The happiness of more than 18,000 people from all over the world is predicted through a simple equation, which shows that the immediate and momentary happiness we experience in our day-to-day lives does not reflect our degree of success, but how much more we succeeded than we expected
Towards the end of the 18th century, the great British philosopher Jeremy Bentham began outlining the basis for the future reformed society he envisioned. It was one of many attempts by intellectuals and sects throughout history, from Plato to Goel Retzon, to re-create society and the state in a way that they thought was the most appropriate and worthy. Attempts of this kind, at least the reasoned ones, are based on several guiding principles. For the dictators, it is clear that the guiding principle is self-preservation and increasing and purifying the self - and on the condition that they represent the same 'self'. Bentham's principle was more complex and egalitarian, and is known today under the name "The Greatest Happiness Principle".
Bentham's greatest happiness principle states that man's goal is always to increase his own happiness, and the goal of the state should therefore focus on increasing the happiness of its citizens. And as the philosopher described in his work "A Fragment on Government" -
"Then a contract was fixed, so it is said, by the people and the king: its details were as follows. The people, for their part, promised to obey the king. The king, for his part, promised to reign over the people in such a way that would always serve their happiness."
This is all well and good, but we understand human psychology better today than we did in Bentham's day. We mainly know that happiness is not an absolute thing, and that the happiness of one person and the factors leading to it are not necessarily similar to the happiness of another. A poor person who finds an envelope containing a hundred dollars on the street, for example, may dance with joy, while a millionaire who finds a similar envelope may throw it back on the floor. Moreover, the way to achieve the happiness of one may harm the happiness of the other. Most of us will surely agree that it is better for the state not to support a person who derives satisfaction and happiness from harming others.
These and other reasons led to the fact that Bentham's theory is not sufficient for the establishment of a state and society by itself. We do not understand happiness enough, and we do not know how to quantify the happiness of one compared to the happiness of the other. We are today in a place similar to that of the ancient Greeks, before they understood how to make basic engineering calculations that would help them plan buildings and towers. As long as our understanding of happiness relies on intuitions only, and not on quantitative equations, we cannot plan and engineer the society that will increase the happiness of the individual and the general happiness.
But we are on our way there.
[In a footnote, it should be noted that Bentham himself realized that it is not possible to be satisfied with a superficial definition of happiness alone, and therefore added a list of other parameters around happiness, such as the intensity of happiness, its duration, the certainty of receiving it, proximity to it, and so on]
"The greatest wealth is to scatter your enemy before you. To see his cities turn to dust and ashes, to see his lovers shed tears, and to bring his wives and daughters into your bosom." - Genghis Khan demonstrates how the principle of greatest happiness can be applied in a very wrong way.
The equation that predicts happiness
In recent years, there have been many studies that tried to understand how the individual's level of happiness increases or decreases in response to events from everyday life. Most of these studies were qualitative in nature - that is, they produced insights that were easy to put into words, but without significant quantification of the impact on happiness, or an attempt to create a mathematical model of human happiness. This state of affairs is beginning to change, among other things due to the sophistication of research tools and the ability to test possible models on a large number of people. In this way, the 'momentary happiness equation' that was published last week in the prestigious academic journal Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences came into being.
The equation was developed during a study that examined the relationship between happiness and rewards, and the neural mechanisms that are activated when receiving a reward and make us feel happy. Until now, we knew that life events affect an individual's happiness, but we didn't know exactly how happy people would be from one moment to the next in their day-to-day lives, and based on the decisions they make and their consequences.
The new equation quantitatively predicts how happy people will claim to be based on past events they've experienced, such as rewards they've received, and their expectations about the reward. It is, in fact, a mathematical model of individual happiness.
How do you build such a model?
Building the happiness model
Surprisingly, the 'happiness equation' was not developed as a result of a study conducted on a large number of people and tried to quantify all their whims, but following a preliminary study on only 26 subjects. The subjects participated in a decision-making game in which they had to bet different amounts of money, with a certain chance of winning or losing real money (in sterling!). Between each decision and its results, the players were asked to rate their current level of happiness. Based on the results, the scientists built a computational model that describes how happiness (at least that reported by the participants) is related to rewards and expectations.
A study involving twenty-six people may be considered a multi-participant study in neurology, but it is clear that no insights can be derived from it about humanity as a whole. Therefore, with the aim of expanding the research and verifying its results on a wider scale, the researchers developed a smartphone application known as the "Big Brain Experiment". Citizens of the entire world were invited to download the application, try the decision-making games and rate the happiness they experienced. The game was distributed for free for iPhones and Android (you are welcome to download and play in the attached links), and during the trial period, approximately 18,420 people from around the world took part in the relevant game. The researchers waited anxiously for the results, with the big question in front of their eyes: Is it possible that an equation formulated based on only 26 people, will also describe the fluctuations in the happiness of almost twenty-thousand players?
The answer, surprisingly or not, is positive. The model that worked for a few tens, was also suitable for a few tens of thousands. It can be said, broadly and in a rough generalization, that people are similar enough around the world to fall under the same model of happiness.
the road to happiness
What, then, is the path to happiness according to the new model?
Due to the fact that the model is mathematical in nature and described with quantitative tools, I encounter difficulty in explaining the insights in any way that does not sound clichéd or self-evident. The real importance of the research lies in the quantification of happiness and the factors leading to it, and not in insights that can be described in simple words. Most of these were already known before the research.
