspa experiment, where your failure is.
You can access the experiment from the link to my name - not from the current one, I'm at work, but from two days ago.
I promise you that a wonderful and immense light will be revealed to you after you understand the proof in it.
Andela.
Oh, and don't forget that I directed you to the definition of information (which suddenly you claim I didn't define). To remind you even for a few days you stuttered about logarithms and natural bases (which again made it clear how much you do not understand what you read).
What is "the technology"? There is no technology here. There is a calculation here that the correlation between the two ends goes like cos the angle between the measurements (what you call the polarizers). There is no lack of knowledge to solve the riddle - calculations of this type - all they involve is an external multiplication of two particles and the calculation of the charge of one of them on spin in a certain axis - were done with angular momentum back in the 30s. "Technology" is just a word you push to sound a little less stupid.
The knowledge was there. I didn't say that they solved the riddle in 1940, I said that the knowledge to solve it existed, the tools existed, and therefore if only someone had thought about it and its importance in 1940, I'm sure they would have solved it check-check (even though I wrote in the response the original which of course there is no way to check this).
Now, there is a limit to everything. For several days you refused to address any criticism I made - physical criticism, and now most of your hypocrisy you expect me to sit here and answer your questions. So I've already answered almost all of your questions (you can shut up until 2045, but you know very well that I explained to you why no comm says what I say, and there were witnesses to it). Because I thought I explained this trivial solution to you (notice how trivial it is, like - come on) but I really didn't, so now I've dedicated a few minutes to explaining it. You invent infantile lies (I write that the difference between X and Y is Z, and you claim that I wrote that there is no difference between X and Y), you refuse to address any criticism, and you expect me to sit here and answer your questions. Oh, and don't forget - you threaten like the last of the thugs that if I don't shut up, you'll shut me up. And as a father of kids, I'm sure you know what they say about bullies - they only do it because they're frustrated with how stupid they are.
"Please stop calling her "yours", she is not yours"
Not that I really care, but can you bring such a puzzle from another source that is completely classical but whose only solution is quantum?
And when you answer the question of the percentage of mismatches that I've been asking you for almost two years, maybe you'll finally get the hang of it and understand the issue of information transfer.
Your solution was also correct in 1860, but the knowledge and technology did not exist.
Nor in 1960.
What about the mismatch percentages?
It seemed to me that when I wrote the original response, I said that the same solution was also true before 1960, but really my wording does not make this clear.
Ok, it's really not clear from my wording.
The solution is the same. The solution to the riddle (which please stop calling it "yours", it is not yours) does not depend on anything that was known in 1960 or 1940. They knew how to write situations in superposition (interlaced) even in 1940, and they also knew how to conjure pon' Gal. The solution I wrote for you is no problem to understand or calculate even in 1940. As I said, the problem was that in 1940 no one yet understood the importance of such puzzles and their implications for the testability of the physics of our universe - whether it is quantum or not. And that was Belle's big one.
It's like the theory of special relativity could be developed in 1904. There was no information in 1905 that did not exist in 1904. Simply until 1905 no one asked themselves a question like "What happens if you hold a flashlight on a train?". If we had raised this question in 1904, it is possible that someone would have developed special relativity before Einstein. In the case of Bell's puzzle, the probability in my opinion aims for 100% because it is really a very easy puzzle for those who know quantum. What is difficult is to think about it and its consequences.
https://www.hayadan.org.il/is-the-universe-ramdom-0405168/comment-page-8/#comment-707524
"Besides, while there's no way to test this, I'm a billion percent convinced that if you had presented your riddle in 1960 or even 1940, it would have been solved without a problem. Bell's greatness was not that he was the only one who managed to solve the problem. His greatness was that he was the only one who thought about such problems and what could be learned from them."
Well, are you bringing a link or not? I think I explained there what the solution is. If not, I will explain to you now.
"Want to challenge the fact that I said the riddle could have been solved in 1940 if only they had raised it in 1940? Bring the link to the comment where I said that."
mmm…
Perhaps it is possible to get an unequivocal decision here, like in an assembly experiment.
If I bring the link - like I brought the link to your claim for a mathematical proof - will you then see how my riddle can be solved in 1940? Or will you start twisting and sweating as usual and explain to us that in the subtext you actually meant 1970?
Israel, the old and shaky man who developed an extreme delusional mechanism to deal with the fact that he doesn't understand really simple things.
(In reality he is very happily married to a beautiful woman, lives very happily in a beautiful house in the mountains, in a sought-after area of Los Angeles, and has 2 gifted children).
Israel, maybe you could bring the link to my response that says the problem can be solved even in 1940? I think I explained exactly what the solution is in this response. If not - I promise I will explain to you right away.
I got it, so you're saying that because I didn't agree to keep quiet when you offered me, then you'll shut me up by force. 🙂
Israel, you really lost it. Read your comments.
What a jerk..
You have never - ever - explained. You always got out of my way phrases such as non-local correlation, Hilbert spaces and explained how much I still need to learn (which is true).
But you never explained the mismatch issue in the Aspa experiment. If so, copy paste or send a link.
And stop talking and bring the proof or the facility that could be built in 1940.
I suggested you a few days ago to stop taking care of me and I promised that I would do the same. You refused, and now I have the results. Everyone can see what kind of a liar you are and believe me, this is just the beginning.
I have a suggestion for you.
Nothing I say will convince you that I am not a source of suffering and evil in the world, and that I am a physicist only because of some cosmic coincidence and that in reality I do not understand anything (and that for some reason no one notices that in my articles I only talk nonsense). Nothing you say will convince me that you're not a cranky old man who has developed an extreme delusional mechanism to cope with not understanding really simple things. So what are we fighting about? You and I are not factors in the equation here. If so, maybe instead of quoting me, bring links. Want to challenge that I said the riddle could have been solved in 1940 if only they had brought it up in 1940? Here is the link to the comment where I said that. Do you have a problem with me saying that even in the solution with the intertwined particles there is a huge amount of pre-coordination that you ignore, just like in classical code? Here is a link to my message. You obviously have these links at hand, you are citing them.
That way, the people whose opinions about you are not set in stone can decide for themselves which of us is a delusional psychopath, an evil liar, etc.
Israel,
You just lost it. I really do. Tomorrow, or maybe another week, or another month, read it all again. Read your accusations, then go back and read what I actually said. Read your requirements for an explanation, and read what I explained to you just before that.
I'm not going to answer your questions because all the questions have already been answered. I will only mention one thing - less than a day ago you refused to address any criticism from me or any request from me for an explanation. Now when I don't explain to you, you claim that means I don't understand (despite the huge difference - you already received the explanations. Rabak, about two weeks ago we had a whole discussion of dozens of comments in which I explained to you why no-comm means what I say. In the response in which I wrote that it is possible To solve the riddle even in 1940 I explained exactly why and how, etc.).
So what does that say about you? You refuse to address the criticism, saying it's only for personal reasons. When you don't get (again) answers to questions you already got an answer to, you claim it's because I don't understand. The conspiracy that goes on in your head is really not something healthy. Israel, you may not believe me - but really you must stop and take a deep breath. I'm not telling you this to annoy you or tease you. You don't see the forest for the trees - you have completely lost touch with reality, and you are in complete denial.
Oh Albanzo, how pathetic you are.
You, who talk about a murder because of a picture in the newspaper, talk about losing touch with reality?
Why don't you bring the proof and close the matter? The facility in 1940?
Come on, I'll show you why you just don't understand the issue of non-locality.
Please explain how in the experiment she collected when the angle difference between the poles is doubled from 30 to 60, the percentage of mismatches triples.
Please don't bother us about non-local correlation and hyperbolic systems. Don't roll your eyes to the sky and say whatever to do, that's how it is in quantum.
Just explain in layman's terms how it happens.
Come on physicist, the world is holding its breath.
Israel,
You have to stop for a moment. Take a deep breath. You don't understand what's going on around you. Read what you wrote again. You need help, urgently. I'm not telling you this out of anger, I'm not telling you this out of hatred or even disdain. You have lost all touch with reality. Something unusual is happening to you. You have to stop for a moment and reevaluate.
What happened to Benzo? Did you go into tilt again?
Where is the proof?
Where is the solution in 1940?
Maybe go to the dean and ask for a promotion to the position of professor and tell him:
"There is nothing that indicates a lack of content more than a person who cannot simply say what his idea is. You don't notice that 99% of the time you don't say anything, but only leave questions in the air that you hope given the empty space that remains people will think you are right"
Because Zahri is a completely innocent sentence?
Andela, a drooling and whining baby. Bring us something with content, not gibberish.
Israel,
you need help. Like, really. you lost it
Albanzo
You are obviously shocked.
If you weren't shocked, you would have long ago provided the mathematical proof you claimed existed that information does not pass between entangled particles.
You say: "Ignore everything I told you about two weeks ago and pretend that it wasn't explained to you exactly why the no comm sentence means what I claim, that the separation between "passing information" and "transmitted information" is something you invented and it doesn't exist in information theory, etc. '".
It was also explained to me phrases such as:
"Don't you feel like you're grinding water a bit? Repeating the same tired arguments over and over again?'
"There is nothing that indicates a lack of content more than a person who cannot simply say what his idea is. You don't notice that 99% of the time you don't say anything, but just leave questions in the air that you hope, given the empty space left, people will think you're right.'
They are completely innocent expressions. And also if I say that nothing is truer than quantum mechanics then I am actually saying that it is wrong because I do not understand it.
explained? So explained! Hey who? By one who is unable to distinguish between the reality imagined in his mind and the real one?
You claim that no-communication theorems are your proof? Guy Hatzroni Prof. Weidman and Prof. Granot think differently. They may be wrong, but don't confuse the idea of academic consensus on what you claim.
Are you saying that my riddle can be solved using knowledge and technology that exists in 1940? Please show how. 100 million dollars is waiting for you.
you say:
"There is no difference between this solution and any other solution of a pre-coordinated classical code (as some of the commenters here have tried to suggest), except that this code operates according to quantum laws."
So in the definition of my puzzle it was clearly stated that you can coordinate any code you want, use any technology you want, and send any message you want in advance, including using computers.
Just not through means of communication to convey information.
So why don't you offer such a facility and show us all how wrong I am?
The answer is simple: because I'm not wrong, and you can't offer such a facility, and despite all your bullshit, you still don't understand what you're talking about.
So here's what you have to do so that it seems that your word is worth something and that you are at all connected to reality:
1. Bring a mathematical proof that information does not pass between entangled particles - not that it is impossible to send through them.
If you don't understand the difference between the two, I'd be happy to explain.
You can also explain yourself, but please, don't talk to us about "non-local correlation" and "spherical systems".
And stop fussing about defining information. I defined - combinations of 1 and 0. What is your definition?
2. Show how my puzzle could be solved using 1940's knowledge and technology.
3. Explain why if expressions such as:
"Don't you feel like you're grinding water a bit? Repeating the same tired arguments over and over again?'
and also not:
"There is nothing that indicates a lack of content more than a person who cannot simply say what his idea is. You don't notice that 99% of the time you don't say anything, but just leave questions in the air that you hope, given the empty space left, people will think you're right.'
They are completely innocent according to you - so will you use them when applying for a loan from the bank.
4. Explain why if Feynman says that relativity is difficult but understandable while nobody understands quantum mechanics, then he meant it jokingly and if I quote him then I am cherry picking and distorting his words because I have an anti-scientific agenda.
Andela, Tronchos.
Maya
1. I understand that your opinion is based on things you have read, the question is on what empirical evidence/experiments is it based on.
The Shimoni and Aspa experiments and thousands of others.
2. The article you linked to is a popular science article, which actually fits my level of understanding of the subject, but I don't know to what extent it represents the scientific mainstream on the subject.
I don't know either, but I believe that Scientific American would not have published an article by some drunken crackpot. I don't know if this is the mainstream and I never claimed that it is the mainstream, I only claimed that the claims that I have been making for several years about the problems in relationships are not some imaginary invention of mine that is not related to reality, but are seriously considered by many physicists as you can read in the article.
3. Can they really affect our ability to measure the condition of a currency? According to the description of your puzzle, with the help of interweaving we can arrange different coins in a specific way. It does not measure their condition.
You are not supposed to measure the state of a coin in my puzzle. It is completely classical and does not involve quanta or measurements.
What you can do is measure the quantum state of the entangled particles and arrange - even manually - the coins according to the measurement results.
If there was no communication between the rooms, the percentage of inconsistencies in the quantum states, and therefore also in the currencies, could not exceed 50%. Since they reach 75% in theory - and in the experiment - then communication is required.
"In order to make the leap and say that even in the interweaving of past information there is indeed no choice and there is no way to avoid the obstacle of defining what information is."
I would love a definition, but I believe that my definition, combinations of 1 and 0, is sufficient for our needs.
"This is not the first time you use the example of Sandy Barr and Roseanne Barr and this example interests me every time."
The meaning is that there are things that you don't need to spend 10 years in university to understand. Babies respond to beautiful faces, and cows to music. Most of the world went crazy for the Beatles even without a good music definition.
"So it is true that Sandy Barr will probably beat Roseanne Barr in a beauty contest in the Western world in the 21st century (although I must say that Roseanne Barr is actually a very handsome woman in my opinion), but this probably would not have happened in the 14th century, so Sandy Barr would have been considered a skinny body in urgent need of vitamins , and I have no idea what would happen even nowadays in any place other than the West (since I am not familiar with beauty standards in other cultures) and it is certain that she would have lost big with judges who have a hammer for fat and old age (and there is no shortage of such in the world).
I only used Roseanne Bear for the bead with Sandy Bear. Roseanne is still an actress, and undoubtedly handsome and well-dressed.
But if I were to confuse - Roseanne or Sandy, your choice - with an old, wrinkled, withered, toothless woman who was born with Down's syndrome - or even many young but unattractive girls - I believe that most people would choose one particular uglier than the others, and that without a definition of beauty .
So if I managed to transfer from one room to another the results of the Brazil - Germany match, most people would say that I transferred information. And this - wonder and wonder - without defining information!
True, if in the other room they already knew the results of the game, then I didn't tell them anything, but still Germany - Brazil 7:1 is information, regardless of the novelty or hype.
"But you're right, you gave a definition to information several times in the past: combinations of zero and one. Where in the coin puzzle did such a combination occur? In order to say that information was passed, if this is your definition of information, this is exactly what you have left to prove."
If we use UP as 1 and DOWN as 0, it seems that a combination of 1 and 0 passed between the rooms.
But is it possible to send information this way? The answer is negative.
To see this, think of coins in different rooms with no communication between them. Is there a way to make the coins always fall on the same side? Negative.
Now I connect the coins to the radio, and when one of the coins falls on a tree or field, this information goes to the other room and a mechanical mechanism immediately sets the other one in the same position.
