Einstein - the man who started to take us out of the matrix (part 1)

231 תגובות

1. You wrote "Science works by constantly questioning and testing scientific theories with more and more rigorous experiments and thus we progress from less good theories to theories that better explain the nature around us".

   The truth is that we are making no more progress than spinning around our tails.
   In a few years, maybe hundreds of years, we will find out that we are really idiots when it comes to drawing conclusions and scientific investigation.
   The reason that will be revealed is our sensory disability. We don't have the tools to get anything even close to some "absolute truth", which is actually subjective.
   Today there are many animals that have many tools than we have to offer, electric fields, magnetic fields, infrared and more.
   Man will have to change his inner qualities, upgrade himself and create within himself a new tool for investigating what is outside of him.
   And when it happens, we can get closer to new results each time.
   And these results will depend each time on a new and deeper correction of the human will.

2. Two questions for the author of the article:
   1. If in the timeline everything already exists, me in the past together with the me in the present and in the future exists along the timeline then a journey to the past (or to the future) will cause a collision between the two objects, right? , in addition, how do my infinite objects that are "spread" in the timeline move from one object to another? That is, how is the connection made between the development of my personal history (from the moment of birth to death) and my "applied" existence in the timeline?
   2. You write that I exist at the same time in the timeline as Tel Aviv and Eilat exist at the same time, but these two cities are two separate objects while I am one object.
   I would love an answer, thanks in advance

3. "Another World" was drawn by Maurice Cornelius Asher, commonly known as Am. si. Which, and not as it is written.

4. If there was so much to get out of the Matrix, most of us would be out.

   The reality is that a spiritual teacher will abuse you until you bleed. He will push his hands under your shirt to touch your chest, talk nicely while he lies to you non-stop. Spiritual teachers are shit. Don't believe them.

   I had a "teacher" who was considered a very respectable and useful person in the "conventional" reality. At the same time he developed a career as a spiritual teacher (very modest because he had no students for the most part)
   This teacher turned out to be a scoundrel - not interested in giving even a hundredth of his understanding and knowledge. Only interested in misleading and abusing me.

   Do not believe in spiritual teachers.

5. For those who are interested, Stanford's website has excellent films on special/general relativity, quantum mechanics, Newtonian mechanics, thermodynamics, and other topics. You don't need an education (XNUMXth grade math is enough).

6. The timeline, i.e. the fourth dimension, reminded me of Ecclesiastes: "What has been will be and there is nothing new under the sun"

7. Well, tuff.. Pimping words has probably not come out of you anymore.

   What about brainwashing services? I even have a name for you: brainwashing.

8. A taro eh? Hua shera marty. Yeh shlio d'arb emal. Eel mod

9. excuses. Immediately take the words to the street to solicit customers.

10. Not yet. My feeling is that there are more tricks

11. Nice, you found out the trick. And now, immediately to work, to find clients for words.

12. Pruning exaggeration
    Hey! I can too, it's not complicated 🙂

13. I am? Peroz Farzat Perez. The only thing I know is to cycle.

14. For nothing. The main thanks to Israel. He is the real scientist.

15. Israel and Yuval - I read thanks

16. a surprise! a surprise! In his immortal role as James Bond
    http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=8lL7PEKUxPA&feature=related

17. Bananas?

18. Between you and me, what is 50 grams or 50 kilograms? All three zeros.
    We'll see you remember in which movie Woody Allen swallows a nuclear bomb the size of an aspirin pill

19. Low utilization indeed. It's a whole city. A Mayman bomb is capable of wiping out half a country. See

    https://www.hayadan.org.il/045_years_from_the_biggest_atomoc_tests/

20. Israel, as far as I remember, the efficiency of the atomic bomb is relatively very low between 5-10 percent (matter turns into energy.
    A meeting of matter with antimatter vaporizes both items completely.

21. jubilee
    The amount of material that turned into energy and flattened Hiroshima - about 50 grams.
    Something like two and a half teaspoons of sugar if you consider the specific gravity of uranium.

22. Israel, thank you.
    Shlomo, in the article that Israel referred to, it is said that it is possible to convert energy into matter, but at the moment (5 years ago) only into subatomic particles

23. jubilee.

    Regarding converting energy into mass, read here:

    http://imagine.gsfc.nasa.gov/docs/ask_astro/answers/970724a.html

24. Thank you Israel.
    Shlomo, when you said "material" did you mean "mass"?

25. In nuclear fission, part of the original mass of the fissile material is converted into energy, and the mass of the final products is lower than that of the originals according to the conversion rate of Einstein's formula.

26. Below is a citation of a gross error from the article:

    "Our feeling that time is passing is an illusion"

    Time is not an illusion! Just as space is not an illusion!

    Our feeling about time is just as real as the feeling about space.

    ":Mauret" is a point that has 3 space coordinates and one time coordinate.

    The claim is that between any two such points there is a four-vector interval consisting of the three components of space and an additional component of time.
    As a result of the mutual movement of the measurement systems, this interval of time and space between the two points will be interpreted differently in each system.
    There is no negation here of the essence of time or of the essence of space.
    Measurements are treated differently depending on the measuring system!
    and that's it ! Reality does not change.
    Everyone will measure in his system exactly the same things he measured before.
    And this knowing that in a different system different values ​​of time and space will be measured.

27. Shlomo, I'm not sure I understood.
    What I know is the formula that shows energy as a function of mass, and vice versa. As far as I have understood, matter is not created and does not disappear, but only changes form

28. jubilee
    In gamma emissions from the edges of the black hole, all matter turns into gamma rays

29. In the Big Bang, pure energy turned into matter in its first seconds.

30. In fission and fusion processes, part of the matter turns into energy in the form of radiation

31. Complete,
    Would it be possible to give an example of a process in which matter turns into electromagnetic radiation?

32. Electromagnetic radiation can be generated from matter. Is there a process in nature or in theory, an opposite process in which radiation turns into matter?
    I would love for reference

33. The dark matter fabric of the universe is the closest system to the definition of a rest system that I can think of without going beyond the limits of physics. And I didn't understand why our galaxy (by the way, do you have any idea why some spell it with a T? Are they still impersonating?) is not the resting system of the fabric of the universe if it is an integral part of it.

34. Does dark matter have a rest system? I mean all of it, not parts of it.

    Our galaxy also has (almost) a rest system, and with it its dark matter (if it exists). But it is not the resting system of the fabric of the universe.

35. Israel, to your question about the rest system:
    How about the dark matter map (the one I sent to Robbie) as the requested rest system?

36. Ruby,
    It is possible to see (indirectly) the fabric of the universe and a mapping of the dark matter has already been done. For example, the following famous image:
    http://scienceblogs.com/startswithabang/upload/2011/08/what_dark_matters_alternatives/dark_matter_millenium_simulation.jpeg

37. Ruby

    "If you could see the fabric of the universe, you would see a matrix of spaced and straight lines of gravity (XYZ)"

    What was the rest system of those lines of gravity? What spacecraft could say that it is at rest relative to them?

38. If one could see the fabric of the universe, one would see a matrix of wide, straight gravitational lines (XYZ) in massless regions and dense curved lines in mass dense regions (stars and black holes, dark matter).
    It was also possible to see additional lines expressing electromagnetic fields at different wavelengths.
    Too bad you can't map the universe that way.

39. on relativity and acceleration,
    Every movement of every body can be measured relative to other bodies, and this also includes acceleration. While motion at constant speed does not involve forces, this is not the case with motion at variable speed. If every movement were measured only relatively, then acceleration would affect all the bodies in relation to which it is measured. But in reality, acceleration is expressed in force measured only on the accelerating body. The special theory of relativity is only valid for constant velocity motion, and is invalidated for variable velocity motion. Although general relativity tries to correct the distortion and handle the accelerations, it does not solve this paradox. The failure of the theory of relativity stems from its starting point according to which there is no system of stationary medium.

40. What's wrong with powerful radio transmitters at several points?

    Triangulation is done, and there it is, a location.

    True, the heavenly bodies move a little, but you can always weigh.

    1 am - good night Ruby.

41. Knowing the acceleration doesn't give us anything practical about navigating and traveling in space.
    We do need information about the space-time fabric and how to use and navigate it.
    Einstein spoke of a long-armed carousel where the speed of the cars at the end of the arms is much greater than the speed of the cars closest to the center, thus creating a distortion in space and time between the ends and the center, the same thing exists with satellites and GPS systems, and in order to overcome this, the satellite clocks are adjusted in advance.

42. It is of course possible to create a GPS that will tell us where we are at any point in the universe, and even what our speed and direction are relative to the rest system of that GPS, but this is an arbitrary system, and many like it can be created, each with a different rest system.

    Acceleration on the other hand is absolute and not arbitrary. Passengers in a flying saucer that rotates in space can know exactly the speed of their rotation relative to the fabric of the universe, and also if the rotation is clockwise or counterclockwise, and this is by measuring the centrifugal force.

43. Israel, it is clear that there is currently no such device as a cosmic GPS, and the only option at the moment to navigate the universe is with the help of "fixed" waypoints such as stars, galaxies, etc.
    Even in an accelerated system, you will be able to feel the force equal to the mass times the acceleration, but this will not tell you anything about your position in the universe without reference to those reference places I mentioned: a star, a galaxy, etc.

44. Ruby.
    My point is that there is no such thing as motion relative to the fabric of the universe unless it is accelerated. No means, existing or theoretical, will be able to tell you if you are moving relative to the fabric of the universe, at what speed, and in what direction.

    GPS is an arbitrary rest system, as such. According to the moon's GPS, the fish moves at a different speed. However, there cannot be, even theoretically, a natural universal GPS, but only an arbitrary one.

    And of course there is the possibility that I don't know enough.

45. Global GPS: if such a thing existed - omitted from the text.

46. Israel, indeed there is no way for passengers in a sealed spacecraft at a constant speed to know whether they are moving or at rest. (if such a thing existed), they would receive information about the rate of their progress on the fabric of space and time.
    Even fish, if I connected them to a terrestrial GPS, I would get accurate information about their location and the rate of their movement.
    It does not get us anywhere saying that the ocean moves and the fish are fixed.

47. Ruby

    "How does this work out with a number of spaceships moving in opposite directions at a constant speed close to each other, does this mean that the same ocean moves in all directions? Something is not right here."

    In the case of the spaceships moving in all directions, where do you see an ocean? Each spaceship is a system in itself that is not connected to the others.

    It can be seen this way: it is said that there is only one spaceship, A. She is at rest, and all her windows are closed.

    Does the fact that all kinds of spaceships, B-T, start moving in its vicinity, change the resting state of the spaceship? Certainly not from the point of view of the passengers, who don't even know that those spaceships have passed into the environment.

    The same situation in terms of any other spaceship, B-T. Each spaceship believes that it is the one at rest, and the other spaceships are the ones in motion.

    And also the fish in the ocean, or the passenger on the train, or the receding galaxy, all of them are at rest, and all the others are the ones that move.

    This is Postulate A: there is no test that can determine who rests or moves "truly". If there were such a test - for example a ratio of rotating clocks - the relativity collapses.

48. Israel, you wrote: "In the same way, if you are flying in a spaceship that is at a constant speed relative to the sun, or the Milky Way, you are actually standing still and they are moving." If you fish at a constant speed, you rest and the ocean moves.”
    How does this work out with several spaceships moving in opposite directions at a constant speed close to each other, does this mean that the same ocean moves in all directions? Something is wrong here.
    Regarding the theory of relativity 1905, there is no reference to an accelerated system, only to relative speeds between the stationary observer and the moving system (the dimensions of length and time shrink in a moving system).

49. Wormhole and stretch the weave in the back and shrink in the front, that's way beyond my scope.

    going to work Bye.

50. Israel, one of the two possibilities for space travel known today is with the help of a wormhole and the other with the help of stretching the fabric from the back and shrinking it from the front. Our spaceship does not need us or accelerate but will quickly reach huge distances quickly.

51. Ruby

    According to my understanding of relativity, certainly that of 1905, the surface you are talking about does not exist at all. The mouse is at rest and that's it.

    To the same extent, if you fly in a spaceship that is at a constant speed relative to the sun, or the milky way, you are actually standing still and they are moving. If you fish at a constant speed, you rest and the ocean moves.

    The fabric of the universe you speak of is only applicable to accelerated motion. This is a problem that is not simple at all, beginning with Newton and his rotating bucket, passing through Mach and the distant stars, Dennis Schieme and the derivation of inertia from gravity, and Einstein and the principle of equivalence.

    Until recently there was a commenter named Meir who has an interesting theory about the origin of inertia. But as long as you're talking about motion at a constant speed, you can, I understand, treat it as a state of rest, unless you compare it to the rest system of cosmic radiation.

    But secondly, I don't want to mislead you, my understanding may be incomplete.

52. Israel, if I make an analogy to a spaceship or galaxy to an optical mouse and the fabric of the universe to the surface on which the optical mouse moves.
    As long as the optical mouse rests on the surface, the cursor does not move, to the same extent, the spaceship or the galaxies that move on the fabric of the universe. Based on the same principle of stretching the fabric at the back and shrinking the earth in front, it is theoretically possible to plan a journey to distant stars at speeds greater than the speed of light (as if, actually shortening the distance ), like with an optical mouse we will crowd the network and the sensor will cross the network faster...

53. Ruby

    According to my understanding of relativity, the mass, distance and time of our system do not change for us as long as we do not accelerate, but only of other systems moving relative to us. We are not in motion relative to the fabric of the universe, but at rest, as long as we are not accelerating.

    Therefore, if you have 2 spaceships moving relative to each other but not accelerating, each of them sees itself at rest and the other at rest.

    The same proton in the accelerator that you asked about before whose mass increased thousands of meters, is at its rest mass if you measure it in a system moving at the same speed as it (it is a bit more complicated because the proton in the accelerator is in an accelerated system). And those galaxies that are moving away quickly have the original rest mass in their frame of reference and time flows according to their order.

    Therefore there is no such thing as "speed relative to the fabric of the universe itself."

    But of course, I could be wrong. I try to learn the subject just like you.

54. Israel, what does this mean about mass and time for us?
    Or that we are actually all at rest and "sitting" on a rapidly expanding space-time fabric (inflating balloon). We will only be in motion when there is a speed relative to the fabric of the universe itself.

55. Ruby

    As far as those galaxies are concerned, they are the ones at rest and we are the ones moving away at crazy speed.

    This is postulate A of relativity.

56. Question to the forum:
    Those distant galaxies that are moving away from us at crazy speeds, and at the same time we are moving away from them at crazy speeds as well, how should the concept of time and mass affect the inhabitants of those galaxies and at the same time us according to general relativity? (Assume each galaxy is an independent spaceship).