Still, it is worth expanding in a few words on the main insight of the study. Prof. Andrew Oswald, an expert in economics and happiness (but was not involved in the current study), explained this point to the BBC News website. According to Oswald, "the main insight is that the immediate feeling of happiness depends on the size of the difference between what you achieve, and what you expect to achieve."
It is easy to explain this insight with examples from reality. Imagine that you are invited to a job interview at one of the most advanced companies in its field on the market. This company desperately needs you to fill a critical position, and you know that the previous person who filled the position received a salary of NIS 30,000 per month. The interviewer offers you a salary of NIS 20,000 only. This amount is still twice as high as the average wage in the economy, and most workers in Israel will grab the offer immediately with both hands.
And what will be your response? Since you expected to receive a much higher salary, you are going to be insulted, and your level of happiness will drop significantly as a result of the shattering of expectations on the slates of reality. This means that the immediate feeling of happiness is relative: it does not depend on your objective achievements, but on the early expectations you had regarding those achievements. Henry Louis Menken already wrote about this that - "a rich man is the one who earns a hundred dollars more a year than his sister-in-law's husband".
"We expected to see that recently received rewards would affect the level of momentary happiness," explains the leader of the study, Rob Routledge from University College London. "But we were surprised to find out how important expectations were in determining happiness. In real-world situations, the rewards that come from life decisions, such as starting a new job or getting married, often do not materialize for a long period of time, and our results suggest that it is the expectations associated with these decisions, for better or worse, that greatly influence happiness."
And thus, in the end, the main insights of the research are summed up: in a simple statement, that as soon as it is quantifiable, we can start relying on it in the engineering of systems and services for humans.
Can we be satisfied with what we have?
The future of happiness
This research is only one step on the way to formulating a much more comprehensive model of human happiness. Such a mathematical model will be one of the most important scientific developments of humanity, because it will add the happiness parameter to the list of quantifiable parameters, and will allow us to treat it in a balanced and serious way. mathematically.
Mathematics is known as the 'queen of the sciences', and not for nothing. It allows us to describe the world around us simply and efficiently, and to provide information about the present and the future. Using mathematical models of gravity and other physical principles, the Iron Dome system is able to launch missiles so precise that they will hit another missile miles away. Through the use of mathematical models that incorporate insights from the theory of relativity, the GPS system cross-checks the messages coming from satellites around the earth, and provides information regarding the user's location. Thanks to mathematical and physical models that combine information about the properties of materials and their strengths, we can design bridges and buildings with a light and strong structure.
And what can we do when we have a model of human happiness?
As I wrote at the beginning of the article, such a model could reshape human society, in a process that may require many generations to complete. Today's democratic countries operate according to a qualitative model (that is, without quantitative and calculable weightings) in an attempt to increase the level of human happiness of their citizens. The general desire to increase happiness is reminiscent of Bentham's original ideas, plus other principles that have been added since his time.
But how can we serve people's happiness, if we don't know what makes them happy? Apparently, every layman and every idiot knows what the essence of happiness is. If a man is asked on the street what would make him happy, for example, he might reply that a large sum of money falling into his lap would make him happy. But how much money should be given to that person to make him happy? And would he be as happy if the money came to him by chance, or through a government official? The answers to these questions cannot be waved of hands or rely on flawed human intuition. They must come from a quantitative understanding of the happiness we 'give' to each person, compared to the happiness we deprive others (in the form of their tax money and other ways). A mathematical model of individual happiness can help us formulate a public policy in which we strive to maximize the happiness of each person, with minimal damage to the happiness of others. The process of formulating this type of policy will take a long time, perhaps generations, but it can begin today.
Does a future in which the government operates based on mathematical models to 'engineer' the level of happiness of the population sound very distant from the present to you? Well, it is possible, but you should take into account that the future often comes faster than expected, and fundamentally changes our perceptions (and more precisely, the perceptions of our children and grandchildren) regarding the accepted social order. But even if you are skeptical about such a future, you will surely agree that a mathematical model of happiness can already have uses in contemporary reality.
A good example of the current use of the happiness model is presented in the article itself by the researchers. Imagine that you are the representatives of an airline, who have to inform the passengers that the next flight will be delayed for a whole hour. You know that the announcement will be met with the outcry of Ruthin and the fury of the passengers. In this case, you only have to consult the mathematical model to understand how it is possible to increase the level of happiness of the passengers. In their article, the researchers provide a possible answer to the dilemma based on the results of the model -
“[It will be possible]… to use negative anticipation enough to create a positive emotional response out of a negative event. For example, a message about a flight delay of one hour, which is preceded by a message stating that there is a fifty percent chance of a delay of six hours, should, according to our model, have an overall positive effect on the average passenger."
I am not trying to recommend that the airlines start exaggerating their reports of flight delays, of course, and the researchers also admit that this type of announcement may have other negative consequences for the airline. However, it seems to me that it is clear how a model of happiness can help companies, public bodies, and even computer game programmers to understand how they can adapt their products and services so that they increase the level of happiness of the individual who uses them, or reduce as much as possible the damage to their happiness.
Obstacles on the way to happiness
Throughout the current record I have promised greatness and success based on the model of happiness developed by researchers, but it must be admitted that this model is still very limited by nature. First, it deals only with the type of happiness known as "Momentary Happiness" which comes as an immediate response to situations in everyday life. It is not yet clear what the connection is between "momentary happiness" and general happiness throughout life. It seems likely that the general happiness at the end of the day and at the end of the year is influenced and even determined by those 'small doses of happiness' that are distributed every hour to people, but there is still no proven direct connection between the two.
