What is the meaning of time in quantum theory? According to a calculation by Prof. Eli Pollack of the Weizmann Institute of Science, the amount of time it takes for a quantum particle to pass through an opaque barrier is, well, zero.
Proteins are long molecular chains that function when folded in space in a precise structure. From time to time these three-dimensional structures are dismantled, the molecular chain opens - and then returns and folds again. The distribution of the elapsed time when the prome protein folds, or vice versa, has already been measured in the past, since the theory required to describe this distribution is based on classical mechanics. but Prof. Eli Polak, from the Department of Chemical Physics at the Weizmann Institute of Science, decided to try to understand if it is possible to measure the duration of the transition between different states also within the framework of quantum mechanics, a question that raises another old question: what is the meaning of time in quantum theory?
Prof. Polk showed that in order to answer this basic question one must ask - and answer - what is the probability that at a certain time the system will move from one quantum state to another quantum state. One of the fascinating quantum phenomena in this context is the tunneling phenomenon: a quantum particle can penetrate and pass through an opaque barrier. Therefore, it is intriguing to know how long it takes for the quantum particle to tunnel (that is, to pass through the physical barrier). Prof. Polk calculated this process and proved that the average time required to change the quantum state in systems that exist at sufficiently low temperatures is - zero. That is, the change takes place in zero time. The continuation of the same calculation showed that, sometimes, the greater the distance the system travels for the change, the shorter the time required for this.
"These results bring us closer to understanding the place and role of time in systems that operate according to the laws of quantum theory"
Another development from the same calculation led Prof. Polk to another surprising result: in such systems it is possible to calculate and find the almost exact position of a particle in motion. In other words, it is a significant reduction of the uncertainty described in the famous uncertainty principle coined in 1927 by Werner Heisenberg, the Nobel Prize-winning German physicist. These calculations Included in the articles thatpublished recently Prof. Polk in the scientific journals Journal of Physical Chemistry Letters and-Physical Review Letters. In light of these findings, Prof. Polk says that these results bring us closer to understanding the place and role of time in systems that operate according to the laws of quantum theory.
36 תגובות
Hello to you all,
This is a discussion from 2017, so I am addressing you from the future (January 03.01.2021, XNUMX)...
I check with you my own thoughts:
1. The universe is not "power lines" but a "sea", and eddies of the space-time itself are the explanation for the problem of the "missing" motion of the galaxies.
2. If the speed of light is maximal in the natural law of space divided by time - then the expression of "time divided by space" has a minimum.
3. The relation "time divided by space" expresses the "curvature of space" geometrically, and the minimum is the perfect straight line.
4. The maximum speed is the minimum rigidity in time space = the straight line.
5. The "straight" minimum also oscillates - everything oscillates.
6. The way to "overcome" gravity is to cloud it.
And when a man named Yehuda writes here - with pleasure, with forgiveness from you 🙂
Thanks.
Yoda rest night, gas dreams (come up).
To Israel
I didn't think about radiation. I can do without radiation, and William (Ockham) will be pleased if I don't introduce another factor into the theory, but again, it might be worth giving it another thought.
Good night
Yehuda
Yoda
It may be that around the sun there is a hurricane that rotates at different speeds, each speed being exactly matched to the rotation speed of the relevant planet, and that the earth has its own private hurricane that is adjusted to the moon's rotation speed, and Jupiter has its own hurricane whose rotation speeds exactly match the rotation speeds of the island of Europa, Ganymede Callisto and the whole family.
Could be - but Ockham shifted uncomfortably in his chair.
Why not try radiation instead of particles? Electromagnetic radiation has the property that no matter how fast you move, it always moves relative to you at the speed of light.
Don't close a corner for us?
