Einstein's statement that God does not play dice with the universe has been misinterpreted/George Masser
in brief
"I am, at any rate, convinced that he [God] does not play dice," Albert Einstein wrote to one of his colleagues in 1926. This statement, which was widely quoted over the years, was seen as a clear expression of his sharp criticism of quantum mechanics and the idea of randomness at the core of this theory.
However, a deeper examination reveals that Einstein did not reject quantum mechanics or even its indeterminism, although he thought, for solid scientific reasons, that randomness could not be an intrinsic property of nature.
Today, many philosophers claim that physics is both non-deterministic and deterministic, depending on the level of reality we are discussing.
This view resolves the longstanding dilemma of determinism and free will. Even if the behavior of particles is predetermined, we are free to choose as we wish, since the laws that govern the low level of particles are not the laws that govern the high level of human consciousness.
Few of Albert Einstein's sayings have been so widely quoted as that God does not play dice with the universe. Naturally, people tend to interpret this statement as proof that Einstein was dogmatically opposed to quantum mechanics, which sees randomness as an inherent property of the physical world. When a radioactive nucleus decays, it does so spontaneously: there is no law that can predict when or explain why this will happen. When a particle of light strikes a semi-silvered mirror, it is reflected from it or passes through it: any result is possible until the moment it occurs. Even without visiting a lab, you can observe these processes: many websites display streams of random numbers generated by Geiger counters or as a result of quantum optics phenomena. Because in principle such numbers are unpredictable, they are ideal for use in cryptography, statistics and online poker games.
Einstein, so it is commonly thought, refused to accept the non-deterministic idea, according to which not everything has a reason, that there are things that just happen by themselves, and that we have no way of trying to understand why. He was almost the only one among his colleagues who adhered to the mechanistic worldview of classical physics, according to which the universe follows and operates according to the laws of perfect mechanical causality, like the mechanism of a clock, with each moment dictating the next. The statement that God does not play dice became a symbol of the second, less glamorous part of his life: the tragedy of the revolutionary who became a reactionary, the scientist who revolutionized physics when he invented the theory of relativity, but also, as Niels Bohr expressed it, "missed" the quantum theory.
However, over the years, many historians, philosophers and physicists have challenged this view. When they delved into what Einstein really said, they discovered that his view of non-determinism was much more radical and complex than it is commonly thought. "It was kind of a mission to get things straight," says Don A. Howard, a historian at the University of Notre Dame. "When browsing the archives, it's amazing to see how far the truth is from the accepted narrative." As Howard and others have shown, Einstein recognized the non-determinism of quantum mechanics: which was to be expected, since after all, he was the person who discovered its non-determinism. What Einstein did not accept was that this non-determinism is an intrinsic property of nature. All the signs indicate, he claimed, that it originates from a deeper layer of reality that the theory failed to identify. His critique was not mystical, but focused on specific scientific problems that remain unsolved to this day.
The question of whether the universe works like a clock mechanism or similar to a roulette table touches the very heart of our understanding of physics: the search for the simple laws underlying the wonderful diversity of nature. If certain things happen for no reason, then they mark the limits of rational inquiry. "Underlying non-determinism would mean the end of science," says Andrew S. Friedman, a cosmologist at the Massachusetts Institute of Technology (MIT). However, throughout history philosophers have assumed that non-determinism is a prerequisite for man's freedom of choice. One of the two, either we are all cogs in a machine and thus everything we do is predetermined, or we are masters of our own destiny, in which case, the universe cannot be deterministic. This dichotomy has very real consequences for society's attitude to the question of human responsibility for their actions. Assumptions about freedom of choice affect our entire legal system; In order for an offender to be considered guilty, it must be proven that he acted with the first intention. Courts are frequently faced with the question of whether defendants deserve to be presumed innocent due to insanity, teenage impulsiveness, or a difficult social background.
However, for the most part, when discussing the dichotomy, the tendency is to expose it as false. Indeed, many philosophers believe that it would be meaningless to state that the universe is deterministic or, alternatively, non-deterministic. The universe can be deterministic or non-deterministic, depending on the size or complexity of the research subject: particles, atoms, molecules, cells, organisms, human consciousness, entire communities. "The distinction between determinism and indeterminism is a level-specific distinction," says Christian List, a philosopher at the London School of Economics and Political Science. "If at a certain level we find determinism, this does not contradict non-determinism at both higher and lower levels." The atoms in our mind can behave in a completely deterministic manner and at the same time, allow us freedom of action, since the atoms and the power given to us to act as masters of our destiny operate at different levels. Similarly, Einstein searched for a deterministic level at a deeper layer at the core of the quantum world, without denying the probabilistic nature of the quantum level.
What did Einstein actually oppose?
If so, it is surprising why Einstein was labeled as someone who opposes quantum mechanics, and the question is almost as surprising as the mystery surrounding quantum mechanics itself. The very concept of quanta, discrete portions of energy, is the brainchild of Einstein, who came up with the idea in 1905, and for a decade and a half stood alone in the campaign in defense of it. In fact, it was Einstein who laid the foundations for quantum mechanics, and it was he who made the greatest contribution to the development of what physicists today consider to be the principles of quantum physics, among other things, the special ability of light to behave both as a particle and as a wave. And it was these ideas that Einstein put forward in the field of wave mechanics that Erwin Schrödinger based on when he developed quantum theory, in its most widely used form, in the 20s. Einstein also did not rule out the idea of randomness. In 1916, he proved that when atoms emit photons, the timing and direction of the emission of photons is random. "This contradicts the popular image of Einstein as the enemy of probability," says philosopher Jan von Plato of the University of Helsinki.
But Einstein and his contemporaries faced a serious problem. The quantum phenomena are random phenomena, but this is not the case with the quantum theory. The Schrödinger equation is completely deterministic. It describes a particle or a system of particles using a function known as a wave function, which expresses the wavy properties of particles and offers an explanation for the wave patterns that groups of particles can create. The equation predicts, with absolute certainty, what will happen to the wave function at any given moment. In many ways, this equation is even more deterministic than Newton's laws of motion; It does not lead to undefined states such as singularity (when magnitudes become infinite and thus, indescribable) or chaos (when motion becomes unpredictable).
The problematic part is that the determinism of the Schrödinger equation is the determinism of the wave function, and the wave function is not directly observable, unlike the positions and velocities of particles. In fact, the wave function defines the observable quantities and the probability of each possible event. The theory leaves open the question of what exactly the wave function is and whether we should interpret it simply as it means, as representing an actual wave somewhere in the world. And so, the theory also leaves open the question of whether the observed randomness is an essential property of nature or just the appearance of things. "People say that quantum mechanics is non-deterministic, but that is too hasty a conclusion," says philosopher Christian Withrich of the University of Geneva in Switzerland.
Werner Heisenberg, who was also one of the first pioneers of quantum theory, likened the wave function to a cloud of probabilities of possible states. And if, according to his method, the function fails to unequivocally determine the position of a particle, it is because, in fact, the particle is not in any definite position. Only when we observe a particle, it is detected in some location. The wave function can be spread over a vast space, but the moment an observation is made, it suddenly collapses into one and only defined state, at one and only location, where the particle emerges and is discovered. It is enough if we look at the particle - and whoop! - He stops behaving deterministically and "leaps" to a final result like a child taking a place in a game of musical chairs. There is no rule that dictates the collapse. There is no equation that describes it. It just happens.
The collapse of the wave function became a core component of the Copenhagen interpretation, one of the interpretations of quantum mechanics named after the city where Bohr's research institute was located, and where Heisenberg developed the main principles of his theory at the beginning of his career. (Ironically, Bohr himself never accepted the idea of the collapse of the wave function.) The Copenhagen school accepts the observed randomness of quantum mechanics for granted, without being able to offer an explanation beyond that. Most physicists accepted this interpretation, if only because of the psychological anchoring effect: the interpretation sounded logical enough, and it was the first one proposed.
Although Einstein did not reject quantum mechanics, he strongly opposed the Copenhagen interpretation of it. The idea that the act of measurement could interrupt the sequence of development of a physical system seemed to him inconceivable, and this was the background to his critical statement about the divine dice game. “This, specifically, is what Einstein lamented in 1926; It was not a total metaphysical claim stating that determinism is a necessary condition," says Howard. "His critique focuses specifically on arguments concerning whether the collapse of the wave function causes a discontinuity."
Einstein claimed that the collapse of the wave function cannot be a real process. This would require an immediate effect from a distance: a mysterious mechanism that would ensure, for example, that the left side and the right side of the wave function would both collapse together into the same one and only state even in the absence of a coordinating force between them. Einstein was not the only one who held this opinion. All the physicists of his generation believed that such a process was impossible, since it would necessarily occur at a speed higher than the speed of light, and thus would seemingly contradict the theory of relativity. In fact, quantum mechanics provides us with more than just game blocks. It provides us with pairs of game dice whose throw results in the same result in both, even if we throw one game die in Las Vegas and the other on the planet Vega. It was clear to Einstein that such a situation is not possible unless the dice are fake: loaded with hidden properties that determine the results of their roll in advance. But the Copenhagen interpretation outright rejected such a possibility, and implicitly claimed that the game's dice do affect each other immediately even from astronomical distances.
Another issue that troubled Einstein was the problem of measurement, and the power attributed by the Copenhagen interpretation to the act of measurement. What, exactly, is measurement? Is this something that only sentient beings or full-fledged professors can perform? Heisenberg and others who belonged to the Copenhagen school failed to provide a satisfactory answer to the measurement problem. Some have argued that we create reality by simply watching it: an idea that sounds poetic, perhaps overly poetic. Einstein also believed that it was a baseless pretension on the part of the proponents of the Copenhagen interpretation to claim the completeness of quantum mechanics, and to present it as the final and absolute theory that will never be replaced by another. He saw all theories, including those he himself devised, as intermediate stages on the way to something greater.
In fact, Howard claims that Einstein would have been willing to consider the idea of indeterminism if an answer to the unresolved issues that troubled him had been offered: if, for example, someone could clarify what exactly a measurement is, or how it is possible for particles far apart from each other to remain synchronized without reacting with each other. Proof that Einstein saw the issue of non-determinism as a secondary issue is the fact that he also placed the same demands on the deterministic alternatives to the Copenhagen interpretation and rejected them as well. Arthur Payne of the University of Washington believes that Howard overestimates Einstein's willingness to accept non-determinism, but he also agrees that Einstein's thinking was far more reasoned and grounded than generations of physicists have assumed based on his widely quoted statement about the game of dice.
random thoughts
Einstein thought that if we delve deeper into the unresolved issues of the Copenhagen interpretation, we will probably discover that quantum randomness is no different from any other type of randomness in physics, which is the product of processes that occur at a deeper level. The frantic movement of a grain of dust in a ray of sunlight reflects the complex movement of invisible air molecules, and the emission of a photon or the radioactive decay of a nucleus are analogous processes, Einstein reasoned. He saw quantum mechanics as a general theory that describes the behavior of the building blocks of nature as a whole, without going down to its details, but lacking the discernment required to identify and analyze individual cases. He believed that a deeper and more complete theory could provide an explanation for the motion of a physical system in its entirety, without mysterious jumps or discontinuities.
According to this view, the wave function provides a general probabilistic description, which does not mean much more than the claim that if we roll a fair die enough times, it will land roughly the same number of times on each side. The collapse of the wave function is not a physical process, but the acquisition of knowledge. If the result we get by rolling a six-sided die is, for example, 4, we can say in the terms of the Copenhagen interpretation that the range of possible results, 1 to 6, "collapses" to the actual result of 4. The details that affect the die, the exact way our hand casts the die and rolls it across the table, will never use the term collapse.
Support for Einstein's intuitions was found in his early work on the collective effects of molecular motion, a field of physics research known as statistical mechanics, where he demonstrated that physics can be probabilistic even if the underlying reality is deterministic. In 1935, Einstein wrote to the philosopher Karl Popper: "I do not think you are right in your claim that it is impossible to draw statistical conclusions from a deterministic theory. It is enough if you think about classical statistical mechanics (the kinetic theory of gases, or the theory of Brownian motion)."
Einstein tried to find an explanation for the randomness of quantum mechanics, not to justify why it should be rejected.
The probabilities that Einstein spoke of were just as objective as those to which the Copenhagen interpretation refers. And if they were not expressed in Newton's laws of motion, the fundamental laws of classical mechanics, they represented other characteristics of the world; They were more than false results of human ignorance. In his letter to Popper, Einstein mentioned as an example a particle moving around a circle at a constant speed; The chance of finding the particle in a given arc of the circle reflects the symmetry of its trajectory. Similarly, a die has a 1 in 6 chance of landing on one of its tails, since it has six equal tails. "Einstein was good at understanding, more than most of his contemporaries, that in the details of the probabilities of statistical mechanics there is a significant physical content hidden," says Howard.
Another conclusion that stems from statistical mechanics is that the magnitudes we observe do not necessarily exist in a deeper layer. For example, a gas has a temperature, but a single gas molecule does not. By analogy, Einstein concluded that a subquantum theory would inevitably revolutionize our understanding of quantum mechanics. In 1936, Einstein wrote: "There is no doubt that quantum mechanics has identified a beautiful element of the basis of truth ... but I do not believe that quantum mechanics will be the starting point in the search for this basis, just as in the opposite direction thermodynamics (and in the same way, statistical mechanics) cannot be used as a starting point for laws The fundamentals of mechanics." To fill the gap in that deep layer, Einstein tried to formulate a unified field theory, in which particles originate in structures that do not resemble particles at all. And in conclusion, the conventional view that Einstein denied the randomness of quantum mechanics is fundamentally wrong. Einstein tried to find an explanation for this randomness, and not to give an excuse why it should be rejected.
Each level stands on its own
Although Einstein generally failed in his efforts, his basic intuition about randomness is still valid: non-determinism can emerge from determinism. The quantum level and the sub-quantum level, or any other pair of levels in the hierarchy of nature, consist of different types of structures and thus, subject to different types of laws. The governing laws at one level can allow for an actual element of randomness even if at the deeper level underlying it the laws of absolute causality rule. "Deterministic microphysics does not necessarily lead to deterministic macrophysics," says philosopher Jeremy Butterfield of the University of Cambridge.
Think of a cube at its atomic level. It can consist of a huge number of atomic configurations that cannot be distinguished at all at a normal glance. If, when rolling the dice, you follow any one of these configurations, it will lead to a specific result, deterministically. In some configurations, the result of rolling the die will be one point; in other configurations, two dots; And so on. Hence, one macroscopic state (the roll of the die) can lead to several possible macroscopic outcomes (the number of points on each of its six tails) [see text box and figure]. "If we describe the cube at the macroscopic level, we can treat it as a stochastic (random) system that allows for objective chance," says List, who studied the issue of levels and their combination with Marcus Pivato, a mathematician at Sergi-Pontoise University in France.
Although the higher level is built (or, in the professional parlance, "relies") on the lower level, it is autonomous, stands on its own. To describe a game cube, we must refer to the level at which the cube exists, and at this level we obviously cannot discuss atoms and their dynamics. Referring to both levels at the same time would be a categorical error, mixing gender with non-gender; It would be like asking what the political leanings of a tuna sandwich are (in the words of Columbia University philosopher David Z. Albert). "When we discuss phenomena that can be described at different levels, we must be careful and clarify the concepts we use so as not to confuse the levels," says List.
For this reason, the results of rolling a dice are not just seemingly random, as people are sometimes mistaken to think. They are really random. A superpowered elf might claim to be able to predict the results with absolute precision, but all he can know is what will happen at the atomic level. Such an elf does not even know what a game cube is, as this is higher level information. Such an elf never sees the forest, only the trees in it. In this sense, he is similar to the hero of the short story "Funes, the Memorious" by the Argentinian writer Jorge Luis Borges, a man who remembers everything, but understands nothing. "To think means to forget the difference, to generalize, to formulate abstractly," wrote Borges. In order for that elf to know which side the cube lands on, we have to explain to him what he should be looking for. "This elf will only be able to deduce the sequence of events at the higher level if we equip him with a specification that defines the division into levels and makes it clear to him what are the limits of the physical level at which he plays," says List. Indeed, the elf may even be jealous of our human perspective, mortals.
The logic of levels also works in the opposite direction. Non-deterministic microphysics can lead to deterministic macrophysics. A baseball may be composed of particles that behave randomly, but when you hit it, the path it takes in its flight is completely predictable; The quantum randomness converges to the mean. Similarly, gases are composed of molecules moving in an incredibly complex and, in fact, nondeterministic motion, but the temperature and other properties of the gas obey quite simple laws. More speculatively, some physicists, including Robert Laughlin of Stanford University, have suggested that the lower level is not relevant at all. Whatever the building blocks, they can still produce the same collective behavior. After all, systems as different from each other as water molecules, stars in a galaxy, and cars moving on a highway obey the same basic laws of fluid mechanics.
Free to choose, finally
When you think in terms of levels, the fear that non-determinism will herald the end of science disappears. Again there is no wall around us that separates that part of the law-abiding universe from the anarchic and inexplicable world beyond. Instead, the world is seen as a layered cake of determinism and non-determinism. For example, Earth's climate relies on Newton's deterministic laws of motion, but weather forecasts are probabilistic, while seasonal and long-term climate trends are, again, predictable. Biology also relies on deterministic physics, but organisms and ecosystems require different modes of description, such as Darwinian evolution. "Determinism does not explain everything," says philosopher Daniel S. Dent of Tufts University. "Why are there giraffes in the world? Is it because it was 'predestined'?"
Human beings are also embedded in this layered cake. We humans have a strong sense of freedom of choice. We often do the unexpected, and when we make decisions, in most cases we feel that we could have made other decisions (and more than once, we would like to turn the wheel back). For thousands of years, philosophers advocating libertarianism - and the reference here is not to the political school by that name - have argued that the freedom of human choice requires freedom even at the particle level. Something must interrupt the deterministic flow of events: the quantum randomness or "sudden changes of direction" that some ancient philosophers believed atoms could undergo.
The problem with this line of thinking is that it grants freedom to the particles, but leaves us humans enslaved. Whether our decisions were predetermined at the time of the Big Bang or whether they were forced upon us by a rebellious particle, these decisions are not decisions we make out of free choice. To be masters of our destiny, we need non-determinism not at the particle level, but at the human level. And this is possible because the human level and the particle level are autonomous levels. Even if everything we do can be attributed to the events that preceded it, we can still determine what our actions will be, since neither we nor our actions exist at the material level, but only at the macro level of consciousness. "It is this macro-level indeterminism superimposed on the micro-level determinism that has the power to guarantee our freedom of choice," says Butterfield. Non-determinism at the macro level is not the cause of our decision. He-he is our decision.
The claim can still be heard that we are puppets on a string subject to the laws of nature, and that our freedom of choice is nothing but an illusion. But the word "illusion" conjures up in the imagination a desert or magicians sawing girls in two: unreal things. Non-determinism at the macro level is something different. It is completely real, even if not at the base level. This can be compared to life itself. Individual atoms are completely lifeless, but huge masses of them can live and breathe. "As far as it concerns the power given to us to act as masters of our destiny, our intentional states, our decisions and our choices. "None of these play a role in the conceptual repertoire of fundamental physics, but that doesn't mean these phenomena aren't real," List says. "All this implies is that these phenomena exist at a much higher level."
It would be a categorical error, and one should not say a useless move, to describe the decisions we make in terms of the mechanics of the atoms in our minds. Instead, we must use concepts from the field of psychology: desire, possibility, intention. Why did I choose to drink water and not wine? Because that's what I wanted. My desire explains the action I performed. Most often, when we ask "why?" We want to know what the motives actually were, and not necessarily what the physical background story is. Psychological explanations assume that there is non-determinism of the kind Liszt talked about. For example, game theorists propose a decision-making model that specifies the range of possibilities and indicates which option we will choose if we act rationally. Our freedom of choice guides our choice of a certain option, even if it is not necessarily the most exciting option that we would choose spontaneously, without thinking.
However, it must be admitted that List's arguments do not provide a complete explanation of freedom of choice. The hierarchy of levels, which distinguishes between the psychological level and the physical level, allows us freedom of choice, and thus gives us an opportunity to do the unexpected. But we must seize the opportunity. If, for example, we make every decision that is required regarding the toss of a coin, this decision-making would be considered non-deterministic at the macro level, but it is doubtful that it would be possible to describe it as free choice in any meaningful sense. In some cases, the decision-making is not done consciously, based on rational considerations, and thus it cannot be said that it was truly made out of free choice.
This way of thinking about determinism is consistent with an interpretation of quantum mechanics that was proposed in the years after Einstein's death in 1955: the many worlds interpretation. Adherents of this interpretation claim that quantum mechanics describes a set of parallel universes, a multiverse system that behaves deterministically as a whole, but is perceived by us as non-deterministic since we can only see one universe. For example, an atom can emit a photon to the right or to the left; Quantum theory leaves open the question of what the actual result will be. According to the interpretation of the multiple worlds, the reason for this is that the same situation exists in countless parallel worlds; In some of them, the photon is deterministically emitted to the left, and in others, it is emitted to the right. Since we cannot know which of these universes we are in, we cannot predict what will happen, and from our perspective, the situation therefore seems inexplicable. "There is no true randomness in the universe, but things can appear random to the observer," says cosmologist Max Tegmark of the Massachusetts Institute of Technology, one of the prominent followers of this view. "Randomness reflects our inability to place ourselves in the multiverse system."
This claim is very similar to the claim that a game cube or the brain can be made up of any of countless atomic configurations. Each of these configurations alone can be deterministic, but since we cannot know which one is the configuration of our game cube or our mind, we have no choice but to think of the result as a non-deterministic outcome. According to this line of thought, parallel universes are not some exotic idea, somewhere in the vastness of the multiverse world.
In fact, our bodies and minds are small multi-universe systems, and it is the multiplicity of possibilities that gives us our freedom of choice and our freedom.
Scientific American and Farrer, Strauss and Giraud book publishers operate in a business-marketing partnership
About the writers
George Masser, contributing editor at Scientific American, and author of the book "Ghost Action from a Distance", which was published in November 2015 in collaboration with Scientific American and Farrer, Strauss and Giraud publishing houses.
More of the topic in Hayadan:
900 תגובות
Yuvav
You present postmodernism at its best.
"Our desire... blah blah blah..."
Go home boy and make waves there.
The causality existed and will remain
Our ability to decode any permille of information, time or place as causal is limited.
During the years of development we discover laws that we didn't know about before, we develop tools that help us discover and expand our world view.
It is our limited perception that makes us believe in non-causality.
The conflict arises because we know how to expand the range of our five senses but not develop a detector that goes beyond those senses.