Second, the formulated model relies on results obtained from a simple computer game, in which the reactions of the players to bets with a clear positive or negative outcome are examined. Can such a game simulate the enormous complexity of life? I believe so, but it is clear that this is still only a relatively simplistic model, which breaks down the complexity of life into basic questions of profit, loss, and chances of success in gambling.
Thirdly, is the model suitable for all people wherever they are? Is it suitable for members of foreign cultures and different ways of thinking, such as the people of the Far East, or tribes in Papua New Guinea? Is it specifically suitable for me? The researchers did not mention in the study how many of the players in the application came from different countries and cultures. I tend to believe that the basic equation of happiness applies to all of us, but the values of the constants in the equation will certainly vary according to the individual and according to the culture from which he comes.
Last but not least, and perhaps the most important from a social point of view and looking to the future: given that the model will be perfected in the future, isn't there a danger of misusing the understanding of the human soul? Happiness, or the lack of happiness, have until today been primary factors in rebellion against governments, social protests or consumer boycotts. The lack of happiness was the compass in the hands of the citizens and consumers, which helped them to understand whether they should resist the demands, the prices and the rules imposed on them. What will happen when governments and companies can re-engineer society to give each person a sense of happiness that will be just enough to prevent them from rebelling? And is this such a bad thing, given that the people in that hypothetical future society may be very happy - and certainly may be more - than the people living in modern society today? Is there a difference between 'artificial' happiness, which comes from the fact that our environment has been engineered to make us happy, and 'real' happiness, which comes from overcoming the difficulties of the environment or winning a bet on our own?
All these are questions for the distant future... or not. Some would say that the communication technologies that exist today, such as Facebook and television, provide exactly this kind of momentary happiness, which makes you draw into it and experience a certain satisfaction minute by minute. This satisfaction is not great, but it is more than enough to keep you glued to the screen. And now the question should be asked that I will leave you to answer - in your head and in your heart, or in the comments:
Is this the happiness you want?
49 תגובות
*Now 🙂
Sorry
Uri, a mortal like you!
Click on the name of a pen, and all your searching will be over. Because what you wanted, I found it.
And that's because I love you so much 🙂
Thanks - the formula looks different from my model (I still don't have an explanation about the meaning of the variables) but the summary touches on similar points and therefore it is interesting.
I will try to get the full article.
[Second attempt]
Ori,
If you click on my name you will find the formula for happiness! According to the original study (I'm almost certain that this eraser was meant by the poet)
And here you can see the formula without registration :)
http://qz.com/245275/this-is-the-mathematical-formula-for-happiness/
Now we just have to wait for them to confirm the response full of links
Ori,
If you click on my name you will find the formula for happiness! According to the original study (I'm almost certain that this eraser was meant by the poet)
And here you can see the formula without registration :)
http://qz.com/245275/this-is-the-mathematical-formula-for-happiness/
Now we just have to wait for them to confirm the response full of links
I would love to receive the data from the original publication of "The equation that predicts happiness". In 2010 I formulated a model with equations that seemed similar to me and offered to publish it in the Jurnal of Happiness Studies but it was rejected. From the description in the article I find many points of similarity and I am curious to see the original publication.
Albantezo, she asked.
If there are 4 entangled states, then how can we know in an aspect experiment which entangled state the quantum particle is in? If I understood correctly, he was checking the percentage mismatches in the polarizations of the entangled photons. Since the resulting graph is cosine and not zigzag typical of hidden variables, the Bell inequality was violated and a correlation with quantum non-locality was obtained.
But it depends on the photons being in one of the 4 entanglement states, isn't it? Or maybe we will do a statistical weighting of all 4 situations?
Regarding studying - in an ideal world you are of course right. In our world, where you have to work to earn a living, raise a family, etc., then you try to make the best of what you have. I have no pretensions to understand relativity or quanta beyond what is taught for the bachelor's degree in physics (almost nothing) and I have no possibility, at the age of 57, to sit down now and study in a thorough and in-depth manner all that is required to specialize.
Things don't work out for me in understanding relativity, so I ask questions. So far I have not received answers that made me understand the point, on the contrary. From the experts I spoke with, I received different and contradictory answers, which shows that we all forget some of the material after a certain time.
At the time I did not understand how a phenomenon like non-locality in quantum entanglement could exist. That's why I spent time and thought until I was convinced of the correctness of the phenomenon. (And I still don't agree with you or Ehud that in interlacing no information passes between the interlaced particles in 0 time). I am not yet at this stage in the contradiction that exists in my opinion between the relative time of relativity and the absolute time that I think derives from the big bang theory. Of course if I am convinced I will stop asking and nagging. The "active site theory" is based on a different interpretation of postulate 2, which to me makes no less sense than the relativity of time and space, and explains in a good way certain quantum phenomena (effect on the past for example as in the link I provided).
Is the interpretation correct? Probably not. Advantage: it can be tested experimentally. That's what I'm working on now, but it's not easy.
So in your FDA example, until I have at least 1000 out of 1000 proven cases of cancer healing, I won't even ask to check if there is anything in the drug. Until then, I will continue to ask non-binding questions and hold non-binding discussions on blogs for enthusiasts, from which, by the way, you can learn quite a bit.