57. R.H.

    "The story is different because the time in the local system that moves in relation to the rest of the matter in the universe, will move at a different rate and therefore your temp clock will show the same degrees on the one hand and on the other hand the time calculation it will give will be different in relation to a spaceship that is not moving."

    According to Einstein in 1905, there is no relation to "the rest of the matter in the universe" there is no such thing "in relation to a spaceship that does not move."

    And Israel did not claim that you do not understand the difference between a minute and an hour. He claimed that if the temperature in the system drops by one degree per minute, it is equivalent to a drop of 60 degrees per hour, which is 60 times a drop of one degree per hour.

    He also claimed that there is no connection between the 1/1 you presented, which is the ratio between degrees and hours/minutes, and the original 1/1, the ratio between Temp and C hours.

    He also brought up the whole bashing issue as an example of how your complaint that he doesn't read or address comments is unwarranted.

    So for the last time, at least in the case in question: is she?

58. RH, I do not agree with your main claim. You claim that we grind water, but this substance is very rare throughout the empty space where your and my spaceships roam (I joined the wanderings a short moment ago that seems like an eternity). On the other hand, I believe that we have been grinding for time for a very long time.
    Your understanding of the Friedman formula illustrates the grind of time by repeating the obvious.
    Also the claim that time in any local system has an independent life is a grinding of time that also involves cruelty to animals.
    The theory of relativity has reached beautiful achievements without an ether, and since the latter is not necessary, its existence can be dispensed with. If one of us claims that the ether does exist, he must provide direct evidence and not be satisfied with thought experiments.

59. Yuval and Israel,

    I think we are treading water here. I wanted to end the discussion a long time ago, but because of Israel's recurring complaint that I don't understand the difference between a minute and an hour, I stayed a little longer.

    My summary:
    Friedman's formula, to my understanding, describes the universe as a balloon that inflates, therefore the concentration of matter in it decreases with time and, as a result, so does its temperature. The formula refers to the entire universe as one system in which time beats at one and the same rate. It does not refer at all to the spaceships that fly inside the balloon at speeds close to the speed of light. The name of the story is different because the time in the local system that moves in relation to the rest of the matter in the universe, will move at a different rate and therefore your temp watch will show the same degrees on the one hand and on the other hand the time calculation it will give will be different in relation to the spaceship that is not moving. In the end, there is no contradiction here and the disappearing site will not save us from it (well, because it does not exist in my opinion, so there is nothing to save)

60. My father, or whoever

    You can already be released

    https://www.hayadan.org.il/einstein-got-us-out-of-the-matrix-080412/#comment-335384

    Or at least deduct a third?

61. Jamaat Friedman.

    WordPress has discovered my true face and won't let me sneak comments anymore. We are going to the Shabbat kalvat, we will discuss it later.

    Shabbat Shalom.

62. The Friedman manipulation, as it is called, is a theoretical manipulation like all the battles you, the people of eternity, conduct here for the entertainment of two and a half readers (I am the half).

63. jubilee,
    And how was the Friedman manipulation determined?

64. Israel! I really don't agree with you.
    You should have warned my father not to mess with United Turks and to only sit on low chairs

65. jubilee
    Beautiful. This is exactly what I wrote in my response, although it is a bit more complex (Doppler, Elek).

66. my father

    Have a nice holiday in Turkey.

    Leave no stone unturned there!

    And not Turkish on Turkish.

    post Scriptum. - Can I release my comments?

67. R.H.

    You say: "The two clocks will show the same rotation ratio because from the beginning the temp clock in Jill's system will be defined as showing the time according to the cesium clock"?

    As always, I flow with you.

    If both clocks have the same rotation ratio, and they were once calibrated to the same time, a joint photo of both will forever show the same time in both, right?

    So you can give up one of them. Let's ditch the cesium clock.

    Let's also give up the cesium clock at Jack's for the same reason.

    We were left with only temp clocks. Also at Jack's, also at Jill's.

    And they always show the same time during the meeting. (4).

    Therefore there is no extension of time.

    parable.

    Construction of temperature clocks:

    1. Take a thermometer. (or a radiation meter with a doppler meter).

    2. Connect it to a computer where the Friedman formula is entered (which is not empirical as you suggested, nor is it linear as I think your construction proposal implies) + a formula for Doppler weighting if you use a radiometer.

    3. You received a clock whose input was temperature in Kelvin and output was the time in seconds that had passed since the Big Bang.

    4. This.

    5. Did I read the original comment or not?

68. R. H.,
    A temperature clock is a thermometer whose years are time. It does not measure the cooling rate, but takes the temperature reading and applies the Friedman manipulation on it, which was pre-burnt in it at the factory.

69. Israel,
    Until the sentence "According to what you described, according to my understanding, Jill's temp clock will show a different ratio of revolutions than the clock next to it. (10/1).” Agreed with you.

    This is not true. Both clocks will show the same rotation ratio because from the beginning the temp clock in Jill's system will be defined as showing the time according to the cesium clock (remember how to build a temperature clock in my opinion -> according to the cooling rate measured by the cesium clock).

    "And no, I don't agree with you that the way you described is the way to build temp clocks, but that's not the issue right now."

    That's why I think that this is a key point in the dispute between us and it is the issue at the moment. So how do you think a temperature clock is built that does not depend on and is derived from a cesium clock?

70. I will indeed be, not exactly on vacation, but abroad (Istanbul) in the coming Monday to Wednesday.

71. Avi??
    freedom!

72. R.H.

    12. When you say you disagree with 2, what you are actually saying is that it is absolutely impossible to build a temp clock that will always show the same time as a clock. This means that our old agreement that the temp clock in Jack's system will show a ratio of 1/1 is no longer valid. I understand it right?

    If the answer is no, then let's continue.

    I have no problem with your bathroom clock, but if you compare the time produced by such a clock in Jack's case, you will see that it shows at any given moment the same time as a Shido cesium clock, or a cuckoo clock. This is the meaning of the ratio of 1/1: it has nothing to do with how you arrived at the time on the temp clock, as long as it shows the exact same time as the clock. 1/1.

    Remember: the 1/1 ratio refers to clocks that are exclusively in Jack's system. It has nothing to do with Jill's watches. It has nothing to do with the relationship between temp and time. Only for the rotation ratio between 2 adjacent clocks.

    According to what you described, according to my understanding, Jill's temp clock will show a different rotation ratio than the CZ clock next to it. (10/1).

    If two clocks showed the same ratio, then they would always show the same time, and it would be possible to give up the clock (agree?). Jack's time clock could also be omitted, because we already agreed that it shows the same time as the temp clock.

    And since according to 4 both clocks show the same time at the time of the meeting, there is no time extension.

    Unless the answer to 12 is yes, and the temp clocks I described just rush or lag like any other broken clock.

    And no, I do not agree with you that the way you described is the way to build temp clocks, but that is not the issue at the moment. The issue is this and only this:

    13. Do you accept that I carefully read your initial response on the 1/1 issue, gave it some thought and even answered?

    1/1 Our God, who is in heaven and on earth.

    jubilee.

    I will answer you later in free comments. Right now the woman is asking for breakfast.

    What, 2 already?

    Have lunch.

73. For those fighting over the clocks,
    Friedman's clock ("temperature", in your language) samples time according to a sequence of events ("history", in my language) that took place outside of it. An atomic clock samples the time obtained as a result of a process that took place entirely within the body of the clock. If the mechanism that generates the process inside the body of the watch and the mechanism that generates the temperature decay process cosmic background radiation is the same mechanism, then it does not matter which watch is chosen.
    On the other hand, if there is a stationary ether system, then the movement of the "hands" of the atomic clock will change according to the speed of the spacecraft carrying it, and this is due to Lorentz contraction. This assumption, by the way, was confirmed in the Boeing experiment. Friedman's watch, on the other hand, will not be affected by the speed of the spacecraft, since at every moment it samples a reality that has formed independently of it.
    The claim that the twin clocks paradox was verified in the Boeing experiment is wrong. The paradox says that twin A ages relative to twin B and at the same time twin B ages relative to twin A. In the experiment, clock A was ahead of clock B and clock B was behind clock A. This experiment confirms the Lorentz contraction, which was calculated based on the assumption of the existence of a stationary ether system. Nor does the theory of relativity completely rule out this assumption. She just ignores her.

74. Israel,
    before you attack me The first sentence in what I wrote should be:

    I agree with 2 however that is not the whole story. Why? Read the rest of my comment

75. Israel,
    I disagree with 2.

    Let's go back one step to building the temperature clocks. How do you build them?

    As far as I understand, you measure the temp in time periods and from that you assume that the rate of temperature drop is X degrees/second.
    Now that you know that, all you have to do is measure a temperature and from that you calculate the time elapsed from the bang (assuming you know what the temp was then) or from any point in time when the temperature was measured.

    That is, the watch has two components - a. Thermometer b. A computer that converts temperature drop in time according to the calculated rate (X degrees / second)

    right so far?

    However, if something in another system measured as a result of the lengthening of time a different rate of temperature drop, Y degrees/second, then it is true that the degree meter will show the same degree, but the time calculation will be different.

    What is it similar to? Suppose Jack and Jill have two baths with water boiling at 100C. They both cool down and Jack and Jill measure their temps all the time.

    Jack's tub is wide with a large surface area and cools at a rate of 50 degree per second. Jack says "I measure a temperature of 50C, so I conclude that XNUMX seconds have passed".

    Jill's tub is narrow with a small surface area and cools at a rate of 10 degree per 50 seconds. Jill says I measure a temperature of 500C and from that I conclude that XNUMX seconds have passed.

    Who is right? both. Although both measured 50C the time that passed in each of them is different from the other.

    Now instead of baths think of systems where time passes at a different speed and therefore the rate of cooling is different from system to system.

76. sympathetic
    I have already tried what you suggested, including with lecturers. I was not able to receive responses from which I was able to deduce the answer to my questions.

    Of course, I'm not trying to draw you into a discussion with R.H. (See my comment above) But this is the kind of question I ask, and this is just the beginning.
    So maybe you can see why not many are willing to deal with the subject.
    Anyway, thank you.

77. my father
    You can be released
    https://www.hayadan.org.il/einstein-got-us-out-of-the-matrix-080412/#comment-335336
    Thanks. It is a response from Beit Tov, she really didn't mean it, and expressed regret.

78. R.H.

    Let's go back for a moment on what we have already agreed, let's see how it works out:

    1. There is a Friedman formula. Its input is temperature in Kelvin. The output - number of seconds that have passed since the big bang.
    2. It is theoretically possible to build a "temperature clock". His input is the temperature of the universe in Kelvin. The output - number of seconds that have passed since the big bang.
    (We are not currently getting into the question of what exactly that temperature is. Because of cosmic radiation).
    3. It is theoretically possible to place temperature clocks anywhere we want, including spaceships.
    4. Temp clocks at that point and at that moment will always show the same time - the number of seconds that have passed since the big bang. (We are not currently going into the issue of speed weighting in relation to radiation).
    5. If there are two spaceships, Jack is sitting in one, Jill is sitting in the other, and they are at a relative speed close to the speed of light but are not accelerating, and a cesium clock is installed in each spaceship, then according to relativity each spaceship will see the time in the other spaceship more slowly. If Jill met another clock that is synchronized with Jack's, and both clocks - Jill's and the other clock - show the same time at the time of the meeting - then seven times later meeting with Jack, both Jack and Jill who is seasoned lags behind Jack's.
    (To be sure, the event of the meeting can be filmed with a high-resolution video installed in both spacecrafts, to avoid any doubt as to who's time is behind or in a hurry).
    6. We can install temperature clocks in both spaceships. Video will capture the 2 clocks in each spaceship: C.H. and Temp. The ratio between the output of the 2 clocks will be defined as 1/1 if each shot shows the same time on both clocks in a given spacecraft.
    7. We agreed that the ratio between the output of the 2 clocks in Jack's spaceship - the "resting" spaceship - would be 1/1.
    8. My argument was: because Jack's and Jill's systems are both inertial systems, according to Postulate A of relativity, the clock ratio for Jill (the "moving" spaceship) will also be 1/1.
    9. From (4): At the meeting between the spaceships, the temperature clocks show the same time. If the ratio between the clocks in each spacecraft is 1/1, then the two clocks in each spacecraft show the same time, and since: if a=b, c=d, and a=c then a=b=c=d it follows that all 4 clocks will show the The same time at the time of the meeting, and the videos from the 2 spacecraft will prove this.

    10. 9 contradicts 5. Hence the problem.

    Questions:
    1. Do you agree with the 10 points above?

    2. If according to your claim in the previous response "at B the temperature will drop at the rate of one degree per minute, and at A at the rate of one degree per hour." And from the assumption that B in our case is Jill, how will you be able to get a ratio of 1/1 between the temp clocks and her CZ if the input of the temp clock is degrees Kelvin and the output is the number of seconds since the big bang? Won't we see her temp clock spinning much faster than the clock, so the rotation ratio between the 2 clocks will be much greater than 1/1? (In the example we gave in the previous article: 1000000000/1).

    Don't forget - the ratio of 1/1 we talked about refers only to the ratio of rotations between the CZ and temp clocks in a certain spaceship.

    3. If we now include the considerations of cosmic radiation, it turns out that Jack is in a "real" rest system - he is at rest relative to the radiation, while Jill is in "real" motion - she is moving relative to the radiation.

    Besides the obvious contradiction to postulate A of relativity (the possibility of distinguishing between inertial systems and knowing who is moving and who is "really" at rest), we will have a problem when we try to reverse the creation and check Jack's clocks in Jill's system. Because according to relativity, his clocks lag behind her clocks, but if he is the only one who really rests, then only her clocks will lag behind and his will not.

    But for now, try to answer only 2. How do we get a ratio of 1/1 in Jill's clocks, if when she meets Jack her clock shows a much later time than Jack's clock, and the temp clocks show Same time for both.

79. Israel,

    "I think what you meant to say is (and correct me if I'm wrong): the rate of temperature drop in twin B will be faster than the rate of temperature drop in twin A.

    For B, the temperature will drop at the rate of one degree per minute, and for A, at the rate of one degree per hour."

    Beautiful Israel! A month of discussion and finally you really read! Now please go back through all the posts on this topic and see how many times I wrote those two sentences?

80. Israel,

    I don't know of a site that gives reliable answers in physics (of course this does not mean that there is no such site). possibility
    Another is to hire an advanced degree student which I assume would be willing to provide for a relatively small amount
    You have relatively reliable answers to your questions. Just post an ad in one of the physics departments in your area.