Now of course you can make the coins always fall on the same side. Was information passed between them? Positive. The radios are the ones that transmitted it.
Is it possible to send information using this device? Negative. To be able to send information we must be able to influence which side the coin that fell first will fall and determine the state of the system. Since we cannot do this, the side on which the coin fell is unknown information to us, so we cannot send information in this way.
Only the second part, sending information, is talked about no-communication theorems. What I'm talking about is the first part, with the radio.
And now you have to take Poponi on a playdate. Tomorrow is Father's Day, let's hope they give me some rest..
Maya,
Sorry, have to correct you. Israel has never given its own definition of information. "A collection of 0 and 1" is not a definition, it's a few words. It may be a definition in the dictionary sense (and in this sense it is a definition on the face, I doubt if anyone will ever really understand what it means), but certainly not in the mathematical sense necessary to do exact science, and in particular to *check* whether the quantum solution passed or not Information (note - to check, so there is no need to decide a priori which is already clear because otherwise Israel does not understand and it cannot be). I am convinced that as someone who did a bachelor's degree in mathematics, you know what a "well-defined" quantity is, and "a collection of 0 and 1" is not a well-defined quantity. Nevertheless, if you're doing exact science, it's worth being precise - and some would even say, necessary.
Besides, Israel claimed several more times that he was "defining" information when he only gave examples, which of course are also not a definition because they cannot be applied to a general case.
Good luck with the kids. As someone who also had to leave his friends as a child, it's not easy but you get over it.
Friends friends, what a drama. I have to take the girl on a play date with a friend she will never see again. It's a drama!
So this is how I will respond to the words of Israel Vashem, between the lines (for those who are good at reading comprehension...) the answer to Albanzo's question will also be hidden:
Part One:
1. I understand that your opinion is based on things you have read, the question is on what empirical evidence/experiments is it based on.
2. The article you linked to is a popular science article, which actually fits my level of understanding of the subject, but I don't know to what extent it represents the scientific mainstream on the subject. I did not finish reading the article because it is long and we are busy here with emotional outbursts of girls who are separated from their friends but I will finish (it is actually very interesting). I just wanted to rush to calm the spirits here. In any case, you made a claim that the wave function has physical aspects, I asked what the physical aspects are. The quote from the article did not answer this question for me.
3. Can they really affect our ability to measure the condition of a currency? According to the description of your puzzle, with the help of interweaving we can arrange different coins in a specific way. It does not measure their condition.
Regarding the second part:
1+2. In Bell's Law I did not get beyond the introduction on Wikipedia and therefore I do not pretend to understand at all what they are saying, so it is difficult for me to comment on it. Maybe one day I will make more progress and be able to respond more. And regarding the first part, I said that it is possible to solve the riddle by transferring information and also by interweaving. In saying this I relied on the fact that if you talk on the phone and decide how to arrange the coins there was a classic transfer of information and I think this fits our intuition about what information is. In order to make the leap and say that even in the interweaving of past information there is indeed no choice and there is no way to avoid the obstacle of defining what information is.
This is not the first time you use the example of Sandy Barr and Roseanne Barr and this example interests me every time. Basically you are taking here one of the most subjective topics and saying that it is clear what the result will be according to our intuition. So it is true that Sandy Barr will probably beat Roseanne Barr in a beauty contest in the Western world in the 21st century (although I must say that Roseanne Barr is actually a very handsome woman in my opinion) but this probably would not have happened in the 14th century, so Sandy Barr would have been considered a thin body in urgent need of vitamins, And I have no idea what would happen even nowadays anywhere that is not the West (since I am not familiar with beauty standards in other cultures) and it is certain that she would lose big with judges who have a hammer for fat and old age (and there is no shortage of such in the world). The beauty of definitions is that they take us out of this world of subjective concepts and are true anywhere in the world and at any time and period. That's why they are important. Therefore if you want to do exact science you have to use them. But you're right, you gave a definition to information several times in the past: combinations of zero and one. Where in the coin puzzle did such a combination occur? In order to say that information has been passed, if that is your definition of information, that is exactly what you have left to prove. I, for the time being, do not see how and therefore reserve the right to be skeptical about the fact that information was indeed passed.
And on this optimistic note - for a play date (and the accompanying tears 🙁 )
Maya,
Hate to do this to you and push you into the middle of an unpleasant discussion like this, but I just can't help myself. Is Israel right when he writes "information must pass between the rooms, as Maya concluded alone"? Is this what you concluded, and if so, could you explain to me how?
Or, if this is not what you concluded, is it possible that Israel Shapira really has already crossed the border and moved into a situation where he is literally imagining events that did not happen? According to recent comments, I wouldn't be surprised to find that out.
Wow.
I'm really shocked.
Say, Israel, when someone says "there is no difference between X and Y except for Z", are they saying that X and Y are the same or different? I mean, your "proof" that I don't understand is based on me saying that there is a difference between two things, and you interpret that as if I were saying that they are the same. Oh, yes, and not to forget another important element in your "proof" - to ignore everything I told you about two weeks ago and pretend that it wasn't explained to you exactly why the no comm sentence means what I claim, that the separation between "passing information" and "transmitted information" It's something you invented and it doesn't exist in information theory, etc.
You really, really are the stupidest, most no-nonsense man I've ever come across. You can dismiss it as a curse and call me a psychopath (although let's be honest - the last comment you wrote is the most unbalanced thing anyone has ever written. You could have written the word "chocolocco" 600 times on your chest in gouache and it would still be a bit more sane from what you've spewed here), but you know it's true. You're really stupid, and as a result really frustrated, and because you're also really childish, we get what we get.
Wow.
On the bank of the stream, I sit.
And waiting and waiting, for whom who for whom?
To my father Blizovsky, to set me free.
Anu, Inel Dervcom, you disappear from us once again?
How did you like the:
"Shamulik are you here? You are the therapeutic body in charge of the case of Albanzo and his stupidity. Could you perhaps take the little degenerate to the side - by the ear - and explain to him - slowly - how much of an idiot he sounds?
The boy turned out to be stupid but insanely funny, literally.'
To understand the problem with Albanzo's arguments, let's start with a simple question. Why are you all here, in an abandoned article from 15 years ago in the farthest galaxy at the edge of the universe?
The answer is that I asked to move here because of Albanzo's repeated harassments which are always accompanied by profanity and swearing.
His claim that it's because I'm not open to criticism is fundamentally unfounded, of course, as my detailed response to Maya or anyone willing to argue in a civilized and polite manner shows. But in our country there is a simple rule: you want to be respected - behave with respect. You are a scoundrel who attacks and scoundrels - you will get a knife in...
But what was the trigger for his current outburst?
I wrote:
"Newton's and Maxwell's theories were tested by all the mythological mathematicians starting with Newton himself, and were found to be impeccable. So just because black body radiation and the Michaelson Morley experiment didn't match the predictions of classical physics go and flip all the furniture?
Albanzo responded:
"Elbentzo
The first example is just nonsense. Yes, Newtonian physics is mathematically consistent, and it was rejected because its consistent model simply did not match reality. They did an experiment - not a thought experiment, but a direct examination of reality - and saw that it was wrong. Since you did not perform an experiment that disproves special relativity and/or the big bang theory (otherwise you would be waving your Nobel Prize here already, and really I am not exaggerating), this example is irrelevant and is rhetoric empty of content.'
Say, Tronchus, do you not understand that I am speaking ironically here? Like a year and a half ago when I wrote a nostalgic response to Newton and you attacked me without realizing that the response was ironic?
The answer, I believe, is getting clearer over time: he really doesn't understand.
This bock, the poot, the learned calf, who is so captive in his academic illusion, is really able to give a certain definition of beauty and then declare that Roseanne Barr is more beautiful than Sandy Barr because that is what the guideline he set shows..
The detachment from reality can be seen in another of his comments. He bursts into my discussion with Nisim and asks:
"Don't you feel like you're grinding water a bit? Repeating the same tired arguments over and over again?'
"There is nothing that indicates a lack of content more than a person who cannot simply say what his idea is. You don't notice that 99% of the time you don't say anything, but just leave questions in the air that you hope, given the empty space left, people will think you're right.'
After that he claims that he tried in a good spirit to make peace. When I ask him if the expressions above are considered peacemakers in his eyes, he answers:
"Yes, the quotes you brought are completely innocent."
Now, I don't know if he really believes those quotes are innocent or just lying, but my advice here to everyone is that if you are asking for a loan from the bank, don't tell the branch manager:
"Don't you feel like you're grinding water a bit? Repeating the same tired arguments over and over again?'
and also not:
"There is nothing that indicates a lack of content more than a person who cannot simply say what his idea is. You don't notice that 99% of the time you don't say anything, but just leave questions in the air that you hope, given the empty space left, people will think you're right.'
Even if you believe like Albanzo that some quotes are completely innocent.
So let's see where we stand now.
I brought a link to a Scientific American article that I very much agree with the claim in it. The title of the article: "A quantum threat to special relativity".
It is no longer possible to say that I am sleep-deprived and delusional as Albenzo always portrays me, because here, in the scientific mainstream itself, the claims that I have been repeating for years are being made: relativity needs to be revised.
But what about Albanzo's claim that there is no tension between relativity and quantum? This claim is equal in value to any other claim of his: opinion.
From the article:
"It took another 30 years after Bell's article was published before physicists dared to look directly at these issues. The first discussion of quantum non-locality and relativity blessed with honesty, uncompromising, logical completeness, uniform level and clarity, appeared in 1994 in a book written by Tim Modlin of Rutgers University, called "Quantum non-locality and relativity".
Contrary to Albanzo's resolute and resolute assertion that there is some one absolute scientific truth in physics and he is the one who represents it, it turns out that there are other opinions and they are firmly expressed by many physicists.
But Albanzo always tries to appropriate all knowledge and understanding. But didn't we show in the previous examples that his reading comprehension is a bit - how do you say? problematic..
See for example his mathematical proof case.
He stated emphatically: there is a mathematical proof that information does not pass between entangled particles, and added decisively: this is not an opinion, it is a fact.
He brought the no-communication theorems as evidence.
But no-communication theorems do not deal with the question of transferring information between the particles, but with the fact that it is not possible to send information through interweaving, as I have always argued.
Because of the lack of clarity, I posed the following question in several blogs:
no-communication theorems forbid the transfer of information through entanglement, although is there a mathematical proof that information does not pass between the entangled particles themselves? Is there a consensus in academia on this?
I received 3 replies including from two physics professors saying that there is no consensus in academia on this matter.
Prof. Yonatan Garnot for example said:
"Quantum question to Prof. Granot Prof. Jonathan Granot 17:33 08/05/15
Shalom Israel,
I agree with Guy that this is a bit too heavy a question for this forum. The same thing bothered Einstein a lot, so you're in good company. The answer, of course, depends on what exactly is meant by the transfer of information, and since it is not a transfer of information in the conventional sense (you will not be able to conduct a telephone conversation with the help of this effect), there is no contradiction to the theory of relativity. Still this contradicts classical intuition. As far as I know, there is no consensus in the entire scientific community regarding the interpretation of this issue, and as long as it is an interpretation and not a prediction of the results of an experiment, it is more a philosophy of physics than pure physics. Hope this helps you in some way.
Best regards,
June"
And of course there is no mathematical proof, contrary to Albanzo's claim.
This is the place, by the way, to take a bow and ask Albanzo, the man of chivalrous integrity: Is there or is there no proof? If so, can you bring it? If not, can you admit that you cheated and misled everyone?
And why did you claim that only one person answered the question when I brought three?
And if you do neither this nor that - aren't you a fucking liar as you accuse me all the time?
Let's get to the point.
Wookie says:
"This can also be presented by saying that Erlander passes through the interweaving (just a random name with no meaning), and thus the problem can be solved without transferring information. So of course they will ask what is Erlander? What is the definition of Erlander? So of course we answered that there is no need to define Erlander because we know what it is.'
But yes Wookie, if you have 2 coins in different rooms with Erlander written on one side and Hypochondriac on the other, and both always fall on the same side, then information has passed between the rooms.
If, on the other hand, on one side it says Wookie and on the other Dabil, then even if both always fell on the same side, no information has been passed because the same thing is written on both sides.
Before we continue, and if Wookie is already here, we had a long discussion a year and a half ago about Feynman's statement that no one understands quantum mechanics.
Albanzo as always claimed I was a stupid liar twisting Feynman's words to fit my anti-scientific agenda, Wookie said I had reading comprehension problems.
A few days ago I brought another article by Feynman in which he does not joke, does not talk about his New York accent, nor about his tie.
In the article he explicitly states: the relationship is difficult but understandable and many do understand it. Quantum mechanics, on the other hand, no one understands.
So maybe my reading comprehension isn't that bad?
Of course the two clowns will never admit they were wrong. Well, we're used to it already.
But what about our topic? Does information pass between rooms in my puzzle or not?
Until a month ago, I thought that Albenzo might have some explanation that I don't see or understand.
He always claims that I don't understand what information is and I don't define it.
And the thing is strange. Many times I brought my definition to information: every information can be defined by combinations of 1's and 0's. Also in the wiki there is a drawing with the binary definition of information:
The ASCII codes for the word "Wikipedia" represented in binary, the numeral system most commonly used for encoding textual computer information
Albanzo on the other hand, never brought his definition (or maybe I missed it). On his advice, I bought Skorai's book, but as he pointed out, she doesn't appear there either.
So what does a person need to finally know what information is, something that Maya didn't need to learn at all to understand that this is what passed between the rooms?
And why does a scholar like Einstein claim that information passes between the particles without defining it at all?
And in general, what does it matter what the definition is, as I have explained many times: if you send an astronaut a random number, and he returns its double to you in a time that is less than the time needed for light to travel the distance to the spacecraft and back - you have broken relativity, no matter what the definition of information is.
But what became clear to me in the previous article about the randomness of the universe is that Albanzo's wonderful reading comprehension also works in the field he studied and teaches: quantum entanglement and information.
For a moment when he solved my riddle, I thought maybe he understood. But right after that it dawned on me that, like everything else, he knows, but doesn't necessarily understand.
He says that the riddle could be solved in a billion percent with the knowledge and technology in 1940. It's like saying you can build an atomic bomb with the knowledge and technology in 1900.
The answer is that it is not possible, and if it were possible, it would invalidate the EPR article, which did not happen. Einstein died in 1955 believing he had found the flaw in the hated quantum mechanics.