To finish with a logic puzzle, which I hope will clarify my point about the absolute time:
According to Einstein in 1905, if 2 spaceships arrive on opposite sides of a distant planet after a long flight on different trajectories and at different speeds and accelerations, they will not be able to synchronize a coordinated simultaneous attack on the same planet without establishing contact between them or using supercomputers, and this is because of the loss of synchronization between their clocks. The gap between the clocks of the spacecraft can reach years.
Will they be able to do this (simultaneous attack) using the physical knowledge that exists today and did not exist in 1905?
As a reminder, it is forbidden to turn on a walkie-talkie to synchronize the shared time of both. It is allowed to use any other equipment, which for the purpose of the riddle will be as accurate as we want.
(miracles, Einstanzo, Shmulik, Mazam, mirror, not revealing).
Israel,
It is true that if two electrons are intertwined then measuring the spin of one will tell us for sure what the spin of the other is - but this is only the result depending on the specific state of entanglement! In the simplest systems, which are only two-state (like an electron spin that is up or down), there are 4 possible entangled states:
a = up*up + down*down
b = up*up – down*down
c=up*down + down*up
d=up*down – down*up
Obviously, for each of the situations, if I tell you what I measured in the first, you know what happens in the second. But if you're just measuring the first one and don't know what state the pair is in, then the fact that they're intertwined doesn't help you at all... you'll have no idea what the result of the second one will be. And of course, the more complex the system, the more possible intertwined states there are (4 is the minimum).
I completely accept your claim that to get a doctor's prescription you don't have to be a doctor, but according to the impression I got (which may be wrong) this analogy is not close to describing reality. You're not just someone who asks a question because he doesn't understand - you spend a lot of time in forums and discussions with professional physicists, send emails, invest time, money and effort in conducting experiments, and try to promote alternative theories because you think you recognize fundamental problems in the existing theories (remember something on a website...). To me it doesn't sound like someone who wants to get a prescription, to me it sounds like someone who is trying to get FDA approval for a new drug and convince the Ministry of Health to put it in the basket instead of an existing drug. And with such a person, you need to do the research.
And finally - again, I really don't want to hurt or insult, so I hope you will accept the criticism in the spirit in which it was given - even in universities that fall short of Stanford (such as Weizmann, Tel Aviv, the Hebrew University, and the Technion), it is impossible for a master's degree student who does not know that there are 4 Bell modes , who does not know how to show that entanglement cannot be used to transmit information faster than light, or that a subsystem cannot be maximally entangled with more than one subsystem at the same time (the meaning is of course a student from the field of quantum elements or high energies, obviously there are students from unrelated fields who did not know these things, such as an astronomy student who is engaged in measuring supernovae). So if you took a course in information or weaving and you didn't cover those things, the course doesn't come close to the level needed from a graduate student, or even an undergraduate. Probably a popular science course.
Albentezo.
Of course, if there are 4 possible interlacing modes, the method will not work. To my previous understanding, when 2 electrons are intertwined, then by measuring the spin of one we can always know the spin of the other, and therefore we would get the same spin in electrons 1 and 4 in all 1000 pairs in the z axis for example.
I don't understand what challenge you are talking about. I asked a question, and I said in advance that it leads to a paradoxical result and of course there is a mistake in it.
Your recommendation to go study is well and good, but I don't believe I have to sit and study for 4 years to ask a question. Your eyes see that your answer solves the problem and for that thank you.
But I have no intention of going to study medicine to get a prescription from the doctor, or study law to sign a contract. For this there are experts, whom you should ask. Stanford's online interweaving course is certainly sufficient for my needs, and is above and beyond what is required of physics graduate students as well.
I would be happy if you stayed, you have excellent knowledge and understanding and we definitely need experts on site. But I respect your decision, and thank you for the relevant responses.
Mr. Nebat, I am not saying that I am a great sage, but I have experience in returning time, even if my knowledge came from directions and worlds where I did not discover my knowledge myself
Water blowing
Your rattles don't taste good. You were an idiot and will remain an idiot no matter how you turn back time. Your place is not in the crown count.
Now if we continue, theoretically you can deliver a message of life and death and live like that if you want Schradinger's cats. And practically I did it in a slightly different way (bringing people to life) in collaboration and there is the next world. Respectfully blowing water
Albanzo, I will explain to you your mistake, and it is twice, because Israel still gave the inaccurate explanation, to be precise, if there is a spin-up, you disconnect the interweaving and the result backwards in time is around half and a half, and if there is a spin-down, you interweave because you still have time to decide whether to connect The two and three, in short and inaccurately, you transmit seventy-five percent of information, theoretically you could connect the result in reverse and simultaneously and in frequency transmit endlessly backwards in time, only that the quality of your information will fade. And you do statistics because the explanation is that it's in parallel worlds and you go down in dimensions, therefore you "lose" some information. Keep babbling respectfully blowing water
Israel,
I will explain your mistake to you and I sincerely hope you will understand, because as I have already written quite a number of times, I really do not want to continue debating the issue. I really recommend that you just learn the subject - if you reach a level where you are able to perform the calculations (write the quantum state of the four particles, see what happens to 1 and 4 when you measure 2 and 3, etc.) you will not need forums or people . You can find out the answers yourself. And as I have already said, understanding the theory is a necessary step in challenging it. Also, you will not depend on articles for laymen that do not necessarily correctly represent physics (you can read the real article and not the article in which someone who is not a physicist at all summarizes the research for you in a few paragraphs, and it is very possible that he does not explain properly or even is completely wrong).