81. R.H., I was hoping we were done with politics.

    Friedman's formula is expressed in the only units of measurement accepted in physics for temperature and time: Kelvin and seconds.

    Not minutes, not hours, not Fahrenheit. Kelvin and seconds.

    Also for twin A, also for B.

    Put them in the example you gave earlier, and tell me if you still get a 1/1 ratio in both.

    And it has nothing to do with relativity or speeds.

    I think what you meant to say is (and correct me if I'm wrong): the rate of temperature drop in twin B will be faster than the rate of temperature drop in twin A.

    For B, the temperature will drop at the rate of one degree per minute, and for A, at the rate of one degree per hour.

    Did I lose my temper?

    jubilee.

    All topics of alternative physics will be whitewashed in the land of free responses. One is still waiting.

    And let's not go back to politics again, eh?

    Good night everyone.

82. R. H. and Israel, since my name was mentioned again, two things:
    a) I tried to build a definition for the concept of "time". I started with "History of Beats" and waited for great interest. I received only a faint response (and not from you) and because of that I did not continue.
    b) As part of the question of why I was angry at Israel in the first place, I side with R.H. I waited for my words to be addressed until my patience ran out.

83. Israel,
    What units are different for each twin? I really don't understand what you are talking about. Both use units of time. Aren't an hour and a minute derived from each other? What conversion are you talking about? You somehow got caught up in the matter of the units, so if you insist, you can say that with one the temperatures drop at a rate of one degree per hour and with the other at a rate of one degree per 1/60 of an hour (which is a minute). What does it change the fact that one has a faster pace than the other? Therefore Friedman's formula is not uniform regarding them.

    Just like if we say that one twin is walking at a rate of one meter per hour and the other is walking at a rate of one kilometer per hour. What conversion is required here?

84. R.H.

    Nicht Kapish.

    Nicht kapish why every honest thing became emotional, to "you are disrespectful" to "I ran out of words".

    Nicht Kapish why do you skip the topic of the current controversy: that I don't read comments, or just skim. After all, the very fact that I'm already a few responses away, proves that I read, didn't skim, and answered.

    And Nicht Kapish Why are you Nicht Kapish What I am trying to make clear to you: You cannot use different measurement units for the 2 systems in question. Imagine that in the Twin B system he will measure the temperature drop in picoseconds. Will the ratio be 1:1 even then?

    So here comes Socrates and asks:

    Assuming that the temperature drop is linear, and each twin received a ratio of 1/1:

    1. Do you accept that a 1/1 ratio in a Cartesian system means a 45 degree slope?

    2. Do you accept that if twin A measures in hours, the X-axis will be in hours and the Y-axis in degrees?

    3. Do you accept that if twin B measures in minutes, the X-axis will be in minutes and the Y-axis in degrees?

    4. Do you accept that if the two twins were measured in exactly the same units, the ratio of the slopes of the lines they got would be 60/1?

    I understand what you are trying to do: derive the Friedman formula from the measurements. But as I mentioned, you cannot use different combinations for each twin, because obviously you will get results that require conversion, and you will also not be able to get the real formula from the measurements: it is continuous, but not linear. You will be able to get hundreds of formulas that will adapt to the results you received.

    There is another matter, the subject of rhythm. This also refers to the time definition of Jubilee. If you wish, we will repeat what Einstein says about clocks and rhythm in the article on relativity.

85. Israel,
    Unfortunately, you really don't understand what I mean. Probably until we meet and draw each other on a page we won't understand each other even though I really don't understand what is so unclear to you.

    All I'm saying is that the rate (and emphasis on the word rate) of the temperature drop depends on the speed at which the measurer is moving.
    One twin measures degrees/hour and the other degrees/minute. Where do you see 1:60 here?

    If you asked the first twin to formulate the Friedman formula he would say that his temperature clock is based on the empirical fact that the rate of temperature is one degree per hour.

    On the other hand, the second would have formulated Friedman's formula based on his empirical observation that the rate is degrees per minute.

    And if you didn't understand that, I ran out of words.

    And please don't tell me there are sixty minutes in an hour, I've heard of that.

86. Robbie, you're stirring up old dogs.
    A few ages ago I tried to present here a model that has been spinning in my head for some 40 years. I defined particles and empty space in it and gave them properties. After several attacks from commenters I promised not to put him on the science stage again but to assign him an independent blog. It's procrastinating. In the meantime, if you are interested, I would be happy to correspond with you privately:
    ivrit.yuval00@googlemail.com
    Goodbye

87. Yuval, do you assume that the size of the particle is the same as the size of the hole? Define what is a particle? A quark? Higgs boson?
    What happens in a place free of particles? How are the holes progressing?

88. R.H. my friend

    You say: "After that you will jump up and say "blood plots", "Show me where I was disrespectful??" "Show me where I didn't take it seriously or didn't read?" , "Let's stop with the nonsense and move to business lines", right?"

    And I show you, gray on top of the background, that I think there is a problem in the way you interpret things, and that the ratio you present as 1:1 is actually 60:1.

    Because a drop of one degree per minute is equivalent to a drop of 60 degrees per hour (assuming the drop is linear). This is exactly what I told you two weeks ago, and this is exactly what I believe. You can disagree with me, you can kick the chessboard and not want to argue with me, but nothing will change the correctness of my claim in the current debate: that I read your response, thought about it, and answered to the best of my ability, even though we did not reach an agreement.

    And that was the point of contention, wasn't it? That I don't read or take the comments seriously, don't I? So that's what I am.

89. Happy kosher holiday to you too, Ruby
    My working assumption is that a photon is the absence of a solid particle, a "hole". Every time a solid particle moves into the volume occupied by the "hole", it will leave a new "hole" in its place. The new "hole" is also expected to be filled by another particle and God forbid. At each step in this process there is no reason to favor any particle, including the solid particle on the straight line below.

90. happy holiday Yuval, can you explain why a single photon will not move in a straight line in your opinion?

91. R.H. Refai.m, and even so...
    First, in one of the previous comments I announced that I had dropped the photon model in the form of a ball (and again thanks to Robbie).
    Second, in another place, R. H. (♥♥♥) sent me a link to an article in which an experiment in which a single photon generator was used: https://www.hayadan.org.il/free-speach-20100800/#comment-335184
    And come too for the thanks and blessing ♥

92. jubilee
    (I have never been near a telescope or microscope, so those who know will correct me).
    When it comes to a photon, you do not understand that it is not a "ball" that you distinguish from the other group (group of balls).
    It is a laser beam focused on some surface. The light beam, which is the "beam" of the laser, is also the collection of the light particles of which it is composed. That is, the laser beam consists of photons.

    So how do you isolate one such photon from the collection? - You won't succeed.
    You will not succeed because your thinking is, how to say, classical..

    In order to be able to manipulate a single (smallest) particle of light, you will need to understand that the beam of light will also need to be small (as small as possible).

    How do you get it? The temperature of the laser beam is lowered.
    This way you will also be able to detect the smallest possible interference when you are trying to measure the quantum light beam. When you recognize the disturbance you will also be able to make estimates and calculations and find the probability where the photon can be found. After you do all this, you will not be able to measure the speed of the photon because the photon has become a particle (it is no longer a wave whose speed is measured). And hence the computational equations of the photon change.

93. Israel, thank you for the thoughtful response.
    I understand from your words that such an experiment was not carried out. I would love to receive additional opinions.
    Thanks for the suggestion to go to the "free comments" page. I'll go see what's going on there, but I have no intention of starting a discussion.

94. R.H., thank you.
    When you measure the speed of a light beam (in a vacuum) you get a constant size which is also an upper limit. In a short article I published (with drawings) I showed that a small number of photons is enough to force movement in a line very close to a straight line. What I am trying to examine is the motion of a single photon that is not part of a beam. If my hypothesis is correct, then such a photon is not constrained to move in a straight line, the distance it will travel will be greater than the distance it will travel as part of a beam and therefore it will take more time. With my current question I did not intend to make waves but only to find out if such an experiment is known.

95. Israel,
    After that you'll jump up and say "blood plots", "show me where I messed up??" "Show me where I didn't take it seriously or didn't read?" , "Let's stop with the nonsense and move to business lines", right?

    So what kind of response is this in - https://www.hayadan.org.il/einstein-got-us-out-of-the-matrix-080412/#comment-335098

    What are you trying to check if my calculation skills exceed third grade? If I know that a tenth of an hour is 6 minutes?

    The truth is that I am completely tired of the discussions with you.

96. thank you father Fuck you for being quick!

    Yuval, if you want to develop models, we can do it in the world of free and happy responses.

97. "Free comments" page
    https://www.hayadan.org.il/free-speach-20100800/

98. jubilee.

    In my opinion, it is not recommended that we deal with "alternative physics" in this article, or in any other new article.

    First, there are many new readers who may be under the mistaken impression that what we're describing is mainstream, and that's what they'll have in mind.

    Second, it upsets other readers, who seem as if a bunch of Kabbalah or Voodoo believers have entered the hallowed hall of science.

    And thirdly, it makes it difficult for commenters whom we will define as "serious" to develop a normal dialogue.

    A point once suggested to open the "I have an idea" corner, where everyone could play to their heart's content without interruption. Since this corner has not been established, the alternative is to select old articles, as I did with the article at the end of the universe.

    Whoever chooses to go to these articles will know, and will be reminded frequently, that they are not dealt with in mainstream theories, that he is doing so on his own accord, and that he should take responsibility and respect the commenters in Lala Land.

    So if you invite me to such an article, I will be happy to tell you what I think (from my bitter experiences, you must tell me what it is...).

    Until then, here's what I can tell you about Photon:

    Ehud's words:

    Your question is unrealistic. Describe to me an experiment in which it was measured that a photon left a certain point at a certain time. Note that if you measured the photon, it ceased to exist, that is, it clicked in a certain detector. How then do you intend to measure the speed of a photon that left a certain point at a given moment and arrived at another point at a given moment? When measuring the speed of light, we are talking about measuring a very large number of photons, this is a classical measurement. In addition, it is worth noting that the uncertainty principle does not discuss velocities but rather momentum, when the momentum of a massive particle is twice the mass and the speed of a massless particle, of course, there is a different definition of momentum. The question about the speed of a single particle is therefore irrelevant.

    And he adds:

    "Can you tell me what the speed of that single photon is?". According to the Copenhagen interpretation, it makes no sense to talk about an unmeasured size. It is not about our not knowing its value, but rather that the question is meaningless. According to the Copenhagen interpretation, everything we know about the world is the result of measurement."

    You're asking:

    "If my hypothesis is correct, then this period of time will not be permanent. Does anyone know of such an experiment?"

    According to the Copenhagen school as I understand it, it is impossible to carry out the experiment you asked about and therefore of course I do not know of such an experiment. Einstein was rather indignant at this interpretation, according to which "the moon does not exist if you do not look at it". But we must internalize the sad truth: the universe is quantum and not local. Bell's inequality theorem pretty much buried our classical logic. We can try to explain things in a classical way - and this is perhaps what we will do in Lala Land articles - but it is only for us, to be able to relax and smoke hookah. In practice, if there is any logic behind the madness, it is quite hidden from us.

    When I started studying quanta (many years ago) the same sad truth became clear to me. Is it true Israel, in the kibbutz they always told you that you have a head for reals. But that was in the kibbutz, while here in the classroom, the bitter truth dawns in all its severity: you have reached the limit of your ability. You don't understand how business works. You may be able to do the assignments and pass the exams, but that doesn't mean you really understand what the hell is going on there. (as opposed to mechanics, thermodynamics or even relativity).

    So I cautiously asked the student next to me. He didn't really understand either. Both the teacher and the head of the major. I continued my search for a "logical" explanation and that's how I came to Feynman who said: I think I can safely say that nobody understands quantum mechanics.

    And that's the gist of the story for me. This is also why, in my second law plots, Professor Boltzmannsky loves relativity so much and despises quantum mechanics.

    Just like Einstein.

99. sympathetic

    Thanks for the help.

    Do you know any reliable website where you can ask questions in physics, also for a fee?

    On the sites I tried, I never got a proper answer from experts, only from other commenters.

    Successfully.

    R.H.

    waiting

    jubilee.

    after work.

100. R.H.

     Let's say there is a third twin next to the other.
     He checks his cesium watch and says: My temperature dropped by 6 degrees in the tenth of an hour.

     Can you tell me what his attitude is?

101. jubilee,
     One of the great postulates of our day is that the speed of light is constant in a vacuum and that it is the upper limit. You saw how much noise there was around the near discovery that neutrinos travel faster than light. Do you think that someone would have found that a photon moves at a non-constant speed and this would not have made a god revolution in physics?

102. Israel (since you have gained a lot of experience) or anyone who knows, maybe you can help me.
     My current working assumption is that the orbit of a photon Single is random and meandering (only when he moves in a large group is he subject to social constraints such as walking in a straight line at a constant speed). I am interested in testing how long it takes for a single photon to be sent out from a light source until it is picked up by one of the many detectors located around it. If my hypothesis is correct, then this period of time will not be constant. Does anyone know of such an experiment?
     Thanks in advance

103. You are always welcome

104. Ruby,
     I decided to drop from the spherical propagation model of a single photon and stick with the probability function. You have a part in my decision, and for that I thank you. The description of the photon motion as linear propagation is not good for a single photon but can be accepted for a large number of photons that move in one beam.
     Thank you also for your suggestion to present the particles and the "holes" between them quantitatively. She is definitely on point.

105. Israel,
     What was so hard to understand? We have two twins one on Earth and one in a spaceship, or if you want both in spaceships in your Tizanbi.
     Before they separate they measure the temperature. Find 10K. They arrange to meet when their thermometer reads exactly 4K.
     Meetings. Measured, both have 4K
     The first one says according to my cesium clock 6 hours have passed from here I conclude that the temperature is decreasing at a rate of XNUMX degree/hour.

     The other says, are you kidding? It only took me 6 minutes. From this I conclude that the temperature decreases by degrees/minute

     Who is right? both
     Whose clocks are in a 1:1 ratio? at both of them
     Whose temperature clocks show 4K? at both of them
     Do the cesium clocks show the same time? No
     Is there a contradiction to something that the theory of relativity said? No
     Where does the discrepancy come from? Because the formula for calculating time according to temp must include a component that says the rate of temperature drop in your system.

     Capish?