Where is the solution?
our desire. Our desire was created and developed starting from what is called the Big Bang.
Changing those parts of the desire to receive (the ego and those fillings of that unique pattern of it) are the ones that changing them will allow us to develop a new tool for investigating reality. A new detector for the perception of new information.
And that information is the one that can give us the possibility to decide on that determinism or non-determinism found in nature.
"Until you admit it - you won't get an objective answer."
or. Ki.
Read the question carefully before you write: "But I answered it, didn't you? Maybe because you're a jerk?"
1) Your answer: "x=ct" is incorrect. It explains your lack of understanding of my words and the source of your continuous and fundamental mistakes! Write the correct formula for the problem I gave you. Do not ignore the velocity V given in the question.
Does the distance X change with time and depends on the speed of light and the speed of the flashlight?
Try to answer correctly again - instead of trying to escape as a fool pretending not to understand.
You can use the link:
http://galileoandeinstein.physics.virginia.edu/lectures/time_dil.html
2) This is a second question and it stands on its own:
Refer to the drawing where X is indicated.
Write a formula for X using: CT, VT, C1C2.
Did you realize your mistake and the magnitude of your stupidity?
-
I wrote: "Your assumption that B sees C from a distance of 10 hours after 10 hours has been proven to be a colossal failure of yours!
I stood proof and I'm satisfied with that!"
Until you admit this - you will not get a factual answer.
June 10th, 2016
June 11th, 2016
Comp, you're totally on tilt, huh?
And how do you manage to change the nick so quickly every time?
"For you, the distance of JM B is 10 s.a and also 0.05 s.a as you calculated in your last answer on the subject.
Every other word is unnecessary!'
Mmm.. I wrote 10 S.A. How did you get to 0.05?
"The question you repeat over and over again is a question I have already answered on several repeated occasions. I have no intention of answering her again.'
Maybe you answered, but you didn't write the answer in Hebrew.
"Your claim: "In relativity, the distance of a photon from the lamp that produces it is always ct." – proves you have no idea what you're talking about!'
Well, Compinio, what is the distance of a photon from a lamp that produces it in the ratios? Does the photon know that?
"Why should I waste my time on a crook and a clown?"
Please Eraf, you are the one who changes the nickname every moment and criticizes me. So maybe you should really stop wasting your time and ours and go back to the institution?
"You have a question down here that you are afraid to answer - on this subject. Answer her before you dare to be rude again.'
But I answered her, didn't you read? Maybe because you're a jerk?
You're a dummy.
"My words speak for themselves!
Your words speak for themselves!
The truth is the judge!'
You forgot to add: it is good to die for our country!
Your true psychopathic nature is exposed for all to see.
And the coercive grace of the regime in everyone and especially in himself and at his expense.
To see: your ignoring the truth thrown at you (here below) which you see as proof of the correctness of your words.
I will quote some of my words addressed to a person who despises the truth:
"Your assumption that B sees C from a distance of 10 hours after 10 hours has been proven to be a colossal failure of yours!
I stood proof and I'm satisfied with this!
None of your questions can change this fact and I have no intention of answering them especially when you don't answer my questions.
A self-respecting person admits his mistake, you don't admit your mistakes detailed below and the last questions you asked, therefore disrespectful."
For you, the distance of JM B is 10 s.a and also 0.05 s.a as you calculated in your last answer on the subject.
Every other word is unnecessary!
Your desire to open a discussion based on an assumption that has been proven to be false and contradicts itself is complete stupidity, your infantile pathology, as all those debating with you have already gotten to know.
The question you keep repeating is a question I have already answered on several repeated occasions. I have no interest in answering her again.
Your claim: "In relativity, the distance of a photon from the lamp that produces it is always ct." - Proves you have no idea what you're talking about!
Why should I waste my time on a crook and a clown?
You have a question down here that you are afraid to answer - on this topic. Answer her before you dare to be rude again.
Answer her, so that everyone can enjoy your enlightening stupidity.
*Also on the topic of interweaving you get a knock out. But you are a fool who is afraid to see and does not want to understand.
-
My words speak for themselves!
Your words speak for themselves!
The truth is the judge!
Comp
What happened? Did you see that as soon as you try to arrange the distances according to the question I asked you got impossible results?
Did you suddenly realize that everything you've written so far is just nonsense just like your belief that you know everything and everyone but you is stupid?
Is this why you went back to impersonating and changing your nickname every time and treating me like the other trolls? Didn't you already understand that no matter what and how you write, you can always be exposed?
Comp
Are you still here?
So maybe you will already answer without meandering and in Hebrew the question that I have already asked you 5 times:
You are moment 0, the moment of meeting between A, C, and D:
1. At what distance does B see A?
2. At what distance does B see C?
3. At what distance does B see D?
And after you answer, also answer at what distance they see B from them.
I have no interest in discussing with you as long as you do not admit your mistakes and contradictions!
"B sees A C (??) and D 10 light years away." – again the same fundamental mistake that is proven below.
-
Your answer: "x=ct" is incorrect. It explains your lack of understanding of my words and the source of your continuous and fundamental mistakes!
Write the correct formula for the problem I gave you. Do not ignore the velocity V given in the question.
Does the distance X change with time and depends on the speed of light and the speed of the flashlight?
You can use the link:
http://galileoandeinstein.physics.virginia.edu/lectures/time_dil.html
Refer to the drawing where X is indicated.
Write a formula for X using: CT, VT, C1C2.
Did you realize your mistake and the magnitude of your stupidity?
-
June 10th, 2016
And when I say "sees" I mean from his point of view.
Comp
I understand that you encountered a contradiction that I pointed out and that is why you are not answering.
Anyway, I'll try to give you the relativity answer, maybe you'll be able to understand.
During the tripartite meeting A C D
A sees B 10 light years away.
G and B are seen one light year away.
B sees A and D at a distance of 10 light years.
Mariachi?
"The distance of a photon from the lamp that produces it is always ct. "
This claim expresses your lack of understanding of relationships and the source of your repeated mistakes.
Toritos
Put one fundamental rule in your head, you who lecture us about relationships and want us to calculate formulas for you.
In relation, the distance of a photon from the lamp that produces it is always ct.
Try to answer the previous question, a big light from a flashlight will shine on you.
Enchiladas.
How did you get two flashlights? Did I talk about two V or one V?
I wrote: "The flashlight located at point A from which the photon exits in direction B. Both move in direction B."
One flashlight that emits a photon. Both move in the same direction. The photon moves away from the flashlight.
You will be asked to calculate the distance X between them starting from the exit point A as a function of time and the speed of the flashlight and the photon.
The question is about a similar link.
But specially for you, so that you understand where you went wrong, answer the question (for the fourth time):
You are moment 0, the moment of meeting between A, C, and D:
1. At what distance does B see A?
2. At what distance does B see C?
3. At what distance does B see D?
And after you answer, also answer at what distance they see B from them.
Here is your contradiction.
Tostadas.
OK.
Burritos.
Israel,
There is no contradiction. The contradiction is only in what you want to understand.
Comp
My answer is absolutely correct. It is not my problem that you formulate a question in a careless way and ask about the distance from a flashlight while in your question two different flashlights appear.
I think we are done. You come in with the claim that miracles and I are stupid because we don't see Shev as far from Meg as much as Shev is far from Mev.
I showed you that when you add d you see that the symmetry no longer exists. You don't answer my question and try to smear us all because you know very well that if you answer you will encounter a contradiction.
Chow comprands, go eat frijoles.
Your answer: "x=ct" is incorrect. It explains your lack of understanding of my words and the source of your continuous and fundamental mistakes!
Write the correct formula for the problem I gave you. Do not ignore the velocity V given in the question.
Does the distance X change with time and depends on the speed of light and the speed of the flashlight?
You can use the link:
http://galileoandeinstein.physics.virginia.edu/lectures/time_dil.html
Refer to the drawing where X is indicated.
Write a formula for X using: CT, VT, C1C2.
Did you realize your mistake and the magnitude of your stupidity?
-
June 10th, 2016
Comp, or AP or AP or Ano or Wataber.
What is so difficult to answer a simple answer to a simple question?
You are moment 0, the moment of meeting between A, C, and D:
1. At what distance does B see A?
2. At what distance does B see C?
3. At what distance does B see D?
Answer without philosophy or you will overlap and stop bothering me anymore. I have no head and no time for your nonsense.
Israel Shapira,
There is not a single comment here that is not on my behalf other than the one about your strategy that I already posted on my behalf yesterday.
"The distance question broke you, eh? Suddenly you saw that you can't claim that B is far from C the same distance as C is far from B due to symmetry considerations and then suddenly decide that it's different about D, eh?"
As usual wrong and misleading, you were a fool and you remain a fool.:
The question about B and C is a different question than the question about B and D. I gave a private solution to the given problem called A-B-C and its special initial conditions. I did not give a general solution to every problem and not to the problem you raised a day ago.
In any case - the distance is the same distance even when it is not possible to watch it in its entirety, even when its size changes according to the viewer..
I gave you proof of this in the discussion of synchronization, after which you also agreed that the distance is the same distance.
The symmetry I'm talking about is correct and is expressed by the principle that the identity of a thing is the same identity - something you have a very hard time grasping and therefore make foolish claims.
Your assumption that B sees C from a distance of 10 hours after 10 hours has been proven to be your colossal failure!
I stood proof and I'm satisfied with this!
None of your questions can change this fact and I have no intention of answering them especially when you don't answer my questions.
A self-respecting person admits his mistake, you do not admit your mistakes listed below and the last questions asked, therefore disrespectful.
As a person who does not respect himself and others, you should not be trusted and your reputation is below zero.
As a person who does not admit his mistakes, you are misleading yourself and your readers, therefore you must be warned and I did this by publishing "Your Strategy".
As a person who does not admit his mistakes, you cause harm to yourself, for example wasting money for nothing on a failed experiment, and may cause harm to those who rely on your words.
Your true face is revealed here in the hope that unlucky commenters will know to beware of you.
The word "eel" and "psychopath" that you use so often indicate your true nature which is expressed in the desire to: "..to break..".
The broken one is you, who are unable to solve a simple problem in physics, thus revealing the truth that you have no idea what you are talking about.
I have no interest in discussing with you until you admit your mistakes!
In conclusion, you stupid and characterless person - admit your mistakes listed below and answer what was asked.
-
You failed to defend your failed position and it is expressed in the collection of failures below.
1. The script here is this:
The spacecraft is observed for the first time from Monday at time 10h. The spacecraft is actually at a distance of 0.05 s.a.m.
From this moment on, the spacecraft is observed as it travels the distance 10 S.A. to B. within 3 weeks, according to you.
Within the period of 3 weeks, the spacecraft reaches an actual distance of 0.05 s.a.m.s.
When exactly will the spacecraft be seen from its distance of 0.05 s.a.m.b.?
0.05 s.a divided by speed C. The result is 0.05 s. In days - 18.25 days.
B will see the spaceship travel the distance from A to 0.05 SA from which B is 18.25 days.
Therefore B will see the spaceship travel the distance from 0.05 s.A to him in 18.341 days (0.05 s).
C's speed in passing from A to a distance of 0.05 s.a from B will be the distance traveled - 9.95 s.a
Divide by 0.05 s in its travel time = 199 light years/year. Much, much faster than the speed of light.
If C continues at this speed until B, she will cover a distance of 0.05 s.a in 0.09 days.
Light takes 18.25 days to travel this distance. That is, the spacecraft will not be seen at any stage of its journey - completely contrary to your claim.
It will reach B 0.09 days after it was first observed, in stark contrast to the 18.341 days needed to complete its journey to B.
The whole event from the moment of viewing C near A until the arrival should be shown for 18.341 days, so how about 3 weeks and how did you calculate this time?
And let's say 3 weeks, so the spaceship was seen for 3 days before the time 10h on B's time, how is that possible?
Again a contradiction.
The fair of contradictions and vanities does not end here.
Continued:
2. B will see the spacecraft moving from A to B and covering a distance of 10 S.A in three weeks. Therefore B will see movement at a speed that is much higher than the speed of light - in contradiction to the theory of relativity.
3. Suppose that spaceship C reached a distance of 9 light years from B. The light from the flashlight will take 9 years to reach B.
But the speed of the spaceship observed from point B is higher than the speed of light and the light of the flashlight, so you will not be able to show it.
Therefore B will not be able to observe the event, in contradiction to your words.
4. "C will cut all the paper chains along the way at the appropriate times and distances."
Let's say that spaceship C cuts a paper chain from a distance of 9 S.A.M.B.
The event will happen about a year after the spacecraft left point A. ZA that the light from the event should reach B at time 11 according to his time. But according to your words, the spacecraft will cut all the chains on the way within 3 weeks: from 10 hours to 10 hours + 3 weeks.
Therefore, the same event will be seen at two different times from the same viewing point B. which is impossible.
-
I asked you to prove your position that C is visible to B from a distance of 10 SA, without using contradictions, but you did not succeed in your task.
How do you reconcile the contradictions that arise from your cut - without using the same or other contradictions?
Comp
I've already shown you that no matter how much you pretend, I can reveal your identity based on your sloppy writing style, haven't I?
The distance question broke you, eh? Suddenly you saw that you can't claim that B is the same distance from C as C is from B because of symmetry considerations and then suddenly decide that it's different about D, eh?
1. Raise a topic.
2. Present questions.
3. Ignore answers, claims, justifications, explanations, rebuttals.
4. Ignore questions that he doesn't see.
5. Not admitting his mistakes.
6. Not to express agreement or disagreement when required.
7. Ignore evidence of his mistake.
8. Accept contradictions without admitting that you have.
9. Repeating the same questions again and again in order to confuse the discussion.
10. To express contempt for the speaker and his claims.
11. Be silent, evade, not answer.
12. To answer no matter what.
13. Impugn the respondent's qualifications.
14. Condition the continuation of the discussion on other irrelevant questions.
15. Drag the discussion to personal.
16. Start a war of accusations and condemnations.
17. To complain about the respondent's mistakes.
18. To withdraw the discussion when it is clear to him that he was wrong.
19. To exaggerate and present the wrongdoer as an idiot.
20. Open a happy table for Eid.
21. To open new topics in which he will mix real and imaginary problems that arise from his continuous mistakes.
22. When he realizes that we do not understand what he is talking about - he sends a link to support his opinion, but surprisingly the opposite happens.
23. Brings quotes from the past in some inappropriate context that will be used to justify the childish mockery.
24. Repeatedly asking the same questions, as if he did not understand the answers.
25. In the end his only purpose is to humiliate, mock and present his interlocutors as empty vessels.
Israel,
Your answer: "x=ct" is incorrect. It explains your lack of understanding of my words and the source of your continuous and fundamental mistakes!
Write the correct formula for the problem I gave you. Do not ignore the velocity V given in the question.
Does the distance X change with time and depends on the speed of light and the speed of the flashlight?
You can use the link:
http://galileoandeinstein.physics.virginia.edu/lectures/time_dil.html
Refer to the drawing where X is indicated.
Write a formula for X using: CT, VT, C1C2.
Did you realize your mistake and the magnitude of your stupidity?
-
Comp
Try to write one clear and unambiguous sentence from beginning to end without mistakes and without changes in the next sentence.
You are moment 0, the moment of meeting between A, C, and D:
1. At what distance does B see A?
2. At what distance does B see C?
3. At what distance does B see D?
"Are you saying that B will see D almost 20 light years away?" - No. Read my previous comment again.
"Don't make me work. ".: You were wrong in your answer except for one particular case where V=0.
Now you have to show that you understand physics at the most basic level and this on the basis of the article you referred me to several times.
If you write a formula for the drawing in the link that is almost the same formula for the question you were asked to answer correctly, you will understand the root of your mistakes, your contradictions, your mannerisms and your arrogance expressed in the words "broke you, eh?"
Understand the confusion you made in this sentence: "I thought to Tommy that since the flashlight is not accelerating, then it is actually at rest and there is no dependence between its speed and the position of the photons, and that the speed of the photons is c relative to everything, A. B. C. and Joshua."
Comp
I am not your servant, do not employ me. You want, write any formula you like.
Are you saying that B will see D almost 20 light years away? After all, the light left her already at time 0, and she will reach this distance only after almost 10 years, so how will B see her? at infinite speed? What if she blew up a year after the meeting, would that change anything for what Shab would see?
"It's hard to know which flashlight you're referring to. ” – the lamp located at point A from which the photon exits in direction B. Both move in direction B.
"So how did you get to 19.95?" - While the light was moving for 10 s to L B - Spacecraft D continued to move for 10 years moving away from A and passing another 9.95 s.a.
"Is that what you're claiming?"-that's what I'm claiming.
-
Write the correct formula for the problem I gave you. Do not ignore the velocity V given in the question.
Does the distance X change with time and depends on the speed of light and the speed of the flashlight?
You can use the link:
http://galileoandeinstein.physics.virginia.edu/lectures/time_dil.html
Refer to the drawing where X is indicated.
Write a formula for X using: CT, VT, C1C2
Comp
Your question is worded carelessly (like what's new?)
"A photon of light from a flashlight moves from point A to point B in time T, a flashlight moves from point A at speed V.
Write a formula that expresses the distance X between the photon and the flashlight."
From the question, it's hard to tell which flashlight you're referring to. My answer is absolutely correct.
"Actual distance of spacecraft D: 19.95 S.A." The distance that B will see it as 10 S.A."
We did not say that D crossed A and that A is 10 S.A. away. From B? So how did you get to 19.95?
So B will see D at a distance of 10 SA (which is correct) and C adjacent to it at a distance of a tenth of a light year? Is that what you claim?
Israel,
Your answer: "x=ct" is incorrect. It explains your lack of understanding of my words and the source of your continuous and fundamental mistakes!
Write the correct formula for the problem I gave you. Do not ignore the velocity V given in the question.
Does the distance X change with time and depends on the speed of light and the speed of the flashlight?
You can use the link:
http://galileoandeinstein.physics.virginia.edu/lectures/time_dil.html
Refer to the drawing where X is indicated.
Write a formula for X using: CT, VT, C1C2.
Did you realize your mistake and the magnitude of your stupidity?
-
To your previous question D will see B from a distance of a light year.
Correction to my previous answer: "Time: 10.00 years. Distance: 19.95 S.A.
Actual distance of spacecraft D: 19.95 S.A. The distance that B will see it as 10 S.A.
"anonymous user (alek).
"Advice to litigators: Never argue, on any subject, with a person whose mistakes we do not admit, who we are unable to admit to them:"
When will you apply this to yourself? I understand that the last question:
"And at what distance does D see B at the moment of meeting C and A?"
Broke you, huh?
We are (real).
In my understanding, every quantum is always a wave and a particle. They can be influenced - you mean remotely I believe - in my opinion, yes.
From your words it can be concluded that it is also impossible to influence the particles
Israel
I mean you claim that it is impossible to tell when a quant is a wave or a particle?
I gave up on understanding the system of considerations of Eximat.
A question for my father:
Why are so many of my comments moderated?
See for example the last one - is there anything in it in English, a link, vaccinations?
Advice for litigators: never argue, on any subject, with a person who does not admit his mistakes, who is not capable of admitting them.
a surprise!
Waiting!
we
The cathode electron is a particle on Sundays, Tuesdays and Thursdays, and a wave on Wednesdays and Fridays.
Most of the electrons rest on Shabbat, which reinforces the belief that not all dosas are positive types.
An electron can exhibit its lovable wavy nature when it passes between cracks and its hard particle side when it hits the ground.
Bottom line - he does what's in his head and upsets everyone with his annoying spin.
When is a quantum considered a wave and when a particle?
And the photon? Is he also a galaxy?
He is always a star.
Israel
OK. And in the same formulation as yours - when does the electron become a particle?
Comp
"Write a formula that expresses the distance X between the photon and the flashlight."
x = ct.
In any direction, in any situation, it doesn't matter if the photon moves forwards backwards sideways up or down.
"Clock: 10.00 years. Distance: 19.95 S.A.
And at what distance does D see B at the moment of meeting C and A?
Israel,
You failed to defend your failed position and it is expressed in the collection of failures below.
1. The script here is this:
The spacecraft is observed for the first time from Monday at time 10h. The spacecraft is actually at a distance of 0.05 s.a.m.
From this moment on, the spacecraft is observed as it travels the distance 10 S.A. to B. within 3 weeks, according to you.
Within the period of 3 weeks, the spacecraft reaches an actual distance of 0.05 s.a.m.s.
When exactly will the spacecraft be seen from its distance of 0.05 s.a.m.b.?
0.05 s.a divided by speed C. The result is 0.05 s. In days - 18.25 days.
B will see the spaceship travel the distance from A to 0.05 SA from which B is 18.25 days.
Therefore B will see the spaceship travel the distance from 0.05 s.A to him in 18.341 days (0.05 s).
C's speed in passing from A to a distance of 0.05 s.a from B will be the distance traveled - 9.95 s.a
Divide by 0.05 s in its travel time = 199 light years/year. Much, much faster than the speed of light.
If C continues at this speed until B, she will cover a distance of 0.05 s.a in 0.09 days.
Light takes 18.25 days to travel this distance. That is, the spacecraft will not be seen at any stage of its journey - completely contrary to your claim.
It will reach B 0.09 days after it was first observed, in stark contrast to the 18.341 days needed to complete its journey to B.
The whole event from the moment of viewing C near A until the arrival should be shown for 18.341 days, so how about 3 weeks and how did you calculate this time?
And let's say 3 weeks, so the spaceship was seen for 3 days before the time 10h on B's time, how is that possible?
Again a contradiction.
The fair of contradictions and vanities does not end here.
Continued:
2. B will see the spacecraft moving from A to B and covering a distance of 10 S.A in three weeks. Therefore B will see movement at a speed that is much higher than the speed of light - in contradiction to the theory of relativity.
3. Suppose that spaceship C reached a distance of 9 light years from B. The light from the flashlight will take 9 years to reach B.
But the speed of the spaceship observed from point B is higher than the speed of light and the light of the flashlight, so you will not be able to show it.
Therefore B will not be able to observe the event, in contradiction to your words.
4. "C will cut all the paper chains along the way at the appropriate times and distances."
Let's say that spaceship C cuts a paper chain from a distance of 9 S.A.M.B.
The event will happen about a year after the spacecraft left point A. ZA that the light from the event should reach B at time 11 according to his time. But according to your words, the spacecraft will cut all the chains on the way within 3 weeks: from 10 hours to 10 hours + 3 weeks.
Therefore, the same event will be seen at two different times from the same viewing point B. which is impossible.