What I wrote in the previous comment is not entirely accurate. If 1 and 2 are intertwined with each other, and 3 and 4 are intertwined with each other, then the process of entangling 2 with 3 (by collapsing to the null state) will indeed intertwine 1 with 4. The classical communication is indeed necessary in the entanglement swapping protocol and its role is to tell us what the intertwined state of 1 and 4 is. In general, there are 4 possible interlaced states that 1 and 4 can be in and without the part of the protocol that involves classical communication, we have no idea which of the states 1 and 4 are in.
Now let's think about the experiment you propose and look at the results. We take 1000 four spins. In each quartet there is an interlaced pair 1 and 2, and an interlaced pair 3 and 4. I take all 2's and 3's and you take all 1's and 4's and we drift apart until we are at opposite ends of the universe. Before we moved away we established an agreed upon code, if I want to convey the word "yes" to you I collapse my pairs 2 and 3 into an intertwined state and if I want to convey the word "no" to you I do nothing.
Now you want to know what word I am conveying to you. You take measurements on all your pairs. You measure the first one and get that particle 1 is in spin up and particle 2 is in spin down. Is this a correlation? It is impossible to know. You don't know what the exact quantum state of the pair 1 and 4 was, so you don't know if it's a random result of two particles not being entangled, or maybe the particles are in such an entangled state that if the first is up the second must be down.
You move on to the next pair and run into the same problem. And on Tuesday too. and fourth. In each of the pairs individually there is no way to know if there is or is not a correlation. Now you are probably thinking that you could look at all 1000 pairs together and see if there is a correlation. But this is not true - because all pairs are independent. That is, suppose I wanted to give you the answer "yes" and I made a measurement on all 1000 particles 2 and 3. It's possible that your first pair collapsed into position A, and the second pair collapsed into position B, and the third into position C, etc. I mean, there's no reason for all your couples to collapse into the same situation. The very fact that I made a measurement on my side ensures that each of your pairs is intertwined with itself, but there is no correlation between the different pairs you have.
This problem has a very simple solution - I send you a classic signal that tells you which of the 4 bell pairs I got for each of the 1000 pairs. This classic letter tells you exactly how to read your result, and actually allows you to not only see the correlation but actually see the situations I had (ie teleportation). This is the full entanglement swapping protocol. In the study in question, the Hebrew researchers do not explain about the classical transmission, it is not relevant to the experiment they performed.
I hope that is clear now. If not, you'll have to fend for yourself. Successfully.
And here is my response to Prof. Elitzur:
Hello Professor Elitzur and many thanks for the answer.
The problem I see with this answer, although it is implied from many letters and also practical experiments conducted, for example:
https://www.hayadan.org.il/connecting-future-with-past-140613
She is this:
If we group electrons 1 and 4 together, we can use the measurement of their spins to find out if a measurement was made on electrons 2 and 3.
We can do this so that instead of 2 electron pairs, we will use sets that contain a large number of pairs. If in all of them there is a match between electrons 1 and 4, then on the other side a measurement was made on electrons 2 and 3, since it is unlikely that we will get a match 1000 times unless a measurement was made on the other side.
Therefore, if the other side is a light year away from the country, it is possible to transfer information to the country in almost 0 time with sets containing a large number of interlaced electrons. If you want to transfer the number 1, electrons 2 and 3 are intertwined in the set, and in Israel we will get a match in all the spins of electrons 1 and 4. If you want to transfer the number 0, you don't interlace 2 and 3 in the next set and in Israel you only get random matches that are not interlaced.
In this way, any desired information can be transmitted using a large number of sets, and in almost 0 time.
Of course, this is a paradoxical result, so I would like to know where the mistake is in the description of the experiment or in my understanding of it.
Thanks,
Israel Shapira.
In the meantime, an answer arrived from one of the blogs where I presented the question:
Physics
medicine
Mathematics
Environment studies
Geography
better
Science teaching
citizenship
כלכלה
history
laws
psychology
Bible
+ Classification of the database according to
The curriculum
+ at the science gate
> at the citizenship gate
> Expert lectures online
> Mailing list
> Signed in the guest book
> Login to registered questioners
> English
Question number 7870 - spin arrangement Date: 5/10/2014
Fields of interest: Physics
If electron 1 is intertwined with electron 2, and electron 3 is intertwined with electron 4, can we intertwine 3 and 2? If the answer is yes, does that mean that a measurement of electron spin 1 will be correlated with electron spin 4? Are there any restrictions? Is it possible, for example, to intertwine 1 and 2 first, then 3 and 4, then separate 2 and 3, intertwine them, and then obtain a correlation between the spins of 1 and 4? Is there a distance limit?
Thanks.
Answer by: Prof. Shmuel Elitzur
Peace
The answer to all questions is positive. It is possible to measure the sum of spins 2 and 3. After the measurement, all four electrons are intertwined, that is, if the result of the measurement is that the sum of the spins of electrons 2 and 3 is, for example, 1, then either all z components of the spins of all four electrons are positive or they are all negative. If we then measure the z component of the spin of electron 4 and find it positive, then necessarily the spin component of electron 1 is also positive. In principle, you can move electrons 1 and 4 away from each other before measuring the sum of the spins of electrons 2 and 3, and then this measurement will produce a correlation between electrons that are far apart. All this provided that during the measurement and removal process there will be no interaction of the spin of the electrons with the environment. This condition is a considerable experimental challenge.