To Israel
First of all with the planets and the sun there is no problem and no friction. Likewise with all the other suns (the stars in the sky) but what about the galaxies, the clusters and the starlings?? Well…. There is no gravity here and they move for a different reason. You probably think I'm exaggerating, but maybe the ones who exaggerated are the ones who decided that the principles of rotation of the galaxies (size of one hundred million light years) are exactly the same principles that activate the apple that fell on Newton's head??? Funny isn't it? So let's sort things out. The planets move because of gravitation. It was measured and found to be true. But they are barely a thousand light years, you cannot determine that the same formula will work even at distances of a hundred million times (the galaxy) or at distances of a hundred billion times (between galaxies and clusters and sables). You can of course try but when the calculations don't add up, throw away the formula!, don't add me dark mass and dark energy just to hold Newton's holy apple formula. And by the way, to Newton's credit, it was said that the universe at his time was tiny, down to the planet Saturn, so he should not be blamed for saying that his formula works for the entire universe.
So why not Newton, I said, and explained, but why is our beloved galaxy still spinning and why is our beloved Andromeda racing toward us? Well…. Differential pressure.
I'm tired, and you'll know if my dear father approves the comment, and when, so whoever wants to go to my website (see previous comment)
Please respond gently
And this time more than ever.
Yehuda
But he will admit!
Doesn't this require that each mass - the earth, the moon, a single atom - has its own private hurricane whose direction and speed are different from the direction and size of the hurricane that revolves around the sun? the galaxy? the cluster? The gerbil?
To Israel
The conclusions derived from the existence of this way of thinking are very special, for example, friction that exists in movement in "empty" space that is not in the direction of the movement of the planets, the speed of light is different in the past and in the future. Gravitational constant changes and therefore bodies lose their weight over time, there is no need for dark matter or dark energy to explain the movement in the universe, gravity is limited in the distance it acts on and therefore something else moves the galaxies, the expansion of the universe also acts within the galaxies, it can also explain the precession of the planet Mercury Without the need for relativity and more, and more.
These conclusions define the whole assemblage as the "simple universe theory".
You have to be brave to agree to these bold conclusions, but say in advance that they are backed by many phenomena in nature.
I would love to hear your opinion and the opinion of others to the conclusions that I know are strange. Thanks.
But,,, please respond gently.
http://yekumpashut.freevar.com/
To Israel
Indeed, as you said, the gravity pushing hurricane is multi-layered like any hurricane whose center close to the eye of the hurricane rotates faster than its circumference. As above, the part in the hurricane of the gravitational pushing particles rotates faster when it is closer to the sun and the part farther from the sun rotates more slowly so that no planet and moon have friction (almost) those who do not enjoy this privilege are the comets and asteroids that cross the hurricanes in their elliptical motion and therefore have The friction will appear more than usual.
To me it is really clear and unfair that such a successful theory is canceled because of imaginary friction. Also pay attention to the special conclusions that appear as a result of the Pushing Gravity explanation. I will attach a list in the next response. Going forward
Until then hold back and respond gently.
Yehuda
Yoda, don't bite your nose.
Just trying to see if the hurricane solves the friction problem.
So let's see. In order for the Earth not to encounter friction in orbiting the Sun, the hurricane has to orbit the Sun at the same rotational speed as the Earth. getting?
A bit of an odd move for a hurricane. But even if this is true - what about the other planets? After all, each orbits at a different angular speed. Is the hurricane multi-layered?
Please answer in moderation.
To Israel
Why would the satellites or the moon fall???, after all, on average they move at the speed of the earth half a turn faster and half slower. Just to talk??, and by the way there was a planet that moved not according to the norm so what did they do??, they excluded it from the rule and now, what a beauty, everyone moves according to the rule. (If I forget you Pluto, stick my tongue to your cheek!).
In short, with your far-fetched claims, you are trying to stick to Newton, who has no explanation for the essence of gravitation!
Well, I've calmed down, we'll go to the links you sent.
Yehuda
waiting
Yoda
Not only in the same direction - also in the same plane. No planet dares to swim through the current.
But there is an explanation for this:
https://www.howitworksdaily.com/which-bird-migrates-the-farthest-in-winter/
Satellites are exempt from celestial discipline, and some orbit the earth in opposite or other directions.
https://www.quora.com/Can-a-satellite-orbit-in-any-direction-pole-to-pole-clockwise-counter-clockwise-etc
And they don't fall, they are still there..