106. Yuval, in spherical propagation, the photons are supposed to be detected even if there are barriers such as reflectors in a flashlight, like in a megaphone that focuses the sound in a certain direction, even if you are behind, you will hear the sound waves propagating spherically.
     Regarding your model with particles and the absence (holes) between them, you should illustrate it physically in terms of size, mass, what happens inside the "hole", how you define a vacuum, etc.
     Israel, the TDR is used in the electronics industry to test the quality of the signal and its compatibility with the original design. Since the printed circuit material affects the behavior of the signal (dielectric coefficient), the device checks the time it takes for the signal to reach from one point to another (with the help of a pre-designed coupon).
     You can design a coupon on a printed circuit board with a conductor of known length and measure the response time.

107. Israel,

     I'm not an experimenter, so I can't help you much with your question. As far as I know and my knowledge is very limited on the subject with the help of electronic devices (such as an oscilloscope) it is possible to measure times of the order of nanoseconds, if the period of time you wish to measure is shorter you can use clocks that rely on cold atoms where you can measure times of the order of an atom - a second (ten to the minus 18th power of a second).

     Regarding your second question, which I forgot to answer. The assumption that there is a superior reference system, which is the rest system of the site, is natural to us. After all, we live on Earth and measure speeds relative to its rest system. So to assume that the cosmos has a superior reference system is a natural assumption. It was the greatness of Einstein who showed that there is no need for this assumption and the ether assumption if it is assumed that all inertial reference systems are equal and there is no superior reference system.

     Unfortunately, I'm short on time lately (not for the reasons I detailed in a previous response), so I don't know if I'll continue to respond, I'm sorry.

108. R.H.

     The first thing I did a few months ago was to find out about a laser range finder. I even purchased one. In the meantime it doesn't really help what I want, and Zvika, my engineer friend, also says it's not applicable. I leave this as a last resort.

     And regarding Ehud: I was indeed not precise, although I believe it was not a fundamental mistake for the discussion, and I certainly did not accuse him of baseless accusations. In any case, when he corrected me, set things straight and expressed feelings that seemed to hurt me, I hastened to apologize, as Yuval had already done, or even Yehuda at the time.

     Not in every response do I immediately understand the poet's intention (does anyone?). To this day I didn't understand what you meant by the example of temperatures falling in a minute versus an hour. It doesn't mean that I didn't read it or didn't give it some thought as you said. The same as above with the other responses addressed to me.

     There were quite a few cases where you did not fully understand my words, even in essential matters. This is a natural part of a discussion process that is not structured as an exact article for Science or Nature, but rather from responses that are not always properly formulated. Therefore, the right thing in my opinion is to ask for clarification and explain.

     What about you? I showed you exactly where you were inaccurate about me. Are you infallible or above apologies?

     Ruby

     Thanks. I checked on TDR, but I couldn't figure out how to check signal arrival time with it. Do you have any idea how exactly it works apart from checking electrical cables?

109. Israel,
     And another little advice, just because we're friends. I guess you noticed that Ehud also got the impression that you didn't read his response carefully?
     So maybe the very fact that three people independent of each other make the same claim towards you says Darshani? Maybe instead of mowing in all directions and accusing blood conspiracies, lack of knowledge and carrying out investigations and excavations, just do a little soul-searching?

110. Israel,
     A laser rangefinder used by surveyors launches a laser into a prism and receives it and is able to calculate the exact distance according to the small time differences between departure and arrival. Do the math and see if it's accurate enough for you.

     See for example: http://etkes.co.il/etkes/60/124/

111. Nice timing. Thank you my father 🙂

112. I let go

113. Avi Blizovsky,
     Since you are around, please confirm the pending response
     https://www.hayadan.org.il/einstein-got-us-out-of-the-matrix-080412/#comment-334945
     Thanks in advance.

114. R.H. Rafai.M,
     The description I gave now in response 335006 to Ruby is geometric, and as such is strictly mathematical.

115. Ruby,

     I believe that you are not accurate in describing the movement of the light coming out of a flashlight. First: if no barriers are installed on the headlight, the light emanating from it spreads in all directions equally. Second: the light coming out of a flashlight like the one you described is not a single photon but a beam of many photons, and this has a different behavior than a single photon.

     The things you wrote in the second paragraph are very acceptable to me, but I would add a few things to them. The photon, according to my model, is not a solid particle but the absence of solid particles within a three-dimensional space densely populated by solid particles. When such a herd is formed, a solid particle from the immediate environment can move into the space occupied by the herd while creating the herd elsewhere (where the solid particle was previously). There is no preference for a particular solid particle, so this absence spreads in all directions equally. The detector produces solid particles to a greater extent than the normal environment (which we call "empty space") and thus the absence envelope collapses into the detector. From this description emerges a dual image, wave-particle, like the one that physics attributes to a photon and an electron.

116. sympathetic,
     Thanks. I took note. If and when you can release your ideas to the public, please do so. Even if they are disqualified, it will be possible to learn from them.

117. Ernest,
     The "energetic guy" I was referring to is definitely not you. Please explain what you meant.
     I thanked R. H. for the recommendation on the city of Haifa, but my response is awaiting approval. I think you are confusing two different commenters who use a similar name: RH and RH Rafaim.
     I answered you directly about your comments regarding my attempt to define the concept of "time" for which I sincerely thank you.
     I'm not sure I understood your last words about the elements of the universe. I would appreciate it if you could elaborate a bit more.

118. Israel, maybe TDR will help you.
     Time Domain Reflectometer, used to test signal speed.

119. Ghost.
     It seems to me that the majority here tends to return to practicality, and to stop personal politics. Maybe you should join too, right?

120. sympathetic.

     Accept my apologies, indeed I did not notice the minuteness of the wording. Not that I didn't read - of course I did - but I didn't pay attention to the nuances.

     You did the right thing and brought it to my attention. This is of course the right way to correct mistakes in good faith in the present, and prevent mistakes in the future.

     But it seems to me that there is some difference in that the fault is that I did not notice the difference between Maxwell's model and Yuval's model.

     Anyway, if you're still with us, and if I haven't raised the section for you too much, there is a technical question that you might be able to help me with.

     I am trying to organize a device that can be used to measure the exact arrival time of a radio signal, preferably with an accuracy of nano or even pico seconds.

     If I remember correctly from class XNUMX physics, this can be done using an oscilloscope, but I'm pretty sure there is some more modern and simpler device, maybe even using a time stamp from an atomic clock.

     If you can help me with specific advice or even direction, you'd be blessed.

     If anyone else is reading and has ideas, please share.

121. jubilee

     I understood that it was your words to R. H., and in fact she meant me "the guy is full of energy …….
     It was done with genius, the presentation of the subject - energy, uncertainty - because it is not clear why you do not address me directly,
     And the same experiment is known when the energy appeared at the same time in more than one place, with me and with R.H.

     In any case, since I lack the same knowledge to get to the bottom of explanations and phenomena
     I got the impression that little by little Nuta started to create more and more theories, estimates and speculations,
     And this is in a direct way if the development and progress of research and knowledge,

     The various elements of the universe are always "striving" for rest, for equilibrium (in our words)
     And because each component affects its "environment" through force/energy and because there is no uniformity
     Between the Christian forces, after all, the imbalance remains. And it is a basis for existence.

     And now before you turn to RA with words of praise and praise...

122. Israel,

     You're right, I don't have time and patience for your alternative model. The reason I don't have time is that I found a cure for cancer made from mint and green onions, only the stupid doctors refuse to believe me, the idea of ​​is based on exchange energy centers and cosmic radiation. Then I have an idea how to prove Fermat's theorem using simple algebra and some of my new mathematical concepts. I hope you understand that this is sarcasm...

     You are also right in your statement that I am not free from errors in your writing "Ehud His Honor is in his place, and many, but he is also not free from reasonable errors. At first he wrote that it is impossible to launch a single photon, then he changed it. It is acceptable in the discussion, not everything is noticed immediately." . Those who claimed that you don't read what they write to you R.H. were also right. and Yuval. Pay attention and read my comments I did not write because it is not possible to launch a single photon!! The fact that a single photon can be launched was known to me long ago.
     What I wrote is and please read carefully:
     "The speed of a single photon is not measured, experimentally it is very difficult. They measure the speed of a light beam that contains a huge number of photons, so that measuring the speed of light has little to do with quantum phenomena." As far as I know and here I may be wrong, the speed of a single photon cannot be measured, but note, I did not write that a single photon cannot be launched!
     I also wrote, “Your question is unrealistic. Describe to me an experiment in which it was measured that a photon left a certain point at a certain time. Note that if you measured the photon, it ceased to exist, that is, it clicked in a certain detector. ” Note that I did not write that it is not possible to produce a single photon, but that it is not possible to know with certainty when it left a certain point.

     As far as I'm concerned, I've said enough in this discussion and I have no intention of discussing delusional alternative models. By the way, I also have an alternative model regarding dark matter, even though it is not my field of activity and I submitted my model for peer review in a respected physics journal. What to do so science is done!

     jubilee,
     For me, the last paragraph is also relevant for you.

123. jubilee

     In order not to confuse other readers who do not understand physics, it is important that you note that the photon (not the one from your model) is not a ball moving in space, but a phenomenon, which scientists explain using descriptions taken from the world of physics and mathematics. (As Ehud explained, but apparently those who need to understand - did not understand).

124. Yuval, you wrote, "I am now examining the possibility that the photon spreads in space like the shell of a sphere".
     If indeed the photon were to spread in space like the shell of a sphere (similar to sound waves that require a medium of air), then when they turned on a flashlight in space, they would also see the light from behind, behind the reflector, which is not the case in reality.
     It seems to me that maybe the model / model / is a game of 8 adjacent pendulums, and when you pick up the first ball and release the ball, the last one at the end of the row moves and reacts similar to the behavior of light, but the difference is that the fabric of space / time is built three-dimensionally from pixels of photons that when the light source is activated (the first ball in the pendulum ) Only in the detector area do you see the reaction of the photon that is in the location of the detector (the last ball in the pendulum).
     As long as the detector is not used, the fabric of space vibrates in an undulating manner by the light source, as soon as you activate the detector, the line of photons that is in the straight line between the light source and the detector behaves like a pendulum and the detector sees the photon at the location of the detector.
     What do you think?

125. Ernst: Yes, more or less.
     The reality of each and every point consists of its history. History, for that matter, is the number of beats accumulated.
     You don't need to say "theoretically", because everything is part of a theory.
     The word "particle" is meaningless at this point, because the definition of matter comes later.
     The use of the words "time" or "place" is also not good, since the goal is to define them in a non-circular way.
     My use of the term "point" is abstract and does not refer to time or place.

126. R.H. Rafai.M,
     The guy is full of energy, straight and upside down. You have to push the right buttons, but only the demon knows what they are.

127. jubilee

     That is to say that theoretically when a particle moves from state to state or from position to position, in fact it is not possible to define a specific size regarding the relationship between the two states, because as soon as the particle moves from a certain state the state no longer exists.
     And so is the reverse. That is, being in the "initial" state, the next state does not yet exist. Meaning that the occurrence takes place between times or situations that do not exist in the world at that point in time or place, or any other definition or description.

     .

128. jubilee

     Well, what do you expect from him? What can you expect from someone who is passionate about the name, but does not understand the meaning of the word "straight"? Even the XNUMXth chapter of Leviticus he did not learn (or did not understand and did not understand). What can you expect from one who breaks the laws given to him, and disregards them? Even the casino prefers stupid people with a lot of luck, provided they are honest.

129. A few words about the time (thanks to Israel):
     The universe changes in beats. Each and every point in the universe pulsates independently of other points. Each beat erases the previous state and creates a new state. There is nothing to talk about synchronization between the pulsating points, because this requires an unnecessary existence assumption (Ockham). The question "what is the pulse rate" has no meaning because it invites a circular definition. It requires a definition of the concept of time, but we try to define this through the beats. This is also the law of the question "are the beats coordinated", because the uniformity of time should derive from its definition and not the other way around.
     We will now talk about one particular beat among many. We will call it the arbitrary name "Paima 317". The beat that preceded it was the 316th in the number of beats, as the one after it is beat 318. All the physics embodied in it is a different reality than it was or will be in any other beat. Any 317 beat being at a certain point can only communicate with any 317 beat physical being at any other point.
     Questions so far?

130. R. H.,
     Thanks for the recommendation. Haifa is beautiful. The combination of mountain and sea charms me. I have been saying for a long time that if and when I return to Israel, I will prefer it to the eternal capital of my childhood.
     ♥

131. In light of chametz, that's all you have to do gentlemen of the wrestlers.

132. R.H.

     publish what? Which I am not at all sure is true? It's almost clear that I have an error somewhere?

     What I have done here is exactly what I said: initial exposure to peer review. There is no point in publishing the model. How much better to listen to Susskind, ask someone who understands, and conduct an experiment if I can't be convinced.

     If the experiment is successful, the last problem will be the publication. You may not believe me, but I won't be particularly sorry if someone else publishes it before me.

     I never underestimated you. I told you clearly that in my opinion your intelligence and understanding do not fall short of those of senior physicists before whom I raised the idea. However, there are things that you are not supposed to know instinctively, such as the matter of the equivalence of inertial systems. I hope by the way that you are aware of this now following the discussion.

     That's the whole story. Let's work, then physics. Enough with the personal papers. Enough already!

133. jubilee.
     Halas, coincide, close a matter.
     There is no more "I" "you". See all comments as written by a computer.

     I'm going to work now. In the meantime upload your regular sub on time. Let me know in advance if you are interested in my comments, and if it is possible to disagree or criticize (not about you - about the sub).

     A new year and its curses, a new year and its blessings.

134. Israel and Yuval,

     If you hurry you might have enough:
     http://www.haifa.muni.il/Haifa/municipality/hinuch/Pages/Rishum-Garden.aspx?x=1

     Israel,
     My offer to you is the same offer I once gave to Yehuda, instead of clashing with all the little people here who fail to see the greatness and genius of your model, sit down and write it neatly in English and send it to a theoretical paper in physics. There he will be examined by people from the field in which you will not be able to disparage as you disparage here.
     (Here, as evidence for the investigative committee that you will set up for me in the following response: You said about Ali - "many of which show that you simply do not have the basic physical background." About Ehud you said: "But he is also not free from reasonable errors.", about what you said about Yuval I already I won't go back and what you said about Rafa*im I agree with you. Note that unlike you I was always careful about your respect and did not use blunt words to describe what I think about your model).

     Then please publish here on the website the professional opinion on your model and tell us whether your article has been accepted for publication. This advice is given in all seriousness without a hint of sarcasm and I truly wish you success in publishing the material.

135. R.H.

     Just a few more words, so you don't say I'm not relating or answering.

     You write:

     "I explained to you that it was quite simple to understand the source of Yuval's anger about the whole story with ghosts. And read well, it doesn't mean that I agree with him, or disagree with him."