Prof. Shmuel Elitzur
Rekh Institute of Physics
The Hebrew University
What does it mean that one is intertwined with four, it means that information can pass from one to four, and from four to one. What does it mean that one disappeared before four was created, it means that one is ahead of four in time and that's it
Saying and chattering endlessly I don't care, that information can be transferred back in time. Good day and with respect blowing water
albentezo,
The link I provided regarding the interweaving at a distance of 25 km is also written like this:
But the scientists discovered that the information from that third photon wasn't actually destroyed, but had in fact been transferred into the crystal containing the second entangled photon. Their results are published in Nature Photonics.
Was one photon entangled with two photons at once? According to what is written, this result seems to have surprised the researchers.
Miracles
Lets wrap things up with Albantezo so I can get back to the game teleporting in the past.
Albentezo.
The SPACE-TIME diagram in the article shows that photons 3 and 4 were born in stage 3 when t=tai. The interweaving between photons 2 and 3 is done later in step 4, or between steps 3 and 4, it is difficult to understand from the diagram.
The article is not about any kind of classical communication, and it is also difficult to assume that this exists according to the description of the experiment.
It seems to me that if, instead of destroying photon 1, they would bring it close to photon 4 that is entwined with it, it is possible to send information from the place where photons 2 and 3 are entwined to the place where photons 1 and 4 are, and this by means of entanglement only, and in zero time.
It is understood that this is a paradoxical result, so I would be happy if you could point out the place of error, in the description of the experiment or in my understanding.
Thanks.
Israel
Why didn't you come to the Maccabi game? They lost 107-80 …..
In the article it is written: "After Puton no. 1 disappears, create another pair, 3 and 4. So we do a joint measurement for photons 2 and 3, and interweave them."
It is possible that they meant that first they created the pair 1-2, then they intertwined 2 with 3, so 1 is now intertwined with 3, and finally they created 4 and intertwined it with 3, so 1 is now intertwined with 4?
If so, then everything works out. But if, as it is written, they created the pair 3-4 and then interlaced 2 with 3, and therefore an interlacing was created between 1 and 4, then a problem arises.
In order to clarify - suppose 1 and 2 are intertwined, and at the same time 3 and 4 are intertwined. It is possible to take 2 and 3 and by appropriate measurement weave them together, but then there is no longer any correlation between 1 and 2 or between 3 and 4. Also, there is no correlation between 1 and 4. A correlation between 1 and 4 can be produced with the help of a protocol called entanglement swapping, which includes a classic connection between the point where particles 2 and 3 were entwined together to the point where particle 4 sits (for example), and performing further processing at this point. That is, the mere intertwining of 2 with 3 does not intertwine 1 with 4. This is a more complex process that requires classical communication and additional measurements.
I can't understand what you are asking. Are you asking if at the end of the process 1 and 4 are intertwined? Yes. They are intertwined, but have no correlation (individually or as a pair) with 2, with 3, or with 2 and 3. All that is here is a completely standard interweaving of two particles. The only new and interesting thing is the technique (usually in order to intertwine two particles we bring them to the same point and perform some kind of simultaneous measurement on them that collapses them into an intertwined state, but in the case presented in the article it is not possible to bring the particles to the same point, so they used another technique that includes auxiliary particles).
In terms of entanglement, there is nothing new here that does not simply take place in an entanglement between two particles.
Albentazo, thanks for the response.
The purpose of the experiment in the article I brought is an interweaving between photons 1 and 4 in different time periods. According to the scripture, 1 and 4 were interwoven through 2 and 3. This is the essence of my question. It doesn't matter that the interweaving of 2 and 3 broke the interweaving between 1 and 2, and between 3 and 4 because of the monogamy of entanglement theorem. What is important is the final result: 1 intertwined with 4.
In short: if we take the pair 1-2 intertwined and the pair 3-4 intertwined, can we intertwine between 2 and 3 as written in the article?
And if the answer is positive, will 1 and 4 show correlations, even partial, in the measurement?
The fate of 2 and 3 is irrelevant.
This is nothing more than an unfortunate formulation of the reporter who wrote the article and who does not really understand quantum mechanics. If two particles are entangled with each other, and then try to entangle the second with a third particle, it automatically breaks the entanglement between the first particle and the second. If you read the article itself, it is clarified there that what the researchers did is a well-known process called entanglement swapping, in which an intermediary particle is used to intertwine between two end particles. In this particular case, use intermediary particles 2 and 3, to interweave 1 and 4 which are separated space-like (this is the point of the article). At no point is a particle intertwined with more than one other particle.
By the way, monogamy of entanglement is a mathematical theorem - it has nothing to do with physics. I mean, it has a very important connection, but it is proved in a completely mathematical way for any algebraic space that can be written as a tensor product of two subspaces (the theorem analyzes the degree of sparibility of product states). There is not a single basic premise or axiom or conception here (beyond the mathematical axioms, of course) - the algebraic structure that was named "interlacing" cannot exist between more than two subsystems.
I'm sorry, I'm not interested in answering relationship questions. I have no time for that and the truth is that it is also very difficult for me to imagine a situation where such a discussion does not turn into unpleasant situations, based on past experience. There are more than enough books, internet sources, and courses that can provide you with the answers you are looking for.
Einstein happy new year, may we all keep our heads and not wag our tails.
Albentazo, thanks for the relevant response.
In the link I brought to Nisim it says:
"They first created one pair of entangled photons, we will call them 1 and 2. After photon no. 1 disappears, create another pair, 3 and 4. So a joint measurement is made for photons 2 and 3, and interweaved between them. Thus, in fact, entanglement is also formed between photons 1 and 4, although 4 is formed only after no. 1 no longer existed."