-
I asked you to prove your position that C is visible to B from a distance of 10 SA, without using contradictions, but you did not succeed in your task.
How do you reconcile the contradictions that arise from your cut - without using the same or other contradictions?
Israel,
"To Tommy, I thought that since the flashlight is not accelerating, then it is actually at rest and there is no dependence between its speed and the position of the photons, and that the speed of the photons is c in relation to everything, A. B. C. and Joshua."
You made a big mistake! Why did you make a mistake, for that you must answer the following question?
A photon of light from a flashlight moves from point A to point B in time T, a flashlight moves from point A at speed V.
Write a formula that expresses the distance X between the photon and the flashlight.
What are the ingredients of the formula?
Does the distance X change with time and depends on the speed of light and the speed of the flashlight?
-
"When according to B's watch would he see the signal Md, and at what distance from B would B see the flashlight signal Md?"
Clock: 10.00 years. Distance: 19.95 S.A.
-
we
An electron is a wave.
Dov Broy showed this in the solution of the stable orbits in the atom. They are stable because the wavelength of the electron does not cause destructive interference of the electron with itself.
All quantum particles are waves. for example:
In quantum theory: E = hf.
In electromagnetic waves lf= c, the speed of light is equal to the frequency of the wave times its length.
E=mc^2, Einstein.
A combination of both yields = l=h/mc
If we see the proton as a standing wave, its diameter will be the formula above.
now:
proton mass = 1.67262158 × 10^-27 kilograms.
the speed of light = 299 792 458 m / s.
Planck's constant = 6.626068 × 10^-34 m2 kg / s.
It turns out that the diameter of the proton is approximately 1.324x 10^-15 meters.
I don't know if it means anything, but this is indeed the approximate diameter of the proton.
Good night.
Israel
If I understand correctly - the photon is the wave and not the electron. The electron appears as a particle when the photon is in zero motion.
Or something like that ..
In any case, let's move forward... It's a shame to waste time on comprands and other commenters who think there is a problem with God but no problem with the fifth dimension, or on those who think you are ignorant of the country.
Albanzo
I have no problem with criticism - as long as it is factual and not personal.
So if you are willing to respond only to the point - I have no problem.
But if you start with personal responses - stupid, liar, instigator, slanderer, etc. - then I reserve the right to self-defense.
Maybe we should end here as you have suggested so many times?
Thank you Israel, for the permission. I don't know what I would do without her. I hope it is clear to you that right now I feel like responding to each of your comments and maybe I will. Nothing attracts criticism more than trying to silence it.
Show some work just so you don't have to deal with criticism...
OK, agreed.
You are allowed to comment in a few hundred more comments.
It's definitely not an insult to me. If so, you insist that you understand very complicated things (probably among the most complicated things being studied in the world today) without even learning their basics. In this case, you fall into the category I mentioned and you are - in my opinion - an idiot. But then it's not an insult so much as a reality analysis. I find it hard to believe that you will find more than a handful of people in the world who would not agree that it is stupid to say that you understand very complicated things without learning the basics of their basics.
and no I reserve my right to comment where I want. Is the idea of an open forum really so incomprehensible to you? As long as you comment where anyone can read, then anyone can comment too. For example, I've said before that at least part of my motivation to respond to you is because I think you could potentially drag a great many unsuspecting readers into your mistakes and your approach, which to me is anti-scientific. Therefore, in every article you write that can be read, I will be motivated to respond (if I see fit to respond, I in principle only respond once to several hundreds of your responses).
As long as you are in an open forum, I reserve the right to comment. bothering you? There is a private discussion. Your full right and I would never even think about trying to violate your privacy, promise.
I got you.
So probably a sentence such as:
'You can forever go on complaining about being called an idiot. The bitter truth is that there are things that are a little above the level of high school and to expect to understand them without studying them is not even arrogance anymore, it's just stupidity.
is not an insult in your eyes. Shoin
And regarding the free forum - Nissim and I are already old people and it is very comfortable for us to chat and reminisce in the old people's home with the other seniles here on the site.
But if it bothers you, I found an abandoned and forgotten article at the edge of the universe
Would it be okay with you if we continued to chat there without interference?
https://www.hayadan.org.il/distant-galaxy-found-04110
By the way, I did not address you with insults. I criticized your words. You may not have liked the tone and the fact that I have no respect for you, but I don't see how that is any different from for example you mocking mathematical physics, something I didn't like to read. You may not like my way of referring, but I didn't curse you and all the things I wrote are (matter-of-fact and direct) references to the points you raised.
The last response was cut off before the end.
But of course, if you say something that I would like to respond to - I will. This is because it is an open forum and anyone can express their opinion. In evidence, it's no secret what I think of your ideas, but I've never tried to silence you or kick you off the site. If the possibility of me correcting you when you're wrong and revealing that you don't distinguish between logic and intuition bothers you, you should correspond with Nissim privately. As long as you are in a public forum, you will have to deal with this possibility.
Israel,
Too bad you don't understand what an open forum means. When you correspond with people in an open forum, everyone can express their opinion and respond. At that point, I thought that any further interaction between us was a waste of time, so I politely asked you to end it. Since then new things have been said and I feel I have something to add, so I am responding. Just because you respected my request to finish on time doesn't mean I have to keep quiet from now on forever. Of course, if you prefer to ignore me - your right. I will not chase you (like, by the way, you did to me at the time - when you would enter every article I commented on and write comments about me being a liar and that there is no mathematical proof that no information passes between entangled particles).
Albanzo
I'm glad you're following.
If I'm not mistaken, you wrote to me a few weeks ago:
"In the last response I asked to end the correspondence between us. If you can't bring yourself to stop contacting me, the correspondence will not end and it will deteriorate to exactly the same place it reaches every time.'
https://www.hayadan.org.il/is-the-universe-ramdom-0405168/comment-page-9/#comment-707547
And immediately after:
"We're done. Successfully".
Your seeing eyes, I ended the correspondence between us, I didn't address you and I didn't mention you. In fact, it seems to me that there may be a hypothetical possibility that you are now addressing me, by my full name, and with your usual insults.
With your permission, I will respect your express request, including in this article, and will not contact you again.
Successfully.
Israel
I also understand that the speed is infinite. By the way - even in the classical world probabilities change with infinite speed. It doesn't contradict anything.
In quantum mechanics there is no other logic. There is one logic, and quantum mechanics is based on the same logic as any other physical model. Although the explanation was made clear to you, you use the word "logic" instead of "intuition". Logic is well defined, intuition is simply what seems right to you based on your past experience. You make this exchange knowingly, because you know that if you admit that all your "paradoxes" are simply places where Israel Shapira's intuition fails and he is unable to guess the correct answer without researching, studying, and calculating - then it will actually be clear that there is no content in your words.
There is no other mathematics either. The laws of quantum mathematics are the same laws. The only difference is that you don't understand them. Suri, this is your responsibility only. The fact that you think that doing physics with more advanced mathematics than addition and subtraction is like counting a negative number of cows, is only because you have no idea what you are talking about (for example, if you knew a little math you would know that the question with cows is solved over the field Z and therefore by definition * There is* no solution with a negative number of cows. That is, even in your joke example you simply wrote something that a person who does not know mathematics would say, even though you tried to be clever and mock a mathematical approach).
Different laws of physics? Obviously. Each model has different laws of physics. If the physics were the same in each model (eg, Newtonian physics and quantum mechanics) then they would be the same model, wouldn't they?
And of course the comparison between religion and "things Israel Shapira doesn't understand" is a bad joke. It's not clear to me if you really believe her, or if you're just pretending to try to score points on rhetoric, and I'm not sure which option is sadder. All the things you wrote - additional dimensions, inventions of a particle with two points, etc. - can all be tested in a laboratory. The finding of a particle at the same time in several places has even been proven in the laboratory (for example, in the two-slit experiment - in which there is an interference pattern because the particle passes through two slits at the same time), but even if we ignore that, Nissim is right. He is trying to explain to you something that you simply do not understand - that your argument is selective and arbitrary. When there is something in quantum mechanics that doesn't bother you that you don't understand it, or you know that you can't argue with it because of the huge amount of evidence - like for example a particle's struggle with itself - then you dismiss the problem with a wave of your hand and you have no problem throwing it into the air like "the electron He is a wave", although Shif and Boris will not understand it any more easily than a ten-dimensional universe, six of which are hidden from us. But when there's something that annoys you that you don't understand (and this is as I've said a million times, simply because you don't study the subject), or something that you know has not yet been proven in an experiment such as additional dimensions, then suddenly it becomes a religion and a shame in the world. Leave aside the fact that it can be tested experimentally and that thousands of people around the world dedicate their lives to it. Leave aside the fact that there is also value in theoretical evidence that points to the correctness of one or another theory. If Israel does not understand, then it is religion.
You can forever continue to complain about being called an idiot. The bitter truth is that there are things that are a little above the level of high school and expecting to understand them without studying them is not even arrogance anymore, it is simply stupidity. But in your opinion the answer that to understand one has to study is obscene. Why? I think it's clear to all of us. What's up with Sakurai? Do you already understand the Dirac string, the Schwinger representation of angular momentum, and the WKB pseudo-momentum development? Do you have a basic undergraduate understanding of quantum mechanics (all things proven in the lab, no extra dimensions, etc.)?
Infinite of course.
Israel
detector collapses the whole function …. How fast does it happen?
Comp
"The calculation is based on the assumption that the position (distance) of a flashlight in motion relative to the photons emitted from it depends on its speed and their speed and changes over time."
I thought to Tommy that since the flashlight is not accelerating, then it is actually at rest and there is no dependence between its speed and the position of the photons, and that the speed of the photons is c relative to everything, A. B. C. and Joshua.
To verify, please answer the following question:
It was said that another spaceship, D, would have passed A and C at the moment of their encounter at the same speed as C but in the opposite direction, into space.
At the moment of the triple meeting of A, C and D, D would turn on a flashlight as well.
When according to B's watch would he see the signal Md, and at what distance from B would B see the flashlight signal Md?
Miracles
A detector collapses the entire function and the electron intertwined with it, haven't you heard of it?
If you are wondering what I am rehashing - remember that even in Galileo's time many believed that the speed of light was infinite.
So it was said - just said - that it would turn out to be true. So if you turned on a flashlight in Israel and the signal passed in 0 time to Andromeda - does that mean that the signal is present in both at the same time? that it does not have a clear point of departure - Haaretz and not Andromeda - and that information did not pass in 0 time from Haaretz to Andromeda?
Israel
And when you put a detector on the road, what happens? Why is there no struggle now?
Israel,
"The stupidity of your responses" - whoever speaks!
"Do your ears hear what your mouth babbles? Turn on a flashlight and you can affect the photons that have already left it if you follow them? Where did you get that from?”
You twist my answer and then pretend you don't understand it? It is not about turning a flashlight on and off, but about the movement of a flashlight in relation to the light coming out of it.
Asking a question, getting an accurate answer - I'll repeat the things:
"Israel Shapira:
1. At what distance will B see the flash of the flashlight from G if he turns around a second after lighting the flashlight back into space?
2. At what distance will B see the same flash if C continues until he reaches B? "
My answer:
"The answer to 1:
297000 km - 10 S.A.
The answer to 2:
At a distance that is almost the same as 0.1 light years from it.
June 7th, 2016”
The answer is based on a calculation. The calculation is based on the assumption that the position (distance) of a flashlight in motion relative to the photons emitted from it depends on its speed and speed and changes over time.
If you have any doubts about it you can argue with yourself.
I added another short explanation:
"A point where C turns is a point of change of direction.
Think of it as a stopping point.
Describe a body moving in the X direction and from that point P it moves in the X- direction.
This is the turning point. She didn't move.
Any light that comes from C cannot be closer than it is to B.
The light that comes from C that rotates comes from a point of change of direction.
The light coming from A is the light coming from the point of change of direction. The spacecraft does not follow him after this point.
In the case of a journey from A to B, the spacecraft follows the light and when it reaches B, it is 0.1 s.a behind it.
If so, the answer is that C influences by the way in which he follows the light that comes out of him.
In other words: the relative motion between the spacecraft and the light is what affects. "
(Does "on and off" appear in the explanation?)
From your response I can conclude that you do not understand my words. The word "affect" may confuse you.
It is not about "effect" in the sense of a factor. It is a calculation of distances and times according to the conditions of the problem.
This calculation is based on the relative motion between the spacecraft and the light coming out of it.
I used the word "affecting" to succinctly describe this relationship. If you have another more suitable word - suggest it.
If you have a problem with the fact that the distance between a photon and the source from which it came out depends on the speed of the photon and the speed of the source, and depends on the starting conditions and the measurement time, I can't help.
-
A passage of 0.05 light years at a speed of 0.995C will take the spacecraft 18.3 days. Light itself will take 18.25 days.
"In this period of time and it is at a distance of 0.05 light years from B - about 2.5 light weeks."
1. The light from spacecraft C when it is from a distance of 0.05 SA will reach B after 18.25 days and only then will you see from this distance.
Hence, B will see the spaceship travel the distance from A to 0.05 S.A in 18.25 days.
That is, 9.95 SHA within 18.25 days.
Its speed can be calculated as follows: 9.95 s.a \0.05 s = 199 light years per year.
From a point 0.05 light years from B, the spacecraft will move at a speed of 0.995C until it meets B after 18.3 days.
Hence, from the reference point of B, the spacecraft will move at a speed of 199 light-years/year and will suddenly change its speed to 0.995C at a point 0.05S.A from B, is it possible?
You say that: B will see the spacecraft moving from A to B and covering a distance of 10 S.A in three weeks.
2. Therefore B will see movement at a speed that is much higher than the speed of light, is it possible?
3. Suppose that spaceship C reached a distance of 9 light years from B. The light from the flashlight will take 9 years to reach B.
But the speed of the spacecraft seen from point B is higher than the speed of light, therefore while the spacecraft will travel the distance A-B, in three weeks according to your words, it will not be able to show.
So how will B see the spaceship and the light of the flashlight pass this distance?
4. According to your words, the spacecraft will be seen to cover the distance A-B in three weeks until the meeting with B, but it will also be seen to cover its actual distance from a time point of 10h which you calculated as 0.05s.A in 18.3 days.
ZA that the spacecraft was observed 3 days in addition to the 18.3. ZA that the spacecraft was observed on its way from A to B before the time point 10 Q, how is this possible?
"C will cut all the paper chains along the way at the appropriate times and distances."
5. Let's assume that spaceship C cuts a paper chain from a distance of 9 S.A. from B. The light from the cutting will come after 9 years.
But according to your words, the spacecraft will cut all the chains on the way within 3 weeks, how is that possible?
-
Your answers reveal your folly in many. Instead of admitting your mistakes, you add stupidity on top of stupidity.
You are welcome to add new follies through your answers to your failures.
An electron is a wave - it is everywhere the wave function is, so why wouldn't it mess with anything or anyone it wants including itself if it enjoys it?
Israel
An electron wrestles with itself - can you explain it in a way that Boris and Yip understand?
Miracles
Before we move forward, let's make sure we're in sync with what we're talking about.
My argument is that if you are already using explanations such as 10 dimensions, one particle in two places that are a billion light years apart and therefore a measurement of one is actually also a measurement of the other, an influence on the past from the future and coins that always fall on the same side without transferring information and without hidden variables , you can equally use the simple and trivial explanation that everything will be in his word.
We started the discussion with quanta and moved on to relativity. I believe that relativity makes sense and is fully warranted according to knowledge in 1905, as is the EPR paradox. Furthermore, I believe that relativity may be difficult, but is comprehensible, even compelling, if you accept Einstein's interpretation of postulate 2.
I also believe that, contrary to what has been claimed here before, Feynman clearly distinguished between relativity, which can be understood, and quantum mechanics, which no one understands, and he said this in complete seriousness. If there is demand, I would be happy to show where.
So of course if you start from the assumption that in quanta the laws of mathematics, physics and logic are different, then there is nothing to discuss at all because for every question you will get the answer that this is how it is in quanta, there are other laws, your logic is classical, forget everything you learned and of course you are ignorant and an idiot.
By the way, the answers you will receive if you go to a class in Gemara or Kabbalah and dare to ask for evidence or explanations for the boss's actions are enough. Everyone will look down on you, explain to you that there are different laws, this is how it is, this is how it is written, and the Rebbe will say that you are ignorant and an idiot (which is true).
So if you believe that in a miracle you do not demand, that God's ways are hidden, or that in quantum the laws simply flew out the window - I will respect your right and your belief that has been expressed here many times that as long as there is no contradiction you are fine with it.
But I believe that most religious people also believe that there is no contradiction between their faith and science, and that the skeleton simply has its own laws that are not acceptable in the natural world where 2+2 always equals 4.
Israel
Where is the hard test for special relativity? We are talking about completely different things here. There is a simpler case than weaving that "creates a problem" - a particle struggling with itself. Why don't you talk about it?
Comp
The second law claims that there is a limit to the amount of nonsense that the ear can hear in a given period of time.
You passed her.
"The position of the spacecraft in relation to its observer is the distance between the signal when received by the observer and it."
By your logic, if I hear a plane 10 km away then it can't be 100 meters away from me?
The folly of your comments has probably already been revealed to you a long time ago and you simply do not have the honesty to admit your mistake, especially after all your vain and arrogant boasting.
See for example your response:
"Then, the answer is that C influences by the way in which he follows the light that comes out of him.
In other words: it is the relative movement between the spacecraft and the light that has an effect."
Do your ears hear what your mouth babbles? Turn on a flashlight and you can affect the photons that have already left it if you follow them? Where did you get it from?
Answer to your questions:
"1. You said that the spacecraft is visible from a distance of 10 light years and near A in the original problem, how far is it actually from B when viewed near A, and how is it possible that it is seen in two different places: A and close to B at the same moment?''
C moves at a speed of about 0.995c. Since B sees it in a time of 10 light years, C managed to pass 9.95 light years in this period of time and is at a distance of 0.05 light years from B - about 2.5 light weeks.
"2. What will the journey of the JMB spacecraft look like, and how long will the journey last from the moment B sees B C for the first time, if along the journey there will be paper chains, with differences of one light year from the other that the spacecraft will cut one after the other?'
B will see the flashlight signal from G at a distance of 10 light years at an instant 10 years according to his clock, and if C continues to turn the flashlight on and off every minute, B will see them in crowded intervals at small distances until the moment of meeting with C in a time of about 10 years and 3 Shavuot according to clock B at a distance of 0, which is a year and a bit according to clock C. C will cut all the paper chains along the way at the appropriate times and distances.
"3. I argued throughout the discussion that - at the moment the flash is seen from A, spacecraft C is seen from B at a distance of 0.1 SA, and not from a distance of 10 SA, as you claimed throughout the discussion.
You claim to "disagree", but all your attempts to support your claim have led to contradictions. And all your attempts to contradict my argument failed. You are welcome to calculate the distance of JMB B again, as soon as the flash from A reaches B, and prove your claim without contradicting it again and again, as you have done up to this moment. (It is enough that you answer 1 and 2)"
It cannot be that you claimed throughout the discussion that B sees C at a distance of a tenth of a light year because for a long time you claimed that he sees him at a distance of a light year, then you corrected it.
What contradiction did my claim lead to? Do you really believe that if you repeat the same nonsense 1000 times, anyone but you and your mother will be convinced?
But you are right and I am wrong. I'm wrong to even waste time on this nonsense.
Any response you make in the future should begin with an explanation of your claim:
"Then, the answer is that C influences by the way in which he follows the light that comes out of him.
In other words: it is the relative movement between the spacecraft and the light that has an effect."
Or you will announce that you were right as always and I didn't answer you, and that if C turns around after turning on a light it affects the way B sees the signal of the light.
Israel,
In the problem before us, spacecraft C moves at a speed of 0.99C. At a distance of 10 light years from B:
A signal leaves A at a distance of 10 light years from B, when spaceship C passes by it.
A signal comes out of spacecraft C as it passes by A, 10 light years away from B.
The position of the spacecraft in relation to its observer is the distance between the signal when received by the observer and it.
The position of the spacecraft JMB is the distance between it and the signal that came out of it when it was received by observer B.
The signal from the spacecraft is not observed in B at the moment of its departure.
The distance of the signal from the spacecraft at the moment of its departure is zero.
The distance of the signal from the spacecraft at the moment it is received by B depends on its speed.
The distance of the signal from spacecraft C at the moment it is received by B - 0.1 S.A.
The distance of the spacecraft from B at the moment the signal was received from it - 0.1 s.a.
The signal from spacecraft C and A arrives at that moment.
At that moment spacecraft C is visible from B at a distance of 0.1 SA, and not from a distance of 10 SA, as you claimed throughout the discussion. agree/disagree?
Israel Shapira's answer - as of this moment - "I do not agree".
He is given another opportunity to admit his mistake, thereby showing that his words are trustworthy and belong to the one who confesses the truth.
Not that we don't admit to being wrong and misleading.
Israel
"Where's the link?"
I do not rely on links. It is enough that I proved that there are contradictions in your claim. That's enough to disqualify her.
-
You already asked about the reason for the differences in the calculation and received an answer from 03/06: "But you also claim that B sees C at a light-year distance."
"Because I calculated the speed of the spaceship as 0.9C. The principle is the same.”
And yesterday you asked the same question again and got the same answer:
"Didn't you say you see C again a light year away?" - "You asked me already, and I said that in the original problem I calculated the speed of the spacecraft as 0.9C. Since then the calculations are based on 0.99C.”
The distance is 0.1sha, and anyone who reads my comments can understand this without asking.
You are welcome to ask again.
"I brought you a link where the problem is explained."
It's the same problem. But it does not ask the question that interests us.
-
"Everything else was written in Chinese, Sohilit.." - excuses can always be found even after more than 20 days of questions and answers in Sohilit.
Here again the questions are expressed in - choose your favorite language:
1. You said that the spacecraft is visible from a distance of 10 light years and near A in the original problem, how far is it actually from B when viewed near A, and how is it possible that it is seen in two different places: A and close to B at the same moment?
2. What will the journey of spaceship JMB look like, and how long will the journey last from the moment B sees B for the first time, if along the journey there will be paper chains, with differences of one light year from the other that the spaceship will cut one after the other?
3. I argued throughout the discussion that - at the moment the flash was seen from A, spacecraft C was seen from B at a distance of 0.1 SA, and not from a distance of 10 SA, as you claimed throughout the discussion.
You claim to "disagree", but all your attempts to support your claim have led to contradictions. And all your attempts to contradict my argument failed. You are welcome to calculate the distance of JMB B again, as soon as the flash from A reaches B, and prove your claim without contradicting it again and again, as you have done up to this moment. (It is enough that you answer 1 and 2)
Comp
I think you wrote:
"Then, the answer is that C influences by the way in which he follows the light that comes out of him.