     So here is what you wrote before:

     "By the way, regarding Yuval, don't be silly. You wanted to stretch the ghosts and you used the materials that Yuval wrote"

     And regarding what you said:

     "It's just clear that when a person says "Hey Israel, what exactly are you doing?" And then in the next response he calls you "Kiriyat Ghimim" or something like that, so it's a sign that he's upset about something."

     It is also clear to me that he is seething about something. But I don't know why. Right after that I wrote to you: "I have no idea why he is my chileba again". I was desperate to understand the man. I don't read minds. I write everything as clearly as I can - for example I am talking about the Maxwell model. If Yuval had written to me that he was angry because I used his model, the misunderstanding would have been clarified immediately, not a month full of slanders later.

     And that was exactly the reason I insisted that you show me the specific response: I thought that maybe he explained himself somewhere, or that there is some unwritten code from which you were able to deduce something that I missed because, as you claim, I don't read comments in depth but only skim. But the fact that he is angry? It was clear. The question was why, and how did you manage to understand something that I didn't.

     I think it fits a certain pattern. "Don't take anything seriously from someone who claims to be persona non grata in the casino" you tell the undercover. But I know the truth: the ugly Klasteri is fixed forever in the biometric system of many casinos, and as soon as I show a delicate foot in the doorway, the Gestapo clansmen appear with the Dobermans and Schmeissers.

     "The flags will not have a resurrection" declares Yuval when discussing the similarity of psychomechanics to psychohistory. And I'm the only one who knows that the only reason for the name psychomechanics is because the domain for psychotechnology was occupied, and only after the story was published in Galileo did I notice the similarity (in general, how much reference was there to psychomechanics in the original story? Most of it dealt with thermodynamics).

     If you are ever accused of false accusations that you know very well have no basis, prove to yourself how much respect you can have for those who raise those delusional things.

136. Israel! 🙁
     I go back to your last comment. You wrote in it "I just saw your comment. So here is exactly what you wrote, what you said caused me to shut down and block channels of communication." To Tomi, I thought you meant the response you quoted, and now I suspect you were actually referring to what I wrote a few minutes ago to RA.
     If my suspicion is justified, then you are wrong. That comment was not directed at you and you are not mentioned in it at all. And if my suspicion is not justified, then please get rid of it.

137. Israel! Hello 🙂 how are you? ♥
     ego? Accusations? lack of business? politics? Apparently we don't use the same dictionaries.
     Nor did I intend to show that you are wrong in this response. I was just explaining why I withdrew from the discussion, and this is in response to something you said earlier about how you don't understand why many people withdrew from the discussion with you.
     On the essence of time I have an orderly Mishnah, but it is folded into the metaphysical model I came up with (which begins with the words "the beginning of everything is negative") and was not received with a sympathetic eye. I would be happy to tell about it to anyone who shows interest, but so far no relevant inquiries have been registered in my electronic mailbox.

138. jubilee.
     I just saw your comment.

     So here is exactly what you wrote, what you say caused me to shut down and block communication channels:

     "Israel,
     I cannot speak for others. I can only tell you why I withdrew from the discussion at an early stage. The article discusses dark matter and I tried to develop a discussion about my conceptions of the metaphysics of the subject of the article. You pushed yourself into a discussion with an "active website" and then hijacked the entire discussion. I tried to answer your questions in terms of my definition of dark matter, but then it turned out that you have an orderly variant based on existing models, in which dark matter plays no role, and that you are not at all interested in metaphysics.
     There are contradictions between the different models, and in order to clarify them it is necessary to enter the deep layers shared by the conflicting models. But you adamantly refuse to wring your hands with what you call "philosophical ideas". You entered into a long and exhausting duel regarding the lengthening of time without understanding at all what time is. I tried to convince you that time is not something to be taken for granted, but you refused to consider it.
     You estimate, "almost without a doubt", that you have a "colossal" mistake regarding the website model. If you do have a mistake, which I don't think is at all certain, the surest way to check is to go to the root of things. Your real mistake, in my opinion, is your refusal to do so."

     And tell me yourself: how much ego, how much accusations, how much indifference, and how much politics, there is in this response which, according to you, is only intended to show me that I am wrong.

     Why couldn't you just talk about the essence of time and that's it?

139. R. H.,
     There are people who, when you want to have a discussion with them, you have to be extra cautious. If you want to get a factual response from them, you first have to completely agree with them. The expression of absolute consent must be multiple and unlimited. Although this greatly limits the discussion channels, it is not impossible. In return for this gentle and considerate treatment, one can win pearls from the fruit of the connoisseur's pen, and in this there are those who can find compensation.
     Not long ago, a serious incident took place between me and a debater (whose name I will not disclose, for obvious reasons) which led to extremely difficult situations and diverted the discussion to completely unrelated matters. Only after I apologized did he agree to talk to me again. But then, as soon as I tried again to show him where he was wrong, he immediately resealed and blocked the communication channel.

140. jubilee.

     You did sincerely apologize later, and you almost stopped engaging in politics. But you returned to it in your last response in the previous article.

     And don't think that anyone here is too naive or that we don't pay attention to details. Of course I may be wrong, but for some reason it seems to me that when you responded with one word "thank you" it was because I asked you to admit that you were wrong, so you said thank you.

     But let's get the hell over with it. You wouldn't have had to apologize for anything if you hadn't started, and you wouldn't have reached the ridiculous situation where the same accusation you always accuse me of, not reading comments, is revealed to everyone as your problem alone.

     So for the 50th time Assad: Do you want peace? Refer from now on to comments only and not to the commenter.

     Indeed, you've improved a lot since Cosmo and the Edge of the Universe. (I did take the idea of ​​running away there from Asimov, a.k.a. Terminus. Also the structure of the sentence in the second chapter of Law XNUMX. All other plagiarism is a flower).

     R.H.

     "I sit and think, I read and offer you thought experiments and in return receive irrelevant responses."

     If you read my comments, the first thing that stands out about them is that they are long and detailed. I get a lot of flak for being too long, especially from Yuval.

     It is not technically possible to answer each and every point. You don't either, if you ask I'll show you where.
     Do you really want me to make my comments even longer? I try to answer as best I can, and sometimes I summarize answers to several questions in one response.

     Ehud His Honor is in his place, and many, but he is also not free from reasonable errors. At first he wrote that it is impossible to launch a single photon, then he changed it. It is acceptable in the discussion, not everything is noticed immediately.

     But there are matters of substance. Are you trying to convince me that there is no problem with what Ernest and I brought up? break up A righteous person in his faith will live. Reminds me of the claims made at the time against the Lesage model, from which it was implied that Yehuda or I or whoever, were just piling up misplaced difficulties on what is clear and agreed on everything, that there is some kind of successful theory that explains gravity, which only we delusional people disbelieve in. (by point).

     Cosmo was, in my opinion, one of the most successful and backed articles in the site's history, even though it was conducted without a moderator. I received a lot of insights from her, together with previous articles. Mainly from the discussion with you (for which I thanked you several times and I still thank you), but also in Livon the Lesage model, entropy, and the essence of inertia in the unfinished discussion with Meir about the Mach principle.

     And I have no problem admitting a mistake and being convinced. I did this with ghosts, and with a student on the reversibility of entropy in time. (I also believe that a student was able to see the problem of the two-way arrow of time).

     But I have no intention of turning a scientific discussion into an ego discussion, where arguments and accusations are brought up only for the purpose of arguing and winning the debate.

     So if you feel that I am not taking your words seriously, you must do one of two things: either emphasize the point, so that I understand that it is important to you and be more specific, or try to see that maybe I answered and one of us probably did not understand what the other meant (as in the case of the ratio of the hours XNUMX-XNUMX , or the temperature drop in degrees per minute versus degrees per hour).

     This. Can we finally get back to science?

141. A word that forgot to be deleted. The correct sentence: "However, since so far the possibility of going back in time is an indirect conclusion arising from the evidence of probabilistic and not absolute models, it has not yet been proven and there has not yet arisen an urgent need to decipher the mechanism that produces time."

142. Ruby,
     I have no doubt that the behavior of the photon (and the electron) is dual, wave-particle. Since the measurement creates an intervention in the experimental conditions, thus affecting the results, it is difficult to talk about absolute sizes but only about probability. Since we cannot "photograph" the situation at a given moment, what is left for us to do is to try to build a model that will show what causes this phenomenon. I am now exploring the possibility that the photon spreads through space like the envelope of a sphere.
     The second thing you said, "the photons behave as if they went back in time and changed the wave from a wave to particles", opens the door to many interpretations, some of which threaten to undermine the way we perceive the concept of time. If it turns out without a doubt that time is not a fixed quantity but one that can be moved back and forth, we will not be able to continue to take it for granted, but will have to find another fixed quantity from which it can be derived. However, since so far the possibility of going back in time is an indirect conclusion arising from the evidence of neither probabilistic nor absolute models, it has not yet been proven and there has not yet arisen an urgent need to decipher the mechanism that produces time. But even if this subject is not burning, it is worth studying it - if only for the sake of intellectual curiosity.

143. Company

     The scientist is known to have a menu rich in scientific delicacies, served without unnecessary seasoning.
     Dear chefs, you really exaggerate the amount of spices and decorations you add.
     It is often difficult, except for the taste buds among the hungry diners, to recognize that this is a restaurant.

144. Yuval, in the slot experiment it became clear that the photons behave as a wave as long as they are not looked at, as soon as the tester looks at them, they change and behave as particles (no interference and deflection) and appear on the detector as target points.
     It also became clear that if the examiner looks at the photons even after they have been induced before reaching the detector, the photons behave as if they had gone back in time and changed the wave form into particles.

145. And thanks for the correction 🙂

146. Ruby, right? You are very right. Absolute zero is indeed a physical limit that can be accurately calculated, but as of now I am not aware of any measurement that has succeeded in actually reaching it, but only approaching it (albeit to the extent of a fraction of a degree, but distance is distance).

147. Ehud, Chen Chen.
     If indeed the results will be as I predict, then it is not just a probability function but an actual location. My assumption is that the photon in its manifestation as a wave spreads out like a spherical shell, and when this shell hits the detector the material inside it (or part of it) drains into the detector as a particle manifestation of the photon. If the photon's progress through space was particle-like, then each and every one of the surrounding detectors would have the same probability of receiving it.
     In my opinion, there is a place to carry out this experiment and I would love to hear if it has been carried out or if someone is willing to take up the gauntlet.

148. Yuval, isn't absolute zero a physical limit?

149. Israel,

     Let's go back to the sequence of events in the previous discussion as I see it, and show me the flaw you find in my words.

     I entered this discussion, as I wrote before to Yuval, purely out of interest. I don't have a model, I don't have shares in your temperature watch company or the competitor. At a certain point the discussion between you and Yuval turned into a kindergarten fight, I had no interest in it. It didn't stop me from continuing the discussion with you either. But at a certain point I started to feel that I was treading water. I sit and think, a reader offers you thought experiments and in return receives irrelevant responses.
     Yuval has nothing to do with any of this. When you started attacking me and asking and investigating where you didn't read carefully, I explained to you that it was quite simple to understand the source of Yuval's anger about the whole story with ghosts. And read well, it does not mean that I agree with him, or disagree with him. It is simply clear that when a person says "Hey Israel, what exactly are you doing?" And then in the next response he calls you "Kiriyat Ghimim" or something like that, so it's a sign that he's upset about something.
     I don't think we're in a trial, so I'm not going to spend hours now digging into all the discussions between us about who said what and how much. Do you insist on an example? So read here in the above discussion how many times I wrote to you that the position of the photon before the collapse of the wave function has no meaning. But leave me alone, Ehud comes where you don't despise me like I do and tells you exactly the same thing and you are still yours:
     "Our photon is already on its way, there is no question whether it will throw or not. He goes from point A to point B, both of which are in the circle you described. How is it possible that his wave function, or the probability of finding it, is outside the circle?"
     So how can you say you read?
     In short, you can threaten to take me seriously or not, in any case you don't take me seriously so it doesn't really matter.

150. Ernst (the poet 🙂 ),
     I also don't know of a final measured physical limit other than the speed of light. I know of physical constants that are measured and calculated for hours, but none of them are limits.

151. Israel,
     In general, the concise summary you provided helps to follow the sequence of events. But I have one important factual comment: you don't mention my sincere beating for sin and only talk about the not-so-apologetic apology that preceded it. On the one hand, it makes it difficult for me to take your last words completely seriously, because you only did a partial job on them. On the other hand, it also gives room for the suspicion that this omission is intentional and then it is possible that your intentions are not honest or pure.
     For good measure, please edit, correct and repost.

152. R.H.

     Let's go back to the sequence of events in the previous discussion as I see it, and show me the flaw you find in my words.

     1. The discussion is about dark mass. I don't feel like I'm knowledgeable on the subject, so I'm only reading.

     2. Judah, who disappeared for a long time, returns and appears. I greet him with a note from a movie where the motorcycle boy is mentioned. A discussion develops between us about inertia and angular momentum of the motorcycle wheel.

     3. You join the discussion, by asking me about non-locality in quantum entanglement, where you are not sure of the truth of the phenomenon. I refer you to Nick Herbert's article, which convinces you.

     4. You ask me to explain to you "slowly and carefully like a hedgehog" the essence of the experiment that I want to conduct.

     5. I don't give up easily. This is a Sisyphean task, I tell you. (In retrospect, was I right or not?). You must really want to know a little about the subject, and prove it by knowing Maxwell's ether model, and reading Jack and Jill's spaceship example on the subject of time dilation. "There are no free meals", I say. I do not market theories - I trade them. "You also won't sell me the flu vaccine you developed cheaply, and you won't discuss with those who think that all public (purple) gardens should be closed," I say.

     6. You complete the tasks, and the long discussion between us begins.

     7. Yuval brings up his model, and encounters not really sympathetic responses. He sees with narrowed eyes how the great discussion of the theory he has worked on for 40 years was "kidnapped" from him as he said, and is filled with resentment against me, the pusher and the kidnapper.

     8. I bring up a completely delusional theory for ghosts, and point out at the end that it is Maxwell's ether theory, which would not have been worth much without the equations and the derivation of the speed of light from the constants of electricity and magnetism.

     9. Yuval reads the first sentence - "ball-like particles" and does not continue reading. The blood and urine come to mind. Here's the smoking gun! Israel, the brainwashing pimp from Kiryat Gavim, used without his permission the things he wrote!

     He doesn't bother to read the rest, to see that apart from those balls, the model I brought up deals with many things that he never mentioned, that I already talked about this model before, and most importantly - I said, in words, that this is Maxwell's model.