Israel
True, leaves moving in the opposite direction will feel friction and therefore there are no planets moving against the general direction of the planets. If there were, they have long since fallen into the sun. Pushing gravity explains this easily, however Newton would have a hard time explaining why there are no planets moving against the preferred general direction,
And not only that, the Pioneer anomaly showing a slowdown in the spacecraft's motion is proof of friction. I do not accept NASA's explanation about heating from the spacecraft's engines causing the slowdown.
Well, I'm now retiring for a good night's sleep so I'll ask not to take the opportunity to respond harshly. Remember that tomorrow the sun will rise and I might get angry.
Good night
Yehuda
Yoda
Leaves moving in a different direction than the same leaves you mentioned, will definitely feel friction with the hurricane. The same goes for planets moving in all directions.
But since the point has already been raised before, and you sleep well with the thought, then I will not deprive you of your sleep on the prairie.
Good night.
To Israel
Friction believers in Pushing Gravity would be very happy for an infinite speed that increases the amount of time the planets survive. But I don't think there is any friction at all, so I don't need super super speed or infinity, God forbid. The reason is very simple. And I will explain: my pushing gravity particles work on everything found in the solar system: - planets, asteroids, stones, gas clouds and also on... my pushing gravity particles themselves! That is to say, it is true that each gravitational pushing particle moves in a different direction, but the average will be movement around the sun at exactly the same speed as the planet in that area, so there will be no friction between the planet and the gravitational pushing telkikey in its area.
For those who still don't understand, this is similar to a hurricane blowing leaves into the air and they will fly without friction with the air around them, even though every air molecule is moving in a different direction.
So that I sleep well without fear that the friction will disprove the simple and beloved universe!
All that remains is to convince that the gravity formula created by gravitational pushing at large distances will be different from Newton's and the theory of relativity, and therefore something other than gravity moves the galaxies for example. Details on my blog:
http://yekumpashut.freevar.com/
Please respond gently
Sabdarmish Yehuda
we
What is the meaning of time in this story - big for me.
On Suskind's blog, the meaning of time is problem #1.
But if we take the duration of time, which is what the article is about, that is, the number of seconds or fractions of seconds that the clock measures between 2 events, then according to the article the answer is 0.
The connection to weaving is direct. Even in entanglement, particle A affects particle B in 0 time, regardless of distance.
There are several explanations, for example that the two particles are actually one particle. But Yafim claims that if they are actually one particle then what are all those galaxies in the middle between the two?
My opinion is that despite physics' aversion to infinities, the universe is infinite as Boris claims, our finite private universe is only a small fraction of the universe, that all the galaxies in our universe are moving away from each other and it is possible to calculate when they were all together at the time of the bang is not related to the infinite universe , like the fragments of a hand grenade that are scattered in all directions may constitute a universe for those who are inside the sphere that is in the scattering radius, but they have no relevance for those who are far from the fragments.
And in an infinite universe infinite speed is the natural thing. This is what we see in nonlocality in quantum entanglement, and it is also what we observed in our paper.
Whereas our Yoda would have thought deeply, he would have seen that this also solves the problem of friction in pushing, but it seems to me that we have already had too much fun.
morning milking.
Israel, thank you. But I probably didn't formulate my question correctly.
my intention was:
If the transition happens in zero time then what is the meaning of time in this whole story? Can the time factor be neglected in such scales?
And what does this mean (and does it mean anything at all) about the paradox of the interweaving (which you presented several times)?
The article in the Chemistry newspaper was published this year and has already been cited in two articles
http://pubs.acs.org/doi/abs/10.1021/acs.jpclett.6b02692
A similar article was found by his colleagues in
https://arxiv.org/ftp/arxiv/papers/1301/1301.2766.pdf
Not Eli Pollack's.
We are the moderates
The idiot was of course to Moshe the idiot.
To answer your question, look at the first sentence in the article:
What is the meaning of time in quantum theory? According to a calculation by Prof. Eli Pollack of the Weizmann Institute of Science, the amount of time it takes for a quantum particle to pass through an opaque barrier is, well, zero.
And since speed is distance divided by time, then if the distance is finite (the atomic barrier) and the speed of the quantum particle is infinite, then the time required to travel this distance is zero.