Apart from the lack of time overlap between photons 1 and 4, this is about interweaving between photons 1 and 4 using photons 2 and 3.
That's exactly the question I posed, isn't it?
So why "the answer is clearly "no". If 1 and 2 are intertwined, neither of them can be intertwined at all with any other particle in the world"? After all, it is written in the commentary that 2 is intertwined with 3, isn't it?
I also presented the question to Prof. Hagai Eisenberg, the editor of the study, but I would love to hear from you about the difference between the two cases.
Regarding relativity, I would really appreciate it if you could explain to me where my basic misunderstanding is. I always claim that I probably don't understand something, and that's why I ask questions.
At the time I presented the "Twin Paradox" to several experts. I received many contradictory answers, and the only one that is in line with the answer of relativity is the answer of Prof. Granot. The problem is that this answer also leads, in my opinion, to secondary paradoxes, as I tried to show to Garnet.
Could you try some relativity questions so I can maybe understand where my mistake is?
Bonus: you have carte blanche to use as much crude and graphic language as you like.
Israel
Happy holidays and happy new year.
You forgot to show them this too:
https://www.hayadan.org.il/fat-photon-in-weizmann-1605102
Albenz sev beseket , yoter tov lo tedber stouot
In modern physics, the degree of intertwining of two subsystems is not a binary quantity, "intertwined" or "unintertwined". There are quantitative means to express how much space there is between them. Usually the scale is normalized between 0 and log2, where 0 indicates two systems that have no non-local correlation between them at all, and log2 (the maximum size) is called maximum interlacing and it indicates full correlation. All the interweaving you've talked about so far (bell pairs) are private cases of full interweaving.
The monogamy of entanglement theorem puts a limit on the amount of entanglement a subsystem can sustain. Specifically, if a subsystem is maximally entwined with another subsystem, it can no longer have any non-local coherence with any other subsystem.
So the answer is clearly "no". If 1 and 2 are entangled, neither of them can be entangled at all with any other particle in the world.
And now for the part you're not going to like. As I said before, I really don't want to fight. So try to read the text in the tone in which it was written, without insulting or getting into ego games.
The things I wrote above are really super basic in information theory. Despite your claims that you studied the material somewhere in California, it is quite evident that you have huge and fundamental holes in the understanding of quantum information (and also of the theory of relativity). Don't you honestly think that if you're going to go out and challenge some of the most basic building blocks of theoretical physics today, you should at least learn a little about what it says? You really don't think that your lack of understanding of the theory and your inability to sit down and do the calculations or reproduce the proofs for all the theorists' claims, maybe indicates that you just don't understand something in physics?
Good luck later. I hope you are not offended. I have no intention of dragging into an argument, so it is unlikely that I will answer.
Sorry, the name, Lev Vaidman – Can Future Measurements Affect the Present
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=d67qzsd7IVM&feature=youtube_gdata_player
Love vidman
My words reflect righteousness and righteousness, the end of a good signature, you bunch of unbelievers, at the Siata D'Shemiya we finished D'Zum.
Nissim - 3, 4, 100 poles - still does not answer my question.
Shmulik - my happiness depends on the answer. If you read the article, Aliba D'Genghis Khan there is only one joy - joy for Eid. Happiness is just the second derivative of a success/expectations graph.
It reminds me of the period of robbery and robbery in blackjack that my wife and I did before the child broke out. We come back from Vegas with me all smiles and a bitter wife in tears.
A woman - they tell her - we spent 3 wonderful days in a luxurious suite, we ate in the best restaurants, we saw wonderful shows, all for free - and we also earned $10,000. So what's the whining about?
True - sobs a woman - but we already had $50,000!
And this is the same woman who, when I told her that if you fly close to the speed of light, time lengthens and you stay young, expressed her desire to fly close to the speed of light. Then when I mentioned that we are both heavy and short, she suddenly changed her mind.
So go figure it out ladies!
My opinion on the mathematics of happiness as presented in the article is that it ignores the physics of psychology - psychomechanics in the language of the crowd, and its most basic law - the second law of psychomechanics, the law of increasing entropy in closed psychomechanical systems such as
Therefore, no matter what methods we use, the amount of general happiness divided by the number of residents cannot increase. As in a closed thermodynamic system, the entropy does not decrease by itself (except in rare cases) and the only way to decrease it is the addition of external energy - without an external source of psychomechanical energy, the DHA - which is a closed psychomechanical system - will not be able to decrease its psychomechanical entropy. Therefore, contrary to the song from "Hair" - worldly peace and happiness will never prevail, and it will not help if the moon rises in the seventh house and Mars and Jupiter appear as one person in the row.
If the answer to the question I asked is positive - and this is what is indirectly implied from the many links you have provided in the last two years - this means that relativity is dead.
Will it make me happy? Maybe. But many others will cry, according to Gali Weinstein.
Entropy never decreases.
Albantezo - I thought and hoped that we had paid, so why a nightmare?
I would appreciate it if you could answer the question I posed. It was presented in 5 other blogs, and the answer is essential for the regular and ongoing existence of the universe.
Happy new year to everyone.
albentezo,
I didn't mean for him to renew the confrontation, but to understand what is new 🙂
Thanks.