However, the fact that he does not understand the point of the experiment, I understood from the following paragraph in his response:
"Finally, regarding my comment that all the information was already in the system. So we started with 300 interlaced spin pairs, right? But wait, how did we get them? And is it enough to know that they are intertwined? Each pair should be produced by local measurement. That is, before the start of the experiment, the two experimenters (the one from KDA and the one from Mars) had to meet somewhere and produce the intertwined pairs. But it is not enough. They must know exactly which interlaced state they have (because even the smallest system has at least 4 interlaced states), otherwise the code cannot be set. So not only do they have to meet before and perform a measurement, they also have to know exactly what measurement they performed and what was the process of the collapse of the system. Only then can each of them go to their end point and perform the experiment. That is, they come with a *huge* amount of pre-matched information, and all they do during the experiment is collapse it with a local measurement, each on their own spin. There is no difference between this solution and any other solution of a pre-coordinated classical code (as some of the commenters here have tried to suggest), except that this code operates according to quantum laws.'
Notice what he says, especially this sentence:
"There is no difference between this solution and any other solution of a pre-coordinated classical code (as some of the commenters here have tried to suggest), except that this code operates according to quantum laws."
It's the smoking gun that shows he doesn't understand the issue at all.
Because if there is no difference between this solution and any classic solution - why not build such a classic setup and win the prize yourself? After all, I'm still offering 100 million to whoever manages to build such a classic setup - don't you need the money?
And much more important than the money, if you manage to build such a classic system - you will prove to everyone that I am a lying idiot and a fraud as you always claim.
You don't understand the point of Bell's inequality theorems, Tronchos. There is no - no - possibility to build a classic device for the puzzle that will solve my puzzle and win you a prize. Here is a real mathematical proof - not made up like yours - that this cannot be done.
Information must pass between the rooms, as Maya deduced on her own. And as the article I brought shows, Albanzo does not represent the world of science as he always claims, but only one side of it.
If anyone is interested, I would be happy to explain as clearly as possible the difference between "information can be sent" - which is not possible in interweaving - and "passed information" - what happens in interweaving.
And also why this puts relativity through such a difficult physical test that it is not clear whether it will survive it, as written at the end of the article:
"The state of special relativity, only a little more than a century after it appeared on the world stage, suddenly became a wide open and rapidly developing question. This situation has arisen because physicists and philosophers have finally followed the rough edges of that forgotten debate of Einstein's with quantum mechanics - further ironic proof of Einstein's genius. It is quite possible that the late Guru was wrong exactly where he thought he was right and right exactly where he thought he was wrong. In fact, it is possible that we see the world through a glass that is not so opaque, contrary to the stubborn opinion that has been ruling in the Kippa for a long, long time.'
Israel
You see? 🙂
How is it that it's always the same three or four strange creatures that crawl out of their burrow and start biting you and anyone who tries to instill some sense into them?
This is of course another evidence (among many) of a kind of detachment from reality and mental acrobatics that Israel has to perform in order to preserve in his head an image in which I am the devil. Preserving this image is immeasurably important because it's the only thing that ensures he won't have to deal with every criticism I pass on the Belleau.
And by the way - just a joke, not really important for understanding the issue, but in his imitation Israel claims that I am accusing him of an anti-scientific agenda. A day ago he brought my following quote - please read the first line:
https://www.hayadan.org.il/issac-newton-bigraphy-1101152/comment-page-5/#comment-579246
This can also be presented by saying that Erlander passes through the weave (just a random name with no meaning), and thus the problem can be solved without transferring information. So of course they will ask what is Erlander? What is the definition of Erlander? So of course we answered that there is no need to define Erlander because we know what it is.
Maya,
I assume that what I write here is unnecessary and that you don't really need to be shown what kind of joke Israel's answer is, but for the avoidance of doubt, a brief reference:
1. Does not give any testimony. Tells you that he did an online course and a bachelor's degree in physics (although if you try to examine what he knows, you will find that it is somewhere between popular science and conspiracy theories).
2. Avoids answering (because he knows nothing about what Pon Gal is really about), and refers to the article. In the article there is a paragraph reference to the *philosophical* question of whether Hegel's theory is ontological or epistemological, i.e. whether it expresses what is or what is known. Of course, this is a familiar discussion in the *philosophy* of physics for decades, and not in physics. This is evading the real question - if we know that two completely different wave points can give the same result for any possible experiment (and anyone who has passed week 3 of an introductory quantum course knows this), then how do we know that a change that occurs in a wave point at time 0 necessarily results in a physical change Measured at time 0? Of course the issue has been investigated and there are answers.
3. No, empty sentence. You ask him if the Hegel wave is physical, he answers that it has physical aspects. You ask him to explain, he answers "they can affect our ability to measure a situation". A pun if I ever read one.
1. (The mistake in the numbering in order to match his answers). Trying to imply that I attacked him because he said that Bell's puzzle could be solved with information transfer. This is of course a lie of a 3 year old trying to score points by changing reality. From the moment I presented the solution, I said that it could be solved this way. The criticism he received (of course I never yelled at him like that - such rage is the property of the mentally unstable like Israel, I at most burst out laughing when I read the depth of his delusion) is that he made claims about information without even knowing the definition. Not because he said that the riddle can be solved with the help of information transmission. But of course this is part of the tactic designed to ridicule the criticism. Why sneer criticism? Well, well, if there's one thing we've learned from the last few days, it's that Israel would rather dig through tens of thousands of comments from years ago and look for a quote that can be debated than address criticism that it knows it has no ability to answer.
By the way, if you want to turn the beauty pageant into an exact science, I suggest that you define beauty.
3. Here is the really beautiful part. First of all, he admits that if there are two solutions to the problem, it cannot be claimed that they are necessarily the same solution. But two lines before that, he claims that "there is no possibility of winning a prize in my puzzle without transferring information - from information - between the rooms, and this without even defining what information is." (Note that this puzzle is his in much the same way that quantum mechanics is his or private relativity is his). In addition, at the end of his words he says that he has not yet seen a solution that does not include the transfer of information (even though he just agreed with you that there are two solutions and one of them includes the transfer of information, does not mean that the other includes the transfer of information). Of course, if he had bothered to define information, he would not have had to guess - he could have followed the definition and checked whether it passed or not. Guess who did? Very true, physicists. Guess what answer they got?
The whole last part fantastically exposes the circular logic that is needed to preserve a fantasy world where a stupid person is smart, you don't need to learn anything to know and understand, and you don't need to take criticism.
Maya
We are now back from the road and receiving
Regarding your questions, and I do not pretend to be an expert on the subject, it seems to me that no one here is.
1. It is good to have an opinion, but an opinion (even of many people) is not relevant in science. What is relevant is evidence or empirical evidence.
The knowledge is based on what I read and what I understood from those books dealing with weaving that I read, from what I studied at the university and from that YouTube online course under the guidance of Susskind.
2. On the same subject: you said "physical aspects". What is meant by? What physical aspects are you referring to exactly?
The article I linked to expresses my opinion and as you can see it is quite well established in academia. of which:
"But what exactly is this wave function? A fierce debate is now raging on this issue among researchers of the fundamentals of physics. Is a wave function an actual physical object, or is it something similar to a law of motion or an internal property of particles or a relationship between points in space? Or maybe it's just the current information we have about the particles? or what?'
3. How do these physical aspects affect reality? That is, about the things we can measure?
They can affect our ability to measure the condition of an example coin.
1. I agree that there are two ways to solve the puzzle: transfer of information and interweaving. Are you claiming that there are no other options for a solution? If so, on what basis is this claim?
Let's start from Sipa: Bell's inequality theorems proved mathematically that there is no other possible solution.
"I agree that there are two ways to solve the puzzle: information transmission and interweaving."
I suggest you don't say it out loud. data transfer? Do you even know what the definition of information is that you talk about with such confidence??!! Have you ever studied information theory???!!! Who are you anyway, why do you think you are a piece of scumbag like you who dares to talk about information without having studied for a master's degree in physics, without having read Scourai and without learning how to collapse unsparable systems?????!!!!!!!
Liar! Stupid!! instigator!!! Has an anti-scientific agenda!!!! Don't you dare talk about this again that if two coins in different rooms always fall on the same side, then information has passed between them, do you understand me??????????!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! !!
By the way, I'm sure you understood me, but not completely 🙂
But yes, there is no possibility of winning a prize in my puzzle without transferring information - from information - between the rooms, and this without even defining what information is.
We didn't define beauty either, and even so I wouldn't suggest you bet in a beauty contest on Roseanne Barr versus Sandy Barr.
2. Why does the fact that there are two options for solving the riddle mean that both work on the same mechanism? The fact that the first option has information transfer forces the second option to act in this way as well?
It doesn't mean, and I would be very happy if someone would show me the possibility of solving the puzzle without passing on information. How much was the prize? 50 million dollars? I will personally pay that genius 100 million. This is a small excess of the royalties I will receive for marketing such systems without transferring information.
Good night.
Albanzo
I can certainly imagine a situation where everything stems from a basic mechanism and we don't have the tools to describe it. How sad 🙁 But you're right, why would there be such a basic mechanism? I imagined some single equation that solves everything, but the more I think about it, it's actually not that likely. Although so far the universe has proven itself to be simple and beautiful, hasn't it? Didn't they discover some time ago a particle that they assumed existed from symmetry considerations only because until now these worked well? Symmetry is beautiful, isn't it?
To develop a very general model that is true for any scientific field, I suppose. I, by the way, don't know what scientific field I'm in either 🙂 My bachelor's and master's degrees are in biochemistry, during which I did, for fun, another bachelor's degree in mathematics (it was really fun). In my PhD I wanted to combine the above, so I did computational biology (models of evolution) and in my post I completely changed my field and worked on the subject of materials (albeit with biological inspiration, bio-inspired, if you will). I got a position in plant science (which I will start soon, tik tok) where I will use plants as a research model to ask questions that combine all the fields I have dealt with until now. We'll see how it goes. In any case, since my main occupation is in biological systems, the models are limited in advance by the conditions (conditions that do not allow life, we will not be interested anyway) so even though the models can only be solved in certain cases and assumptions must be made, it still seems to me that the network of conditions that interests biologists in all This is narrower than what would interest physicists. Maybe I'm wrong.
one and a half?)
Maybe you should follow the thread to the first comments so you can see who is turning the site into a dump and who is responding.
For anyone interested in an excellent article on the subject that shows exactly how much consensus there is in the academy compared to those who try to appropriate the opinion of the academy.
http://www.sciam.co.il/archive/archives/5732
of which:
It seems that the type of non-locality encountered in quantum mechanics requires absolute simultaneity, which poses a real and deadly threat to special relativity.
And that's the trouble.
and also
The state of special relativity, only a little more than a century after it appeared on the world stage, suddenly became a wide open and rapidly developing question.
Miracles for you.
and also:
It is impossible to represent the wave functions of quantum mechanics mathematically using less than a space of an unimaginable number of dimensions, called configuration space. If, as some people claim, wave functions are to be seen as actual physical objects,
For you Maya.
Maya,
Why wouldn't it be possible to find one model that describes all the phenomena? First of all, why so? Our intuition (those who believe it is possible) is drawn from the fact that the reductionist approach which says that as you go down to a more basic level of the degrees of freedom that produce the phenomena in the universe, has proven itself phenomenally and advanced modern science more than any other approach. But there is no guarantee that the universe is so simple and beautiful. And even if so - there is no guarantee that our mathematical tools (which are all based on logical systems, and therefore inherently limited to the logical tools we are able to imagine and perceive) can describe it. That is to say, it is possible to imagine a situation where indeed all the phenomena in the universe arise from one basic mechanism, but this mechanism cannot be described with the tools we have developed so far, or even that will ever be discovered. The approach in the field of high energy physics is that it is worth trying, and that past experience strongly suggests that this task (as difficult as it may be), is possible.
Regarding the first part, the answer is definitely yes. Even when an astrophysicist studies a certain process that takes place in the interstellar medium, for example, and he really does not want to model it with strings, or even with elementary particles, or even with atoms and molecules but with the classical averaging of gas, he will want to be able to describe the phenomenon in the most general way . I don't think anyone has ever wanted to find the most general description for every temperature, every environmental condition, every composition of the gas. But it's just not always easy. Sometimes, for example, you come across very difficult (or even unsolvable) equations, but under a certain assumption they become simple and you can learn a lot. So the results of the model will be correct only under this assumption, for example on the temp of the system. It's not that the physicist doesn't want to develop the model further, it's just that he can't always, and we as physicists (I assume you know this because I guess it's true for every field of scientific research and I know you're involved in science, although I don't know exactly which field) always Take what you can. A model that is correct in a certain area is better than nothing.
Israel,
A small note (calm down, no quarrel here): I never said that in Shankar or in Sakurai you will find answers to questions about information. I only mentioned Schenker when Nissim asked me about a good book for studying quantum mechanics, and regarding Sakurai I clarified (several times) that he provides the necessary basis for understanding information (in case you missed it, the part about entanglement is in the section about density operators, which are the only way to describe non- Sperbilities) and after you understand it, I will be happy to refer you to texts that deal directly with the subject. Everything is documented, you can check for yourself.
My problem is with your conclusions from the coin puzzle and I will detail:
1. I agree that there are two ways to solve the puzzle: transfer of information and interweaving. Are you claiming that there are no other options for a solution? If so, on what basis is this claim?
2. Why does the fact that there are two options for solving the riddle mean that both work on the same mechanism? The fact that the first option has information transfer forces the second option to act in this way as well?
Albanzo
Thanks for the answer (if you remember the question, it was before any comments...)
I understand what you're saying about it not always being true to find such a description. I think my assumption was really that although it is possible to find a very detailed description of the problem, this is not the way to deal with it - as you described in the case of football or even in protein folding models in which each and every electron is not modeled but the electrical/steric interactions, etc. of different blocks, But as far as I understand, the assumption is that it is theoretically possible to do this by modeling each electron, it will simply take computational power and an unreasonable amount of time, so it is not worthwhile to do so. That's why I assumed that the goal is to find a model that is capable, potentially, of describing everything and simply knowing when it's wrong to use it (obviously there's no point in talking about condensed matter through strings).
It is interesting that you say that it is not certain that this can be done. What are the considerations here or there? Why would it theoretically not be possible to do this?
Regarding what you called the first part of my question (which I didn't even realize was divided into two parts, but you're right) this also surprises me a bit. I understand that it is not always possible to find a model that will describe the system under all temperature and energy conditions, but when this happens, won't the physicist say to himself: "Okay, my model is flawed, it is good for certain situations, but I should develop it further"? According to what I understood from what you wrote before, the answer to this is largely yes.
Israel, it's a shame that your parents didn't bother to educate you when you were little, what a disgusting way of speaking you turned this site into a dump. I hope that very soon you will be blocked from writing here and no more of your nonsense will be heard.
Maya
I'm on the road now with the iPhone, it's a bit hard to tell.
I brought a simpler version of the riddle yesterday in response to the miracles. Go back a little, this is almost the last factual response.