     10. Yuval begins a campaign of slanders and plots against me, the most prominent of which is that I don't bother to read comments.

     11. The discussion between you and me is ongoing, but does not lead to an agreement. A month into the discussion I find that you think I agreed with you that there is a difference between Jill's watches, even though I wrote many times that the ratio is 1:1.
     I am beginning to doubt the rationality of the discussion.

     12. I move on to another article, inviting you to join, and asking those who would like to join as well, to stick to matters only.

     13. Everyone, without exception, goes to the same article from two years ago. Soon the discussion loses the technical scientific line, clocks, times, distances, and turns into a political discussion.

     14. You start accusing me of not reading comments as well.

     15. The spear is out of the bag: Yuval was simply wrong in his accusations against me. I didn't steal from him or shoes. I didn't even know what the trigger for his rage was.

     16. Yuval does not strike for sin as required, but a prisoner of the ego, continues when you give him a backlash: "How is it" you ask "that I knew what Yuval was angry about and you didn't?" Nothing, isn't that the best proof that you don't read the comments? After all, if you had read them, you would know that Yuval is angry with you because you used his model!

     17. The claim makes sense, and I check the thread, but I can't find any evidence that it could be concluded from his responses that this was the trigger.

     18. I ask you to show me the specific places from which you deduced what the trigger is, to see if I am indeed not reading comments, but you dismiss me with "I am not a kindergartener", and "I don't have time to go through the thread" (if so, why did you take a stand? ).

     19. I conclude that you just confused your mind, that you took a position without examining the details, and that this is probably what you are also doing with your current accusations against me, that I do not read comments.

     20. Go to Nir's article. Ernst presents a legitimate question, I agree with him and present the question to Nir. You are trying to show me that there is no problem here. (An absurd claim if you know a little about the controversy surrounding the issue).

     I'm trying to show you that the problem exists and how else, but you already have the ultimate weapon: it is widely known, since the Yuval bloodshed, that Israel does not read responses or bother to answer them. You are quick to pull out the weapon, diverting the discussion to politics.

     21. I believe that I was not made with a finger, and know how to distinguish between chaff and chaff, and if we introduce a personal dimension: contrary to Yuval's many evil insinuations, in discussions between us you are usually the one who comes out victorious, just as in discussions about biology I am the one who comes out victorious.

     22. I conclude that: unlike Michael Zvi or Ehud, from whom I am willing to absorb a little in order to enrich my knowledge with physical knowledge that I do not have, or in the case of Michael with a mathematical intuition superior to mine, in your case or Yuval there is no justification for me to have to be subjected to senseless insults and accusations and establishment.

     23. Unless you can substantiate your words, or show me how, according to you, I should have concluded from Yuval's comments that the trigger for his anger was that I used his model, which proves that I don't read comments.

     I have no problem showing you where you didn't read or understand my comments: in the long discussion about Jack and Jill. A month into the discussion, you come to me with the exit that we agreed that there is no match between her hours? In Hayat R.H., where did you wink that from?? Who here doesn't read comments, eh? And this is not a marginal detail, this is the heart of the discussion!

     24. So that's how it stands for me. Whoever says random things, and we can't back them up, should apologize, admit it, leave and forgive them. If you show me where Yuval said or clarified the subject of the trigger in Cosmo - I will admit my mistake. If not, you should apologize. If you don't do either of these things, it will be hard for me to take anything you say seriously.

153. Yuval is sorry for the late response, regarding the poet's intention...

     I was under the impression that there is no measurable limit in quantity, speed, mass or other forces in the world of current rulings,
     Except for the speed limit of light.

154. Israel
     If I understood in "classical" terms, then every quantitative definition regarding a photon such as speed, position, path, spin and mass,
     Not relevant because:
     A. The test or experiment affects the photon
     B. It may be found in more than one place at a point in time

     Therefore, everything that can be defined is only statistical,

155. sympathetic.

     I believe I completely understand what you are talking about, about trying to make classical sense in non-classical quantum theory. See for example this response:

     https://www.hayadan.org.il/einstein-got-us-out-of-the-matrix-080412/#comment-334838

     where I say:

     "According to the accepted explanation in quants (if I remember correctly) if a particle left point A and suddenly appeared in an unexpected place, (point C for example) it does not require at all that it was in the middle at all (point B in our case).

     It is us here who are trying to insert classical logic in a place where it does not necessarily exist. But according to our classical logic (at least mine) if the particle reached point C at a certain time, then it must have been at point B at an earlier time.

     And whoever thinks that there is a plausible quantum explanation for this phenomenon, quite disagrees with Feynman and many others."

     You are probably not aware of the heated discussion that has been going on here in recent months, in which all kinds of alternative theories have been put forward, including my own, which tries to explain in a classical way things that do not, in my opinion, fit into the existing models of the lengthening of time in relationships and the big bang theory.

     In that discussion I put forward the assumption that the photon is not the same quantum of energy that Einstein spoke of in 1905, one that moves at one and only speed, C, the same photon that he tried to defend unsuccessfully before McTerregio from Copenhagen.

     I showed that many things can be explained if we assume that the photon until measured actually moves at all speeds, from 0 to infinity, and I even proposed a classical model explaining why this is required, and a refutation experiment on which I am currently working.

     Of course, I don't expect you to devote time and thought to this idea, which I also give the slightest chance of coming to fruition. But your words that: "Again, a classical worldview, a photon that leaves point A cannot be attributed a speed, not only do we not know if it moves to the right or left, we cannot even talk about its speed", quite agree with my line of thought.

     Regarding the site: It was said that Michaelson would have been able to find his rest system, and determine that it moves relative to us at a speed of 370 km/s towards the constellation Leo (like the CMBR system). My question is: what is special about which speed and which direction? If the entire universe is the same in every direction and infinite, why would it even have a preferred rest system?

     Thanks.

156. Israel,

     You see things classically in the quantum world, your question about a photon moving from point A to B has no meaning. The photon does not move in space, only the wave function evolves in time and it is not something physically realistic.
     That's why your response is essentially classic:
     "In fact, it quite suits me that it is impossible to say that the photon moves only at speed C (R.H. understands why)" It is not possible to talk about the photon's movement if its position is known, it is not that the photon is moving, we just don't know its speed, there is absolutely no possibility of attributing a speed to a photon once its position is determined .

     "If a photon goes from point A to point B, the distance between which is 300 m." Again, a classical world view, a photon that leaves point A cannot be attributed a speed, not only can we not tell if it is moving to the right or left, we cannot even talk about its speed. This is Bohr's complementary concept, confusing right? This is one of the reasons we don't have an intuitive understanding of quantum theory.

     Regarding the website, I'm not sure I understood the problem. First of all, you claim "according to the picture of the world in 1887, the universe is infinite, homogeneous and isotropic" according to the best of my knowledge, the universe at that time was considered the Milky Way galaxy, i.e. infinite, inhomogeneous and far from isotropic, but I am not that knowledgeable on the subject. Second, what's the problem, the preferred axis system is the one where the site is at rest, that's what defines it.

     jubilee,

     I don't know of an experiment like you suggest regarding the fact that the nearest detector will see the most number of photons, it is most likely a trivial geometric effect. The wave function will be spherically symmetric and will decay as a power of one of the parts of the distance. There is no dramatic effect here.

157. Israel,
     Indeed, I meant all these discussions. What exactly do I need to apologize for?

158. R.H.

     Deja vu for what discussion exactly?

     Do you mean the same discussion where for a whole month I tell you that Jill's watches show a ratio of 1:1 and you, who read everything and pay attention to all the details, suddenly claim that we agreed a long time ago that the ratio is 1000000000:1?

     Or maybe you also mean the same discussion in which your friend Yuval accuses me, attacks me and makes all the accusations in the world, including that I stole from his model, and then when it is proven to him unequivocally that he was simply wrong, he still continues to blame me, and you, the objective reader who pays attention to all the details, joins him , claims that you were able to understand from his responses that the trigger for his anger was that I stole from his model, and after you are asked to come up with evidence as to how you were able to understand this, you evade with "I don't have the strength to go through the details and the thread"?

     Or maybe also to the same discussion where, as usual, after you accuse me of not reading your comments, after I explain to you that a drop of one degree per minute is equivalent to a drop of 60 degrees per hour, which is 60 times a drop of one degree per hour, you repeat the mantra "You don't read my comments ".

     Or all your other responses that are answered at length, even though many of them show that you simply do not have the basic physics background ("Jill's system moves, Jack's rests").

     Or like the last example you gave:

     "By analogy, you have a ball. If you throw it in the air, there is a circle on the floor that it will likely land there. Before you threw the whole circle is marked. As soon as you throw the circle disappears and only a point is marked where it did fall."

     You could fill a whole page with its lack of clarity ("As soon as you threw the circle disappeared" you probably meant to say "as soon as the ball fell". Or "it is likely that it will fall there". The probability is 100%. You probably meant to say "that there is a different probability of a certain hit at a specific point".

     And what exactly is it related to? Our photon is already on its way, there is no question whether it will throw or not. He goes from point A to point B, both of which are in the circle you described. How is it possible that his wave function, or the probability of finding it, is outside the circle? This is the question I asked. That's why I also answered you earlier:

     "In the example I gave, the distance between A and B is 300 m.

     The distance between A and C is 1300 m.

     If during the photon's journey from A to B its wave function stayed at C, a simple calculation will show you that its speed is at least 4C."

     The previous discussion ended in a jarring tone because of the politics and lack of substance in the responses. I asked you to bring me the specific responses from which it can be concluded that Yuval is angry with me because I stole from his model and used it. Not that he is angry with me - that is clear - but that the theft was the trigger. I also told you that it will be difficult for me to take you seriously if you don't bring these comments, which will prove to me that I do overlap by reading comments.

     You didn't bring the comments I asked for, even though you claimed you were able to understand from them what I didn't understand, probably because they don't exist. You did not do what was required and apologized, but continued to accuse me in sweeping generalities without going into details, which for me is simply throwing sand in my eyes.

     So I will repeat my request: either you bring the same comments (which prove your claim that I don't read) or you apologize and stop. Otherwise it will be hard for me to take anything you write seriously.

     You and Yuval will conduct a character analysis for me. big. Only ghosts are missing.

     We just started the new discussion, and here we are again in politics. Successfully.

159. jubilee,
     I am sure that as part of the attempts to understand the wave/particle nature of the photon, countless attempts of the type you suggest have been made. You will indeed have to delve into physical articles.
     Regarding Y.S., I have never cast any doubt on his intellectual integrity or the fact that he does believe in his model. I also have no doubts about his character, I think he has a great sense of humor, broad knowledge in many fields, intelligence, life wisdom, and excellent rhetorical ability. What bothered me in the discussion with him and I bothered to tell him this numerous times, including in my last response, is that I feel he does not really read the responses addressed to him. He treats science as a lawyer trying to defend his accused regardless of whether he is guilty or not, and not as a real scientist trying to get down to the truth. A scientist should be the judge and not the lawyer.
     In the discussion with him I tried to be objective, after all I have no interest and personally I would be happy if his model or yours or anyone else breaks new ground in physics. However, he was unable to convince me of the rightness of his words and what was serious for me was his almost total disregard of arguments that I had invested a lot of thought into and reading material that was not easy for me. His response was a repetition and chewing of the same arguments with which he came to the discussion in advance.
     Yeshayahu Leibovitz once said "the truth is forced upon us" meaning it doesn't matter how much we are in love with our theories and how beautiful they are, if there is evidence against them we have to throw them out of the trash. This is true not only for him but for anyone who claims to practice or who practices science, including me, you or others here on the site.

160. A really interesting discussion developed here in the talkbacks (about a very interesting article to begin with).
     I just want to contribute another lovely illustration to understand the dimensions
     http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=JkxieS-6WuA
     spend P:

161. R.H., thank you.
     Obviously, if the photon is a wave that disperses in space, then its decay is proportional to the square of its distance from the source. But in its appearance as a particle, the decay equation is different, as can be seen, for example, in the behavior of laser beams. The purpose of the experiment I proposed is to test a certain model that explains this duality, and at the same time also other unclear phenomena. I will continue to look for documentation of experiments of this type. Thanks for your response.
     From your latest grievance towards Y.S., one gets the impression as if he completely ignores any answer he receives. In my opinion, this is not accurate. He has a line of thought that he is trying to promote (that the known speed of light is not a final limit), and he is unwilling, and rightly so, to contribute to the promotion of any idea that does not align with this line. For the purpose of persuasion, he uses a lot of rhetoric and little, if any, scientific method, and it is certainly conceivable that with such methods he will not get very far. Although I had and still have a number of misunderstandings about his intellectual integrity, but to his credit I believe that he truly believes in his merchandise. My conscience says that to convince him of his mistake would be a cruel act like no other. My heart forbids me from doing this to him, and I beg you to spare him as well.

162. jubilee,
     In the slot experiment, near and far detectors are used. I don't think anyone saw that there was any missing photons on the way or a "preference" for the nearest detector because they would probably have been yelled at. And even if you are right and they would find that photons were picked up in the nearest detector, the simplest interpretation would be that there is a decay of the photons over time.

163. Israel,

     What a déjà vu for the previous discussion. You ask a question, I answer you, you ignore it and return to your position again. I asked you if you read what I wrote about the ball that was not thrown, you answer me about the ball that goes through a wall in the tunnel, what's the connection??? In short, you can claim until tomorrow that you have read.
     So you again ask Ehud who also gives you an answer similar to mine and explains to you that the sentence "was at a certain point before the collapse" has no meaning and again you ask "before the collapse of the wave function at point B, is there any probability of finding the photon (or the electron, or any of their brothers the quants) also at point C, which is on the same line as A and B but is 1000 m away from B?"

     Mila, but you don't read Ehud either, so why are you asking? Just to read yourself?

164. Ehud (or anyone who knows):
     I first raised a question about the progress of a photon in space
     https://www.hayadan.org.il/einstein-got-us-out-of-the-matrix-080412/#comment-334761
     To test it, I propose an experiment as follows: several detectors are placed around the source of photons so that each of the detectors is located at a different distance from the source, but no detector hides other detectors (they can be arranged, for example, on a spiral track). The source sends out many individual photons and the experimenters count for each detector how many photons have been absorbed by it. If my hypothesis is correct, then the number seen by the detector closest to the source will be the largest, even though the photons sent have no preference for a particular direction.
     My question is whether such an experiment is known to have been carried out.

165. Uri Goren or anyone who has a good idea, since the concept of time was mentioned, two questions:
     a) Is there a non-circular definition for this concept?
     b) What is known about the mechanism that produces time?