In other words: it is the relative movement between the spacecraft and the light that has an effect."
Where is the link?
And today:
"I argued throughout the discussion that - as soon as the flash was seen from A, spacecraft C was seen from B at a distance of 0.1 SA, and not from a distance of 10 SA, as you claimed throughout the discussion."
and also:
"Yossi Comprands
What are we talking about here?
Scroll back for a discussion of the flashes.
The starting conditions: C passes by A. Both flash.
I assumed: the flashes are seen at the same time from B but not from the same place.
B sees C from a light-year distance and A from 10 light-years away.'
So you can't claim "I claimed throughout the discussion that - as soon as the flash is seen from A, spaceship C is seen from B at a distance of 0.1 SA"
Because here, you also claimed:
"B sees C from a distance of a light year".
So decide - a light year or 0.1 light year?
Everything else was written in Chinese, Sohili, cuneiform, and the other languages of confusion and obscurity you love so much.
I brought you a link where the problem is explained. If you don't see that this is the same problem, I can't help.
Miracles
At least in the EPR article the interweaving example is extremely simple: a particle splits into two and each half moves at the same speed in the opposite direction.
According to the law of conservation of momentum, the momentum of each half is the same in magnitude and opposite in direction to the other.
So what is the problem with measuring the position of one and the momentum of the other when they are at a great distance from each other, thus knowing the position and momentum of the other contrary to the uncertainty principle?
Einstein at least thought there was a paradox here - the EPR paradox.
To say that Einstein did not understand that there is no paradox here, in his most important article since general relativity is a bit, well, how do you say - interesting...
Surely he understood that there is no contradiction to relativity here and that is why he did not mention relativity in the article and that is why I always say "according to Wiki".
But he also understood that if non-locality exists, then information travels faster than light, this despite the fact that it is not possible to send information faster than light, and even though there is no contradiction here - relativity only prohibits the sending of information, not transit - this still puts it to a difficult physical test, perhaps even too hard.
reader
You sound smart and understanding - could you perhaps explain to us how 2 coins in separate rooms can always fall on the same side without passing information between them?
Israel
I'm not saying I understand weaving! I say that as long as there are two teachings whose acceptance does not create a paradox, then I have no problem accepting them.
Israel
The collision between C and A is an "event". An event has coordinates in time space. That's why I asked... a long time ago... if your friend knows what a line and a point in space-time are.
A particle that is in two places does not harm causality and what "passes" between them is not information in the sense that there is an effect of one event on another event.
Tell me where is this discussion coming together?
You've already written hundreds of comments, it's starting to look like a dialogue of the deaf.
Israel
I argued throughout the discussion that - at the moment the flash is seen from A, spacecraft C is seen from B at a distance of 0.1 SA, and not from a distance of 10 SA, as you claimed throughout the discussion.
You claim to "disagree", but all your attempts to support your claim have led to contradictions. And all your attempts to contradict my argument failed.
You are welcome to recalculate the distance of JMB B, as soon as the flash from A reaches B, and prove your claim without contradicting it again and again, as you have done up to this moment.
Israel
Your last response is of course ridiculous - because I said that the signals from the turning point arrive at the same time.
I said the collision is only visible near A - but it's easy to distort.
-
You said that the spaceship is seen from a distance of 10 light years and near A in the original problem, how far is it actually from B, when it is observed near A, and how is it possible that it is seen in two different places: A and close to B, at the same moment - 10 years
According to B clock?
What will the journey of the spacecraft JMB B look like, and how long will the journey last from B's point of view from the moment it first observes B C, if along its path there are paper chains with differences of one light year from the other that the spacecraft will cut one after the other?
-
Miracles
What's wrong with a collision that is seen in two places at the same time?
There are many people here who believe that the same particle is in two places at the same time.
Oops!
Israel
I broke down as soon as he told about the collision that is seen in two places at the same time.
Slipper….
Miracles
Why so?
In my opinion, the discussion is insanely funny, literally.
Israel
It's you who insists on discussing with this troll. I had more interesting conversations with Nael Beit….
"Then, the answer is that C influences by the way in which he follows the light that comes out of him.
In other words: it is the relative movement between the spacecraft and the light that has an effect."
Allow link?
Miracles, have you ever heard of such a thing, you turn on the phantom's flashlight for a split second, and if you fly fast enough you can affect the beam, so if you turn around it will take longer to reach the target than if you keep chasing it.
where is water
Israel
The point where C turns is a point of change of direction.
Think of it as a stopping point.
Describe a body moving in the X direction and from that point P it moves in the X- direction.
This is the turning point. She didn't move.
Any light that comes from C cannot be closer than it is to B.
The light that comes from C that rotates comes from a point of change of direction.
The light coming from A is the light coming from the point of change of direction. The spacecraft does not follow him after this point.
In the case of a journey from A to B, the spacecraft follows the light and when it reaches B, it is 0.1 s.a behind it.
If so, the answer is that C influences by the way in which he follows the light that comes out of him.
In other words: the relative motion between the spacecraft and the light is what affects.
At relative speeds, distance and time are not absolute quantities - so why wouldn't rotation have an effect?
-
In addition - in the case of rotation there are accelerations that produce additional effects.
"After all, after the flash has left the flashlight, nothing can be done to affect it any more, right?"
Even after light exits from the front and back of a relativistic train it is impossible to influence it, yet the length of the train is shortened.
Comp
Let's see what you say.
C passes by A and turns on a flashlight.
If he continues his flight towards B - then B will see the flash at a distance of a tenth of a light year.
If he turns around and returns to space - B will see the flash at a distance of 10 light years.
a question:
How can the fact that C turns around affect what B sees? After all, after the flash has left the flashlight, nothing can be done to affect it any more, right?
And as we already agreed before, any action that C will do after turning on the flashlight, B will only see it after the flash, right?
So how does it work out?
The answer to 1:
297000 km - 10 S.A.
The answer to 2:
At a distance that is almost the same as 0.1 light years from it.
Abrit:
1. At what distance will B see the flash of the flashlight from G if he turns around a second after lighting the flashlight back into space?
2. At what distance will B see the same flash if C continues until he reaches B?
At the time - in the original problem that was about the transition from M. A to B.
Now - after a second of flight in direction B, the light from C will appear before A with a difference of 0.99*300000=297000 km.
Let's make sure I understand what you're saying.
At the time, you claimed that B sees the letter M - the lighting of a flashlight - at the time of the meeting with A at a distance of one light year (you claimed that he would not see the meeting).
Now you say that if after lighting the flashlight C turns around and returns back to space, B will see the signal almost 10 light years away.
comprandite right?
but
Around 10 p.m. - yes. less than 300000 km.
Comp
Deciphering the cuneiform text yielded the following answer:
Around 10 light years.
is it true?
Israel
You already asked this question like this:
"It is said that after G turned on the flashlight in the meeting with A, a second after to be more precise, he turned around and returned to the cold space.
When B sees the flash from C - at what distance will he see it?"
My answer was:
"- The spacecraft will see B at a distance of 0.99 seconds before A, at the same time as the flash from A."
The flash will show 10s.a - the distance traveled by the spaceship in a second.:
10 S.A. - 0.99C*sec.
Miracles
Nothing makes more sense than the theory of relativity - with knowledge in 1905.
And nothing makes more sense than the EPR paradox - with the knowledge in 1935.
But experiments in the field proved that Einstein was wrong - not because there is anything illogical in his theories, they are the most logical there is - he simply did not have the knowledge at the time.
Einstein was a realist, and I have almost no doubt that if he had known Bell's theorems and experiments, he would have conducted a comprehensive revision of relations to include non-locality, something he did not believe in but was proven to be a fact.
But if you - or anyone else - believe that particles can have the same quantum state without hidden variables and without information being transferred between them, I will respect your opinion but I do not agree with it.
At the beginning of this article I presented a classic question about coins that does not include any quantum elements. You have seen with your own eyes, you who tried to solve the problem, that there are only two ways to solve the problem I presented: through the transfer of information or through quantum means.
In my opinion, this problem or something similar to it should be presented at the end of courses dealing with classical physics, together with a promise that the problem can be solved by quantum means. Almost every student who breaks his head and cannot solve it, will be filled with curiosity and motivation to study quantum mechanics.
I will also note that in my opinion there is another interpretation of postulate 2 that does not contradict anything we know and explains quite well the results of Bell's experiments and many other things. Most likely I'm wrong of course, but I believe I'll find out very soon and not through a thought experiment but a real one.
Israel
Our universe provides a frame of reference so the first postulate is not valid in practice. Your second paragraph describes what I'm saying.
Logic is irrelevant. The theory of relativity says that time moves slower in a moving frame of reference. All of a sudden you don't get it??
Regarding the interweaving, you are fighting with your understanding, and not with what I said, or Albanzo said. I have no idea what you are saying. On the one hand you say that there is a problem with the special theory of relativity, on the other hand you repeatedly defend Einstein, and on the third hand you ignore real problems that exist between the two theories....
Miracles
What about Postulate 1?
"The principle of relativity:
The laws of physics do not change when moving from one inertial frame of reference to another inertial frame of reference. Thus, for example, a person in a sealed train car cannot, through any experiment or physical measurement, determine whether the car is moving at a constant speed or standing at rest.'
What is the problem with knowing if you are standing still or moving at a constant speed? Is the temp clock faster than the time clock? You are on the move! Same rate in both? at rest!
Not to mention the logic assuming that the temp clock moves slower than the clock.. you get old and the universe stays young, the reversal of the twin paradox.
But it seems to me that we've gone too far, like in the discussion about entanglement where I had to even fight the possibility that two particles will always be in the same quantum state without hidden variables and without the transfer of information..
(But Einstein said that information is transferred faster than light if non-locality exists!)
Oh, he was wrong, he got confused, he drank, he didn't understand his paradox, he doesn't understand relativity..
Come on, Shane.
Israel
I don't see a problem yet. When you move relative to the universe, like a train relative to a track, the time of the universe seems to slow down.
If you take illogical starting conditions, you will arrive at illogical results.
Ok
So if C turns around and returns to space - at what distance will B see the flash?
Answer in light years please.
I argued throughout the discussion that - at the moment the flash is seen from A, spacecraft C is seen from B at a distance of 0.1 SA, and not from a distance of 10 SA, as you claimed throughout the discussion.
You claim to "disagree", but all your attempts to support your claim have led to contradictions. And all your attempts to contradict my argument failed.
You are invited to recalculate the distance of JM B, as soon as the flash from A reaches B, and prove your claim.
Israel
My answer was aimed at the problem as you presented it:
"It is said that after G turned on the flashlight in the meeting with A, a second after to be more precise, he turned around and returned to the cold space.
When B sees the flash from C - at what distance will he see it?"
"Didn't you say you see C again a light year away?" - You asked me already, and I said that in the original problem I calculated the speed of the spacecraft as 0.9C.
Since the calculations are based on 0.99C.
"...does it require that at a certain point they were at the same distance - 5 light years - in the video?"
Stick to the terms of the original problem. I have no interest in recalculating every time.
A week ago you asked about a spaceship at a distance of 20 S.A., it is similar to 1000, and you received answers to all your questions.
Miracles
This is not a thought experiment.
In 1905 there is no problem with two twins of different ages. Anyone can claim that their age is correct because the universe has no beginning or end. Today, when C makes his journey towards B, he sees the universe around him rapidly aging while he remains young.
To see the problem with this argument try to answer the question: Is there a possibility that the remaining twin will find himself younger? After all, half of the paradox does not involve acceleration, so why, if the systems are balanced, would the twin moving against the background radiation remain young and not the other way around?
Comp
Halas Chinese. Didn't you say Shab sees C at a distance of a light year?
And if the chain isn't halfway there then won't it show up in every photo from 5 light years away?
And if the video from MB records C's entire journey from a distance of 1000 light years and you always see the chain 5 light years away and C at one point or another one light year away - doesn't this require that at a certain point they were at the same distance - 5 light years - in the video?
Chain: 10 light years minus 0.99C*second\2 > Spacecraft C: 10 light years minus 0.99C*second.
The distance is measured from B.
Do you realize that C is closer?
"So when B looks at the photo of the meeting between A and C and sees the complete chains - how far are they from him in the photo?"
From my answer it is clear that we do not see a meeting.
In a thought experiment, you can also imagine that you are a pilot who understands something from what you write on the science website...
Israel
Yes, in a thought experiment I can get off the age of the universe. I can also rise above the age of the universe. So what?
Comp, Hebrew.
Distance - in light years.
What is the distance of G and what is the distance of the chain in the photo?
You don't need a train 10 light years long. Can you pass the age of the universe in a second? Go down from it in a second? Go down below the time 0 of the bang in a second?
Because that's where the calculations - which are correct in themselves - you did lead to.
"So when B looks at the photo of the meeting between A and C and sees the complete chains - how far are they from him in the photo?
And at what distance C?
So who is closer in the photo - the chains or G?"
The chain is visible at a distance of 10h-0.99Cs\2, at a time of 10h according to B.
Spacecraft C is seen at a distance of 10s-0.99Cs, at a time of 10s according to B.
Therefore spacecraft C is closer to B.
Israel
Special relativity is a mathematical model. My calculations, as long as I have not been shown otherwise, are correct.
Where in the calculations did I pass the age of the universe? And what does it have to do with it? We are talking about thought experiments. I hope you don't think there are trains 10 light years long, do you?
I probably overdid it and as a punishment I was put on hold. What did I innovate?
Promo until bail:
Remember Yishka from the barn of Yafim and Boris, the one who counts the legs and divides by 4?
"They say to Lishka: the square of the number of cows in the herd is equal to 144 and it also has 19 carts. How many animals in the herd?
Vishka answers without batting an eyelid: it depends. It could be 31 or 7."
Yishka does the correct math, and includes the negative violations as well.
But what does this have to do with reality?
Even in your calculation, the math shows that the Tez clock moves faster than the universe clock. But in practice, what will happen is that if you keep such a watch that also shows your age, you will very quickly pass the age of the universe, won't you?
Do you remember what Boris did to Ishka when the latter brought him mathematically correct calculations but out of touch with reality? Or maybe this is simply another way of looking at reality, like the same particle that is in several places at the same time, touching the other particle in a twisted fifth dimension, an influence on the past from the future, or coins that always fall on the same side without transferring information between them?
"At B, will the universe clock move slower than the clock next to it?" - Yes.
Beautiful. We got to the root of the problem. The universe time clock moves slower than a cesium clock just like any other clock that is in motion relative to it. This is what the math shows.
Remember Yishka from the barn of Yafim and Boris, the one who counts the legs and divides by 4?
"They say to Lishka: the square of the number of cows in the herd is equal to 144 and it also has 19 carts. How many animals in the herd?
Vishka answers without batting an eyelid: it depends. It could be 31 or 7."
Yishka does the correct math, and includes the negative violations as well.
But what does this have to do with reality?
Even in your calculation, the math shows that the Tez clock moves faster than the universe clock. But in practice, what will happen is that if you keep such a watch that also shows your age, you will very quickly pass the age of the universe, won't you?
Do you remember what Boris did to Ishka when the latter brought him mathematically correct calculations but out of touch with reality?
Or maybe this is simply another way of looking at reality, like the same particle that is in several places at the same time, touching the other particle in a twisted fifth dimension, an influence on the past from the future, or coins that always fall on the same side without transferring information between them?
Israel
I was glad I got it right 🙂
The universe's clock moves 10 times slower than Earth's clock. In C - the clocks advance at the same speed, in B - not. The universe system is an inertial system for everything.
"At B, will the universe clock move slower than the clock next to it?" - Yes. Just like any other watch that is in motion relative to it.
Miracles
You could have added a few more digits after the decimal point...
"B will reach C when his clock is 10.0503781526 years. He sees the time of the universe moving 10 times slower.'
slower than what?
For B, will the universe clock move more slowly than the clock next to it?
The question in full again:
Comp
So when B looks at the photo of the meeting between A and C and sees the complete chains - how far are they from him in the photo?
And at what distance C?
So who is closer in the photo - the chains or G?
L.H.A.H.S.
Israel
As strange as it is - no. The reason is that the clocks of A and B are not synchronized in the rail/universe system.
A simple method of synchronizing clocks on the train is with a flash in the center of the train. In our example, in the train system - both ends of the train will see the flash after 5 years. Any other method will be equivalent to this method. We will initiate the action five years before we reach the third and thus we will reach the reset of the clocks.
From gamma=10 we get v=0.99498743711c
Regarding the rail, the situation is different. First of all - the length of the train is one light year. Now, the signal will reach the tail of the train relatively quickly, because the relative speed is 1.99498743711c. Therefore the time is 0.2506284467 years.
The time of arrival at the bow of the train is much longer, the relative speed is 0.00501256289c, and the time of arrival will be 99.749372 years, which means a time difference of 99.4987437 years.
B will reach C when his clock is 10.0503781526 years. He sees the time of the universe advancing 10 times slower, meaning the universe will age by 100.503781526 years. Therefore B expects to see 99.4987437 – 100.503781526 years, that is 1.00503781526 years on the clock on the sill.
For C - the length of the train is one light year, therefore the arrival time - 1.00503781526 years according to his clock, and also according to the track/universe clock.
That seems accurate enough to me, doesn't it?
Israel
The chain is closer.
(T.L.N)
I'm in the park with my dogs, I didn't see the
Let's take the same scenario but let L be in motion relative to the rail and V be at rest relative to it.
C started at 0,0 and ended at CZ 1 universe 10.
B started at CZ 0 will be 100- and ended at CZ 10 will be 10.
So I don't understand, shouldn't the universe clock always show the same time as the clock?
Israel
"Ok, so B starts at time 0, will be 100." No - B starts at 0 p.m., will be -100.
"When he meets C, C's hours will show 1,1." Right
"What will poverty see in B when it meets B?" I already wrote you... His clock will show ten years, and the clock of the universe will show 1. (0, 1 ... it's the same as the level of accuracy I calculated - if you want it can be more precise).
Ok, so b starts at time 0, will be 100.
When he meets C, C's clocks will show 1,1.
What will Ovi B see when he meets B?
Israel
The rail represents the universe.
When A meets C:
A's clock, C's clock and all the clocks on the track show 0.
B's clock is synchronized with A's clock - in the train system. B sees about 100- on the rail.
Too bad I'm repeating my previous comment...
Miracles
Choose which system represents the age of the universe, the track or the train.
And tell me which of the three active beings, A, B and C, does not show 0,0 in the clocks of the universe and its CZ when C meets Ba.
Israel
What you say is not true. Suppose that A and B are synchronized in the train system. In this situation - they are not synchronized in the rail system. The difference between them is about 100 years.
As far as C is concerned - B's watch is a hundred years behind and while A will see "0" on the track, B will see "100-".
When B crosses C, the clock on the sill at that point will show one year, because approximately, C sees a light year long train moving close to the speed of light.
As far as B is concerned - 10 years will pass in his system, and since B sees the track advancing at gamma = 100, about 100 years will pass in the track's clock.
That means approximately - both C and B will see "1" on the track clock.
There is no contradiction.
Miracles
"As soon as A crosses C - A and C reset their clocks."
What happens to B if A and C reset their clocks?
Perhaps you meant that A arrives in front of C when the time on their clocks is 0.
Ok. So when B arrives in front of C, B's time is higher than C's.
But B also started at time 0 on his watch and 0 on the track clock in front of him which is synchronized with C.
And B moves along the track where clocks are synchronized, so when he reaches C his time should be lower than C's, right?
So how does it work out?
Comp
So when B looks at the photo of the meeting between A and C and sees the complete chains - how far are they from him in the photo?
And at what distance C?
So who is closer in the photo - the chains or G?
Israel,
"What is the distance 0.99c a second before A?"
The distance the spaceship traveled in one second on its way to B.
"Let's say there are paper chains halfway between C and B that C must pass through.
In the photo from B where you see the flash from the meeting between C and A - are the chains intact or cut?"
integrity.
Israel
I think my example solves the problem. There is a long rail and each rung has a clock. All these clocks are synchronized. A train 10 light years long travels at a speed of gamma=10, from left to right. A in the bow of the train and B in the tail of the train.
C stands on the sills.
As soon as A crosses C - A and C reset their clocks.
What's the question now?
Miracles
The train can be of infinite length, but for our examples 2,000 light years will suffice.
But I think we both agree. A train with a finite length will be shortened in the image, therefore between two points in the track system there will be more cars, i.e. a longer train.
This still does not solve the problem I raised: if in motion against the background radiation the universe time clock moves 10 times faster than a normal clock, what happens when C is stationary relative to the radiation and B is the one moving against it? Why, if according to relativity the clock of G will lag behind the clock of B, then the clocks of the universe will show a different time at the moment of the meeting between G and B?
Israel
The sentence you wrote is missing - how long is the train?? There is speed and there are two clocks on the track. I don't understand what you are trying to say.
Comp
- "The spacecraft will see B at a distance of 0.99 seconds before A, at the same time as the flash from A."
What is the distance 0.99c a second before A?
Let's say there are paper chains halfway between C and B that C must pass through.
In the photo from B where you see the flash from the meeting between C and A - are the chains intact or cut?
What is relativity?
If A puts his nose in B's ass, they both have noses in their ass
And the one who understands will understand
Israel,
The article in the link discusses times. And not in the question I'm asking you.
"It is said that after G turned on the flashlight in the meeting with A, a second after to be more precise, he turned around and returned to the cold space.
When B sees the flash from C - at what distance will he see it?"
- The spacecraft will see B at a distance of 0.99 seconds before A, at the same time as the flash from A.
-
In the problem before us, spacecraft C moves at a speed of 0.99C. At a distance of 10 light years from B:
A signal leaves A at a distance of 10 light years from B, when spaceship C passes by it.
A signal comes out of spacecraft C as it passes by A, 10 light years away from B.
The position of the spacecraft in relation to its observer is the distance between the signal when received by the observer and it.
The position of the spacecraft JMB is the distance between it and the signal that came out of it when it was received by observer B.
The signal from the spacecraft is not observed in B at the moment of its departure.
The distance of the signal from the spacecraft at the moment of its departure is zero.
The distance of the signal from the spacecraft at the moment it is received by B depends on its speed.
The distance of the signal from spacecraft C at the moment it is received by B - 0.1 S.A.
The distance of the spacecraft from B at the moment the signal was received from it - 0.1 s.a.
The signal from spacecraft C and A arrives at that moment.
At that moment spacecraft C is visible from B at a distance of 0.1 SA, and not from a distance of 10 SA, as you claimed throughout the discussion. agree/disagree?