If you click on the link from my name, you will see Nick Herbert's explanation. There is a mathematical proof by Bell that it is impossible to solve the riddle in any classical way because a solution would violate a mathematical inequality that he proved.
You could go to Susskind's lectures on interweaving, but they are quite mathematical and require knowledge of at least a bachelor's degree in physics. Don't mess with Scourai or Shankar, there is nothing there about information or interweaving.
But as I said, the softened puzzle from yesterday is easy and can explain why information must pass between the rooms.
Beyond the differences of opinion I have with your husband and others, and even though you are the formidable Chief of Staff, I have always liked your writing which is humorous and understandable.
Nice, I'm back from an outreach activity where we showed chemistry experiments to elementary students. These visits always make me feel a little optimistic about the future (they are so happy when things change colors 🙂 ) and they also help me see a maturity in children that is sometimes lacking in older people. So, in our case:
Israel,
You said: "I think the wave function has physical aspects. I understand, I'm not the only one."
I have some problems with this answer:
1. It is good to have an opinion, but an opinion (even of many people) is not relevant in science. What is relevant is evidence or empirical evidence.
2. On the same subject: you said "physical aspects". What is meant by? What physical aspects are you referring to exactly?
3. How do these physical aspects affect reality? That is, about the things we can measure?
Regarding the coin puzzle. I don't fully understand how this relates to what I asked, but I will answer. I've seen it and I've seen different formulations of it before. As I mentioned before, I don't have a great understanding of quantum theory, but I understood that you headed in the direction of an assembly experiment (not that I can explain how to do it because, as mentioned, I don't have a great understanding, nor did I really delve into it). My problem is with your conclusions from the coin puzzle and I will detail:
1. I agree that there are two ways to solve the puzzle: transfer of information and interweaving. Are you claiming that there are no other options for a solution? If so, on what basis is this claim?
2. Why does the fact that there are two options for solving the riddle mean that both work on the same mechanism? The fact that the first option has information transfer forces the second option to act in this way as well?
Riddle for the forum on the subject of Tsomi.
A man flees to the edge of the universe to the farthest galaxy and explicitly asks to be left to his own devices.
A stupid troublemaker who never has anything original to say and his whole purpose is to harass other commenters. Let's take care of the man despite his express request for silence.
The snoozer searches the entire site for one false comment and finds nothing, but of course he doesn't admit it.
So who is the liar chasing the Tsumi?
Translation from the Israel Shapira - Hebrew dictionary
"I have no problem accepting criticism, but not from violent psychopaths who swear with every second word that comes out of their mouths.":
If anyone criticizes my words, he is a violent psychopath who curses with every second word that comes out of his mouth.
"After all, you tried as much as you could to find even just one lie in my words, and all I came up with was that I said to Albenzo, 'Someone even contacted you,' and I contacted him.":
You found my lies with incredible ease (it's not a challenge, there are many) and without effort you gave an example of the first lie that appeared in my response in which I claimed that I never lie, and now I'm lying about it because the dissonance between the reality of the lies I tell and my private delusion that I don't lie at all, no Allows me to recognize reality (according to the Torah which holds that if the facts and Israel Shapira's opinion do not match, the facts are wrong and should be ignored).
"It also didn't help that I showed you that I only turned to him in the first article when I still didn't know the beast that was hanging out":
Now I will contradict my previous words, and try in a poor and unconvincing way to tell that this is actually one innocent case that happened by chance at the beginning and not a phenomenon that repeated itself, even though the response in question presented more than one example in which it happened.
"But I have many more lies":
I'm not lying at all.
(Editor's note: Tov is the only thing that really corresponds to Hebrew and reality as it is, even though the intention is the opposite, despite the attempt to downplay and hide the lies as something else by pointing to stupid prose as lies when that's not what it's about.)
"Search, search.":
Search I want you to waste your time even though between us we know you don't need to search at all because the lies are clear and scattered everywhere.
"What about Feynman, I lied there as well, as you claimed, and you left Hatamba? What about your reading comprehension, where is the proof that Albenzo referred me to?”
I ask questions that I know you've already answered with a mix of straw men to make it seem like I didn't get answers to them and like you're avoiding me, and I spice it up with taunts and teasing at the level of a third grader because I think everyone like me is still at that level.
"Maybe you will find someone who will even be willing to respond to you"
Please please respond, I'm begging, I desperately need someone to respond to my bullshit. (Everyone except for Nisim already understood the point and stopped bothering to talk to me T_T)
"Maybe you will also find life"
I have no life T_T
Albanzo
To your question: No, I don't think you appear here under a name other than the nickname you chose for yourself. This is done by the second "physicist", A.P.
Albanzo
I have no problem accepting criticism, but not from violent psychopaths who swear with every second word that comes out of their mouths.
Wookie
After all, you tried as much as you could to find even just one lie in my words, and all I came up with was that I said to Albenzo "someone even contacted you" and I contacted him.
It also didn't help that I showed you that I only turned to him in the first article when I still didn't know the looming beast.
But I have many more lies, Wookie. I'm talking about Yafim and Boris who never existed, making a made-up sentence for the second law, look it up, look it up..
What about Feynman, I lied there as well, as you claimed, and you left Hatamba? What about your reading comprehension, where is the proof that Albenzo referred me to?
In short, you might find someone who would be willing to respond to you at all, and you might also find life at the same time.
A little reminder: Israel Shapira is a liar who needs to be fast, so he goes after people who don't talk to him.
Israel,
Wait, let me understand, do you think that I and "Ehad" are the same person?
In any case, I didn't destroy the discussion with "my violence". I ruined it by giving you a criticism that you couldn't answer. And this time the ten-thousandth: the fact that you asked me not to participate in the discussion is meaningless. You can't censor and you can't shut up. Want a place where you won't get criticized? Open a personal forum. My advice - make sure there are only people who don't understand physics, otherwise you will be in for an unpleasant surprise.
Besides, I didn't set any conditions. I just exposed the fact that you change the subject every six-seven seconds because you are unable to answer criticism. I remind you that this is the original reason you moved to this article - because you thought that here you could open a forum where Israel is the king and it determines who is allowed to speak and who is not, and here you will not have to face criticism for your stupidity.
Anyway, good luck. As I said yesterday, I'm sure you and Nissim will be light years ahead in a fruitful discussion.
If I had the lack of integrity of all the pretenders here, I too would choose all kinds of names and set out with an army of ghosts on the campaign of slander. Oh, how easy it is! One day you're one, one day and a half you're one and a half, one day you're Al Benzo (although I'm sorry for choosing the name, such a Benzo hasn't been seen here for a long time, really Al - Benzo).
But I, unimaginative as I am, am the only one who always appears by my real name and does not hide behind invented nicknames. What to do, just naive probably.
Nice and now the whole group of pretenders is back in the barn.
Listen well, beast.
You burst into this discussion against my express request and as always destroyed it with your violence. Like any bull, you allow yourself the audacity to set demands and conditions and decide what and what topic is the discussion here.
I have explained to you several times: I am not interested in talking to you about any subject. You can do like me. Choose an abandoned article and set the rules in it.
And don't think that we didn't understand that you don't have any mathematical proof for your claim, and that, as I imagined, you don't understand the issue of non-locality, otherwise you would have already shown how it is possible to solve my riddle in 1940.
one,
Quite unusually I will come to the defense of Israel Shapira - well, not exactly a defense. But the winds are raging here from all directions. In my opinion, it is much more serious that he refuses to address everything that challenges his worldview ("If I don't understand it, it's just complicated mathematics of arrogant people, because all the physics in the universe must be simple and intuitive enough for Israel Shapira to understand it"). The language and manner of speaking are only secondary to the content.
To Whom It May Concern
When will you realize that you are just an intellectual de la schmata.
Israel, what is it like to say to the people of Israel and Kishta as if they were dogs? Have you no shame? Self respect? It's just disgusting to read your comments.
And just in case it wasn't clear the first ten times I wrote this - since you announced in Rish Gali that you are not ready to answer the criticism I put before you, I see no point in bringing it up again. Although I am in no way willing to commit or promise you that I won't respond in the future if I see fit to do so, you could have ended the current discussion a long time ago if you didn't keep asking me to answer questions every moment (and I wouldn't have to remind you that I won't answer you on questions until you don't address the criticism I voiced, because your questions are just a stupid and childish way to avoid criticism).
Got it, so you're not ready to argue with me, no matter what the issue is! But you are willing to come back every quarter of a question with another quote of mine from two years ago and ask for a reference to it. Just look at the comments here, you are living in an abnormal movie. Every odd response of yours is "I'm not ready to talk to you" and every even response is "explain to me what you meant by that..." or "what would you say about that..." or "why did you write that...". It seems that your limited intelligence leads you to think that "not conducting a discussion" is an expression that means "I am not ready to address your criticism, but I have no problem writing you comments and asking you for references".
OK, we all know who you are, Israel Shapira. who are you and what are you
: )
Psychopath, I'll try to explain to you one more time before we go to sleep.
I don't argue with psychopaths, no matter what the issue. Uncultured people who immediately start cursing when I disagree with them just don't interest me, even if they boast a doctorate.
I had long discussions with academics who definitely disputed my words and some of them - for example Prof. Granot or Rafi Moore - impressed me and convinced me with their arguments. But all the discussions - some of them lasting many months - were civilized and at a high level.
You don't warrant any effort. Contrary to what you think about yourself, you usually speak in generalities and are unable to get into the thick of any subject. When they don't agree with you, you start to lose your temper and curse.
I did not raise the issue of the non-existent mathematical proof from the obverse - you did. So maybe you'll finally bring her or you'll admit that it's just a fluke and there isn't one. Any proof?
going to sleep
Israel,
It does not work. you don't succeed It's still clear to everyone that all you're doing is trying to change the subject so as not to face your inability to answer criticism. Every time you get to that stage, where all you can say is "pee and sleep", "kishta" or just swear.
What to do? Except for the womb, there is nothing. Your curses do not impress me and I am not moved by them. you can continue. What is ridiculous to me is that you have nothing but them - that is, if you called me a moron and a psychopath, etc. but in the same response refers to the criticism that was passed on your words, I wouldn't care what you called me.
But Israel lives in a fantasy world, where there is no need to address criticism. All one has to do is to decide that the person passing it is a psychopath, and stupid, and idiot, and evil, etc., etc., etc. - and then wow, wonder and wonder, suddenly you don't have to pay attention to the criticism and you can continue to pretend that Israel Shapira is not a very stupid person who has difficulty in everything that is above A level of very basic classical physics (I'm willing to bet that even in classical physics you'll fail miserably, if we move away bit by bit from high school material).
In other words, where is your reference to criticism? Where is this elusive logical quantification that differs between quantum mechanics and any other axiomatic system in a physical model? Where is the mathematics that suddenly changes its rules? Where is your comprehensive knowledge of the research of the last eighty years and the explanation why it is suddenly "not essential" to understanding EPR? Where is the evidence for the claim that a change in the wave phone - which is *not* physical - necessarily leads to a faster-than-light physical change between the end users?
What's so hard to understand about it just won't help you try to avoid it, and I'm not going to fall into your childish traps with past fights or quotes from two years ago or questions about bank tellers as long as you can't handle physical criticism of your words, or alternatively admit that you're using words big but don't really know what they mean?
"To the best of my recollection, it was after I was compared to the fanatics who kill cartoonists in Europe because they drew Muhammad, or something like that."
As always, your memory and reading comprehension are deceiving you. There was a caricature, but all I said was that like the angry faces in the painting, that's what those who get angry when you don't agree with them look like. Who talked, or even thought about murder?
Did it occur to you that maybe this is your problem, that under the facade of the intellectual you are just a little dyslexic who doesn't understand what is being read? Which is perhaps the reason you concluded that the no-communication theorems talk about the fact that there is no transfer of information between intertwined particles? that there is no mathematical proof of this contrary to what you claimed? That to this day you actually do not understand Bell's theorems and experiments at all? This is why you will never come up with a suggestion on how to solve my riddle in 1940, contrary to your claim that it is doable in a billion percent? This is why when you are asked:
Are comments in the form:
"Don't you feel like you're grinding water a bit? Repeating the same tired arguments over and over again?'
"There is nothing that indicates a lack of content more than a person who cannot simply say what his idea is. You don't notice that 99% of the time you don't say anything, but just leave questions in the air that you hope, given the empty space left, people will think you're right.'
Do you consider business and mature communication?'
You answer:
"of course. The two quotes you brought are completely innocent.'
Have you asked yourself how it happened that after a month of moderate reactions here you are here one day and it's already a war? Why don't you take your whole bunch of absolute idiocy and grab some article of your own at the end of the universe and write whatever you want without interruption?
Maybe because there is no demand for the responses of a psychopath like you, a bloated nad like comprands, or a dumbass like Wookie.
To the best of my recollection, it was after I was compared to the fanatics who kill cartoonists in Europe because they drew Muhammad, or something like that. But unfortunately - I don't have time to go back and go through tens of thousands of comments that stretch for years. You see, I'm such an idiot and so ignorant of the things I'm talking about that it's my job and people all over the world are carefully reading what I have to say on the subject.
But wait, we're deviating from the really important issue - is it possible that you're conjuring up old quotes again and getting caught up in them so that you don't have to answer criticism for your words? A review that shows without a shadow of a doubt that you are a tiny child who uses big words? That you're a poor person who uses the scientist website as a fantasy that he understands science, so that he doesn't have to face reality - that he's already lived most of his life, he won't wait any longer, and he still hasn't been able to reach the level where he understands the things that 18-year-olds are taught in a bachelor's degree at the university?
A question for the forum - how pitiful is a person who oscillates between crying that they are persecuting him, and directly facing the person who supposedly persecutes him (who has already written several times that he does not intend to raise the criticism again for now) in an attempt to reignite fights from years ago?
Al - Benzo.
At the time you wrote:
"I mean, I hope you trust them that they are not trolls who are persecuting you and want to murder anyone who disagrees with them."
https://www.hayadan.org.il/issac-newton-bigraphy-1101152/comment-page-5/#comment-579320
Please tell me, you paranoid lunatic, how did you come to the conclusion that I was talking about murder? Besides the urine that constantly comes to your head - did the poop also come to your head?
Straight to Abarbanal, you mentally ill person.
And of course we mustn't forget Wookiee, explain to us how you understood the so-called Albenzo directed me to that mythological mathematical proof that information does not pass between entangled particles.
where is the proof You don't mean to say, or maybe Albanzo means to say, that no-communication theorems
It is proof that information does not pass between particles I hope? I hope you haven't forgotten that in the real world the question was presented and two professors answered that there was no agreement on that, right?