Shmulik,
I'm not going to go back to that nightmare. Just saying that the current innovation is the distance to which they were able to teleport - but it is still exactly the same teleportation that we know and know how to perform and it is of course completely consistent with private relativity and is not faster than the speed of light. In the original article in which we discussed the subject, I explained as I imagined the subject of quantum teleportation, how it is carried out and why it is completely consistent with the theory of relativity (and of course all this is completely verified in the laboratory as well).
Albentezo, Israel
At the time there was a discussion between you regarding the interweaving. Does what is described in the following link constitute a scientific or technological breakthrough "only"?
http://www.sciencealert.com.au/news/20142209-26214-2.html
Israel, I assume that the connection between the article and what you asked Nissim is that if there is an answer, will you be happy?
Israel
I read the link. It is not clear to me how the photon disappeared... I also do not understand how to weave between particles as described there.
I do know that one measurement cancels the result of a previous measurement. You must be familiar with the experiment if 3 polarizers, right?
Miracles
But why can't you take 2 and 3 to a dark corner and intertwine them there in hiding?
See
https://www.hayadan.org.il/connecting-future-with-past-140613
Israel
When fasting becomes hungry. I don't like being hungry.
I don't think you can intertwine 2 and 3. As far as I understand, fusion happens when the particles start at the same point. I don't understand much…
On the other hand - here is an example of interweaving without quanta. The Earth and the Moon rotate around a common point (about 1700 km below sea level). If I measure the exact position of the earth - then immediately (at time 0) I will know the exact position of the moon.
Miracles
A few minutes of your time for burning headquarters matters. (Why are you fasting?)
If electron 1 is intertwined with electron 2, and electron 3 is intertwined with electron 4, can we intertwine 3 and 2?
If the answer is yes, does that mean that a measurement of electron spin 1 will be correlated with electron spin 4?
Are there any restrictions? Is it possible, for example, to intertwine 1 and 2 first, then 3 and 4, then separate 2 and 3, intertwine them, and then obtain a correlation between the spins of 1 and 4?
Thanks.
Miracles,
First of all, I don't believe any data that comes from Iran - for obvious reasons. And regarding Europe, I promise to check the data again.
If you re-read the examples I gave for Osher - you will see that they are written in the masculine.
Measuring happiness by winning at cards is manly. And maybe it's one man's idea. Women think differently about different life situations. But really, this is not the place to get into the differences in the types of thinking.
And finally, good night and a quiet Saturday.
her daughter
Let's assume you are right (there are more in Poland, also in Belgium) - there are more suicides in Israel than in Iran (and I think Israel ignores suicides in the army). Do you still think this is a reliable measure?
Again - all I'm saying is trying to scientifically help people be happier. Don't forget that half of the people are men, who don't know what happiness is - according to you 🙂
Miracles,
The percentage of suicides in Finland is greater than in any other country in Europe, and it is about dozens of suicides per year. There is no special happiness in Finland. Finland has a high standard of living, but it is not a measure of happiness. And as I wrote, moments of happiness cannot be measured. Happiness is not a standard of living.
As a scientific site, it is desirable to have a correct reference to concepts here, even if the concepts are mostly philosophers.
her daughter
I think most people would agree that people are happier in Finland than in Israel. Therefore, in my opinion, it is worth checking what are the reasons for this. And in order to test, one must first find a way to quantify what is being tested.
So here is a way... what's wrong with that?
How manly is it to measure happiness by a game of cards or money. Winning a card game is a feeling of victory - and victory is not happiness.
Happiness cannot be measured. Happiness is the moment when you see your child walking for the first time, and happiness is also the feeling when you realize that the one you love - loves you too. And there are other moments like that. Moments that cannot be quantified or measured, unless a person is attached to a device that measures the body's reactions.
A country can and should provide its citizens with an adequate life - it is impossible to live happily all the time. And it is already known that money above a certain level does not add anything to happiness.
And by the way, also the knowledge that the waiting time has shortened - this is not happiness, it is simply a relief in life.
And in short it means that if you look at what you have and not at what you don't have - you will always be satisfied. And that is certainly enough to live a good life.
Happiness and self-worth go hand in hand. Self-worth is gained when you live in a warm and loving home as a small child. During life you will feel complete with yourself and experience lasting happiness and therefore you will not need momentary happiness as indicated in the article. Momentary happiness is destructive because it creates addiction. And addiction creates resentment because you don't have the happiness, you are resentful. In conclusion, we need to be a more social country that advocates more egalitarianism and less liberalism, most of which enhances the experience of immediate gratification. We will be a society where more educated people will receive a better education and therefore be able to give warmth and love to their children at home because they will not feel deprived and frustrated. An example of this are countries like Sweden, Norway and Denmark where people testify to satisfaction and happiness.
Drugula
You have your own opinion, which is probably based on 3 minutes of thought. There is an article here about extensive research.
With what audacity do you even call an article nonsense?
Bunch of a lot of nonsense in one article.
The way to happiness is to get everything a person wants (not only in terms of money and possessions)
It has no mathematical solution, no mathematical approximation, no numbers at all
As Nir Golan said - "I would leave happiness as a philosophical scale"
Enough to complicate the matter
It's fine to study happiness, but who said that happiness is even a value that should be striven for? Perhaps as hinted at the end of the article, happiness is a parameter whose absence should lead to action and if we are happy the action will not take place? Maybe happiness is just a lofty ideal that should always be striven for, but once we get there, we'll stop improving?
In short, I would not attach much importance to the research, and I would leave happiness as a philosophical yardstick.