Elementary, we dear.
No. Ben Ner
The reference is to the other thing found in his studies (probably in addition to the subject of zero time) that the uncertainty is small because in such systems it is possible to calculate the position of the particle.
Quote: "In such systems it is possible to calculate and find the almost exact position of a particle in motion."
If, as stated in the article, "...the average duration of time required to change the quantum state in systems that exist at sufficiently low temperatures is - zero..." then at that point in time, we will call it the "zero point in time" for that matter, the system is in both quantum states at the same time.
If it is about the location of the particle, then the distance between the two locations, the distance between the location "before" and the location "after", expresses the minimum size of the uncertainty regarding the location of the particle.
This is contrary to what is written in the article as if "...this is a significant reduction of the uncertainty...".
Not only is the uncertainty not reduced, it is increased.
Not everything that can be explained mathematically can be understood intuitively.
That is why there are and were also geniuses like Einstein who find it difficult to accept quantum theory.
What is strange is that it is easier for people to accept God who cannot be explained intuitively nor mathematically.
Another idiot..
In any case, Israel, our friends, we would be happy to hear your insights on the subject.
How can time be measured if the phase transitions happen at zero time?
Israel Shapira
Yuval must have meant that you stand in the same line with great people like: Obama and Arafat... 🙂
Hello to Professor Emeritus Israel Shapira. Where did you disappear to us? We haven't heard your musings in a long time. We miss the wonderful ones very much. Every day a new gem
jubilee
You are a bit confused this morning..
Miracles
Shapira does not argue with Yehuda and Yisrael. They are Nobel Peace Prize laureates.
Yoda
Why didn't you say future? The future is something else entirely! In the future, the robots will rule, the aliens will visit, we will live forever and Bibi will not be prime minister (or that is already a bit exaggerated).
Currently, quantum mechanics explains the observations nicely.
Nice - send a number, or drag your body up the mountain to the Encino Hills.
To Israel
If I had another explanation you would hear from him, but, if I don't have another explanation it doesn't mean he doesn't exist, packed away at some point in time in the future, and one day he might appear. Something in the style of a simple quantum gravity pushing world.
Just thoughts
Please respond gently
Yehuda
Israel
Are you coming to visit me in Santa Monica?
Mr. Sabdarmish, 'fucked up' could be the wife of former president and henchman Bill Clinton..
Not quantum theory.
Yoda their uncle
I actually thought that you are the one who always claims that if the results of the experiments do not match the theory, the theory must be changed, and a theory that is entirely based on observations and experimental results will be consecrated.
What other explanation can you give for the results of the numerous experiments other than the explanation of quantum mechanics?
Israel Shapira
What to do dear Israel, I find it hard to agree with the strange conclusions of the quantum Torah. I admit that I don't understand this Torah, but "living or dead" or "the question asked will affect the answer" or "a particle passes through two holes relatively far away from it", or "particles that are created from the void and immediately disappear", etc., etc., all of these Not acceptable to me. It is true that what I am saying is not a reason that it is not true and therefore I am not participating in the discussion, but my intuitive opinion (certainly not important) that something is screwed up in Quentinone's kingdom will be whoever its dimensions are.
Please respond gently
Just whispers of my heart
Good night
Yehuda
Yoda his brother
Quantum theory screwed up?
What experiment exactly shows this? Is there anything experimentally more accurate in the chevron fragments from macarons macarons than the quantums?
What happened, did we drink something this morning, glug glug glug?
And what about Einstein? After all, he was wrong and lost the war with quanta. So maybe the mistake is with him and not with the quants?
Drag yourself next Sunday to Santa Monica, this is exactly what we're talking about:
https://www.meetup.com/Quantum-Physics-Discussion-Group/
A DIVIDED UNIVERSE: RELATIVITY VS QUANTUM MECHANICS. THEY CAN'T BOTH BE RIGHT?
Why do I think something is wrong with quantum theory?
Is quantum theory screwed up only when I do an experiment that tries to find out? Or is she actually not fucked?
Please respond gently
Einstein thought so too
sometimes
Yehuda