Israel Shapira's answer - as of this moment - "I do not agree".
He is given another opportunity to admit his mistake, thereby showing that his words are trustworthy and belong to the one who confesses the truth.
Not that we don't admit to being wrong and misleading.
You'll get a train one light year long, but that's not what we're talking about.
We are talking about the length of the train in the train reference system between the 2 clocks in the track system:
"According to relativity, if there is a track with two synchronized clocks on it one km apart, and if a train travels on the track at a speed of 0.996c (gamma equals 10), then at time 0 on the clocks they will photograph cars that are 10 km apart in the railway system ".
Israel
No photography will add carriages. If you take a photo of a train 10 light years long at a gamma speed of 10, you will get an image of a train XNUMX light year long.
I thought we agreed on that.
"If you take a picture of the train, you will get that it is 100 light years long."
If you are at a high point above the track, say 200 light years, you take a picture of the train and send the TCA for decoding, they will tell you that the number of cars between the two clocks corresponds to 1000 light years.
Example: If each car is a light year long in the railway system, then between the 2 clocks 1000 cars will be counted in the photo.
It is difficult, very difficult to say what is the distance of such distant objects. That's why Einstein always uses close objects in his examples.
Israel
"According to relativity, if there is a track with two clocks on it that are synchronized one km apart, and if a train travels on the track at a speed of 0.996c (gamma equals 10), then at time 0 on the clocks they will photograph cars that are 10 km apart in the railway system .”
Yes - I agree.
"Similarly in the railway system: cars spaced one kilometer apart, will photograph at time 0 on their synchronized clocks lines spaced 10 kilometers apart in the rail system."
Yes - I agree.
Israel
"Do you accept that in such a case a train of 1000 light years will be compressed to 100 in the track system, meaning that a photograph taken at time 0 on one clock will show a car 1000 light years away from the car photographed at time 0 on the other clock?"
I agree with the first part of the sentence.
The second part is not clear to me. If you take a picture of the train, you will get that it is 100 light years long. You can determine two points on the track 100 light years away and photograph the train from them as the front of the train reaches the first point - and you will see the tail of the train on the second camera.
And here is another response:
"Israel Shapira
Miracles, comp
In order for us to move forward, we must agree on one point that must be clear:
According to relativity, if there is a track with two synchronized clocks on it one km apart, and if a train is traveling on the track at a speed of 0.996c (gamma equals 10), then at time 0 on the clocks they will photograph cars that are 10 km apart in the train system.
Likewise in the railway system: cars spaced 0 km apart, will photograph at time 10 on their synchronized clocks lines spaced XNUMX km apart in the rail system.
I know it sounds crazy, but it's the relativity argument, and not the craziest one. There are more serious ones.
agreed upon?"
From your definition:
"Miracles
Israel
I don't agree, or don't understand what you are saying. I will give the example again: a train 10 light years long moves at gamma=10 along a track. Synchronized clocks are scattered along the track (the age of the universe for you)"
The clocks are synchronized in the rail system of course. Simultaneously on the clocks means the same time - 0 for example - on two clocks.
Do you accept that in such a case a train of 1000 light years will be compressed to 100 in the track system, i.e. a photo taken at time 0 from one clock will show a car 1000 light years away from the car photographed at time 0 on the other clock?
Israel
Booked in which traffic system?
"Didn't we agree that there is 100 years between the two photographs??"
No. See comment below:
"If you take pictures at the same time"
Dihi..
Israel
Definately not.
"The watches are photographed from the train, 100 light years apart in the track system." - Right.
"If you take pictures of the train from the exact same clocks at the same time, you will see in the pictures cars that are 1000 light years apart in the train system" - Dhahaha.... Didn't we agree that there is 100 years between the two pictures??
Miracles
We should sync up..
Here's what I wrote:
"The watches are photographed from the train, 100 light years apart in the track system.
If you take pictures of the train from exactly the same clocks at the same time, you will see in the pictures cars that are 1000 light years apart in the train system.'
Are we in sync? If not, is there a difference from the barn paradox?
Israel
what? Where is a train 1,000 light years long?
And what is time 0? 100 years have passed between the photographs...
But we weren't talking about the ladder system, we were talking about the barn system, that is, the track, that two synchronized clocks 100 light years away manage to contain at time 0 in both a train 1000 light years long.
Not the same?
Israel
Yes - I know the paradox and also the solution. And the solution is what I've been trying to clarify for several comments. The closing of the doors is not simultaneous in the movement system of the ladder.
Miracles
That's how to interrupt in the middle of singing in public?
Do you know the pole and barn paradox?
So let's say the distance between the barn doors is 100 light years and the length of the pole is 1000.
comprands?
Za Nissim?
Israel
A train of length X at a (relative) speed gamma=10 will appear to be one light year long. This. There are no more wagons.
Let's imagine the following experiment. There is a flash in the center of the train. The flasher will activate a camera at the end of each trailer. Inside the train, the cameras seem to be activated simultaneously.
What does it look like from the outside? First thing - the train will look one light year long. The light from the flash will move back and forth. Approximately the light will reach the end of the train after a quarter of a year.
Approximately the light will reach the front of the train after 100 years.
What does it look like? A flash is seen in the center of a light-year long train traveling by. After a quarter of a year - we will see the rear camera taking pictures, and a hundred years later we will see the front camera taking pictures. But - the train will always appear to be a light year long.
This…
Miracles
In my understanding, the shortening of the length means that when you watch a train traveling fast, its cars appear shorter to you.
As far as I understand, if wagons look 10 times shorter to you, then they take up a tenth of the space in the picture.
And so as I understand it, if the length of your track is 100 light years, then to fill the track with cars when they are in motion relative to you, you need 10 times more cars than when they are at rest, and the only way to do this is to multiply the number of cars 10 times, and therefore the train itself will be twice as long 10, or 1000 light years in its rest system.
A friendly institution?
Comp
The link describes a problem identical to ours with watches c1, c2 c3 instead of A, B, and C.
I will ask you one more time:
It was said that after G turned on the flashlight in the meeting with A, a second after to be more precise, he turned around and returned to the cold space.
When B sees the flash from C - at what distance will he see it?
Shevtsav
Israel,
The article does not address our problem and does not contradict my argument.
I argued throughout the discussion that - at the moment the flash is seen from A, spacecraft C is seen from B at a distance of 0.1 SA, and not from a distance of 10 SA, as you claimed throughout the discussion.
You claim to "disagree", but all your attempts to support your claim have led to contradictions. And all your attempts to contradict my argument failed.
You are invited to recalculate the distance of JM B, as soon as the flash from A reaches B, and prove your claim.
Israel
"If D follows C and C reaches B at time 0 according to B's clock, D has long since passed A."
not getting…
1. I assume that in the initial state the order in space is - D => C => A => B. The first meeting is between Tuesday and Sunday.
2. D sees C standing in front of him at a distance of 10 light years.
3. He sees the distance between A and B as one light year, with A being closer.
4. Therefore - when C crosses B, D will see A 9 light years ahead of him.
Miracles
We will take our previous example with A, B and C, but for the sake of symmetry, we will also insert clock D which is 10 light years away from G in the rest system C - D.
We now have 2 systems 10 light years each passing each other.
My argument is this:
If D follows C and C reaches B at time 0 according to B's clock, D has long since passed A.
If the C - D system is a train that has many more cars after D, its total length is 100 light years and the collecting car is M, then if C, the locomotive, arrives at B at time 0 according to B's clock, then in A At time 0 according to A's watch M is photographed.
getting?
Israel
You are mixing things up. The train sees the sleepers 10 times more crowded, and sees the difference between the times on the sleepers. As you said - if we take a timed photo from the train, we will get a time difference in clocks of 100 light years - the reason is that the photos are not simultaneous in the rail axis system.
I don't see where you got the train 1000 light years long: the length of the train in its system is 10 light years, and in the track system one light year.
Comp
I don't agree and yes.
Everything I say appears in the link I attached earlier:
http://galileoandeinstein.physics.virginia.edu/lectures/time_dil.html
Complaints - to Einstein.
Miracles
If you photograph from clocks 100 light years apart at the same time a train moving relative to them at gamma 10, it looks 10 times shorter.
Therefore, you can compress 1000 light years of a train in 100 light years of a track.
sturdy?
Israel,
In the problem before us, spacecraft C moves at a speed of 0.99C. At a distance of 10 light years from B:
A signal leaves A at a distance of 10 light years from B, when spaceship C passes by it.
A signal comes out of spacecraft C as it passes by A, 10 light years away from B.
The position of the spacecraft in relation to its observer is the distance between the signal when received by the observer and it.
The position of the spacecraft JMB is the distance between it and the signal that came out of it when it was received by observer B.
The signal from the spacecraft is not observed in B at the moment of its departure.
The distance of the signal from the spacecraft at the moment of its departure is zero.
The distance of the signal from the spacecraft at the moment it is received by B depends on its speed.
The distance of the signal from spacecraft C at the moment it is received by B - 0.1 S.A.
The distance of the spacecraft from B at the moment the signal was received from it - 0.1 s.a.
The signal from spacecraft C and A arrives at that moment.
At that moment spacecraft C is visible from B at a distance of 0.1 SA, and not from a distance of 10 SA, as you claimed throughout the discussion. agree/disagree?
Israel
I agree that the photos are of clocks 100 light years apart. And this will also be the time difference between the clocks that will be photographed.
I do not agree with the second section - for an observer on the track, the train appears to be one light year long. If we shoot with both cameras as soon as the front of the train is at the point where C is standing - a camera located one light year back will see the tail of the train.
The third section is already up to you….
Agrees enthusiastically and adds:
The watches are photographed from the train, 100 light years apart in the track system.
If you take pictures of the train from the exact same clocks at the same time, you will see in the pictures cars that are 1000 light years apart in the train system.
Make an appointment for Abravanal?
Israel
I don't agree, or don't understand what you are saying. I will give the example again: a train 10 light years long moves at gamma=10 along a track. Scattered along the track are synchronized clocks (the age of the universe for you).
From inside the train, simultaneously photograph the clock at the top of the train and the clock at the end of the train. The photos will not show the same time.
Does anyone agree?
Miracles, comp
In order for us to move forward, we must agree on one point that must be clear:
According to relativity, if there is a track with two synchronized clocks on it one km apart, and if a train is traveling on the track at a speed of 0.996c (gamma equals 10), then at time 0 on the clocks they will photograph cars that are 10 km apart in the train system.
Likewise in the railway system: cars spaced 0 km apart, will photograph at time 10 on their synchronized clocks lines spaced XNUMX km apart in the rail system.
I know it sounds crazy, but it's the relativity argument, and not the craziest one. There are more serious ones.
agreed upon?
"They are unnecessary and confusing. The time on B's watch is set, and according to this time he receives the work in about a year and a month as you corrected, and not in a year as you wrote in the response above."
This is what I wrote:
"2. At what time according to B's clock will C appear with the song? -: 40 days + 10 years."
"I defined the problem as the 'half paradox' because it does not involve the second stage which includes the acceleration experienced by the traveling twin."
I argued that there is no twin paradox when referring to systems in acceleration - I presented a problem that would clarify the issue, which you did not address.
"If we remove the connecting link - A - do you see that now there is no connection between the times of C and B"
Without A, it is a new problem with new opening conditions.
"So what does the addition of A even matter?"
Your question is very puzzling!
Without A, all the questions asked in this discussion about the relationships of A, B, and C would not have been possible.
"Once again a careless question. The distance of the source from what?" - its distance from the viewer, in our case B, isn't this the subject of the discussion.
"But the answer is that for the observer who does not experience acceleration there is no change in the observed distance. Just to accelerate.”
We will check - regarding systems that move at a constant speed:
In the problem before us, spacecraft C moves at a speed of 0.99C. At a distance of 10 light years from B:
A signal leaves A at a distance of 10 light years from B, when spaceship C passes by it.
A signal comes out of spacecraft C as it passes by A, 10 light years away from B.
The position of the spacecraft in relation to its observer is the distance between the signal when received by the observer and it.
The position of the spacecraft JMB is the distance between it and the signal that came out of it when it was received by observer B.
The signal from the spacecraft is not observed in B at the moment of its departure.
The distance of the signal from the spacecraft at the moment of its departure is zero.
The distance of the signal from the spacecraft at the moment it is received by B depends on its speed.
The distance of the signal from spacecraft C at the moment it is received by B - 0.1 S.A.
The distance of the spacecraft from B at the moment the signal was received from it - 0.1 s.a.
The signal from spacecraft C and A arrives at that moment.
At that moment spacecraft C is visible from B at a distance of 0.1 SA, and not from a distance of 10 SA, as you claimed throughout the discussion. agree/disagree?
Israel
I meant... A will pass by C.
A will pass by B? A is 10 light years away from B and relatively stationary to it, isn't it?
Israel
Let's take two cars, with the distance between them being 10 light years, and the speed gamma = 10. The first is equal to our A, the second to our B. C stands by the rail and activates a camera with a flash when A passes. B coordinated with A that they would simultaneously activate a camera with a flash when A passes by B (they know in advance where C is standing).
The crossing reads at clock time t (the time is that of a clock on the adjacent threshold). How long will each image show? Obviously cameras A and C will see t, but what will B's image show?
Resets where? You can only reset one car with one stripe. So let's assume that the locomotive is reset with one tax bar, all the other successive cars will show different times against successive bars.
Israel
I think your question is valid for the example I gave earlier: we have a train moving on a track, with synchronized clocks on the sleepers. The length of the train is 10 light years, and its speed is gamma=10.
There is a traffic light on the track, and when the front of the train crosses the traffic light - clocks are reset.
So far I understand right?
Ok.
So if C is stationary, B will be at gamma 10 relative to radiation.
And so from the previous example, his universe clock moves 10 times faster than the CZ clock.
So C started at times 0, 0, and finished at times 1,1.
while B started with 0,0, and ended with 10.
But we said that the clocks of the universe always show the same time when they are together: the age of the universe.
So how is it that the 100th century clock shows the year and the XNUMXnd century shows XNUMX?
Israel
The first sentence is agreed. If C is stationary then both clocks will show the same time. It's symmetrical, isn't it?
So C's universe clock will advance 10 times faster than the current clock, while for B they will tick at the same rate? Beauty.
So doesn't this require that the same thing happen when c is stationary relative to radiation and b is in motion?
Israel
All clocks show 0 locally. The clock on Tuesday will show one year. Clock B will show 10 years. The clocks of the universe will show 10 years.
Let's say you're right.
So when C starts his journey at A all the clocks show 0, right?
So what will the clocks of Cz and the universe show when it reaches the heart and what will the clocks of B show?
Israel
I don't see a problem if that time doesn't depend on speed. I see a lot of watches around me. I fly, and I still see these watches. I will see that the time on these watches does not match my high speed watch. No problem here.
I also don't see a problem if this time does depend on speed. I know that I am moving relative to the background and correct the time I see to the correct time. No problem here.
The movement here is not in an empty space but within a medium. I don't see a contradiction with special relativity. The conditions for the first postulate are not met in our case.
Miracles
The problem is this:
If the universe has an absolute and measurable time - then there are two options:
This time is the same for every surveyor regardless of his speed.
Time depends on speed.
If it does not depend on speed - then in the journey of G from A to B the clocks of the CZ and the universe will agree throughout the journey. But when he reaches B, his and B's clocks will show the same time, contrary to the claim of relativity.
If time depends on speed, and we chose for this speed to be relative to the background radiation, then when C is at rest relative to the radiation, the clocks of CZ and his universe will agree throughout the journey, but when he reaches B, he will discover that his and B's universe clocks do not agree, which is impossible Because at that point in a given moment the universe only has absolute and specific time.
Israel
I don't read the comments of those who talk nonsense, nor the responses to his comments.... I did not understand what problem you are talking about. I think the universe has an absolute age - which is accepted by everyone, and it doesn't matter what their speed is. Do you agree with that?
Miracles
The temperature is only symbolic, what is important is that the universe has the same age at every point at a given moment, not the technical means of measuring that age such as temperature or density.
You saw it in the simultaneous attack synchronization question that is possible today but was not possible in 1905.
And if you don't believe that this leads to a contradiction with the lengthening of time in relationships - give an explanation to the question I asked about the rushing twin resting relative to radiation.
Comp
Let's hope this comment is not moderated or disappears.
I explained in the disappearing response at length that if we look at the definition of the problem:
"Two clocks A and B, synchronized with each other at a distance of 10 light years.
At instant 0 on the clocks, clock C passes by A on its way to B. Gamma factor is equal to 10.
So your comments are as follows:
B received the piece in a year's time according to his watch - a year from the moment he saw C.
They are unnecessary and confusing. The time on B's watch is set, and according to this time he receives the work in about a year and a month as you corrected, and not in a year as you wrote in the response above.
Regarding your questions:
"Are you claiming that: the distance of B. M. C. is 10 light-years, and that of J. M. B. is a light-year?
Do you not accept the principle of equivalence of inertial systems?"
The systems here are not balanced. The time when the distance is measured is different. Time 0 when C sees B is different from time 0 when B sees C.
B's watch is synchronized with A and not with C.
I defined the problem as the "half paradox" because it does not involve the second step which includes the acceleration experienced by the traveling twin.
In the half paradox, the only thing that matters is clock synchronization. The fact that we said that C sees B at moment 0 according to his clock does not mean that it is also moment 0 on B's clock. If we remove the connecting link - A - do you see that now there is no connection between the times of C and B and we can simply arbitrarily determine that the moment 0 B is a light year away from B, and the moment 0 B is 10 light years away from G?
So what does the addition of A even matter?
"Do you agree that the distance from which a signal is sent from long distances is not always the same as the distance of the source and depends on the speed and direction of the source? Yes No?"
Again a careless question. Source distance from what?
But the answer is that for the observer who does not experience acceleration there is no change in the observed distance. Just to accelerate.
To see this, take your determination:
"The recording of A and C's meeting on video can arrive in a special delivery to B.
This does not mean that when B watches the event itself after 10 years, he will see the same thing in the photograph. These are two different and separate events!'
So let's say that the meeting really took place when A is 10 times as far from B as you claim.
If A and C are the same diameter - will a photograph from B show C 10 times larger in the picture than from an orientation that is 10 times closer? Is it optically possible? And which stars will the image show - which ones are next to A or which ones are next to C, which is closer by 9 light years?
Regarding Einstein, the corresponding article claims:
"In Einstein's eyes, this "ghost action from afar" is nonsense. According to his special theory of relativity, nothing can move faster than light, therefore it is impossible for the two particles to transfer information between them instantaneously from one end of the universe to the other.'
I believe that Einstein understood his paradox well and that nothing essential has changed since 1935.
will pass
Albanzo
What I read is this:
Einstein (1907) and Planck thought that temperature should be divided by gamma.
In the sixties (Ott) thought that it was necessary to multiply by gamma.
After that they (Landsberg) claimed that the temperature drops
And UNRO showed that the temperature should rise….
So I understand that today there is a consensus that Unro is right?
I just wrote a long comment. She wasn't even waited for, just disappeared.
Apparently WordPress already knows how to recognize on its own what is not suitable for printing. I'm a little broken by this nonsense.
Comp
"At what time according to B's clock will C appear with the song? -: 40 days + 10 years'.
A bit of an improvement from the previous comments, isn't it?
Pay attention to the definition of the problem:
"Two clocks A and B, synchronized with each other at a distance of 10 light years.
At instant 0 on the clocks, clock C passes by A on its way to B. Gamma factor is equal to 10.
He will reach B in a year's time according to C's clock and 10 and a little according to B's clock.
So why do you write:
"The flash from A will reach B in 10 years time.
And the sonnet at the time of a year according to B's clock from the moment he saw C, which is 10 years since it was sent from A's location."
Why complicate and get involved? What's wrong with the data that appears in the definition of the original problem that you finally confirmed? Why write:
"The sonnet will arrive in one year's time according to B's clock from the moment he saw C, which is 10 years since it was sent from A's location."
Didn't I tell you in several languages that I have no head for long words?
The initial definition was excellent and unambiguous:
"C will reach B in a year's time according to C's clock and 10 and a little according to B's clock"
And all the rest - in B.L.T.
We will address your following claims:
B does not see a meeting. I don't see C next to A. He sees two flashes at the same time from two different distances A and C.
"I argued - the same distance exists between G and B, and between B and C, and it is a light year."
So you say that B, at an instant 10 years according to his clock, sees the meeting between A and C when A is 10 light years away and C is XNUMX light year away.
Let's say that A and C are spheres with a diameter 1000 times that of the sun. B will be able to see - and photograph - the meeting between them with the naked eye.
Since the length shortening is only in the horizontal direction and not the vertical - are you saying that in photo C it will appear 10 times larger because it is 10 times closer?
And what about the stars in the vicinity of the encounter? What will they see in the photo? 9 light years is a huge distance - so will they see the stars in the vicinity of A or C?
Your claim for equivalence is correct in Galilean systems. But here there is no equivalence - clock B is synchronized with clock A, not with clock C.
In the case I described, I defined the "half paradox of the twins" acceleration does not appear. The reason B sees A - and therefore also C - 10 light years away, while C sees B XNUMX light year away is because the measurements were made at different times.
To see this, see the explanation I gave you a long time ago: we will remove A from the system.
If C had come from a distance of 1000 light years - do you accept that he would have taken a video of B as he got closer and closer, bigger and bigger, and at a certain point he would have appeared exactly one light year away?
Freeze this moment. This is the moment discussed in the problem. C sets his watch to 0 at this moment.
The fact that A is next to him at that moment does not change anything. For him, he is a light year away from B.
And to the same extent, B would see C at some point 10 light years away, right?
This moment is a moment 10 years in the B clock. A is not related.
Now, put A back into the picture, and put him next to C at the instant 0 on C's clock, and set A's clock to 0 as well.
Does it matter to G? or heart? The math will show you that the clocks of A and B are synchronized, but this does not change the conditions of the problem: it happened when C was a light-year away from B in his system, and B was 10 light-years away from G in his system.
Just as a plane can be 3000 km away from New York at 18.00 according to New York time, and New York is only 1,000 km away from the plane at 18.00 according to the plane's time.
Everything is a synchronization of clocks.
I believe that Einstein was not wrong in understanding the EPR paradox that he devised. In my understanding, nothing fundamental has changed since 1935. The editor of Scientific American Israel also claims in:
https://www.hayadan.org.il/thought-2705169
"In Einstein's eyes, this "ghost action from afar" is nonsense. According to his special theory of relativity, nothing can move faster than light, therefore it is impossible for the two particles to transfer information between them instantaneously from one end of the universe to the other.'