So if any of you, a bunch of absolute idiots, claim that no-communication theorems are the mysterious proof, please write it clearly. It's very easy to show you're wrong, just ask a real scientist, not a pretend psychopath.
And if this is not the proof - then where is it?
Wookie, actually don't go yet. We need your amazing reading comprehension.
At the time, you claimed that Feynman jokingly said that quantum mechanics was not to be understood, right?
Could you perhaps read and explain to us the hidden text in the following link?
https://www.hayadan.org.il/distant-galaxy-found-04110/comment-page-2/#comment-708612
Thanks.
Wookie
She decorated.
This is indeed a free forum, and I have the right not to respond to those who call me a lying idiot even if they ask me if I agree that it is 2016.
Anyway, I made you an offer and you refused.
Successfully.
elbentzo
A little reminder: no matter what you write, Israel Shapira will only understand what he wants to understand from your words, and no matter how much you correct him or explain to him, he will insist that what he understood is what you said.
of course not. No matter how you dress it up, what you're trying is a poor attempt to censor opinions that differ from your own.
If you don't want to have a discussion and don't want communication, then why do you keep writing to me? Why, after I wrote to you that I will not continue to present the review to you because I received a notice with a committee that you do not refer to and therefore there is no point in continuing, you turned to me in a new response that brings up a topic from weeks ago? You can't both claim you don't want communication with me and initiate it.
You wrote 9 points in your response. I will write one:
1. This is a free forum. Each of us can respond when we see fit, to what we see fit. If you are not interested in communicating with me, no one will force you to write to me or read what I write, even though I will continue to write because it is my right and the very fact that it is unpleasant to read how much you do not understand what you are talking about, does not mean that the environment should be censored. Note that when I did not want to communicate with you, I simply ignored and did not write "Oh, Israel! I don't want to communicate with you! Please answer me the following question..." as you have been doing for the last few hours.
Avi Blizovsky
Maybe something can be done to stop me waiting for all the responses?
I may not have been clear enough. I will try to do it now, please copy paste and memorize.
1. I have no desire to discuss any subject with you.
2. I am not interested in any communication with you.
3. I think you are mentally ill. You suffer from Tourette syndrome.
4. In my opinion, you do not understand the subject you are talking about, even though it is your area of expertise.
5. In my opinion, the reason you treat me every time is that you can't get commenters to argue with you. Most of your comments on the site are about me.
6. Bottom line, you are a bad hit - everywhere you go you bring violence and destruction.
Action:
1. If you promise not to contact me again or mention me in any way, I will gladly do the same.
2. Since you have already said that you will not do this and you reserve the right to respond to me because it is a free forum - I also reserve this right, even without you responding first.
3. Since you often swear and curse and use words such as liar, moron, crook, charlatan and more, I will also use words as I see fit: psychopath, mentally ill, whining baby and close and whatever comes to my mind.
I believe that this entire hoof can be prevented in advance. We'll just decide as adults not to refer to each other under any circumstances again, as we did for a year before you broke the dishes with insulting comments.
If you commit, I will too. If not, then no.
The choice is yours.
Israel,
1. Note that *again* you are asking me questions. Before you jump in and prove to all of us how sharp your reading comprehension is, I'll make it clear - I'm not claiming that you're stalking me, so please don't write another comment saying that I'm claiming that. I'm just pointing out that although you occasionally write comments about me chasing you and asking me to stop and saying that you want to stop the discussion and oh oh oh poor me, you also actively continue the discussion by contacting me directly with new questions (and not this time the first even in this conversation). So before we continue, let's silence the hypocrisy meter that started beeping loudly here, ok?
2. If you are so determined to continue, then I will flow. But, oh, what to do - if you continue then it's not on your terms only. If you want to get answers to questions, then you have to answer questions yourself. There's a huge pile of questions I wrote you a long, long time ago and you're doing thirty-twos in the air just to avoid them, so let's answer them first and then we'll move on. Suri, I understand that it's hard for you to grasp this even though I've already written it about ten times, but people here aren't stupid enough to miss the fact that you run away to old discussions and comments about bank officials just so you don't have to deal with criticism.
3. In this specific case, there is really no need for me to answer you, because the answer already exists here. If "Mr. Reading Comprehension" would be so kind as to read what I wrote, it would be clear to him what the answer is.
waiting
The wonders of WordPress.
Miracles
Forgive your servant, but I still don't understand how the horses are connected to anything, except maybe to the wagon.
Try solving the coins question below, it's simple and gets to the heart of the matter.
You were with us during the Twin Paradox period. You may remember that three out of four physics professors and doctors gave her contradictory - and wrong - answers.
The only one who came up with the relativity answer (which is very strange) was Prof. Jonathan Granot, and you also referred to the link for the solution.
So does a high academic degree necessarily require understanding the subject? You can see with your own eyes that it is not.
By the way, Prof. Granot is one of those who said that there is no consensus in the academy that there is no transfer of information between entangled particles, along with Guy Hezroni and Prof. Weidman (not one).
And of course there is no mathematical proof that there is no transfer of information between intertwined particles, there is only proof that information cannot be sent. That's why, despite all the Govald clamoring, we've never seen that mysterious proof and probably never will.
So let's leave Khatamba - a bunch of absolute idiots - and try to see where the impossibility of solving the simple coin puzzle below without transferring information and without intertwined particles leads us.
Israel
Isn't the horse thing surprising? Doesn't really make sense, does it?
But that's what happens 🙂
It's not much different from the Monty Hall Paradox, is it!
Miracles
I thought of a simple example that would explain the issue of information transfer, and how it differs from a pair of gloves that have been separated (hidden variables).
The year 1960.
There are two separate rooms. In each a polarizer, and every imaginable equipment except means of communication.
4 coins are inserted into each room. The coins can contain any information imaginable. What are the equivalents of the gloves?
Regardless of the rooms, you must arrange the coins as follows:
When the two poles are at an angle of 0, all 4 coins are on the same side, no matter if a tree or a ball.
When one of the poles in one of the chambers is at an angle of 0 and the other is 30 degrees, 3 coins on the same side.
When the two poles are at a 30 degree angle, only one coin is on the same side.
Do it regularly without any information-carrying media in 1960, I'll personally give you $50 million.
How do I?
Alas, my lord of reading comprehension.
What happened, did you get permission from the General Staff to talk?
You still haven't answered me for some mathematical proof of the lack of information transfer between entangled particles. Albanzo referred me, you understand.
elbentzo
If you've already managed to get Israel to dig up comments, then you can ask him to find my response that completely humiliated him in which I explained who and what he is and how he behaves and reacts on the site. This seems to me to provide a comprehensive explanation of how much and why there is no point in talking to him (not that there are no reasons or examples).
Miracles
You have 2 horses and XNUMX donkey. Fast as wind, fast as light, and Yusi.
Fast as a rushing wind on Mars.
Fast as light rushing right.
Yossi Medda in Israel.
a question:
How can the victory of someone as fast as the wind in Mars or as fast as the light in Jupiter affect the nature of Yossi the Donkey's lameness or his chances of winning in Israel?
Israel
We know that probability in quantum theory is different from classical fissure.
I'm just saying that the probability can change over an unbounded distance at time 0. And it's not just the zeroing of the probability. If there are three horses - when one wins, the probability of each of the others getting second increases from a third to a half.
This is not a solution for weaving!! This shows that it is necessary to understand that there is a fundamental difference between information and probability.
I will give you a discount. Physics questions.
At the time you wrote that the riddle I presented (which you solved) was possible to solve with a billion percent even with the knowledge and technology that existed in 1940.
So here are the questions:
1. How?
2. If it really could be solved, then why didn't anyone reveal it to Einstein before his death? After all, the solution to the riddle would have sterilized the EPR article, so how come they didn't come up with it?
And by the way, Sakhtein for the impurity. You enjoy playing the hunted victim, when in fact I am persistently presenting the set of questions to you for only a day. I remind you that you did the same to me with the proof of the theorem for something like two weeks (only I completely ignored you). Anyway, if you think I have any interest in pursuing you, you're fantasizing again. I already told you a few comments ago that I have no intention of continuing to ask you these questions when you announced that you refuse to answer them. Since then, the discussion has continued because you chose to continue it (you are welcome to look back and see - I wished Nissim good luck, and said I had a waiting list, and you said "until you release the waiting list..." and continued the correspondence.
But it is still true - if you declare that you are not going to answer these questions, I will not continue to present them to you. But if you write new things on the subject, or answer the questions when they are presented by another person, then of course I will use my right to respond in a free forum to explain to everyone that you are talking nonsense (assuming you are talking nonsense. Who knows, maybe one day you will surprise us all and learn the subject, Then you won't confuse your brain all day).
You two together side by side, the cursing physicists.
Albanzo, don't you feel a little offended that someone like Comprands is coming to your defense?
or opisate?
No. I explained to you before that you have no ability or right to silence me. When I see fit to respond to you, I will do so. If you want to have a private conversation where I have no right to respond, of course you are allowed and that is your right. Open a private forum, exchange e-mails with miracles, do whatever you want - but if you think you can post in an open forum and expect that people whose comments you don't like to hear won't be allowed to respond to you, you're living in a much weirder movie than I imagined.
Israel Shapira's strategy:
1. Raise a topic.
2. Present questions.
3. Ignore answers, claims, justifications, explanations, rebuttals.
4. Ignore questions that he doesn't see.
5. Not admitting his mistakes.
6. Not to express agreement or disagreement when required.
7. Ignore evidence of his mistake.
8. Accept contradictions without admitting that you have.
9. Repeating the same questions again and again in order to confuse the discussion.
10. To express contempt for the speaker and his claims.
11. Be silent, evade, not answer.
12. To answer no matter what.
13. Impugn the respondent's qualifications.
14. Condition the continuation of the discussion on other irrelevant questions.
15. Drag the discussion to personal.
16. Start a war of accusations and condemnations.
17. To complain about the respondent's mistakes.
18. To withdraw the discussion when it is clear to him that he was wrong.
19. To exaggerate and present the wrongdoer as an idiot.
20. Open a happy table for Eid.
21. To open new topics in which he will mix real and imaginary problems that arise from his continuous mistakes.
22. When he realizes that we do not understand what he is talking about - he sends a link to support his opinion, but surprisingly the opposite happens.
23. Brings quotes from the past in some inappropriate context that will be used to justify the childish mockery.
24. In the end his only purpose is to humiliate, mock and present his interlocutors as empty vessels.
Albanzo
If I move on to another article in an even more distant galaxy - could you honor my request and leave me alone?
In the delayed response I wrote, for example, about the potential vector of a classic magnetic field - which has a physical aspect (the magnetic field can be derived from it at any point) but is not physical in itself, in the sense that it is neither measurable nor unique and certainly not every change in it results in a physical change that can be measured. This is also the Hegel point, and in particular the change resulting from the collapse of entangled particles does not produce any change that can be measured locally in one of the end variables regarding a particle that is not in it.
Another part of the pending response, which I will try to convey.
Now, I already explained to you the differences between the requests: I asked to stop because we repeated the same arguments over and over again and none of us changed our minds or positions. You asked to stop in order not to have to address the criticism leveled at you. I asked to stop but I made it clear (many times) that this is a free forum and I respect above all the right of every person to respond when they want (or not to respond when they want). You tried to silence me, and even now you threaten me.
waiting Maya - you will not be surprised to find out that Israel's answer is pure nonsense because it skips over and ignores the problem you presented to him - even if it has physical aspects (which I detailed in the blocked response) it is not all physical and therefore it cannot be concluded that a change in it leads to a physical change in something that can be measured experimentally. And as you mentioned, it can be proven in the case of the collapse of a wave of interweaving that this is exactly not the case.
waiting
I will try to convey a part: First, it is clear that the wave wave has physical aspects. If she didn't have them, she wouldn't appear in any physics book or article. For example, its absolute value squared is the probability density of finding the particle at a certain point (at the basis of the position). But the fact that she has *certain* physical aspects does not mean that she herself is physical. An example from classical physics is, of course, a calibration field - the potential vector of a magnetic field, which has a physical aspect but is not a measurable quantity and is not unique, nor is any change in it manifested in reality. The same is true of the Hegel wave - and in particular the type of change that takes place immediately in the collapse of two entangled particles is such that it does not allow to break causality in any way (does not produce any predication for a non-local experiment that no end user had before). This is something, for example, that Einstein did not know because he was researched long, long after the publication of the original article and he shuts the door on any fantasies of transmitting information at an infinite speed.
First, it is clear that the wave has physical aspects. If she didn't have them, she wouldn't appear in any physics book or article. For example, its absolute value squared is the probability density of finding the particle at a certain point (at the basis of the position). But the fact that she has *certain* physical aspects does not mean that she herself is physical. An example from classical physics is, of course, a calibration field - the potential vector of a magnetic field, which has a physical aspect but is not a measurable quantity and is not unique, nor is any change in it manifested in reality. The same is true of the Hegel wave - and in particular the type of change that takes place immediately in the collapse of two entangled particles is such that it does not allow to break causality in any way (does not produce any predication for a non-local experiment that no end user had before). This is something, for example, that Einstein did not know because he was researched long after 1935 and he closes the door on any fantasies of transmitting information at infinite speed.
Now, I already explained to you the differences between the requests: I asked to stop because we repeated the same arguments over and over again and none of us changed our minds or positions. You asked to stop in order not to have to address the criticism leveled at you. I asked to stop but I made it clear (many times) that this is a free forum and I respect above all the right of every person to respond when they want (or not to respond when they want). You tried to silence me, and even now you threaten me.
Maya
The wave function has, in my opinion, physical aspects. I understand, I'm not the only one.
If you want to really understand the subject of information transfer, try to solve the coin puzzle that I presented at the beginning of the previous article. It does not include quantum elements, and its solution is certainly surprising.
Albanzo.
When you asked me not to contact you anymore, you didn't hear another tweet from me (not that I ever contacted you in the last year first).
Why don't you honor my request?
Don't you see that no matter what we always end up in a fight? Do you think it's okay to tell someone they're lying and stupid? Give up! Just do me a favor, don't mess with me anymore.
By the way, there is no curse in the sentence "So when you can't shut me up, you turn to lies?". It was said after you tried to create a place on the site where I am not allowed to comment (=silence me), I did not agree to that (=it didn't go well for you) and then in response you said that I claim you are persecuting me (=lies, as I have already explained so many times).
You see, this is one of your many problems. You think that anything you don't like to hear is a curse or an insult. so no. What to do, there are truths you just can't handle.
I'm going to try something here that I don't usually do but suddenly I have the urge.