166. Despite the common use of the term "the fourth dimension" to describe time, physicists find it populist and inaccurate.
     For a very simple reason, unlike the axes of space where we can navigate forward and backward symmetrically as we wish - in the timeline it is impossible.
     The more correct terminology for the theory of relativity is to say that the speed at which a body is located affects time-dependent processes that occur in the body itself. And in a similar way, mass also affects time-dependent processes of bodies near it.

     This is not about semantics, but about a change of perception.
     As the sun's rays affect the development of the common orchid - would you say that there is a fifth dimension of the "dimension of the sun's rays"?

167. sympathetic

     thank you for the answer.

     It actually quite suits me that it is impossible to say that the photon moves only at speed C (R.H. understands why), but if possible, I would like to refine the question I presented to you earlier:

     "If a photon goes from point A to point B, the distance between them is 300 m.

     Before the collapse of the wave function at point B, is there any probability of finding the photon (or the electron, or any of their quantum brothers) also at point C, which is on the same line as A and B but is 1000 m away from B?"

     The logic behind the question is this:

     If the single photon cannot exceed the speed C, and the wave function collapses at zero time, how is it possible that the photon is at a point that is far from the maximum distance it can travel according to the calculation X= CT?

     According to my understanding of quantum mechanics before the collapse of the wave function, the quantum object has a certain probability of being at any point in the universe - and certainly at the point 1300 away from the light source.

     And another question I raised before, since you mentioned Michaelson and Morley:

     The MM experiment tried to find what the rest system of the ether is.

     According to the picture of the world in 1887, the universe is infinite, homogeneous and isotropic. Can such a universe even have a rest system for the "ocean" of the ether? Doesn't finding such a rest system violate the homogeneity and isotropic assumption? If the system had been found, we would not be obliged to ask: why exactly this one? Isn't this an analogy for finding the center of an infinite straight line?

     Sorry if I bother you too much. R.H. And I've been enjoying these questions for two months now.

     1 am in Los Angeles - good night.

168. Israel,

     First, a single photon can be launched, it is indeed done, but it is impossible to determine with certainty when it was emitted. To your question about the number of photons. The measurement of the speed of light is done for a large number of photons, large enough so that it will not be possible to distinguish that we are dealing with a collection of photons. McKilson and Morley who measured the speed of light at the beginning of the XNUMXth century must not have known that light consists of photons.

     It is also important to distinguish between different speeds: the speed of the wave and the speed of the bunch, when you talk about a photon moving from point A to point B, you are talking about a pulse, that is, a bunch of waves, and its speed is the speed of the bunch. When you talk about the speed of light, you are talking about the speed of the wave. Some particle is in this sense a bunch of waves.

169. sympathetic.

     Do you mean that there is no practical possibility to launch a single photon? If I remember correctly, it is possible and even done.

     And if not, do you perhaps know what is the minimum amount (more or less) of photons that can be launched? Or if this is also a meaningless question, how can one conclude from the launch of many photons what the speed of light is? average?

     Thanks.

170. Israel,

     Since you insist on dealing with quanta, according to the Copenhagen interpretation, which is the accepted interpretation of quantum theory, your question has no meaning: "Let's say I didn't do any measurement, I just sent a single photon.
     Can you tell me what the speed of that single photon is?". According to the Copenhagen interpretation, it makes no sense to talk about an unmeasured size. It is not about our not knowing its value, but rather that the question is meaningless. According to the Copenhagen interpretation, everything we know about the world is measurement results.

     Reading the comments, I saw that R.H. He wrote you a similar answer: "Your question what is the position of a photon before the measurement (or the collapse) is equivalent to the question "Which side shows a cube that has not yet been thrown?". If we had a way to see the answer we would see a ghost cube showing all 6 wigs at once.

     By the way, you don't solve the problem by looking at a tunnel, even when it's a tunnel you have to propose an experiment that measures
     the phenomenon and when it comes to a single photon I don't see a possible experiment therefore your question about the Copenhagen doctrine has no meaning.

     In conclusion, quantum mechanics is indeed a strange theory for us who are used to thinking about a classical world in which objects have properties even if they have not been measured.

171. jubilee
     In the simulation presented there, if there are no photons that manage to pass the barrier - it is the wave function itself that has a certain probabilistic value even after the barrier.

     As we remember from the interweaving, when the function collapses, it collapses at once in zero time in the entire space.

     According to the accepted explanation in quants (if I remember correctly) if a particle left point A and suddenly appeared in an unexpected place, (point C for example) it does not require at all that it was in the middle at all (point B in our case).

     It is us here who are trying to insert classical logic in a place where it does not necessarily exist. But according to our classical logic (at least mine) if the particle reached point C at a certain time, then it must have been at point B at an earlier time.

     And if he could reach point B at maximum speed C, and in time T1, and he reached point C at the same time T1, then he had to be at point B at an earlier time, and hence his speed is higher than C. But of course this is not the quantum explanation - and whoever thinks that there is a plausible quantum explanation for this phenomenon, quite disagrees with Feynman and many others.

     The same also if someone believes that they have some kind of explanation for gravity.

     And that's why I said to Ernest "But I kind of agree with you that it's not that simple."

     I already brought my alternative, classic explanation in the previous article, but I myself give it very little chance.

     Anyway, look how beautiful: go to the links, activate gray cells, and sing like birds.

     Or maybe birds?

172. R. H. and Israel, please look at the simulation of the tunneling process provided in the link that Israel provided:
     http://he.wikipedia.org/wiki/%D7%9E%D7%99%D7%A0%D7%94%D7%95%D7%A8_%D7%A7%D7%95%D7%95%D7%A0%D7%98%D7%99
     The photons not trapped in the barrier only appear beyond it after that the photon beam reached the barrier. The explanation for the phenomenon, which also appears in the above link, is that the decay of the wave function occurs within a time period greater than zero, during which the wave advances until beyond the barrier. There is no hint of movement at a speed exceeding the speed of light in this link, and it is not clear how you (or only one of you) came to this conclusion. Please for your attention, before you proceed to far-reaching conclusions.

173. I actually read it. What about you, have you read what is written about tunneling?

     Because it is written there: "In the government, the tunneling phenomenon is a phenomenon in which if we throw a ball at a wall, it has a chance to pass through the wall and appear on the other side."

     Now, explain to me how the ball could appear on the other side if it took say 5 seconds to reach the wall. Let's say at T=5 it is in the wall. After he hits it, he can no longer pass it. Doesn't it require that he was behind the wall at an earlier time? Because in our case, if point B is the wall, and the photon reaches it exactly after time T, and its speed is exactly C, then if its probability wave function was at point C, which is at a greater distance from CT, then it was there before time T.

     Change 1000 m to 1000 light years and you will see it clearly. Apply all the data to a ball in a box that is 300 m long and suddenly we find it 1000 light years away. Tell me how it goes.

174. Israel,
     You are seriously confusing a particle with the wave function that describes the probabilities of its location. The probability wave function has never been at C or any other point in the world, nor does it have a velocity.

     Therefore, this sentence you wrote has no meaning:

     "And if she was ever in B, and ever crashed in B, that means that when she was in B, she had a speed of 4C+."

     As usual you don't read my comments. Read what I wrote about the dice and the ball that have not yet been thrown.

175. R.H.

     https://www.hayadan.org.il/einstein-got-us-out-of-the-matrix-080412/#comment-334821

     I didn't say the photon.
     I said the wave function.
     That's exactly what you say.

     No?

176. Israel,
     Because I know you won't let me now so here is a better example.

     Your question about the position of a photon before the measurement (or the collapse) is equivalent to the question "Which side shows a die that has not yet been thrown?". If we had a way to see the answer we would see a ghost cube showing all 6 wigs at once. It turns out that in quantum mechanics this is exactly what we see, all the possible possibilities at the same time. But when we measure the collapse occurs and the cube shows only one face.
     Therefore you understand that your statement that the photon was at point C before collapsing in B is meaningless.

177. Israel,

     "And if she was ever in B, and ever crashed in B, that means that when she was in B, she had a speed of 4C+"

     Before she collapsed she was nowhere but only her wave of probabilities showed she could be there. As in the example of the ball I brought you earlier. If you haven't thrown the ball yet, it is in the superposition of the places where it might be. Once you have thrown the possibilities collapse into one.
     That's why there is no such thing as "there was B C and B C collapsed". Before B-B collapsed there was no B-C or at any other point.

178. R.H.

     1. According to the uncertainty principle:

     \ \Delta x \Delta p_x \ge \frac{\hbar}{2} = \frac{h}{4 \pi}

     Therefore, the function has a certain probability of being outside the path A - B.

     2. According to the tunneling principle:

     "Quantum tunneling is a physical phenomenon, from quantum theory, according to which a particle can, with low probability, pass through a potential barrier. In the government, the tunneling phenomenon is a phenomenon where if we throw a ball at a wall, it has a chance to go through the wall and appear on the other side. In classical mechanics the phenomenon cannot occur: particles cannot be found in the region of a potential barrier and cannot pass through the potential barrier. The phenomenon arises from the wave nature of the particles (according to quantum theory) and therefore can be expected under conditions where quantum mechanics is valid: for small particles and low temperatures."

     3. According to non-locality in quantum entanglement.

     Now, I'm not saying that we can cause the wave function to collapse at this point with the existing means - if it collapses it will be exactly in line with speed C - but that doesn't mean it's not there.

     And if she was ever in C, and ever crashed in B, that means that when she was in C she had a speed of 4C+.

     Or if you have another explanation, I'd love to hear it.

     (Just don't make me crash).

179. Israel,

     How do you know that during the journey the photon was in C? The only option is to put a detector in C, but then the function will crash and you will get C again.

180. Israel! exactly. And so the conventional physicists rule out this possibility.

181. R.H.

     In the example I gave, the distance between A and B is 300 m.

     The distance between A and C is 1300 m.

     If during the photon's journey from A to B its wave function stayed at C, a simple calculation will show you that its speed is at least 4C.

182. Israel,
     Before it collapsed then as you say, it can be found in B or C. once you measured at point B and it is there you will not find it at point C and conversely, if it is not there you will find it at point B. As above if you measure at point C. In each of the cases, the time your detector will measure will correspond to C. What is the contradiction to a constant speed of light?

     By analogy, you have a ball. If you throw it in the air, there is a circle on the floor that it will likely land there. Before you threw the whole circle is marked. As soon as you threw the circle disappears and only a point is marked where it did fall.

183. And this is called thinking "outside the box" literally,)....
     Good article :)..

184. sympathetic
     Let's say I didn't do any measurement, I just launched a single photon.

     Can you tell me the speed of that single photon?

185. Israel,

     Your question is unrealistic. Describe to me an experiment in which it was measured that a photon left a certain point at a certain time. Note that if you measured the photon, it ceased to exist, that is, it clicked in a certain detector. How then do you intend to measure the speed of a photon that left a certain point at a given moment and arrived at another point at a given moment? When measuring the speed of light, we are talking about measuring a very large number of photons, this is a classical measurement. In addition, it is worth noting that the uncertainty principle does not discuss velocities but rather momentum, when the momentum of a massive particle is twice the mass and the speed of a massless particle, of course, there is a different definition of momentum. The question about the speed of a single particle is therefore irrelevant.

186. R.H.

     A little on the contrary..

     Detector C is found after detector B.

     According to the uncertainty principle: if we know the particle's momentum with a high degree of accuracy, we cannot know its exact location, and it can extend over a large space, even beyond point B. Therefore, theoretically, there is a probability of finding him at point C, which is on the straight after point B, and this even before he collapsed at point B.

     After the collapse in B, he has no chance to reach point C anymore.

     The tunneling phenomenon (proven experimentally if I'm not mistaken) demonstrates the point: the particle can also be found outside the sealed box, which raises the question: how did it manage to pass through the wall of the box? What, she was "transparent" to him?

     What, does this remind us of something?

     In short, waiting to be loved.

187. Israel,

     If I understand your question correctly, this is exactly what is done in one of the variations of the famous slot experiment. A photon is sent from light source A, on the way it passes through detector C (in the slit) and finally reaches detector B (in the screen). The wave function collapses already in detector C. Among the detectors is always C.

188. jubilee
     It seems quite clear to me that the photon cannot be found at point C after the wave function has collapsed at point B. Therefore, it follows that if he had any probability of ever being at point C, it was before he was at point B.

     The same reasoning applies to tunneling: if the quantum particle was discovered at point C beyond the potential barrier, then it must be before it collapsed in the barrier. After the collapse, he has no more resurrection. Certainly not at point C outside the checkpoint.

189. Israel, gives the impression that there is no connection between the things.
     The link you provided does not talk about time differences, whereas you asked about the probability of a photon being found in a distant place לפני His presence in a nearby place.
     Unfortunately, I will not be able to continue following the discussion in the coming days. If and when I return, I will update.

190. jubilee.
     tunneling

     http://he.wikipedia.org/wiki/%D7%9E%D7%99%D7%A0%D7%94%D7%95%D7%A8_%D7%A7%D7%95%D7%95%D7%A0%D7%98%D7%99

191. Ehud (or R.H. or anyone who follows and knows), let me refine Israel's question: Is there any known experimental evidence that confirms such a probability (greater than zero)?

192. R.H.
     Until Ehud answers, could you try to answer the questions I asked him?

     https://www.hayadan.org.il/einstein-got-us-out-of-the-matrix-080412/#comment-334760

193. On further thought, Ernst's wording is somewhat vague. Let us ask him what exactly the poet meant 🙂

194. Ernest,
     I have a feeling that if you remove the word "the only" from your claim
     Be much more right.

195. Ernest, did you mean the definition or the claim?
     If this is a claim, it seems to me that you are in good and wide company and you are probably not wrong.

196. Am I wrong in the definition,
     The maximum speed of light is the only precise quantitative definition that holds true
     The tests or attempts made to date.

197. Israel, you reacted quickly without taking enough time to think.
     If in a few days it is still not clear, ask again and I will answer in detail.

198. jubilee

     I did not understand how the model you described explains, according to you, the "phenomenon that has been dubbed "non-locality in quantum entanglement" without the need to assume that information moves at a speed greater than the speed of light."

     How does the message about the collapse of the "photon bubble" that you described pass from side A to side B? After all, if we take a collapsing soap bubble, there is a propagation speed for the collapse inside the bubble, right?