And by the way - the conflict as it is presented in the original article from 1935 is between two different Torahs, and not between Torah and itself (the quantum mechanics used in EPR is not explicitly relativistic). Therefore there was room to find a contradiction between them, although as mentioned, there is no such contradiction (and today we have a unified theory of special relativity and quantum mechanics).
The first example is just nonsense. Yes, Newtonian physics is mathematically consistent, and it was rejected because its consistent model simply did not match reality. They did an experiment - not a thought experiment, but a direct examination of reality - and saw that it was wrong. Since you did not perform an experiment that disproves special relativity and/or the big bang theory (otherwise you would be waving your Nobel Prize here already, and really I'm not exaggerating), this example is irrelevant and is empty rhetoric.
The second example is actually excellent. Einstein came up with an excellent and important thought experiment, and concluded from it that there was some problem with the consistency of the theory. He fell into category number 1 in my previous response - he was simply wrong because he did not understand the subject in depth. His mistake has already been explained to you many times by me, and I have no intention of repeating it. If you wish to ignore, to think that Einstein is God and if he said there is a problem then he was right and anyone whose name is not Einstein is an idiot and wrong - your right. Good luck later.
Israel
1. Do you accept that this time - 10 years according to B's clock - is the time when B will see the flash from the meeting and it doesn't matter who turned on the flashlight, A or C?
I already agreed on this starting point from the beginning of the discussion a few weeks ago.
2. At what time according to B's clock will C appear with the song? -: 40 days + 10 years.
-
Miracles,
It is not clear to me where there is room for different opinions. In the 80s, a revolutionary series of works was written by Bill Unro and Bob Wald concerning the connection between temperature and acceleration that makes waves to this day, indeed one can think of very complicated cases in which it would be difficult to say which temperature will be measured, but in principle the subject is quite closed within the framework of field theory, In particular for constant acceleration. Maybe I don't understand the question exactly, but if so then the answer is known.
Nice response from Albenzo.
By the way - the background temperature reference system is a system in acceleration or deceleration of the expansion of the universe and therefore is not inertial.
And by the way - every reference system has a starting clock that cannot be lowered.
It's already becoming a joke with all these waits.
Comp
"At what time according to B's clock will the light signal from the meeting between A and G reach him?"
in 10 years' time
1. Do you accept that this time - 10 years according to B's clock - is the time when B will see the flash from the meeting and it doesn't matter who turned on the flashlight, A or C?
2. At what time according to B's clock will C appear with the song?
After you answer, we can get to your question:
"Do you agree that the distance from which a signal is sent from long distances is not always the same as the distance of the source and depends on the speed and direction of the source? Yes No?"
which is an incarnation of a previous question:
"Are you claiming that: the distance of B. M. C. is 10 light-years, and that of J. M. B. is a light-year?
Do you not accept the principle of equivalence of inertial systems?"
Something about mathematical descriptions for physics:
Yishka the librarian was also in the barn of Yafim and Boris. "Yishka" - they say to him - "how did you manage to count all the cows in the meadow in the blink of an eye, there are 6,765 cows there!"
Vishka smiles and explains "Oh, it's very simple. I counted the legs, added the ears, subtracted the tails, and divided by five.'
They say to Lishka: the square of the number of cows in the herd is equal to 144 and it also has 19 carts. How many animals in the herd?
Vishka answers without batting an eyelid: it depends. It could be 31 or 7.
And after that he complains that Boris let him clear the garbage from the entire kolkhoz.
Newton's and Maxwell's theories were tested by all the mythological mathematicians starting with Newton himself, and were found to be impeccable. So just because black body radiation and the Michaelson Morley experiment didn't match the predictions of classical physics go and flip all the furniture?
Einstein proposes a thought experiment - EPR - and predicts certain results for the experiment that are consistent with special relativity. So just because in the real experiment the opposite results were obtained from his prediction, go change the special relativity?
Albanzo
Thanks! Question - I tried to understand how the ambient temperature is affected by the speed, and I read that there are different "opinions" on the subject. Is there an agreement on this today?
I have not read the hundreds of comments that have been poured out here on the subject, but I will nevertheless write something about every "contradiction" between a private relationship and the Big Bang. In my opinion, this is something that can help the commenters understand the issue, and if not - it can be ignored. As I've written several times lately, I'm very busy at this time and I don't have much time to waste on the site, certainly not to read back hundreds of comments.
Private relativity is called private because it refers to a private case of a more general Torah (surprise, a private case of general relativity). The special case is the case where there is no gravitation, or mathematically - that the space is described by the Minkowski matrix. The big bang theory is also a special case of general relativity, where in its simplest form (which I understand you are referring to) it is described by the FRW matrix. That is, these are two private cases of the exact same Torah. Therefore, any "contradiction" you find can fall into one of three categories:
1. This is not a contradiction at all, but a lack of understanding on the part of those who claim a contradiction.
2. The general Torah is not mathematically consistent. Here it is worth noting that general relativity is also of great importance in theoretical mathematics, and it is not for nothing that many parts of it were developed by mathematicians and not physicists (with the most famous of all being Hilbert). As a mathematical theory it has been tested by all the most brilliant mathematicians and physicists of the last hundred years and no one has found an inconsistency.
3. The "contradiction" is a result of the fact that these are two *different* private cases. In this case it may indeed be that something doesn't work out, but can it really be called a contradiction...? It's a bit like looking at a Newtonian model where Newton's constant equals 10, comparing results to the case where Newton's constant equals 2 and saying there is a contradiction. It is clear that this is not a real contradiction in the theory but rather an inability of those who claim the contradiction to decide which problem they want to describe. The simple example, for example, of this case is probably conservation of energy, which is an essential part of the 4th vector formalism of special relativity but simply does not exist in the big bang, simply because it is a different case. That is, there are results of special relativity that rely in particular on its geometric structure and therefore need to be generalized before they can be applied in other cases, such as the Big Bang theory.
"At what time according to B's clock will the light signal from the meeting between A and G reach him?"
in 10 years time. (And it will appear from a distance that depends on the opening conditions of the problem)
Do you agree that the distance from which a signal is sent from long distances is not always the same as the distance of the source and depends on the speed and direction of the source? Yes No?
It is possible to synchronize one clock whose speed is 0 relative to another that is synchronized with a third on the same line of motion. One and three will be in sync.
For our purposes - the contradiction I voted on is strong and exists. If time moves faster in anti-radiation motion, then the twin paradox does not work when the accelerating twin is stationary relative to radiation.
Israel
Yes - the relative speed is zero. I can't think of a way to sync watches any other way.
Miracles
When you say "the two clocks will be in the same reference system" - do you mean an inertial system?
Comp
You said that the sonnet would reach B in a year's time according to B's clock.
At what time according to B's clock will the light signal from the meeting between A and C reach him?
"But you also claim that B sees C at a distance of a light year.."
Because I calculated the speed of the spaceship as 0.9C. The principle is the same.
"Now imagine a second after C met B and turned on the flashlight, he turned in the opposite direction and walked away from B towards the desolate space."
So how will B see C closer?
B will not see C any closer. B will see C walking away.
Israel
you asked me….
As a matter of fact - to synchronize clocks one of two things is needed: either the two clocks will be in the same reference system, or they will both be at the same point in the synchronization time. Do you agree with that?
while driving
Miracles
Not in principle, the idea is that you hear the plane in a distant place from where it really is.
Joseph
But you also claim that B sees C at a distance of a light year..
Now imagine a second after C met B and turned on the flashlight, he turned in the opposite direction and walked away from B towards the desolate space.
Does it change the signal that will reach B from the flashlight?
Note that G itself never crosses the 0.99999 line of 10 light years from B - only the light from the flashlight.
So how will B see C closer?
As mentioned in driving, straight to the end.
Israel
Let's start with what I do understand..
Imagine an airplane flying straight and level at Mach 20. We will look at the plane at a given time. Let's say the speed of sound is 40 km per minute. A minute ago the plane was back at a distance of 20 km from the current point, and its noise from this point spread to a radius of 20 km. Half a minute ago, the plane was 10 km back, and the noise from that point spread to a 53 km radius. That is, all the noise of the plane is concentrated in the cone with the plane at its apex, and the angle of the cone is about XNUMX degrees. To understand this, you can draw a line with increasing circles.
The plane "drags" the cone after it, and the intersection of the cone with the ground creates a parabola that moves on the ground behind the plane at a speed of Mach two.
When the parabola passes you - it's the supersonic boom.
That's what I claim all the time!
Beauty
So if C turns on a flashlight 10 light years away from B, do you agree that B will see the signal from the flashlight before any other signal that C sends later?
agree
Joseph
If a spacecraft flies at a speed of 0.99c, and it lights a flashlight 10 light years away from a planet, then when the light from the flashlight is seen on the planet, the spacecraft will be about a light month away from the planet.
Do you agree with that?
Israel
"C appears 10 light-years away and approaches the meeting with B within minutes? - that is, crossing 10 light years in minutes - is that what you are claiming?" "Yes, that is what I am claiming."
Therefore the spacecraft moves faster than the photons emitted from it, it will not be able to show before its arrival. agree/disagree?
Additionally:
Is it acceptable to you that according to the theory of relativity, spacecraft C will see near a distant star 10 light years away, and several minutes later it will see near the Earth?
that from the earth's frame of reference it will be seen to pass 10 light years at a speed greater than the speed of light?
Is it acceptable to you that an observer from Earth would see the spacecraft travel this distance in a much shorter time than an observer inside the spacecraft would see?
reminder:
According to the special theory of relativity - no frame of reference can move at a speed greater than the speed of light.
A galaxy is approaching Earth at a gamma factor of 10. Let's say from a distance of 100 million light years.
Let's take the arrival time/distance ratio = 10 d/10 light years.
At this rate the galaxy will reach Earth in 190 years. Is that what you claim, that astronomers claim?
Why not calculate accurately?
Given:
A spaceship moves at a gamma factor of 10.
10 light years away.
In how much time will the spacecraft cover the given distance?
Way to solve:
Distance/spacecraft speed=arrival time.
Scale: A photon will travel this distance in 10 years. If you got less than 10, then you made a mistake in the calculation.
-
"This is what also happens with C moving towards B."
- No, that's not what's happening!
The speed of the bullets ejected from the plane, in the direction of the target, is always greater than the speed of the plane.
In your example - m/s 1010=1000+10.
Not so the situation in the example with the spaceship. According to you the spacecraft is moving faster than the photons emitted from it.
waiting
like what's new
Well comprands.
But do not fear - maybe Yossi Comprands.
If DC encounters friction, then it will slow down over time as Feynman claims, right?
Yes, you missed it. I showed that each planet moves in an orbit a little closer to the Sun than calculated by Newton. For example, the planet Hema is 20 km and the Earth is 134 km. These distances are calculated and are absolutely sufficient to overcome the friction problem!, and the orbit is stable as long as there are gravity pushing particles around. Look at article 60 again
Yehuda
Yoda, Bismillah and Hamdillah.
God willing.
Sahtain on the blog, but at 60, friction, it is not explained why the earth does not slow down during the 4 billion years that it orbits the sun..
Did I miss something?
Israel Shapira
If you are still interested in seeing the detailed explanation for solving the problem of friction in Pushing Gravity - a simple universe, go to my blog
http://yekumpashut.co.nf/ If there are still questions, I will be happy to answer
Yehuda
Fix:
"You see him far away when he is already close" - referring to those who hear.
Comp
I think you are missing something. This can be seen in your last sentence, which is symbolic of the whole discussion:
"C appears 10 light-years away and approaches the meeting with B within minutes? - I mean, crossing 10 light years in minutes - is that what you're claiming?'
Yes, that's what I'm claiming. There is a difference between "seeing" in a certain place and the location of an object, a.k.a. aberration.
The reason is the limited speed of light, and this has nothing to do with relativity. The same thing happens with an airplane flying close to the speed of sound, you see it far away when it is already close, and if it exceeds the speed of sound or flies faster than sound, all the waves it emitted until it reached the speed of sound will hit it together. This is the reason for the sonic boom (right, miracles?).
You may be able to understand my arguments better if you think about a plane flying at a speed of 1000 m/s and shooting bullets at a speed of 10 m/s in all directions. This is not the case with Or, but it is good enough for our needs.
If the impact of the bullets is our indication of the plane's existence, then it could be very close to us but we will pick up bullets fired from it a long time ago and from a long distance away.
This is what also happens with C moving towards B.
Miracles
"I still don't see a problem. Let's assume we take the photon density as a clock. At high speed, the density will increase, and a younger universe age will be measured. As soon as we stop - we will get the correct age.'
The problem is that, according to relativity, even when a body is at rest relative to photons, as in the case of C, which is stationary relative to radiation, its clock still ticks more slowly relative to B, which is moving relative to radiation.
But in principle you are in my direction. My claim is that the lengthening of time exists only in accelerated systems or to a lesser extent, those that move relative to radiation.
Israel
I still don't see a problem. Let's assume we take the photon density as a clock. At high speed, the density will increase, and a younger universe age will be measured. As soon as we stop - we will get the correct age.
We know that the theory of relativity is not perfect and many things do not add up. What are you doing here?
Israel
The opening data: the spacecraft is visible from a distance of 20 light years. Gamma factor=10.
"In 10 years according to B's clock, the video will show the meeting between A and G"
The video shows a meeting - where is the spaceship actually located, near A? before sun? After A? What is the distance of the spacecraft from B?
Does the video show a real meeting or an illusion of a meeting?
Can video distinguish between illusion and reality?
"In 10 years and a bit, G himself will reach B with the song." - Did the spacecraft travel 20 light years in 10 years?
-
"When G is a light-year away from B, it happens approximately at the time of 9 years and a little according to the time of B" - true/false?
-
If you photograph the meeting point A and after it in sequence, you should see C approaching for 10 years and reaching B.
That is, after the photo of the meeting, 10 years have to pass until the photo of C arrives to B.
How is it possible that the video that showed 10 years at the time of the meeting shows 10 and a bit when C arrives?
"When the first one is in time 10 years according to B's clock as captured by B's video - you see a moment in it
The meeting between G and A - and the last one in 10 years and a bit, the moment of the meeting between G and B."
The clocks in A and B start at 0 at the time of the meeting. What does the video show on Monday? is nothing.
At time 10 in video B, he starts filming the meeting and journey C that follows.
He photographs G during his 10-year journey.
The time when C arrives is 20 years.
So how is it possible that the moment of meeting between C and B is +10?
-
"In the video shot at B, you see in a moment of 10 years C 10 light years away and rapidly approaching until within a few minutes it reaches B in a moment of 10 years and a few minutes."
C appears 10 light-years away and approaches the meeting with B within minutes? - That is, crossing 10 light years in minutes - is that what you claim?
Miracles
The temperature represents the age of the universe as a result of its expansion due to the big bang.
In the Friedman formula that I brought:
http://hyperphysics.phy-astr.gsu.edu/hbase/astro/expand.html#c3
It is also possible to use densities instead of temperature, or the number of photons per volume unit and more.
Be that as it may, the universe has a specific defined age at each point, and that age is the same at all points at a given moment, otherwise you wouldn't be able to synchronize a simultaneous attack without connection between ships.
This is something that Einstein could not have known in 1905 when he stated that time is relative and each measurer has his own time, just as he could not have imagined in 1935 that non-locality exists.
But which facts are proven, and there are more problems in my opinion with special relativity despite its successes. Don't forget that Newton's theory is not accurate at high speeds despite its successes, and that deficiencies can be predicted successfully according to the fundamentally wrong geocentric theory of Ptolemy.
Israel
There are other options. Temperature is a property of the medium, and its measurement may not be affected by velocity. A second possibility is that the temperature is affected by the velocity, but is not a reliable measure of the age of the universe.
Also don't forget that the universe is expanding, and the changes in distances can affect the calculations.
When C moves relative to the radiation, the temperature clock moves 10 times faster than the clock, this is the only way it will see the same time when meeting with B.
Therefore, when B moves relative to the radiation, because of the symmetry with the previous case, it should also decrease now.
Israel
Lucky for us, we weren't at UCLA today, I'm going back there tomorrow..
I did not understand how we concluded that the temperature clock depends on speed.
What does not make sense?
In the video shot in B, you see C in a moment of 10 years, C is 10 light years away and quickly approaches until in a few minutes it reaches B in a moment of 10 years and a few minutes.
poker.
"The video recording B's watch and also pointing towards A will at that moment show time 0, A as seen 10 years ago and at a distance of 10 light years and C at a distance of almost 20 light years."
"For the next 10 years the video will continue to show C approaching A."
"In 10 years according to B's clock, the video will show the meeting between A and C" - not true.
"In 10 years and a bit, G himself will reach B with the song." - Not true.
-
"If you ask what happens when C is a light year away from B"
I already explained at length in my response from yesterday.
That's not what I'm asking. I asked: When the light comes from the encounter - does B see C from a close distance (a light year), or from a distance of 10 light years?
"When G is a light-year away from B, it happens approximately at the time of 9 years and a little according to the time of B" - not true.
Not 9 years but 10. Where did the light from A reach after a 9 year journey? Is it to the same place of the spacecraft - light year MXNUMX?
Are you saying that C and the light that came out of A moved at the same speed - C?
"The new flash will reach B a few seconds after the flash from A, ZA which the video will see in 10 years and a bit"
And where will C be when the flash arrives? A little behind the flash sent from him.
You see C leaving from 10 years ago and then you see a flash and then you see C coming. (Space jump? MDB?)
"When the first one is in time 10 years according to B's clock as captured by B's video - you see a moment in it
The meeting between G and A - and the last one in 10 years and a bit, the moment of the meeting between G and B."
ZA that shortly after the meeting was observed from a distance of 10 light years and in a time of 10 years - the spaceship C appears.
That is, in the photograph you see spacecraft C in the meeting itself and you also see it approaching B in order to meet - you see the spacecraft in two different places in the same photograph - does it make sense to you?
Miracles
"We will turn the creator:
A and B at a gamma speed equal to 10 relative to radiation and their clocks are synchronized.
At instant 0 on clock A, C passes by him. The video captures all 4 watches in A and C. All show 0.
C continues its journey towards B, but it is at rest relative to radiation. The time and temperature clocks are ticking at the same rate. When he reaches B, both clocks show a year.
What's going on in B?
At time 0, at A's, the video recording B's watches shows: 0 PM, 0 temp.
When C reaches him, the time in B's 10th hour clock is 10 years. We know from the previous example that the Temp Clock advances 10 times faster than the CZ clock when both clocks are in motion relative to radiation, therefore when CZ Clock B shows 100 years, Temp Clock B shows XNUMX years."
And why are you making a mess at UCLA?
Israel
What are the starting conditions of the experiment?
nice,
You won't believe how many talented and smart people get confused on this point and say that photos from both sides will show opposite photos because each system sees the other's clocks as slower..
But how do you solve the problem I raised? If A and B are in motion relative to the radiation, while C is at rest - how come their temp clocks don't show the same time when C meets B?
Israel
The shots will be the same - just like only one explosion will show. This is one event.
Waiting (probably for the letter MJ).
Yus,
Linguistic lab again?
B sees - and photographs - C as seen the moment the signal that reached him came out of him at the speed of light. It's the same with Newton.
The moment of meeting between A and C occurred at time 0 according to A's clock.
The same moment 0 is also moment 0 in clock B because clocks A and B are synchronized with each other.
The video recording B's watch and also pointing towards A will at that moment show time 0, A as seen 10 years ago and at a distance of 10 light years and C at a distance of almost 20 light years.
For the next 10 years the video will continue to show C approaching A.
At the time of 10 years according to B's clock, the video will show the meeting between A and C.
In 10 years and a bit G himself will reach B with the song.
If you ask what happens when C is a light-year away from B, it happens approximately at the time of 9 years and a little according to B's time, and if C lights a flashlight at this moment in a different color than at the moment of meeting A, the new flash will reach B in a few seconds After the flash from A, ZA that the video will show it in 10 years and a bit, but the color will be greatly shifted to blue because of the doppler.
The same for each letter M throughout the journey to B. The video shows them at smaller and smaller intervals, with the first being at a time of 10 years according to B's watch as captured by B's video - you see in it the moment of meeting between C and A - and the last at a time of 10 years and a bit, the moment of meeting between J and B.
Israel,
"The video in B shows..."??
-
In light of your answer: "C has almost reached B",
Does B see C from the distance between them, which was created after C's 10-year journey, and not from a distance of 10 light years, as you claimed throughout the discussion?
Joseph
Do you have a video camera on your phone?
Take a picture of the watch on your wrist.
Tell me if it shows time, or next to the time it also says that this is the time that has passed since XNUMX.
The video in B shows only the clock in B, and the flash or the C that comes. Nothing but that.
Israel,
"If the video in B shows the way it is, when it is, why it is, because it is, the time of a year, because of an event that happened in the meeting that took place between A, who is 10 light years away from B at time 0 according to A's clock, which is also time 0 on B's clock Synchronized with it - so this something went 10 times faster than light."
Clock B shows 10 years according to the A-B system.
Video B shows the time of a year - from when to when? From 10 light years to 10+1.
Therefore nothing traveled 10 times faster than light.
"The explanation that B saw the meeting as C, for him, only a light year away does not change anything, because the meeting was with A, which is 10 light years away from B."
How long ago was the meeting? 10 years, agree?
When does B see the meeting, at the moment of its occurrence? Or 10 years later? 10.
When does B see C, is it at the moment of the encounter? Or 10 years later? 10.
When B sees the meeting 10 years after it happened, is C in A, or between A and B?
your answer:
"When the light from the meeting between A and C reaches B, C has almost reached B."
Therefore, in light of your last answer, does B see C from the distance that the spacecraft reached during its 10-year journey,
And not from a distance of 10 light years as you claimed throughout the discussion?
When the light from the meeting between A and C reaches B, C has almost reached B.
Please Eraf, you wrote:
The clocks will show a year in both of them.'
So if the video in B shows the way it is, when it is, why it is, because it is, the time of a year, because of an event that happened in the meeting that took place between A, who is 10 light years away from B at time 0 according to A's clock, which is also time 0 on B's clock Synchronized with it - so this something went 10 times faster than light.
The explanation that B saw the meeting as C, as far as he was concerned, only a light year away does not change anything, because the meeting was with A, which is 10 light years away from B.
Israel,
When the light from the meeting between A and C reaches B, according to you - is the location of spacecraft C 10 light years away from B?
"And if you see C in it a second before you see the flash from A - as I remember the meeting with C is its trigger - then you received a signal from the light in one second."
I said no such thing. Saying for the tenth time - you see C and the flash from A at the same time.