Israel
I never cursed at you or addressed you in any tone that resembles aggression, did I? I wanted to ask you an innocent question:
As far as I understand, Pon Gal is not a measurable quantity. There is a redundancy in the Hegel phone and it only exists on paper. For example, there are an infinite number of waves that cannot be distinguished physically because they will give exactly the same predication for any experiment that can be defined (that is, they have the same observation values under any Hermitian operator). Therefore, if a wave is just a record we make to follow the dynamics of a system - and it is *not* a measurable quantity - what is the problem that it will change immediately? If there is a proof that says that even though it changes instantaneously, no predication can be produced from this change for any experiment faster than the speed of light (which I understand exists and is called the no-comm theorem). In this case, what does it matter that the wave number - which is just a drawing on paper and is not unique (that is, a hundred physicists can each write a different wave number and all of them will accurately describe the system) - changed instantly at both ends of the universe?
I realised. So let's summarize:
1. You are not ready to answer criticism.
2. You expect that even though you refuse to answer scientific questions asked, I will answer you questions about bank tellers.
3. You call me a psychopath and violent, even though the worst thing I did was insult you.
4. You threaten that if I continue to visit you, you will silence my voice.
There is no doubt that people who ask to block comments criticizing them in a free forum are *always*, without exception, the most intelligent and honest people in the forum. It's not as if limiting freedom of speech and silencing criticism is the coping tool of people who can't face criticism, and know it.
Actually the first link is more appropriate since you linked it to your spiritual twin.
As I observed, you have reading comprehension problems and are completely out of touch with reality. That's why you believe your aggression is completely innocent, and that's why you don't answer.
Go back to your first comment in this article, to the first sentence:
"So when you can't shut me up, you turn to lies?"
You just arrived and already started with the swearing, even though you were told in advance that in this article behave like people of culture and speak politely.
Go through the 800 comments in the article you came from and point to the only time when an opponent or I curses or attacks except for A.P./A.P.P./ANO/Yossi Comprands who, like you, also considers himself a physicist with grace and always attacks first.
So as I wrote to you about an hour ago:
Israel Shapira
If you still don't understand:
I have no interest in talking to you and answering your questions, even about how much 2+2 is. In my opinion, you are mentally disturbed.
I don't talk to violent and uncivilized psychopaths, no matter what they ask me, even what time it is.
If you continue to treat me, I will ask my father to block your responses to me.
The list I linked to does not include the question that the Hegel wave is not a measurement and in fact is not even a unit - therefore not physical in itself. I would be happy if you refer to her, in my opinion she is the most important of all.
Sorry, wrong link. Here is the right one.
https://www.hayadan.org.il/distant-galaxy-found-04110/comment-page-1/#comment-708541
Israel,
Since I see you lied when you said you wanted to end the discussion, so let me direct you to a huge pile of questions I asked you *way* long before you asked me how I approach a bank teller.
You see, in your fantasy world you are a smart person, therefore - in your fantasy world the people around you are stupid (because if you are relatively smart, then wow...). That is why you are mistaken and think that the evasions will work for you and that you will succeed with the help of discussions about bank officials, employers, and quotes from two years ago to divert attention from the fact that you are talking nonsense and when you are exposed - or more precisely, give you a chance to back up your words and prove your claims (there is a different logic to quantum , that no substantial things have been written about EPR since 1935 and another long list that we will not repeat) - you run away from criticism like fire. This is because you know (and everyone around you knows, of course) that you were talking nonsense, that you have no ability to back up your foolish claims, and that if you admit that you just said things without understanding them at all, that will be the last nail in the coffin of your credibility. It will be clear to everyone that you are just an old man who is resentful that 19-year-old children understand things that he will never understand, and that the world of science that intrigues him is blocked from him simply because he is not talented or intelligent enough to understand anything that is not intuitively obvious.
So come on, show everyone that I'm wrong and answer the purely scientific criticism that was brought before you. Here, I even provide a link to a response that has a clean wording of (most of) the criticism brought to you:
https://www.hayadan.org.il/exodus-from-egypt-unbelevable-numbers-0804092#comments
I love when you go into tilt..
In the meantime, until the waiting is released, maybe you will finally answer the question I gave you in reading comprehension (only the fourth time):
Are comments in the form:
"Don't you feel like you're grinding water a bit? Repeating the same tired arguments over and over again?'
"There is nothing that indicates a lack of content more than a person who cannot simply say what his idea is. You don't notice that 99% of the time you don't say anything, but just leave questions in the air that you hope, given the empty space left, people will think you're right.'
Do you consider business and mature communication?
your answer:
"of course. The two quotes you brought are completely innocent.'
So a question for you:
Since the two quotes I gave are completely innocent according to your claim - when you ask for a position, would you please write to the manager:
"Don't you feel like you're grinding water a bit? Repeating the same tired arguments over and over again?'
And if you ask for a loan from the bank, write in the loan application to the management:
"There is nothing that indicates a lack of content more than a person who cannot simply say what his idea is. You don't notice that 99% of the time you don't say anything, but only leave questions in the air that you hope given the empty space that remains.'
So this is what you will write? Totally innocent comments, aren't they?
You didn't get rid of me. waiting
I think this would be the right time to remind you that something like 50 comments ago I told you that I had no intention of chasing you or continuing the idle discussions. The only reason I changed my mind and continued until now was that you tried to remove me and dared to try to tell me where I can and cannot comment, or when I can and when I can't. Because - as I told you earlier - there is nothing that invites criticism more than trying to silence it.
So, if you really want to get rid of me, maybe you shouldn't (again) try to silence me. What to do, Israel - as long as you are in an open forum, I will always have the right and the possibility to decide at any given moment that I reveal the phenomenal level of your lack of understanding. Your attempt to extract an "I'm leaving" message from me is almost as singular as the fact that you had to flee to a poor attempt to provoke a war of quotes from letters from more than a year ago and only to avoid being exposed to criticism that you have no ability to address (apart from admitting that you are wrong and talking about things that you don't even know what they are They say, and you wouldn't do that even if your life depended on it. The only reason you're here is to feed the fantasy that you know physics, right?).
The link you requested:
https://www.hayadan.org.il/issac-newton-bigraphy-1101152/comment-page-5/#comment-579246
Do I understand that you're finally leaving and taking your broken heart with you as well?
Pay attention - the sixth time you claim that I say you are chasing me, no matter how much I repeat and explain that it is not true.
okay, well. So you're not going to answer. Now I have a question for you, which I promise you will find it very, very easy to answer:
Do you think that even for one moment - for a tiny half second - someone here on the forum thought you were going to answer? Do you think there was even one person who knows you, who thought you were going to address the criticism? That you'll be able to defend the stupid nonsense you spew at the rate of a shooting machine, thousands of comments a week, or God forbid, admit that you're just saying things you have no idea what they're even saying?
My heart sank within me. I really do.
Miracles, enjoy. I am convinced that in about six thousand or maximum seven thousand responses you will not be exactly in the same place as you are now. After all, Israel proved to all of us in his last response that he is open to criticism, so I have no doubt that your discussion will be fruitful. Really fruitful.
If you still don't understand:
I have no interest in talking to you and answering your questions, even about how much 2+2 is. In my opinion, you are mentally disturbed, as evidenced by a quote from the same article:
"But go on, go on. Keep telling yourself that I'm a troll, that I'm persecuting you, that I'm equal to people who support murder because of a drawing in the newspaper.'
Haven't we moved into the realms of paranoia?
You have no grip on reality. You keep claiming I'm chasing you and ignore the fact that you always always start. where are you now? Not at the end of the universe in the fight you started? How many times have I asked you to leave me alone, so how did you even get here?
How many imaginations and dreams! You brought a mathematical proof for the non-transfer of information between entangled particles? You brought the
no-communication theorems
But they are not talking about the lack of information passing between the particles but about the impossibility of sending information through entanglement, just as I claimed.
I showed that I presented the question in several forums:
"no-communication theorems forbid the transfer of information through entanglement, even though there is a mathematical proof that information does not pass between the entangled particles themselves? Is there a consensus in the academy on this?'
And I also showed the answers: there is no consensus on the subject.
So why do you claim that only one, as you say, answered? Didn't I bring 3 different responders? Do you understand the difference between 3 and one?
Here I ask you one more time: let's finish. You constantly take care of me and then complain that you are persecuted, treated cruelly, taken care of..
Hells.
What does a crook do when they ask him "instead of quoting selectively, provide a link so that everyone can read the response that explains how you distorted my words"? brings another quote to his response, that instead of letting me explain why he twists my words, she calls me a fool.
But you know what? I don't want you to bring a link. I don't want you to waste a second, no, not even half a second, on anything other than sitting down and addressing the factual review you received. I no longer have the strength to write everything again, but some five or six points that all need reference - because they all explicitly contradict one or another thing you said. You're not afraid of criticism, are you? so come on. for work.
Oh sorry. I forgot that now is the time when you find a quote of mine from two years ago where I said that corn is yellow, and shows everyone how stupid I am because there is also purple and white corn, etc. Or you bring a quote where I call someone an idiot and ask if I talk like that to my mother too. Because there are so many ways to ignore criticism and live in a fantasy world where you are a smart man that no one reveals that he talks nonsense and does not understand *at all* what is going on around him (in physics).
Please, here is the full quote:
"And for the benefit of everyone who is not Israel Shapira - do yourselves a favor, instead of reading the same line that Israel quotes time after time after time - open the book (can be easily found on the Internet) and read all the first pages (about ten pages if I'm not mistaken, which are not require no technical or scientific knowledge). Everyone will be able to decide for themselves whether Feynman claims that it is impossible to understand quantum mechanics or whether he claims that it is not intuitive, but even so we are absolutely forbidden to conclude that it is wrong. That in one succinct line, every claim I've ever heard Israel make on the website - "I don't understand it intuitively and therefore it can't be true".
But there is a problem: a few hours before you wrote this, I wrote:
“Now, does that mean that either one of them claims or I claim that quantum mechanics is wrong? God forbid. As far as I know, there is no more correct or accurate science than quantum mechanics, and the predictions it gives are accurate to fractions of a percent in microns. Even a frontal attack like that of EPR failed to collapse it but only strengthened it.
In the so-called conflict that exists between relativity and quanta, my opinion is that the one that may undergo a revision is relativity."
So here, I write that there is nothing truer than quantum mechanics. So in terms of reading comprehension, if you write:
"If Feynman claims that it is impossible to understand quantum mechanics or he claims that it is not intuitive, but despite this we absolutely must not conclude that it is wrong. That in one succinct line, every claim I've ever heard Israel make on the website - "I don't understand it intuitively and therefore it can't be true".
Doesn't that imply that I probably do understand quantum mechanics? After all, I'm writing that it's true, isn't it?
Or as an echo to that forgotten discussion - Feynman says that no one understands quantum mechanics - except Israel?
Shmolik are you here? You are the therapeutic body in charge of the case of Albanzo and his stupidity. Could you perhaps take him to the side - by the ear - and explain to him - slowly - how much of an idiot he sounds?
The boy turned out dumb but insanely funny, literally.
: )
to smile. That's all that's left. Do yourself a favor - print the blackout, erase the names, and let someone close to you read. Ask them what they think about what is happening here and about the various commenters. You see, you are so deeply immersed in your delusion that you don't even understand how pathetic it is that you spontaneously ran away to discussions from *years* ago (!!!), and not for nothing - but you are trying to divert the discussion to quibbles about one specific quote or another (this I mean, it's not like it's something fundamental about understanding)!
Fuck, man! under arrest. breathe Read what you write. See what you're willing to do just to not say the words, "I was wrong." There is no other math. There is no other logic. I don't understand exactly what the Hegel point is, and I don't understand when a change in it manifests itself in a physical experiment and when it doesn't. I have no idea what they wrote in the last eighty years and I don't have the tools to judge what Einstein understood and what he didn't understand when he wrote EPR..."
Hi Albanzo.
If you have time to write about the new and unexpected particle that may(?) was discovered at the LHC. I guess it's a broad topic, but I'm interested in a very specific candidate for this particle: dark matter (mainly because it's a topic discussed here in science). Let's assume that the LHC team will be able to show with high certainty that the particle does exist. How can you check that it is really the dark matter? Are there any predictions about dark matter that can only be made based on the information obtained at the LHC? Is there even a theoretical model that supports a "dark matter particle of this particular mass"? Or maybe it hasn't been written yet?
And a final question - will whoever writes this model receive a Nobel Prize? If so, I immediately resign and run to write it.. 😉
Thanks in advance.
And here, more in connection with the same article on reading comprehension. You claimed that I am distorting Feynman's words that quantum mechanics is incomprehensible.
So here is what Feinan said in a lecture at MIT, without laughing, without a tie, and without an accent.
Quantum Mechanics
by Richard P. Feynman
Electrons, when they were first discovered, behaved exactly like particles or bullets, very simply. Further research showed, from electron diffraction experiments for example, that they behaved like waves. As time went on there was a growing confusion about how these things really behaved —- waves or particles, particles or waves? Everything looked like both.
This growing confusion was resolved in 1925 or 1926 with the advent of the correct equations for quantum mechanics. Now we know how the electrons and light behave. But what can I call it? If I say they behave like particles I give the wrong impression; also if I say they behave like waves. They behave in their own inimitable way, which technically could be called a quantum mechanical way. They behave in a way that is like nothing that you have seen before. Your experience with things that you have seen before is incomplete. The behavior of things on a very tiny scale is simply different. An atom does not behave like a weight hanging on a spring and oscillating. Nor does it behave like a miniature representation of the solar system with little planets going around in orbits. Nor does it appear to be somewhat like a cloud or fog of some sort surrounding the nucleus. It behaves like nothing you have seen before.
There is one simplification at least. Electrons behave in this respect in exactly the same way as photons; they are both screwy, but in exactly the same way....
The difficulty really is psychological and exists in the perpetual torment that results from your saying to yourself, "But how can it be like that?" which is a reflection of uncontrolled but utterly vain desire to see it in terms of something familiar. I will not describe it in terms of an analogy with something familiar; I will simply describe it. There was a time when the newspapers said that only twelve men understood the theory of relativity. I don't believe there ever was such a time. There might have been a time when only one man did, because he was the only guy who caught on, before he wrote his paper. But after people read the paper a lot of people understood the theory of relativity in some way or another, certainly more than twelve. On the other hand, I think I can safely say that nobody understands quantum mechanics. So do not take the lecture too seriously, feeling that you really have to understand in terms of some model what I am going to describe, but just relax and enjoy it. I am going to tell you what nature behaves like. If you will simply admit that maybe she does behave like this, you will find her a delightful, entrancing thing. Do not keep saying to yourself, if you can possibly avoid it, "But how can it be like that?" because you will get 'down the drain', into a blind alley from which nobody has escaped. Nobody knows how it can be like that.
Richard P. Feynman, The Messenger Lectures, 1964, MIT
Doesn't Feynman make a clear distinction here between the difficult but comprehensible relativity and the quantum mechanics that no one understands?