199. symmetry*

200. Hypothetical reflections on the progress of the photon in space:
     Since the photon is a wave, it propagates in all directions like an inflating bubble that is spherical in shape. As soon as a detector hits a certain point in the photon bubble, the bubble "collapses" into the detector, in whole or in part, and then the photon reveals properties of a particle. When, as a result of the collapse of the bubble, only half of it drains the inside of the detector, the other half collapses and drains in exactly the opposite direction (that is, due to considerations of dimetry and center of gravity). The polarization of the photon can be described as parallel lines moving in a circular motion on the circumference of the bubble in one direction. Therefore, the direction of polarization perceived in the detector will always be opposite to the direction of polarization perceived on the other side. This model can explain the phenomenon known as "non-locality in quantum entanglement" without the need to assume that information moves at a speed greater than the speed of light. This explanation is also valid for a similar phenomenon in the electron. The electron counterpart to the polarization of the photon is the spin.
     what do you think?

201. sympathetic

     What is the speed of a single photon?

     If a photon goes from point A to point B, the distance between them is 300 m.

     Before the collapse of the wave function at point B, is there any probability of finding the photon (or the electron, or any of their quantum brothers) also at point C, which is on the same line as A and B but is 1000 m away from B?

     Thanks.

202. Unfortunately you are just confused.

     The speed of a single photon is not measured, experimentally it is very difficult. The speed of a light beam containing a huge number of photons is measured so that measuring the speed of light has little to do with quantum phenomena.

203. Yaniv, to your question about the fourth dimension and dark matter:
     Consider dark matter as a collection of particles that can be arranged in different densities. Today we already have tools that allow us to measure the density of dark matter around each and every star in the three-dimensional space of the universe (below the dimension of time) that we know. It is likely that we will soon have more accurate devices. This density, which affects, among other things, the movement of light (see the Eddington experiment inspired by the theory of general relativity, "gravitational dust") can be seen as an additional dimension to the ones we know.

204. Ernest,

     First of all, this is an experimental fact.
     Secondly, the accepted interpretation today is that as long as we do not measure the photon is in a state of superposition in terms of its location, meaning that there is some sphere in space where the highest probability of finding it is.
     Once measured the function will collapse to one possibility, which is its position.

     Contrary to what our friend Israel will claim, there is no evidence that the photon is also in superposition in terms of its speed. On the contrary, all the measurements showed that the speed is constant. That is, a detector that will be on the near side of the probability sphere will measure a shorter arrival time than a detector that will be on the more distant side of the probability sphere, both will measure the speed C.

205. Gentlemen
     I understood that,,
     1. Since in the world of particles a high level of precision is of utmost importance,
     2. From looking at the experiment, we have no way of knowing the position of a particle at a point in time.
     And as is known, he is found in more than one place at the same point in time.

     how then,
     You can accurately measure the speed of light and get the same result, always,
     When relying on a meeting between the light particles, the source and the detector,
     who behave so mysteriously and strangely from our point of view. ?

     .

206. It is clear that a photon has no mass, because if it had any mass, it would have increased from its rest mass to the speed of light to infinity and we know that this is not the case with the photon.

207. Okay, little troll of a mother, whatever you say.

     You always tell me what my questions are, what my answers are, what my opinions are...

     Notice that you never ask, or even try to understand what I'm saying.

     Because if you bothered to remember the lessons of nature and the homeland, you would perhaps understand that we are saying the same thing.

     But let's not waste the time of both of us like in the other articles, eh? Say the last word, pee and sleep.

208. ...I understand that the "releaser of comments" has not woken up yet...

209. waiting..
     Good. Not bad. Benizri suffered more..

210. Israel

     Every time you are put in the wrong, you start bragging.

     About what you are talking about, there was already a discussion (argument) between Michal and Ehud and me, in one of the articles here on the website, about a year or a year and a half ago, I don't remember exactly.
     My claim was that there was a problem with determining the speed of light (or something similar to these things).
     In simple words (especially for you):
     According to Einstein's interpretation, it is accepted that the photon is an energetic but massless particle.
     According to the Copenhagen interpretation, it is accepted that the photon is a particle, but one that is constantly in motion. That is, the photon constantly emits energy and is never at rest.

     Your question: What happens to the photon before we measure it? - It is not relevant.

     You can answer yourself: God plays dice.
     And you can answer yourself: you can only know what a photon is while you measure it. If the photon does not exist, then it is also not relevant to the result, because you can invent any result you want and it will at most be an approximation of the true value of the photon.

     Verstehen?

211. Zbarbirim team leader, ghosts, please kill,

     you don't catch

     You don't understand that precisely because according to your words "because the people who understand the matter have determined that the Copenhagen interpretation is better than the 'Einstein interpretation'." After all, there is a problem with one speed of light.

     Because according to Einstein the distance of the photon from the light source is constant - CT - and since Einstein was proven wrong, the problem that Ernst and I are talking about emerged.

     Capish?

212. Israel

     The response is mine.
     (That nickname remained following the harassment of the extraterrestrial).

213. Israel

     "How is it possible to talk about a certain speed for light or any quantum if before its discovery it is spread throughout the universe?"

     - We can talk about this because the people who understand the matter have determined that the Copenhagen interpretation is better than the 'Einstein interpretation'.
     In general: "Some physical size is determined only when the measurement is made."
     The measurement methods (of the tested objects) and reference systems are well defined before the measurement, and only after the measurement can the results be evaluated. Only such results are acceptable.
     If the system cannot be well defined, then the measurement and the result will not be correct (or inaccurate).
     And such results are unacceptable in a world that is all about accuracy.

214. Yaniv, I personally liked your idea. 😉

215. Nice ideas.
     First, you will read the great Richard Feynman's physics lectures (three volumes) and the examples he gives about the ant that hangs on the XNUMXD balloon/sphere and cannot leave it. Sequel to Abbott's Flatlandia. Einstein once told this thought experiment as well in one of his articles and I don't remember where.
     Second, you wrote: "Albert Einstein discovered more insights about the matrix in which we live".
     I would like to remind the readers (!!) that the one who gave the four-dimensional formalism to the special theory of relativity was Herman Minkowski and not Albert Einstein! Minkowski was also Jewish and he deserves to be given this honor...
     Einstein formulated the theory of relativity in the form of observers and frames of reference as you know. A given observer and a clock next to him in a reference system at rest and a given observer and a clock next to him in a system moving relative to it...
     And Herman Minkowski came two years later and gave the four-dimensional formulation without which (!!!) Einstein could not have formulated his general theory of relativity.
     And so since you are based on space-time and space-time formulation, you are based on Minkowski space-time (if it is in the context of special relativity then it is flat). And only in the context of general relativity can we talk about space-time in Einstein's context.

216. From the introduction I expected much more, I thought the article would reveal the secrets of the universe and the like but apart from a few descriptions of the third and fourth dimensions there was not much...
     By the way, I accept the assumption I heard from a number of experts that the total energy in the universe is zero.
     I also accept the assumption that there are additional dimensions beyond the 4 in question. Access to those dimensions is still blocked for us, but I am optimistic that in the future with guidance and new technologies we will understand and know more about these dimensions.

217. Why the theory of relativity and not the theory of absolutes?
     As far as I understand, Einstein stated that the speed of light does not depend on the speed of the light source.
     Therefore, the speed of light is shown towards itself, so it is an absolute speed and not a relative one.
     Absolute speed cannot be measured tangibly, and one can only acknowledge its existence.

     And about time
     It is forbidden to discuss time separately, because in nature there is a principle of linkage that applies to quantitative things,
     such as distance, area, volume, time, material, etc.
     Volume does not have a separate self-existence, and a surface area is always adjacent to it
     Time also has no separate existence, and the perception of movement as a combination of quantities of time and distance will testify to this
     Time is also not separate from matter, and the ball in Israel has its own cycle time of 5050 seconds
     Reuben's time and Shimon's time make no sense
     There is no doubt that Reuven and Shimon have a moment in common, but if they are far from each other, they have no possibility of recognizing that moment.
     The attempt to identify a common moment using the speed of light is doomed to failure in advance, and it yields unacceptable results, of subjective moments.
     Subjectively, the gaze of the eye has infinite speed
     You open your eyes, and you see in an instant the depths of the universe.

     And regarding the dimensions

     Instead of dimensions there are quantitative things, and there aren't many of them

     The distance, the area and the volume, are three quantitative things of the geometric domain
     The substance, time and another thing, are three quantitative things of the physical realm
     A principle of linkage applies to these six quantitative things

     Matter is a tangible thing whose quantity cannot be perceived by the senses
     Time is an intangible thing whose quantity is perceived by the senses
     And the other thing is the interesting one, since it itself is not perceived by the senses, nor is its likeness perceived by the senses
     This other thing is the substrate of the light waves moving through it at a constant absolute speed.

     A. Asbar

218. serious

     "However, according to the aforementioned experiment, the quantum may also be found in another unknown place
     before or after the detector".

     According to quantum mechanics, once the quantum has hit the detector, its location is now completely known: the detector. The wave function collapsed, and the uncertainty disappeared.

     But I quite agree with you that it is not so simple, and in fact if according to the same quantum mechanics the quantum is spread over the entire universe before the collapse of the wave function, then it is very difficult to talk about a certain speed for the quantum.

     If you have the strength and time to go through 1300 comments, the answers to what you posted are in my comments at:

     https://www.hayadan.org.il/astronomers-reach-new-frontiers-of-dark-matter-130112/

     Nir, if you are reading, could you answer Ernest and me? How is it possible to talk about a certain speed for light or any quantum if before its discovery it is spread throughout the universe?

     Throw a bone to a mythological penman from 2003.

219. Israel

     As soon as the photoelectric cell hits the quantum, the detector tells us that the light has arrived,
     However, according to the aforementioned experiment, the quantum may also be found in another unknown place
     before or after the detector.
     The same goes for the light beam whose beginning is determined by a quantum that is not clear where
     It is parallel.

     This means that the starting and ending point of the measurement are unknown and therefore unclear
     What distance or time is measured. That is the question

220. Watch DS9 to learn about linear existence
     or just read the following
     http://tequalstime.blogspot.com/2010/11/benjamin-sisko-and-alien-species.html

221. A question for those in the know, isn't it possible that dark matter is in the fourth dimension -
     And that's actually why we don't see him? If we take the example in the video, then it is like placing a three-dimensional object in a two-dimensional world and trying to weigh it, those who are in the two-dimensional world will only see part of the material and will not understand where the extra mass comes from.

222. serious

     1. You take a given distance D.

     2. Name at the end of a mirror.

     3. Turns on the flashlight.

     4. Measure the time T that took from when you turned on the flashlight until the light returned and hit the photoelectric cell at the starting point and activated the detector.

     5. C=2D/T.

     6. Going home, Mesut Khalas.

223. But it contradicts the theory of gravity, how the ugliest thing in the movie is that he can float.

224. A question for Anonymous

     In an experiment related to quantum theory, particles behave in unexpected and incomprehensible ways,
     When it is possible for a particle to be in more than one place at the same time. This is what I understood.

     I asked: How can the speed of light be measured, when it is not clearly known where its particles/quanta are at the time of measurement.

225. 1. The concepts I used: void, infinity and space are not "something" but concepts only. In the example you gave
     With the box and the void, the void is not three-dimensional, it is a concept that indicates "nothing". the box (as thin as possible
     be) you can also measure in terms of mass. The void in it cannot be measured. The void is back
     indicates that there is nothing that can be measured. The void that disappeared no longer exists because by definition void means that
     "There is nothing there."
     2. All the mass that exists in the universe is not infinite, because according to the laws of physics today "the universe is expanding"
     That is: the mass - the visible and the dark - are dispersed in "space" meaning they move away from each other. (where?
     to infinity!)
     3. Is it possible to ask in terms of the big bang: "What was before the bang?" Is the term "before" defined?
     In this context? "Before" is a concept of "time" - it is the fourth dimension according to the theory of relativity.
     4. Was the fourth dimension also created in the big bang event in which the three-dimensional mass was created -
     the time? In short, the question remains: where and when in the infinite space and time was the mass created.
     5. According to the theory of relativity, energy and mass are interchangeable when the speed of light is constant and light is not
     mass. E = MC2
     6. According to one explanation, the Big Bang is the result of an event that resulted from infinite energy. you mean
     This statement, I do not understand at all the concepts I mentioned above. (Could a scenario have arisen in it
     All "infinite energy will be converted into infinite mass". (Where? In a vacuum?)
     7. The question of gravity, which is the governing force in the universe, remains open and I have yet to find someone to explain it
     him. Do quanta of gravity exist? How does gravity fit in with all the physical concepts
     the others?
     8. I am aware that all my concepts and my questions are naive and in the physics exam I would get a 0. Along with that I would expect some kind of reference especially to the basic concepts. Every new Torah begins with a naive question.

226. It's nice to have a video here from the blip (or its sequel) that this website likes to slander...
     Where is the credit for the movie?

227. A nice idea that I once came across on a TV show and I really liked it is that restorations actually form all the time, like bubbles in a glass of Coca-Cola.

228. to an anonymous user,
     I found no contradictions in what you wrote. First of all why is a void 0 dimensional? If I take a box and suck all the air out of it, the empty space inside will still have 3 dimensions. Besides, where does a real void exist? After all, space is full of particles, dark matter, antimatter and other kinds of strange things that cannot be seen but they exist. There really isn't a void. Regarding infinity, a sphere or a ring, for example, can be considered infinite, since you can go to their length and never reach the end. (There are theories according to which the universe is spherical).
     They also found the Higgs particle if I'm not mistaken (or at least proved its existence with a high probability?).

     I would appreciate it if you could explain more precisely what you meant (if I missed it).

229. I am not a physicist and I read the article about Einstein and the fourth dimension. I know that they are still looking for the Higgs particle and according to Steve Hawkins it all started with a big bang.. As a complete ignoramus I allow myself to present my own mistakes.
     Let's touch the dimensions we live in. Whether these are 3 or 4, they indicate "there is". Maybe you should start with dimension 0. The void is 0-dimensional and here you start with a dilemma: the second main thing to say about the void is that it is infinite. This is where I got confused. Empty is "nothing" and infinity may be "everything" and in fact they were-you. And now the question arises: "Is the "is" stuck somewhere in the 0-dimensional infinite void? In physics we can ask: "where" and "when" 4-dimensional? In this reality we exist, on the other hand in the infinite void this question has no place, yet there is existence - there is, there is. If "there is" it had time and place within the void, then it was manifested in the "big bang" or the "Higgs" particle. This is a contradiction that no physical theory can answer. It will remain in the realm of the philosophy of existence within nothingness.

230. A very interesting article (although I already knew the ideas presented in it and I had also seen the video before). Looking forward to the next article.

231. to Nir Lahav,
     An article that is structured really nicely, and also the video.

This site uses Akismat to prevent spam messages. Click here to learn how your response data is processed.