"And if you received it 9 years before - then 9 years faster than light."
I didn't talk about any "previous". What are you talking about?
The video recording of A and C's meeting can arrive by special delivery to B.
This does not mean that when B watches the event itself after 10 years, he will see the same thing in the photograph. These are two different and separate events!
If the light from A and C came out at the same time, in one shot,
So if C is found before A in another shot later, does that prove that the light from C came out before the light A? Is that what you claim?
The light from C and the light from A come out at the same moment. The light from the meeting is faster than the speed of spacecraft C and reaches B before it.
What does B see?
Habit would say that what is in the photo is what you see: flashes from A and C from the same place and time.
But something happened to the photo on the way - although the flashes are visible at the same moment, spacecraft C is visible before A.
How did it happen?
The spaceship follows the light coming out of it and moves slightly in front of it.
The light from the spacecraft reaches B when its location is about a light year from B. The position of C is the position of the light from C as seen from B.
In fact, the light from C is the mirror of spacecraft C.
The event of B seeing C takes place 10 years after the meeting in A.
Therefore the light from C did not precede the light from A. The lights come on at that moment.
-
To understand better - imagine that C moves at the speed of light. The photo of the meeting also moves at the speed of light, so the photo and C arrive at B at the same moment.
Photographing the two events together would have shown something far-fetched - that C was with A and B.
Can you rely only on photographs to understand reality?
Imagine two people photographed at a place from the first time, and after 10 years one of them is photographed together with the previous photo at a distance of a light year from second.
Does this mean that the person arrived at his place in the second picture before/at the same time as the meeting in the first picture?
Is it possible to learn from the second photo about the times when the two photos were taken?
I say that the second photo was taken 10 years after the first, but unlike the description here, the first photo is never seen from B's point of view.
The video recording of the meeting A and C can arrive by spacecraft in a special delivery to B. But B takes a different photo from his place -
Q C is between A and B. B can never see a meeting. Just get a special delivery of the photo.
In short - if C is before A, it does not mean that the light from C arrived before the light from A, nor that the speed of C is higher than the speed of light.
Miracles
On the sill are 2 clocks - temp and hr.
With two clocks as above.
A camera on each side.
When the locomotive passes over the threshold - click! Both cameras simultaneously record all 4 watches.
My claim: the photographs will be identical, there will be no debate about what each photograph shows.
This does not mean that the times on the clocks will be the same.
Capish?
Or maybe Kaddish?
Israel
Don't you see the contradiction in what you say? Two cameras show a different time, but if we add two more cameras - will all four show the same time?
If you mean that there is only one camera on the train filming two clocks on the sleepers then I think you are still wrong. The train is in motion, so the time of the light's movement has meaning.
No, in the example you brought the cameras will record a different time.
I say that if there were also cameras on the sleepers and when a camera from the train takes a picture of the 2 clocks together, on the train and on the track, then the photo from the opposite camera on the track will show the same time as the train camera.
Israel
Are you saying that both cameras on the train will record the same time?
You don't need to synchronize cameras - no matter where you shoot from, from the train or the track, you will get the same time on the clocks in their shared photo. It also appears in the link with the example of the extension of time that I brought.
there's nothing to do.
You cannot propose a thought experiment and predict certain results and then when a real experiment disproves your thought experiment continue as if nothing happened.
This is what happened in the EPR paradox. Einstein claimed that non-locality is impossible because it contradicts relativity. The experiment was conducted, non-locality exists, what about relativity?
You cannot say that there is no preferred relaxation system and then when such a system is discovered - the background radiation system - treat it as if it is outside the universe and cannot affect the results of experiments, thought and real.
Because if it is an external system - then how come it is impossible to go below its starting age - 0, the big bang, or pass its current age, about 13.7 billion years?
If there is no absolute time - then how is it that at any point in the universe clocks can be synchronized regardless of their connection?
If every clock has its own time - then why is there any connection between which times? Why would the clock in the next room just tick at a random rate and upstairs at a different rate? What makes two clocks at the same speed tick at the same rate even a billion light years away if there is no connection between them?
Israel
How do you synchronize the cameras on the train? Either they are synchronized in the train system, or they are synchronized in the track system.
How does it not work? What does it have to do with radiation, when Einstein talked about synchronizing clocks they still didn't know about radiation at all..
He does not need to synchronize the temperature clocks - they always synchronize themselves as they are pulled out of their nylons. And what is the problem with synchronizing the CZ clocks like you synchronize normal clocks at rest relative to each other?
Israel
"A and B at a gamma speed equal to 10 relative to radiation and their clocks are synchronized." Does not work…
Think of a railroad, with a clock on each rung and everyone synchronized. Now, a locomotive passes by with two cameras on its head and tail. At a certain moment the locomotive driver takes pictures of the clocks on the track. In the front camera you can see that the clock on the sill is 12:00.
What will the second camera take?
You will get the same problem.
Israel
So why bother with temperature. Let's diffuse stationary synchronized clocks in the reference frame of the background radiation.
What is the problem with the computer calculating the temperature at a certain point as if you were at rest relative to the radiation with the doppler weighting?
And it's also unprincipled. What is important is that the universe has a certain age at every point at every moment. Temperature, density, pressure - all these are just physical expressions of this fundamental essence: common time for every measurer, as we saw that it is possible to synchronize an attack without connection between the spacecraft, which Einstein would have said was impossible in 1905.
Israel
If they do not move at different speeds - the temperatures will be the same. I don't know what happens when you measure temperature at high speed.
Joseph
The video is already running 1000 years before the event and also 1000 years after.
And if you see C in it a second before you see the flash from A - as I remember the encounter with C is its trigger - then you received a signal from the light in one second.
And if you received it 9 years before - then faster than light in 9 years.
Miracles
"There should be a difference between the two types of watches".
True, but during a joint meeting of one type - temp clocks - a joint photo of them will show the same time.
You are not claiming that at a given moment - the time of the meeting between C and B - at that point in space - the meeting point between them - there are two temperatures, right?
"When in the video according to clock B will we see the flash from A and when will C arrive?"
If the video in B is activated as soon as the flash from A arrives, then at moment 0. C will arrive after a year.
If the video was played at some time in the past, then at moment T. C will arrive after year+T.
Israel
A/B is pleasant in relation to the middleman. If they measure time by measuring the temperature, and the temperature depends on the speed, then there should be a difference between the two types of clocks.
They are not supposed to stay in sync, only XNUMX:XNUMX and XNUMX:XNUMX.
Look at the videos: When C reaches B - what does C's temp watch show?
and B's?
Israel
"A and B at a gamma speed equal to 10 relative to radiation and their clocks are synchronized." All four clocks cannot be synchronized. At a certain moment you can reset all four, but the time and temperature clocks will not stay together.
Comp
Leave us now from photons.
We have a video that captures the meeting between A and C. He shows on the watches: A. -0. C – 0.
There is also a video that captures B and what happens with him.
When in the video according to clock B will we see the flash from A and when will C arrive?
Just that.
Miracles
Now we will reverse the generator:
A and B at a gamma speed equal to 10 relative to radiation and their clocks are synchronized.
At instant 0 on clock A, C passes by him. The video captures all 4 watches in A and C. All show 0.
C continues its journey towards B, but it is at rest relative to radiation. The time and temperature clocks are ticking at the same rate. When he reaches B, both clocks show a year.
What's going on in B?
At time 0, at A's, the video recording B's watches shows: 0 PM, 0 temp.
When C reaches him, the time in B's 10th hour clock is 10 years. We know from the previous example that the temp clock advances 10 times faster than the cc clock when both clocks are in motion relative to radiation, therefore when cc clock B shows 100 years, temp clock B shows XNUMX years.
No? The truth is, I didn't carefully go over the calculation, but it seems correct to me. Perhaps comprands the meticulous detailer can go over the calculation.
But we said that two temp clocks in a joint photo always show the same time - the age of the universe - so how is it that in the photo of B and C, you see C temp 1 and B temp 100?
And in general, how is it that B clocks show a higher age than C clocks - after all C clocks show the age of the universe, so B clocks are already in the future? What if instead of 10 years we used a billion - they are a billion years ahead?
?
??
??! ??
"The flash from A appears in B's video at time 0? Doesn't it take him 10 years to arrive?"
It takes a photon 10 years to arrive, but until it is captured in B's video you don't see anything.
It happens 10 years after the meeting between A and C.
-
Questions:
The light from the event of the meeting between A and C arrives after 10 years to B.
What does Prosh B see A and C 10 light years away?
Was it at the time of the event itself, or 10 years after it happened, when the light from the event reached B?
Where is the image of the event at the time it was captured on the video lens, on the lens or 10 light years away?
Does the event take place at the same moment captured by the lens?
Where and when C when the light from the event reaches B?
Is the claim that C is 10 light years away from B, when it is known that the light reached B after 10 years from the meeting, correct?
Israel
You're right... at the moment of the suit - the photos should show the same thing. When C crosses B then C's time will be one year and B's time will be 10 years.
Comp
Does the flash from A appear in B's video at time 0?
Doesn't it take 10 years to arrive?
Miracles
Leave exams now. What do the video footage show?
"At what time in the video does the flash from A appear?"
at zero time.
"At what time in the video does C appear with the sonata?
that's it."
At time zero, the flash from C appears.
C with the sonata appears about a year later.
Israel
Approximately - from C's point of view - the time on his watch is 1. From B's point of view - the time on his watch is 10.
But - when C passed A and they reset their clocks - as far as C is concerned, B's clock does not show 0, so after a year C will not expect B's clock to show 1.
Comp
B has a video.
He photographs the events.
He also takes a picture of the watch.
At what time in the video does the flash appear?
At what time in the video does C appear with the sonata?
that's it.
"So you agree, I see that according to B's clock, the Sonata will reach him 9 years before the flash of light from A?" Is it possible?"
No. Disagree.
B does not see the meeting between A and B (to understand - answer my question in my last response).
If B could at the same time watch the meeting between A and his watch, he would reset his watch and wait until the light from the meeting between A and C reaches him and this will happen after 10 years.
Since spacecraft C moves slightly slower than light it will be a light year behind.
The sonata in the spacecraft will reach B after about a year since he saw C.
That means the Sonata will arrive about 11 years after the flash - about a year after we see from B.
(7 questions on the previous page are waiting for an answer)
—
Assuming that the background temperature and spacecraft C are real inertial systems:
Clock B seems to C to be 10 times behind and the background temp seems to be 10 times behind compared to his clocks.
Clock C seems to B to be 10 times behind and the background temp seems to be 10 times behind compared to his clocks.
-
When considering the background temperature as a reference system at rest and system B as the background temperature system, then B and C were not equal inertial systems in the past and can be distinguished between them, which creates real differences in their measurements.
we
When the time comes, when the time comes!
It is immediately coming, let the miracles answer first.
Israel
What is the contradiction between relativity and the bang?
Comprands
So you agree, I see that according to B's clock, the Sonata will reach it 9 years before the flash of light from A?
Is it possible?
Miracles
He is currently down from the twins. Do you accept that when C arrives at B, the time on his CZ clock is 1 and the temperature is 10, while B is 10 and 10?
Israel
You are still missing the point of the initial conditions. Think of the classic twin paradox - the two twins will agree on three things:
1. The twin that flew was a year older
2. The remaining twin is ten years older.
3. The universe matured in ten years.
If you want to consider the background radiation, then the system is not symmetrical. In this situation, initial conditions have meaning.
"Did you mean Postulate 1? He holds that it is impossible to know whether a system is at rest or in motion."
Not exact.
If system A is at a fixed distance from B, they are at rest relative to each other.
When systems are in motion, then it is not possible to determine who is moving and who is at rest.
When system C moves relative to B or vice versa, then one sees the other moving relative to it.
The concept of rest is not relevant in relative motion - this is what the postulate says.
Hence there is no meaning to the claim that one is moving and one is stationary.
The one who sees the other moving (approaching or moving away) - sees (reciprocally) the clock in the other moving slower.
Therefore, with this assumption - there is no place for the twins paradox. Each twin sees their other age more slowly.
If they stop to compare, if they come to a mutual rest, they will look the same age.
But according to your deduction:
B sees C's clock moving slower. It took C 10 years to reach B, as far as B is concerned.
C sees B's watch moving faster. It took B a year to reach C, as far as C is concerned.
There are differences here that make it possible to determine who is moving and who is at rest. In contradiction to the postulate.
Therefore, the cutoff does not correspond to the relativity principle.
"So the flash from A will reach B at a time of 10 years according to B's clock and the sonata at a time of one year according to B's clock - 9 years earlier?"
The flash from A will reach B in 10 years time.
And the sonnet at the time of a year according to B's clock from the moment he saw C, which is 10 years since it was sent from A's location.
To understand answer the question:
What was the distance of the photon of light that came out in the flash of GMM:
1) As soon as he left MJ? 2) When the photon reached B, what was its distance from C?
What is the problem?
You agreed that:
"Two clocks next to each other will show the same time"
So if A and B are at rest relative to the radiation - when the time on the CZ clocks is 0 then also on the temp clocks, and also when B's CZ clock shows 10 years then this is what B's temp clock also shows.
When C arrives at B, his time clock shows a year and his temp clock shows 10 years because two adjacent temp clocks always show the same time.
Israel
Let's do the whole experiment under water. The water is standing relative to A and B. Let's also add that the water is cooling at a rate of X degrees per year.
As I said earlier - starting conditions need to be defined. In particular, how C started.
Israel
What is moment 0 in all clocks? Didn't we agree that you can't say such a thing?
Did you mean postulate 1? He holds that it is impossible to know whether a system is at rest or in motion. So this is a neighbor. Relative to the background radiation, and even at what speed exactly.
"Two clocks next to each other will show the same time."
Ok. So we will put temp clocks next to the clocks A, B and C in the example from before.
At instant 0 in all clocks, C passes A on his way to B. He will reach it in time for 10 years in B clocks (PM and temp), one year in PM clock C, and 10 years in C temp clock. getting?
Israel
It is also not the speed of the sun, because the sun orbits faster than the Milky Way, and even - not exactly the speed of the Milky Way, because it also came in motion...
Two adjacent clocks will show the same time.
It has nothing to do with the second postulate. The universe is not empty.
The speed varies with the seasons, but it is more or less the speed of the sun.
So if the clocks are at rest relative to the radiation - that is, moving in the opposite direction from Leo but at the same speed - will they then always see the same time in both of them when taken together?
Besides, with Postulate 1, if it is possible to distinguish between inertial systems by measuring the radiation temperature in two directions and comparing the Doppler?
Israel
Our universe has a reference system - the CMB. In particular - the speed of KDHA relative to the CMB is about 371 km per second. This radiation determines the temperature in space.
There is a more logical explanation: we are not qualified to understand his arguments because we are in a school for idiots.
"I don't think anyone knows what temperature will be measured during movement" What movement? A body that is not accelerating is at rest, isn't it? Postulate 1, please accept..
So if a body made up of a combination of a temp clock and a czh clock side by side in Tiz al Nabi in space without acceleration - isn't it at rest? Movement relative to what?
Israel
Won't work... the man doesn't want to understand.
I didn't understand your intention. I agree that a temperature clock gives absolute time to the movement system of the CMB. I don't think anyone knows what temperature will be measured while moving. I found all kinds of claims but I did not find one opinion that is accepted by everyone. But - even if the measured temperature is some function of the speed - I don't think that at high speed the calculation for the age of the universe is still valid.
Miracles
If you agree that a temperature clock always ticks at the same rate as a clock, you will see that time extension is not possible in inertial systems.
"When the message was delivered to JB he knew nothing about it. Only after 10 years he found out through the flash that came.
At the same time B is a light-year away from C. Therefore, as far as B is concerned, it took a year to receive the message.'
We'll try it, see if it works.
C passes A at time 0 according to everyone's clocks. As soon as C passes A, the sacrificial thunderbolt activates flashes in A and C, and A puts a Shakespeare sonnet in C's pocket.
So the flash from A will reach B at a time of 10 years according to B's clock and the sonata at a time of one year according to B's clock - 9 years earlier?
Israel
We have a simpler measure of the age of the universe - the distance to each distant body. Let's both choose a distant quasar and according to the red shift we will both know how much time has passed since we reset our clocks.
In the twin paradox case, we would both measure that the universe has matured by ten years.
In the case of our A/B/C - I don't think the question can be answered without knowing the starting conditions.
You already asked this question a week ago and I answered. You used the word "message".
"And if B received the piece in a year's time according to his watch" - a year from the moment he saw C next to A."
B does not see a meeting. I don't see C next to A. He sees two flashes at the same time from two different distances A and C.
He sees C. a light year away from him. B received the piece in a year's time according to his watch - a year from the moment he saw C.
"Doesn't that mean that A sent B a message from 10 light years away that reached B after a year?"
No.
When the message was delivered to JB, he knew nothing about it. Only after 10 years he found out through the flash that came.
At the same time B is a light-year away from C. Therefore, as far as B is concerned, it took a year to receive the message.
"The meeting between them will take place about a year later. The clocks will show a year in both."
I must be confused. Probably even ridiculous. Probably because I understood in physics it is inversely proportional to idiotic size.
Because if the suspension conditions are:
"The starting conditions: C passes by A." Both flash."
So what is the problem with A, at the moment of the flash, when C is close to him, to sneak some little song or joke into his pocket?
And if B received the piece in a year's time according to his clock - doesn't that mean that A sent B a message from a distance of 10 light years that reached B after a year?
What are we talking about here?
Scroll back for a discussion of the flashes.
The starting conditions: C passes by A. Both flash.
I assumed: the flashes are seen at the same time from B but not from the same place.
B sees C from a light-year distance and A from 10 light-years away.
C sees B from a distance of a light year. They both reset their clocks.
The meeting between them will take place about a year later. The clocks will show a year in both.
The deduction: B sees C at the same time and place as A.
C sees B from a distance of a light year. B sees C from a distance of 10 light years.
When they meet - C's watch will show a year and B's watch will show 10 years.
The same initial conditions cannot produce different results, hence one of the assumptions is incorrect.
That's what the discussion was all about - do you agree?
"Solve the..." - don't be embarrassed. You may or may not answer my 4 questions. your eyes
You are not doing anyone a favor. You won't answer - it means you are not able.
"Me: the same time on their clocks that is measured from the moment the signal is given - the flash in the first (year).
You: different times - year 10 - XNUMX, and XNUMX - XNUMX."
I sent this sentence to a forensic lab, maybe they will be able to explain what the poet meant.
Solve the momentum puzzle, it's Newtonian physics. We will see if there is a common basis for communication, or if we are probably not qualified to understand your claims since we are in a school for idiots.
"Yes, they measure the distance at the same time according to their watches, but the watches are not synchronized and therefore the distances are different.
This is why C is a light year away from B and B is 10 light years away from G."
"This answers your misrepresentation:"
You are not proving anything wrong except by looking at the systems differently.
In addition, you agree with the starting point in my proof (previous page), that it is one distance (I claimed),
that the unsynchronized measurements treat it differently (your claim).
Yes No?
-
The differences between us:
When C meets B:
I: The same time on their clocks that is measured from the moment the signal is given - the flash in the first (year).
You: different times - year 10 - XNUMX, and XNUMX - XNUMX.
The distances between them from the beginning of the measurement:
Me: XNUMX-XNUMX = XNUMX-XNUMX = light year.
You: 10-XNUMX = XNUMX light years. Tuesday-Sunday = light year.
-
Comments:
1. Do you claim - when a distant galaxy moves at a speed close to light towards the equator and passes by a n.c. whose distance is known,
So do you calculate its distance as the N.C. distance?
2. "Two inertial systems that are in motion relative to each other can measure at the same moment - 0 -
According to each system's clock, the distance to the other system and despite this to receive a different distance."
Boris measures by driving from his car 10 km from his home on Sunday at 12 o'clock, and on Tuesday he measures 10 km at 12 o'clock, and on Thursday he measures 2 km at 12 o'clock, and at 18 o'clock he measures 10, are they the same events, or about events that have no connection between them?
The lack of synchronization allows for all kinds of combinations of answers, the relationship between which is meaningless.
There is no physics here, maybe something else. To do physics you have to talk about the same thing, event, system.
Is there a way to synchronize the systems to get physics that is acceptable to everyone?
3. You claim that systems B and C are not synchronized, how will you explain that all the unsynchronized systems with the same opening data will produce the same results, as if there was synchronization between them?
4. You demonstrated that inertial systems can be unsynchronized.
Is it possible for inertial systems to be synchronized? And in the problem before us, can B and C be synchronized in any way?
-
"You are given a chance to atone for the terrible impression you left"
To me he is wonderful.
And you in my eyes? - I am not interested as long as your answers are relevant and timely and to the point.
They keep waiting for me here for some reason.
Nissim, I understand what you are saying about synchronizing systems in motion, but it can only be in a unique situation. In the general case, systems in motion relative to each other get out of sync very quickly, so it is a reset.
Another time waiting
Please Eraf, you wrote:
"Israel
In our case - the hours of A and B are coordinated in the system of A and B. In your link they are coordinated in G's system.
I also don't understand how:
"It is easy to synchronize between 2 hand systems between which there is a constant speed - I gave the example of the train. This example was taken from the same site you linked to. All that is needed is a flash of light at their "point of gravity".
I think this is a reset, not a synchronization. What kind of synchronization is it that after the systems have moved they are no longer synchronized?
But let's see what this leads to.
In the link I provided a few days ago, a continuous function appears for the relationship between the space temperature and the age of the universe. It can be said that this is only the temperature of the background radiation, in practice, as far as I understand, there is no difference and even a normal thermometer will show the same temperature in the shade.
So it is said that we have a thermometer and a computer sophisticated enough to show us the age of the universe with a precision of seconds. We received a temperature clock, below is a temp clock.
We will put it next to an atomic cesium clock, hereafter the CZ clock.
We will reset both to time 0.
Questions:
1. If we leave the two clocks side by side in space, what will the clocks look like in 10 years? Will both of them see 10 years in a joint photo of both of them?
2. If a temperature clock passes another temperature clock in space at high speed and considering the fact that both are measuring the same temperature at the moment of the change - will a joint photograph of both show the same time in both?
Israel
There are many conflicts between relativity and everything related to quantum mechanics, including the big bang.
Israel
It is clear that G. Lett is synchronized with B. I have been saying this for a long time 🙂
Come on, why are you waiting now?
Vaccines again?
Flabbers Largas - long words.
The example with the airplane is relevant in that it explains that two inertial systems that are in motion relative to each other can measure at the same moment - 0 - according to the clock of each system the distance to the other system and despite this get a different distance.