There was a time when the newspapers said that only twelve men understood the theory of relativity. I don't believe there ever was such a time. There might have been a time when only one man did, because he was the only guy who caught on, before he wrote his paper. But after people read the paper a lot of people understood the theory of relativity in some way or another, certainly more than twelve. On the other hand, I think I can safely say that nobody understands quantum mechanics.
Or special for you, a third time:
On the other hand, I think I can safely say that nobody understands quantum mechanics
So where did I distort his words? Where are the lies? Where is the stupidity? Where is the intentional deception?
And by the way, by chance by chance I remember the event. Maybe you could give the link to the message you quoted from a year and a half ago? Maybe you'll let everyone see how you selectively quoted and interrupted my words in the middle, and how in response I explain to you how exactly you changed the meaning of my words by quoting only half a sentence?
poor. I truly feel sorry for you.
Wow, I have to say that even I - it is clear to everyone exactly what I think of you - did not expect you to run back a year and a half in such a pitiful attempt to divert the spotlight from the fact that you are talking nonsense, and that when someone who understands the subject reveals that you are talking nonsense, you will do anything (! !!) to dodge and run away.
Israel,
I know you're a little slow, so I'll explain again: I won't fall into your stupid trap of trying to change the discussion. You got a huge pile of physical criticism for the things you said. More or less 40 comments already (because there were also some in the previous article) and all you do is evade, while claiming that you are open to criticism. I don't answer any of your questions, and certainly not retarded questions about correctness of reference and how you should contact a bank teller from whom you need something or some delusional person who has been babbling for at least two years about faster-than-light information transition but does not agree to open a book and even read what information is.
You are as transparent as a little child. Consider the mountain of (scientific) criticism placed in front of you and stop running away. If you want to talk physics and not fight, you have a huge list of pure physics questions that you need to address (if you are indeed willing to be criticized. Of course you can ignore - as everyone knows you will - and that was the final admission that you are just looking for a forum where you can feel Smart, to say nonsense without anyone correcting you, and to forget the fact that anything slightly advanced from 17th century physics is ten dimensions bigger than you).
More of your amazing reading comprehension from a year and a half ago:
"Israel Shapira
Well, gotta go to sleep. But there is a phenomenon that intrigues me:
Two days ago, in response to Shmulik, I wrote:
“Now, does that mean that either one of them claims or I claim that quantum mechanics is wrong? God forbid. As far as I know, there is no more correct or accurate science than quantum mechanics, and the predictions it gives are accurate to fractions of a percent in microns. Even a frontal attack like that of EPR failed to collapse it but only strengthened it.
In the so-called conflict that exists between relativity and quanta, my opinion is that the one that may undergo a revision is relativity."
A few hours later you responded:
"Everyone will be able to decide for themselves whether Feynman claims that it is impossible to understand quantum mechanics or whether he claims that it is not intuitive, but even so we are absolutely forbidden to conclude that it is wrong. that in one concise line, every claim I've ever heard Israel make on the site"
Could you explain to me, to the forum, and especially to yourself, how you were able to conclude from what I wrote that I think quantum mechanics is wrong?
You can also quote any of my other comments in any article.
Wookie, you are the subtext expert. Perhaps you will be able to explain how it is possible to understand from what I wrote what Albenzo deduced from my words?
Good night everyone. Tired of skiing in Dubgadol.
January 20th, 2015"
Albanzo who understands what is called:
third time:
Try to concentrate and answer:
Since the two quotes I gave are completely innocent according to your claim - when you ask for a position, would you please write to the manager:
"Don't you feel like you're grinding water a bit? Repeating the same tired arguments over and over again?'
And if you ask for a loan from the bank, write in the loan application to the management:
"There is nothing that indicates a lack of content more than a person who cannot simply say what his idea is. You don't notice that 99% of the time you don't say anything, but just leave questions in the air that you hope, given the empty space left, people will think you're right.'
Yes or No? After all, which quotes are completely innocent, right?
Israel,
How pathetic you are. To what level will you sink just to escape from addressing physics. Suddenly the discussion turned to how innocent two sentences I said to you weeks ago.
You are certainly one of the most open to criticism I've seen, and you've clearly thought things through.
And by the way, what "question" are you talking about? I have already explained three or four times exactly what the nonsense is. Of course that's not enough for you (probably because your reading comprehension skills are so sharp). Stupidity is not a question. The nonsense is that you presented a thought experiment, I responded what the results of a thought experiment could be (and what could be a source of inconsistency) and implied that the theory of relativity is consistent, as can be deduced from the fact that it has been studied for a hundred years by the leading minds in physics and mathematics and has never been found to contain Contradictions. You answered, "Newtonian physics was also tested by the best minds and was not found to contain contradictions, but was refuted experimentally."
The nonsense (I can't believe I'm actually repeating this again) is that you fail to distinguish between a thought experiment (detecting inconsistencies in the theory) and a real experiment (testing whether or not the model describes reality). If you perform a real experiment that shows that the predictions of relativity don't hold in our world, then you can talk about classical physics and how it was disproved. But it's simply not related to anything you said before (because you didn't do such an experiment, but only a thought experiment) and not related to the criticism I made.
It's like talking to a wall. But not for an intelligent wall, one that is silent when it has nothing to say. It's like talking to a wall with an excess of chromosomes that fell on his head when he was a baby and suffers from megalomania. My God, you'd think that only shame would calm you down a bit...
Well, now that we've laughed, let's move on to the important part: do you have any kind of answer to the criticism that was passed on the night of nonsense you spewed? Can you show where there is different logic? Or different mathematical laws? Do you have any idea what has happened in the eighty years since EPR, and can you please explain to me why it is not "substantial" (I will not repeat it, but in a previous response I detailed exactly which points should be addressed)? Can you explain to me why an instantaneous change in the Hegel point is a "hard test for relativity", even though it is not a measurable quantity? It's short, I won't repeat everything again.
Can you stop for a moment and admit that you are talking about things you have no idea about?
Miracles
If you separate a pair of gloves and send one to the other room - then if you've seen yours, you know what's in the other room as well. There is no transfer of information here.
Do you see the essential difference between the gloves pattern and my prize puzzle? Did you read the link from my name? Pay attention to what is written in the title:
The proof is reduced to its bare bones, wherein Nick shows that quantum reality is non-local because (in a particular optical experiment) 1 + 1 = 3.
Try to concentrate and answer:
Since the two quotes I gave are completely innocent according to your claim - when you ask for a position, would you please write to the manager:
"Don't you feel like you're grinding water a bit? Repeating the same tired arguments over and over again?'
And if you ask for a loan from the bank, write in the loan application to the management:
"There is nothing that indicates a lack of content more than a person who cannot simply say what his idea is. You don't notice that 99% of the time you don't say anything, but just leave questions in the air that you hope, given the empty space left, people will think you're right.'
Yes or No? After all, which quotes are completely innocent, right?
say, Israel,
Now seriously: have you had a stroke? Are you able to hold a conversation? I cannot understand how you can repeat for the fourth time that I supposedly claim that you are persecuting me, although not only is it a complete lie because I never claimed it (but I claimed that there was one incident in which you did not agree to release and in every article in which I responded you contacted me or wrote Comments on me), but also that I made it clear to you several times in the current round of comments. You can't understand, or you simply don't read, or maybe your invented fantasy world is not limited to physics but also includes simple lines of text in Hebrew.
Either way, it won't help you. Everyone here knows exactly what is going on. You don't have an answer to any question that can't be waved away with the help of an appeal to Einstein's authority or an attempt to throw sand in the eyes of the questioner by presenting a "paradox" that leads to 1000-2000 responses of Abel. You claim you don't have a problem with criticism but in fact you won't deal with criticism even if your life depended on it.
Everyone knows this, and everyone knows why.
Good luck later.
Albanzo
So you believe you showed my first question to be nonsense? Sahtain
Do you believe that expressions such as "explain to you slowly" are not aggression? break up
I have a question to you.
You enter the discussion with her addressing me (as if something new) in a tone that sounded somewhat aggressive. When I answered, you claimed I was chasing you (as usual).
I asked you a question:
"Albanzo
You write:
"In the meantime, what happened here is that I tried to start a matter-of-fact and mature communication, I saw that nothing came of it, and I decided pleasantly and again - maturely - to end the conversation."
Are comments in the form:
"Don't you feel like you're grinding water a bit? Repeating the same tired arguments over and over again?'
"There is nothing that indicates a lack of content more than a person who cannot simply say what his idea is. You don't notice that 99% of the time you don't say anything, but just leave questions in the air that you hope, given the empty space left, people will think you're right.'
Do you consider business and mature communication?
your answer:
"of course. The two quotes you brought are completely innocent.'
So a question for you:
Since the two quotes I gave are completely innocent according to your claim - when you ask for a position, would you please write to the manager:
"Don't you feel like you're grinding water a bit? Repeating the same tired arguments over and over again?'
And if you ask for a loan from the bank, write in the loan application to the management:
"There is nothing that indicates a lack of content more than a person who cannot simply say what his idea is. You don't notice that 99% of the time you don't say anything, but just leave questions in the air that you hope, given the empty space left, people will think you're right.'
Yes or No? After all, which quotes are completely innocent, right?
And besides - why wouldn't you honor the request of an old and tired man who doesn't want to talk to you and fled to the other side of the universe? You always claim that I'm chasing you, don't you? So what are you doing here, in the galaxy far, far away? Haven't you noticed that since you broke out, like always we stopped talking science and went back to fighting?
So we can divide your question into two parts:
1. Is it the goal of physicists to find a theory that will describe certain phenomena in any external condition or energy scale?
2. Is it the goal of physicists to find a theory that will describe all the phenomena in the universe?
I think the goal of physicists is to describe as accurately as possible as many phenomena as possible. For the first question, the answer is usually yes. For example, if you want a theory that will explain phase transitions in certain materials, the goal is to find a theory that can do it at any energy, temperature or external magnetic field. It is not always possible, of course, and sometimes there are private cases that are much easier to explain theoretically than the general case. That is, there are many effective theories that do not describe the phenomenon in the most general way or the most basic degrees of freedom in the system, but I think it is safe to say that the goal is always to generalize such theories to general ideas that will not depend on one scale or another or certain external conditions.
For the second question, the answer is more elusive. One theory that describes all the phenomena in the universe is called "Torah Ahuda" or GUT, and string theory definitely claims the crown (full disclosure: I myself deal with string theory). Is this the goal of physicists? Not sure everyone will agree. I think everyone would agree that if such a description existed and could be found, it would be amazing. But there is not always an agreement that this can be done, and more importantly - not always that it is right. I will explain through a simple example: we said that football ultimately obeys the laws of quantum mechanics. Theoretically, to describe the movement of the ball on the grass, you can write the Schrödinger equations of all the particles that make it up, solve them, and this will describe the dynamics. But of course this is not realistic, not applicable, and even if it were applicable it would not give a better result than a classical description of the sphere as a body moving on a surface with friction (friction itself is not a real force - it is only the result of many, many electromagnetic forces that work between all the molecules ). Similarly, string theory could also explain systems of condensed matter, but it would be infinitely more difficult than writing an effective theory whose degrees of freedom are the crystalline structures on a lattice (instead of microscopic strings that vibrate into particles or forces).
In other words, there are physicists for whom this is their job, and I am among them. not everyone. I would say that most of physics is modular and deals with the most accurate description of a set of phenomena. There are good reasons for this related to the behaviors of elementary particles at low energies, but I don't think it's worth expanding more than I already have.
Albanzo
thank you for the answer. So would it be correct to say that the main goal of physicists is to find one model, one physics, if you will, that describes the whole world perfectly and all the phenomena that happen in it but simply become negligible in certain systems (such as uncertainty of macroscopic sizes)? Is this the purpose of string theory?
Maya,
Yes, that's true. Even though it was in a course for biochemists, what they told you is true: within the framework of quantum theory, there is no classical physics. Everything is quantum, both you and me and football. But, as you were told - it is easy to see that on macroscopic scales the quantum effects are very negligible or average to zero. This is generally true, there are exceptions - macroscopic quantum effects - but in principle quantum physics on the scales of the everyday world looks like classical physics.
But she is still different. It is still another model, within which other phenomena, gives different explanations for existing phenomena and produces different predictions than the classical models. The fact that in some cases a similar picture is obtained, it does not mean that the physics is the same physics. A simple example is the uncertainty you mentioned - classically it simply does not exist. Quantum always exists, both for the hydrogen atom and for a washing machine. In the macroscopic case it is simply so small in relation to the measured scales that your eye does not have sufficient resolution to absorb it and it seems to you that you can tell both the exact position of the machine and its momentum.
If two theoretical models predict the same phenomena and produce the same predictions (that is, they have the same physics), then what differentiates them? That is why I said that it is clear that quantum physics is different from non-quantum physics, even though the "laws of mathematics" and logic, as Israel Shapira called them, are not different.
Not that I really want to get into what's going on here, most of which I haven't read (but I can guess that it's not fundamentally different from the previous times I did read it) but I have two questions:
Miracles
Do horses really have an immediate collapse? After all, if, as you said, you make a graph of probability as a function of time, then the probability will decrease all the time (for all the other horses, at least towards the end) and there will be epsilon from zero in the delta time before the nose of whatever you call the winning horse crosses the line. That is, the function seems to me to be completely continuous, without any collapse point. Maybe I'm wrong?
Albanzo
What did you mean when you said "the physics is different or it was the same model". I'll explain what bothers me: when I studied quanta many, many years ago (I won't say how many, I will say that it was a course for biochemists, so it's not exactly the top of the top of what you can learn) I vaguely remember that we calculated all kinds of quantum quantities, like uncertainties in the momentum or position of a football. The idea was to tell us that we are all quanta, only that we are too big for it to have any practical meaning. So first I wanted to know if it was true or if I had been lied to or if my memory was playing tricks on me. And secondly, if this is indeed true, then the physics is the same physics and we are accepted by some end conditions of the quantum Torah. not like that? Isn't that the purpose of all physics? To find one physics that describes the whole world and different elements of the world are simply different extreme cases of this Torah?
Israel
What I am saying is that a sudden change in the probability function, in the whole space, is not equivalent to the transfer of information. If I'm wrong - then information also passes between the horses, and that's in the classical world.
You cannot decide that in one case it does pass, and in the other case it does not pass.
Advice for litigators: never argue, on any subject, with a person who does not admit his mistakes, who is not capable of admitting them.
I actually understand what irony is. For example, I see the irony in the fact that a person who has to have everything explained to him 6 times before he "understands" (pay attention to the quotation marks, they are not there by chance) claims that I have a problem with reading comprehension. and why? Because he does not understand what is stupid in that, in the discussion of a thought experiment and its possible results, he turns to examples of teachings that were rejected in the face of reality and not in a thought experiment. That is, he does not understand the difference between mathematical consistency and the ability to give a correct prediction to an experiment.
Israel,
The third time, maybe now you'll understand. The first example is nonsense because it is not related to what we talked about and therefore does not demonstrate anything. You proposed a thought experiment. I wrote in response what possibilities a thought experiment can have, as a direct result of it being a consistency test of a theory. Then you wrote about Newton's theory and how it was disproved when they did an experiment (not thought. You understand?) and saw that it was wrong.
I mean, it's something that has nothing to do with what you've said up to this point, and certainly nothing to do with the criticism I passed on your words (surprisingly, even this criticism - like every criticism you've received up to now, you ignored). The second thing you said (the EPR experiment) is indeed a thought experiment and the classification I provided in my response can also be applied to it.
Do you need even more slowly, or did you realize that examining a theory experiment is quite different from a thought experiment and is *not at all* related to mathematical consistency, and in particular - not related to the things you said about private relativity and the big bang, and to my response about possible results of a thought experiment looking for a contradiction?
And Israel - just to be clear, neither I, nor Nissim, nor any other reader who peruses the discussion did not miss the fact that although you claim that you are open to criticism, so far you have not answered any claim. So what do you think? Can you give an example of one difference between the logic of quantum and the logic of any other axiomatic system in physics? Can you name the works done on EPR in the last eighty years and explain why they are not relevant and in your words, "didn't change anything fundamental"? Can you write a short explanation on why the wave pohn is not a measurable quantity and why do you still claim that a change in it is significant in itself, even when it can be proven for example that the change did not change the result of any physical experiment?
Miracles
In the case of the horses, no information is transmitted.
I still don't understand what the connection is. Even if you draw cards from a pack at random, you have a certain probability of drawing one card or another. But if 51 have already been released, you know 100% what the last one will be. So what?
Have you already forgotten the coin experiment with the prize of 50 million dollars? Don't you remember that there is no possibility of winning a prize just by checking the data from all the devices you carry with you? Gloves, messages, books, notes, discs, spells, pictures, nothing, simply nothing, will not help you win the prize.
There are only two ways to win the prize:
1. Communication between the rooms - and it is limited to the speed of light.
2. Use of intertwined particles - and it is not speed limited.
So what's the deal with horses and donkeys?
Albanzo
The question was about reading comprehension.
And it was formulated: "Why is the first simply nonsense and the second excellent?"
What nonsense in the first place? Do you think the author meant something different from what you wrote? In his opinion, should Newton's theory be left intact because black body radiation and the MM experiment are minor and secondary things? Do you know the song "And besides Marquis everything is fine"? Have you heard of a thing called irony?
Apply your wonderful reading comprehension to the sentence you wrote:
"Please explain why you think physics in a number of dimensions other than 3 is a religion."
But as I wrote, I have no desire for war. We hold a quiet and pleasant discussion here with a cup of tea and cake on topics that interest us. We have no head for words like liar, idiot, moron, ignorant, and more. We may be wrong, but we may not be the only ones. For this we escaped to the farthest galaxy at the edge of the universe in a desolate article from 15 years ago.
Full disclosure - in the meantime, more distant galaxies have been discovered.
the awesome Say, did you read my comment? The one you quoted? Because I explained there exactly what the difference between them is.
The first is not a thought experiment. It is a confrontation of Torah with reality. A theory can be the most consistent in the universe, but in the end it does not correctly describe the result of one experiment or another - therefore it is not good as a physical model and goes to waste (unless there is a way to change it so that it does fit reality). This is in no way related to thought experiments.
Thought experiments start from the assumption that the theory is correct, and try to compare it with itself. That is, they have two goals: a) to try to find inconsistencies, and b) to see what predictions the theory gives apart from what we knew so far.
My response referred to your attempt to propose a thought experiment that contrasts private relativity with the big bang. I clarified that, apart from a few points that clearly will not work out because each of them is a *different* private case of a private relationship (in particular, it explicitly assumes a different metric and therefore there will be certain calculations and certain behaviors that depend on the metric that will simply be different in each of the cases), but rather aspects of the same Torah and that consistent. So the chances of you finding inconsistencies are very slim, which is a huge overstatement in your favor.
Newton's Torah is not related because it did not fall for inconsistency. She didn't fall for a thought experiment. It was simply verified with reality and found to be not good enough. Your example is unrelated to what you've tried to do with relationships so far, and unrelated to my response on the subject. If you were to perform a *real* experiment comparing the theory with real-world results and find a discrepancy, then the example of classical mechanics would be relevant.
The second example is relevant - it is an example of a thought experiment that tries to find an inconsistency or a new predication within the framework of quantum mechanics. Indeed, as I explained in my response, it falls into one of the three possible categories for such a case - unfortunately, it falls into the category of misunderstanding of those who claim the problem. I know, I know, Einstein is God and everything he wrote is pure gold (even though he is the physicist who has published the most apologies and corrections in the history of written physics). I know, I know, nothing has changed in the last eighty years (although those eighty years were probably more physically fertile than the three hundred years that preceded them combined in terms of number of papers, advances in models, and their applications in experimental, applied, and engineering physics). But still - Einstein came up with a brilliant thought experiment and did not fully understand its consequences. Like you, he didn't think about what exactly constitutes information and what doesn't. He did not ask in the article whether it is possible to classify changes in the Gal pon according to "whether they did create a contradiction to causality or not". He did not ask whether this lack of locality contradicts the local structure of private relativity or not (in fact, most of the work even on global structures in general relativity had not yet been written then, but only in the 60s and 70s). So this example is excellent because it is an example of a thought experiment that suggests the possibility that there is a problem with the theory ("paradox" as you say), but actually falls into one of the three categories I suggested - and in particular not the category of "there is a real contradiction in the theory".
Now clear?
Here is another objective criticism to add to the list of "objective criticisms that Israel refers to because it is not afraid of criticism".
It has been made clear to you in the past (several times) that wave power is not a measurable quantity. There is a redundancy in the Hegel phone and it only exists on paper. For example, there are an infinite number of waves that cannot be distinguished physically because they will all give exactly the same predication for any experiment that can be defined (that is, they have the same observation values under every Hermitian operator). Therefore, if a wave is just a record we make to follow the dynamics of a system - and it is *not* a measurable quantity - what is the problem that it will change immediately? Suppose there was a proof that says that even though it changes instantaneously, no predication can be produced from this change for any experiment faster than the speed of light (and of course there is - if you studied what information is under the definition of information theory, you would know that this is exactly what the no theorem proves -comm). In this case, what does it matter that the wave number - which is just a drawing on paper and is not unique (that is, a hundred physicists can each write a different wave number and all of them will accurately describe the system) - changed instantly at both ends of the universe?
After you have addressed so nicely and accurately all the other criticisms raised so far, I would love to hear a response to this point as well to better understand your argument.
Israel
In the case of the horses, does information pass?
So passing information faster than light creates a problem for relativity, but at infinite speed, right?
break up
Who said non-locality works instantly? Maybe it only works at a speed where we can synchronize the poles which is as large as we want but not infinite?
poker.
Israel
Yes - if the rush was final then it makes sense for it to have a starting point. But - as we have seen - probability can change in zero time. And it does not create any problem for the theory of relativity.
Miracles
And the context for the discussion?
We're trying to see what's going on with the wave function, aren't we? My argument is simple: like when you turn on the walkie-talkie the whole squadron knows about it at the speed of light and with it the whole universe, so when the function crashes in one place it crashes in the whole universe.
But because I'm a good guy - if it wasn't at infinite speed but a billion C, would it help to see that it has to start somewhere and doesn't happen simultaneously all over the universe?
Israel
Before Farlap crossed the finish line, there was some likelihood that any other horse would win. As soon as Farlap's nose crossed the finish line - the probability of any other horse winning immediately dropped to 0.
You could draw a graph of the chances of horse X as a function of time. You would see ups and downs, but at the moment of victory - the function resets. It happens instantly, and in no time.
The spin of an entangled electron is also a probability function. Why is it allowed to zero in zero time in horses, but not in particles?
What is the connection between Farlap and the transfer of information at infinite speed?
Do you know the horse "fast as light"?
Israel
Example (not originally mine): There is now a horse race and each horse has a certain chance of winning. Farlap leads, reaches the victory line - and immediately (!) the chances of the other horses to win drops to zero.
A question for you about reading comprehension.
A few days ago I wrote:
"Newton's and Maxwell's theories were tested by all the mythological mathematicians starting with Newton himself, and were found to be impeccable. So just because black body radiation and the Michaelson Morley experiment didn't match the predictions of classical physics go and flip all the furniture?
Einstein proposes a thought experiment - EPR - and predicts certain results for the experiment that are consistent with special relativity. So just because in the real experiment the opposite results were obtained from his prediction, to go change the special relativity?'
You responded:
elbentzo
The first example is just nonsense. Yes, Newtonian physics is mathematically consistent, and it was rejected because its consistent model simply did not match reality. They did an experiment - not a thought experiment, but a direct examination of reality - and saw that it was wrong. Since you did not perform an experiment that disproves special relativity and/or the big bang theory (otherwise you would be waving your Nobel Prize here already, and really I'm not exaggerating), this example is irrelevant and is empty rhetoric.
The second example is actually excellent. Einstein came up with an excellent and important thought experiment, and concluded from it that there was some problem with the consistency of the theory. He fell into category number 1 in my previous response - he was simply wrong because he did not understand the subject in depth. His mistake has already been explained to you many times by me, and I have no intention of repeating it. If you wish to ignore, to think that Einstein is God and if he said there is a problem then he was right and anyone whose name is not Einstein is an idiot and wrong - your right. Good luck in the future."
Can you explain to us the difference between the first example and the second? Why is the first one simply nonsense and the second excellent?
Israel,
At no point did I try to tell you what to think or say and I did not try to speak for you. I'm not going to start now. You write hundreds of comments that, in my opinion, contain a lot of mistakes and distortions, and it is my right to comment on that. You wrote a comment, you received a completely objective criticism. Did you not like the tone of the review (although you are welcome to go through and see that the arguments in it are completely interesting)? You got the same review again cleanly and without the tone you didn't like. Anyone can see that even now, your approach and the attempt to refute the discussion (in which I speak on behalf of both of us...) is just a childish attempt to escape criticism.
I asked you a few weeks ago to end a discussion. You are asking the same of me now. In my opinion, there is a huge difference between the two requests, because when I asked for it, it was because of this that we were muddying the waters, repeating the same arguments over and over again and not progressing anywhere. You are asking to do this now right after you received a review and before you responded to it. To me, this is a huge red flag that you just don't want to hear criticism, at least not from people who have the tools to point out your mistakes (and maybe even worse).
Of course, you have the right to interrupt the discussion at any time you want. No one will force you to answer me, and of course I will never speak for you (in general, it seems to me that you are unable to distinguish between a nice discussion that is conducted without friction and a proper and legitimate discussion in which everyone expresses their opinions freely. On the one hand, if you don't like the tone of a commenter, This is a reason to blow up a discussion, but on the other hand, you have no objections regarding creating a space where there are commenters who are not allowed to speak or with the idea that one person will speak for another).
My personal impression is that you are not looking for a forum, you are looking for what is called in English an echo-chamber, where you can voice your opinions and receive many echoes of that opinion. You say you are not afraid of criticism but refuse to address it.
Albanzo
sorry i lied
I'm also sorry I chased you to the end of the universe.
I believe that if I answer, and this is not something you believe in, another war will start here that I really have no desire to drag into.
So come tell me and the forum exactly what you want me to say.
Successfully.
Israel,
So when you can't shut me up, you turn to lies? I didn't claim you were stalking me. I claimed that there was a specific event where you looked for every article I comment on and wrote that I was a liar and that there was no proof of non-passage of information between intertwined spins. Of course you didn't invent the tactic of inventing straw men to escape criticism. It's a tactic used by people who can't handle criticism since the dawn of human debate.
So please you - as a person who has no problem dealing with criticism - please deal with the criticism completely to the point (and no, to say that because you think it's stupid to claim that you understand something you didn't learn, especially when it's very complicated, it's an insult - it doesn't mean that the criticism I gave is not relevant ).
Please explain why you think physics in a number of dimensions other than 3 is a religion, when you know that experiments exist that can test this hypothesis.
Explain why in your eyes there is no problem with the fact that a particle is a wave (and in particular a bunch of waves - which is simply another way of presenting the principle of superposition) and it is not a religion and there is no problem explaining this to Laif and Boris (even though it explicitly says that the particle can be found in several places at the same time, like a wave can be spread in space), but the fact that two particles are described by a common wave phonon that cannot be separated into two separate wave phonons (which is the definition of entanglement, which means something - and correct me if I'm wrong - that you haven't studied rigorously yet), is already a religion And this cannot be explained to Yif and Boris.
Please explain what the different logic of quantum mechanics is. That is, give at least one rule of logical inference (or one logical quantification) that is different between quantum mechanics and any other axiomatic system in physics (for example in classical physics). Pay attention - logic, not intuition.
And maybe we'll go back a bit - please explain on what basis you base the claim that "nothing fundamental has changed since 1935" in our understanding of EPR. Have you studied the research on the subject of the last eighty years? Do you know the theories and experiments that refer to the transfer of information, and the combination of relativity (private) and quantum that have been done in the last eighty years? Please list these works and explain why they do not constitute a substantial explanation, or in other words - why an understanding of them (which Einstein did not have, because they only came after him) is not necessary to understand the phenomenon. For example, an explanation of why the mathematical proof that the instantaneous change in the wavelength of two particles at two different ends of the universe resulting from entanglement is of a very specific type and cannot lead to the fact that one end user will have the ability to predicate an experiment on the other end that he did not have before (that is, that there is no way to break causality through interweaving) - is not necessary or changes anything for understanding the phenomenon.
Miracles
"Even in classical physics, there is "information transfer" at infinite speed. I mean that the probability can be reset in zero time, due to a distant event.'
example?
Israel
I did not understand. What does the starting point belong to? Even in classical physics, there is "information transfer" at infinite speed. I mean that the probability can be zeroed out in zero time, due to a distant event.
Miracles?
Miracles?
Don't ask, I found a great place for crazy crackpots like us. If someone is willing to make the long journey to the farthest galaxy at the end of the universe, they surely can't accuse me of chasing them, can they?
In the example of the instantaneous light, although it is at the same time in two distant points, there is no doubt that its starting point is one - the earth and not Andromeda.
If you want Yafim's explanation of why an arena, although it does not contradict relativity, puts it to a severe physical test, go back to the example of the soccer game whose results pass faster than light.