This answers your misrepresentation:
"According to the theory of relativity on the assumption that B and C are equal inertial systems - B sees C in the same way that C sees B. At the same distance and in the same period of time until they meet.'
Yes, they measure the distance at the same time according to their watches, but the watches are not synchronized and therefore the distances are different.
This is why C is a light year away from B and B is 10 light years away from G.
We will give you a chance to atone for the terrible impression you left and return to the family of enlightened nations. Solve the following puzzle in Newtonian physics, it is also intended for the whole forum (as if there is anyone else here).
Where did the energy go?
Little Tanai received a toy car from his father for his second birthday.
The car has a spring, and when it is stretched and released, the car jumps on its way.
Tanei and his father flew above the toy in the family spaceship, while the zatot fills the space with squeals of joy and happiness.
Suddenly the serious man started and asked his father: See father, the mass of the car is 1 kg. Its maximum speed is 10 m/s. Therefore its kinetic energy is 50 joules. She got the kinetic energy from the potential energy in the stretched spring, so the potential energy in the spring is also 50 joules. Now, when the car is at rest, the spring is stretched, and the spaceship is moving away from the car at a speed of 10 m/s, the kinetic energy of the car relative to the ship is 50 joules and the potential energy of the spring is also 50 joules, for a total of 100 joules. However, after the spring is released and the car travels towards the ship, its velocity is now 0 relative to the ship and therefore its kinetic energy is also 0, and there is no more potential energy in the spring. Thus a precious 100 joules were lost (the potential energy of the spring + the kinetic energy of the car).
Father, shout, move, where is my energy? I want my energy back!
Could you, kind commenters, help Tanai find the missing energy?
Israel
I understood the beginning: "I don't have the head for...?"
The example with the plane is clear. Is it relevant to the case before us?
If you understood the proof I gave, you should understand that the distance b-c and c-b is the same distance in terms of b and in terms of c.
You say that the distance between C and B is a light year, and the distance between B and C is 10 light years.
Then says "so what?" - as if you didn't understand or didn't want to understand.
Comprands
So what?
Did you understand the example of the plane and the tower? Everything is in sync.
Let's try in Spanish, maybe you will understand:
No Tango Cabasa Four Flavors Larga, I TOS Flabra Moi Larga Special -
comprands?
Miracles
C cannot be synchronized with B - if a ray of light leaves B at the moment of encounter, reaches C and returns to B, then the time of its departure and arrival is 10 years, while that of C is one year.
9 = 10-1, while 9- = 1-10 because the clocks are not synchronized.
Ready to move on to the real problem: the collision between relativity and the bang?
Where did we go?
Joseph
I don't have the strength to talk to you anymore. You have no desire to learn, or ability to learn.
Miracles
An example that is true by itself is not enough. You must show an exact analogy to the problem at hand.
-
Israel
Two reference systems whose distance between them is constant will agree on the same distance.
What happens when they are in relative motion and the distance between them changes?
They need a reference system that they agree on in advance.
example:
A-B is a reference system in which the distance does not change.
C moves towards B.
Does B see C at the same distance that C sees B?
Given: C passes over A:
The distance a-b is the same distance b-a.
Therefore C-B = B-C.
father
C->
We proved that the same distance exists between b and c, and between c and b.
Does anything change down the road? No.
You can place a fixed point C at any point between A and B and perform the same calculation again.
A—————–C—————-b
C->
B. We don't need to call C to determine what time to perform the measurement.
As soon as C is seen passing by C, B and C observe the same distance between them.
Miracles
Link?
And if C is in sync with A, isn't he out of sync when he reaches B? Otherwise how do they show different times during the meeting?
Israel
It is easy to synchronize between 2 hand systems between which there is a constant speed - I gave the example of the train. This example was taken from the same site you linked to. All that is needed is a flash of light at their "point of gravity".
In any case - I explained the (so-called) asymmetry you were talking about.
If at the point A of space there is a clock, an observer at A can determine the time values of events in the immediate proximity of A by finding the positions of the hands which are simultaneous with these events. If there is at the point B of space another clock in all respects resembling the one at A, it is possible for an observer at B to determine the time values of events in the immediate neighborhood of B. But it is not possible without further assumption to compare, in respect of time, an event at A with an event at B. We have so far defined only an "A time" and a "B time." We have not defined a common "time" for A and B, for the latter cannot be defined at all unless we establish by definition that the "time" required by light to travel from A to B equals the "time" it requires to travel from B to A. Let a ray of light start at the “A time” $t_{\rm A}$ from A towards B, let it at the “B time” $t_{\rm B}$ be reflected at B in the direction of A, and arrive again at A at the "A time" $t'_{\rm A}$.
In accordance with definition the two clocks synchronize if
\begin{displaymath}t_{\rm B}-t_{\rm A}=t'_{\rm A}-t_{\rm B}. \end{displaymath}
We assume that this definition of synchronism is free from contradictions, and possible for any number of points; and that the following relations are universally valid:—
I assume you mean the sentence:
Suppose C' is synchronized with C1 as they pass, so both read zero.
Bad choice of words. Should have used zeroed - reset.
In my understanding, synchronization is a relatively complicated operation that cannot be performed between systems in motion, while resetting is immediate.
You can read about synchronization in Einstein's article on relativity.
Israel
In our case - the hours of A and B are coordinated in the system of A and B. In your link they are coordinated in the system of C.
Suppose that in Jack's frame we have two synchronized clocks C1 and C2 set 18 x 108 meters apart (that's about a million miles, or 6 light-seconds). Jill's spaceship, carrying a clock C', is traveling at 0.6c, that is 1.8 x 108 meters per second, parallel to the line C1C2, passing close
A = c1
B = c2
C = 'c
Therefore A is coordinated with B.
Let's move forward, the action is just beginning.
Israel
In your link it is described that C is coordinated with B and not with A. It's no different from what I said.
http://galileoandeinstein.physics.virginia.edu/lectures/time_dil.html
Israel
what is missing?
Airplane C (iPhone).
Miracles
Incomplete answer.
cornflakes
"According to the theory of relativity on the assumption that B and C are equal inertial systems - B sees C in the same way that C sees B. At the same distance and in the same period of time until they meet.'
Mmm ..
It was said that a plane - we will call it C - flies from Los Angeles to New York, which we will call B. For him, he is at rest and New York is flying towards him.
At 1800 according to his watch, he activates the radar which tells him that New York is 1000 km away.
At 1800 according to New York time, the tower in Kennedy activates the radar which tells them that plane B is 3000 km from them.
But how, wonders Cornflex and not Comprands, what systems are balanced, which move towards each other at the same speed and check the distance at the exact same time!
Troncho - they answer him - the New York and Los Angeles clocks are not synchronized, there is a 3 hour difference.
comprands?
Joseph
As far as C is concerned - the clocks of A and B are not synchronized. What exactly do you not understand? Did you read my example with the train? This is Einstein's example of truth, so if you don't get the explanation, then you have a problem with someone who understands more than the three of us.
Yossi, open your head and try to understand. You are so locked in your opinions that you are unable to understand what I am talking about.
Do you understand the example of the trains?
Israel
I answered you. Immediately after C resets his watch (in A's suit), B's watch will not show 0.
"When C reaches B, A and B show 10 years and C only one year. There is no doubt therefore that C's clock moves slower in the A-B system. But according to relativity, A and B are in motion relative to C, therefore the clocks in A and B also move slower than clock C."
How does it work out?
In terms of:
B 1: C 0.1
In terms of C:
C 1: B 0.1
In terms of A:
A 10:1 XNUMX
In terms of C:
C 10: A 1
Each system watches the other's clocks move more slowly.
-
In terms of A-B:
A-B 10: B-A 10
In terms of B and A:
B-A 10: A-B 10
===
Yossi Cornflex.
What you said is true. As far as C is concerned, the times in A and B are not instantaneous.
But this has nothing to do with Kornflex's claim. He is wrong, even in a Newtonian system.
What about my question? (fifth and last time).
Israel
Is what I said true or false? Does C see that A and B's clocks show the same time or not?
Miracles
"Synchronized" is a very meaningful word, especially when dealing with relationships. It is not the same as "simultaneity".
See the original relativity article from 1905:
https://www.fourmilab.ch/etexts/einstein/specrel/www/
Definition #1:
1. Definition of Simultaneity
Israel
What I'm saying is that "synchronized" is a meaningless word. They show the same time in the reference system of A and B, but not in the reference system of C. Therefore - at the moment of C's meeting with A, as far as C is concerned, A's watch does not show 0.
Miracles
Clocks A and B are synchronized by definition:
From the definition of the problem:
Two clocks A and B, synchronized with each other at a distance of 10 light years.
At instant 0 on the clocks, clock C passes by A on its way to B. Gamma factor is equal to 10.
He will reach B in a year according to C's clock and 10 and a little according to B's clock.
https://www.hayadan.org.il/is-the-universe-ramdom-0405168/comment-page-18/#comment-707847
Perhaps you meant that regarding C they are not simultaneous?
But what comprands nos comprands has nothing to do with relativity at all but is wrong even in the Newtonian system:
"How does your claim that C sees B at a light-year distance, and that B sees C at a distance of 10 light-years, reconcile with your reference to balanced inertial systems?"
If he had bothered to read my previous response, he might have understood why his question was irrelevant.
On second thought there is not much chance, we are not qualified to understand the maestro's arguments.
Joseph
You and Israel make the same mistake - regarding C, when A and B's clocks are not synchronized. Let's see who among you will understand first.
Israel (Yossi... listen)
On G's watch only a year will pass. In the other watches - 10 years. Everyone will agree to this - this is exactly the paradox of the twins 🙂
Your mistake is the assertion that the clocks are synchronized. I will try to explain with an example. Picture a standing train car with a clock at each end and a flash in the center. Each clock resets as soon as it sees a flash. Inside the car, the clocks are synchronized, because the arrival time of the flash at the ends is the same. Even for a ground observer - the situation does not change.
Now suppose the train is moving from right to left at high speed. Regarding a viewer inside the trailer - there is no difference, the arrival time of the flash has not changed.
As for a ground observer, the situation is different! The flash reaches the right clock before it reaches the left clock 🙂
And for that matter - A and B are the watches in the trailer, and C is the observer on the ground. That is, from C's point of view - the clocks of A and B are not synchronized. In particular, clock A lags behind clock B.
Miracles
Saying it even more slowly:
Before asking a new question, answer the one asked on the previous page from yesterday (aren't you Israel who asks, but doesn't answer):
"How does your claim that C sees B at a light-year distance, and that B sees C at a distance of 10 light-years, reconcile with your reference to balanced inertial systems?"
Do you intend to prove through Minkowski that C sees B differently than B sees C?
"Why do you only now remember to mention that in your opinion the systems are not balanced, after dozens of times I asked you to define inertial equivalence? Now you understand that this is necessary for discussion.
I will ask you to define and prove that the systems are not balanced!"
Pay attention to what I wrote to you a few days ago:
"No contradiction, idiot, don't you know the principle of relativity? Yes, in the eyes of A, B is 10 light years away from him and in the eyes of C, only a light year. This means that the clocks of A and B are synchronized with each other but not with C."
You still haven't caught the whole thing here is synchronization? Even in a Newtonian system if C moves towards B then B moves towards C at the same speed. If at moment 0 of clock B in the Newtonian system C is 10 light years away from him, does this require that B is 10 light years away from C at moment 0 of clock C? What if at that moment B or C move the clock 100 years forward or backward - will that change something about the distance of the other clock from them?
Let's say that C was at moment 0 at B's clock 10 light years away from B. So 4 years after that he will be almost 6 light years away from B and the time at B will be 4 years, right? And because of the equivalence you talked about, B is also 6 light years away from C and the time on clock C is 4 years, right?
So it is said that at this moment B adds 20 years to his clock. Now the time for him is 26 years and for G. 6, and wonder and wonder - the distance between them remains 6 light years!
And if B did the exercise 100 years before, then at time 0 on his watch C is a different distance from him than when B is away from C at time 0 on C's watch. It has nothing to do with relationships.
Do you not see this, you who say "you are not qualified to understand my claims"?
And don't you see that there is nothing to do with acceleration?
"I will ask you to define and prove that the systems are not balanced!"
I hold many discussions here and usually respond to requests if they are not too much trouble. But my grandfather, peace be upon him, before he passed away made me swear not to mess with arrogant, ignorant and arrogant people who think they know everything, get angry when you disagree with them, start cursing and giving orders accompanied by many exclamation marks and then complain that they are victims because they dared to answer them.
So you see, I would answer you willingly, but my hands are tied. After all - I promised grandfather..
Miracles
What about my repeated question:
We see that when C passes A on his way to B, all three clocks of A, B, and C show 0.
When C reaches B, A and B show 10 years and C only one year. There is no doubt therefore that C's clock moves slower in the A-B system. Video footage from both sides of the watches will also show this.
But according to relativity, A and B are in motion relative to C, therefore the clocks in A and B also move slower than clock C. So how can it be if we have photographs proving the opposite?
Joseph
Let's do it even slower. Do you know what Lash Minkowski space-time is? If so - please answer my questions. If not then say.
Joseph
Answer what I asked first. At the moment there is no point in continuing the conversation.
"What you don't understand is that some systems are not balanced"
Why do you only now remember to mention that you think the systems are not balanced, after dozens of times I asked you to define inertial equivalence? Now you understand that this is necessary for discussion.
I will ask you to define and prove that the systems are not balanced!
"The moment when B sees C is moment 0 in the A - B system, and at this moment C is 10 light years away from B"
Moment 0 - no problem with that.
C is 10 light years away from B - but as far as who is concerned?
I argued - the same distance exists between G and B, and between B and C and it is a light year.
Your claim - the same distance is a different distance?!
10 light years between B and C are equal to a light year between C and B!
"But C is not synchronized with either A or B - it is only reset with them for a unique moment which is the moment of the suit over A."
Not understood - synchronized or not synchronized? Sounds like you're saying something and vice versa.
"So obviously in one of the frames he will be exactly a light year away, right?"
True in terms of C, but in terms of A, C will be 10 light years away from B.
-
Miracles
"A and B see C's clock lagging behind theirs, but C sees A's and B's clocks lagging behind his own. Therefore - G and A'/B will see the collision at a different time!"
"Collision"? - Not clear.
There are two options: the same time or a different time.
You heard, you are actually me.
we?
Yusinka.
The same problem you have in understanding relativity also exists in understanding relationships: you are unable to see a different point of view than your own.
The only one who appears here with his full name is always me. You've already appeared under 4 or 5 different names, but there's no problem knowing that it's always the same person based on the bloated, arrogant writing style full of self-importance and full of errors.
Even in understanding the problem before us, you are unable to see a different point of view and that is why you write:
"According to the theory of relativity on the assumption that B and C are equal inertial systems - B sees C in the same way that C sees B. At the same distance and in the same period of time until they meet.'
What you don't understand is that if the systems are not balanced - the clocks of B and C are not synchronized with each other, only B and A's.
Therefore, the moment when B sees C is moment 0 in the A - B system, and at this moment C is 10 light years away from B. But C is not synchronized with either A or B - he is only reset with them for a unique moment which is the moment of the suit over A.
To see this, let's say that we were in G with a video camera that records B when it starts at a point 1000 light years away from B. We see B is getting closer and closer to us and in every subsequent frame in the video it is closer and bigger.
So obviously in one of the frames he will be exactly a light year away, right?
This moment is the moment when C passes A. The fact that A's watch shows 0 does not obligate C. He did reset his watch to show 0 as well, but by the same token he could have put any other time in it.
Joseph
A and C are in relative motion. To talk about the distance between them - you need to set a time. Let's assume that they have synchronized clocks - and A is also synchronized to this time. That is, at some point they synchronized clocks (Einstein showed that it was easy to do). So - you are right, at any given time they see each other at the same distance.
Notice something: A and B see C's clock lagging behind theirs, but C sees A and B's clocks lagging behind his own. Therefore - G and A'/B will see the collision at a different time! Therefore - there is no contradiction in my claims.
Comment…
Joseph
Definately not. I claim:
1. I claim that B sees A ten light years away all the time, in particular - even at the moment of the collision
2. I claim that C sees the distance between A and B as one light year at any time. In particular - also at the moment of the collision.
I understand that you don't know how to answer my questions from the previous session, right?
Miracles
Are you claiming that: the distance of B. M. C. is 10 light years, and that by J. M. B. is a light year?
Do you not accept the principle of equivalence of inertial systems?
Joseph
What I say does not contradict the principle of equivalence. Before I try to explain again - do you understand what Minkowski space-time is? To test your understanding:
Do you understand what a point in space-time means?
Do you understand what a line in space-time means?
Do you understand what it means for two timelines to meet in space-time?
I often disagree with Israel - but be sure that he knows how to give precise answers to my questions.
My questions are important - without understanding them, you will not understand where you are wrong.
Miracles
According to the theory of relativity on the assumption that B and C are equal inertial systems - B sees C in the same way that C sees B. at the same distance and in the same period of time until they meet.
You and Israel Shapira claim not at the same distance and not at the same time, thereby contradicting the principles of special relativity.
Shapira thinks that the inertial principle, which is a binding principle, leads to a contradiction in the times of the clocks. His contradiction stems from a misunderstanding and assumptions that are not compatible with the principle of equivalence.
The solution you gave that the distance of B. M. J is 10 light-years, and that of J. M. B. is a light-year, cancels the principle of relative equivalence.
As for the style, to remind you of your request: "Please, try to maintain the culture of speech. Ignore those who speak badly to you.", which also applies to you.
Your claim 4 is incorrect, because it is not relative.
-
"Isn't it better to see him getting into trouble and going, getting into trouble, getting into trouble and getting into trouble?"
No offense, but you don't understand relationships. I wanted to find out how you resolve the contradictions within your claims using the principle of equivalence and it turns out that you attribute the cause of your troubles to the principle. So either special relativity is wrong or you don't understand relativity.
In my opinion, you do not understand relationships, you get more and more entangled in imaginary paradoxes that you invent for yourself, without realizing that the problem is you.
-
Trying to convey what I wrote in Korat Al: "He sees the flash of light from A and the flash of light from C at the same time, but not at the same distance." He sees C at a light-year distance from him.
In relationships there is no absolute time and distance. From your review it is implied that you do not understand this. By the way, spare us the comments of "anonymous" which are you.
Regarding synchronization: "At instant 0 on the clocks, clock C passes by A on its way to B." Gamma factor is equal to 10.
He will reach B in a year according to C's clock and 10 and a bit according to B's clock."
Right, what's the problem?
As soon as B sees C from a distance of a light year, he starts a stopwatch. C does the same.
This is also the moment that B sees the flash of light from A. 10 years according to A and B.
When B and C meet the stopwatches show a year. A and B's clocks show 11 years.
Miracles
Einstein Feynman...
Abbreviations: A.P.
You only need to add a physicist to get an A.P.P.
Israel
"But Israel-imbecile does not understand what he is talking about, and his understanding of physics is inversely proportional to the size of his stupidity."
This sentence is also true for Einstein and Feynman...
we
Multiple worlds?
You think? At Yafim and Boris in the barn, will you find multiple worlds, 10 dimensions, or the same cow at the same time in different places?
Everything is Newton in the barn of Yafim and Boris, even Einstein and Bohr.
If a cow dares to lick grass in two different meadows at the same time, Siomka will put her for a week alone with Ferdinand and Barbarossa, the fruit of the kolkhoz's stud. After that she will think twice about touching even at the same time in two places or wandering in more than 4 dimensions.
If that doesn't help, a few hours with Yosef Comprands, the owner of the dreams, will do the trick.
And I don't just mean dreams in the aspemia of the man of pure logic, but real dreams. Here is an example:
"Those who understand logic and understand the definition of an absolute reference system, understand my proof very well and know that it is absolutely correct.
If you see my proof in future scientific publications, know where it originated and when.
You are guaranteed that those who renounce it will return to it.
Today's proofs in physics are considered, only if they are written in high and complicated mathematics, despite this there are proofs that can only be expressed in simple language.'
This is the man who reasons his opinion in:
"But Israel-imbecile does not understand what he is talking about, and his understanding of physics is inversely proportional to the size of his stupidity."
and proves his point in:
"He sees the flash of light from A and the flash of light from C at the same time, but not at the same distance.
He sees C at a light-year distance from him.'
On the other hand, now that I have read the problem in your link in the comment below, I think that you, forgive me for the word - row, in the direction of the interpretation of the multiple worlds. I'm right?
Are you saying that theoretically it is also possible to escape from the universe to another universe?
But, seriously? So what can I tell you, that reality is in the eye of the beholder? I think you are the one who said that he is not interested in philosophy..?
Israel
Your comment has just been released.
You know, good question… I will think about it all my life.. 🙂
Israel
Because of the parallax? Gravity drainage? I can also in English: frame dragging? Is the answer philosophical or sophisticated? Ramsoz…
Well, we're going to have a Q.
Confedera, you wrote:
"She left at time 0 according to A and B clocks" -? Set this time:.
From the definition of the problem:
Two clocks A and B, synchronized with each other at a distance of 10 light years.
At instant 0 on the clocks, clock C passes by A on its way to B. Gamma factor is equal to 10.
He will reach B in a year according to C's clock and 10 and a little according to B's clock.
https://www.hayadan.org.il/is-the-universe-ramdom-0405168/comment-page-18/#comment-707847
Too bad, until I brought popcorn and raisinets.
But the problem I brought up is essential for progress.
Israel
I don't think he will even understand the image of the crayon, so he probably won't be offended.
You're right, that's one of the dumbest sentences I've ever heard. It was interesting to put the guy on fMRi….
Oh miracles really, now he will insult and start cursing - and what about Friday's Arab movie?
Isn't it better to see him getting into trouble and going, getting into trouble, getting into trouble and getting into trouble?
"Sees the flash of light from A and the flash of light from C at the same time, but not at the same distance.
He sees C at a light-year distance from him.
Not this week's release?
Joseph
Good. Let's continue the conversation after the Bar Mitzvah. And if I am wrong about your age then I have to agree with Israel - you are not the sharpest pencil in the pencil. And that's also true if you're the only crayon there.
Miracles
But we have a real problem here that needs to be overcome:
We see that when C passes A on his way to B, all three clocks of A, B, and C show 0.
When C reaches B, A and B show 10 years and C only one year. There is no doubt therefore that C's clock moves slower in the A-B system. Video footage from both sides of the watches will also show this.
But according to relativity, A and B are in motion relative to C, therefore the clocks in A and B also move slower than clock C. So how can it be if we have photographs proving the opposite?
"So if when C arrives at B, B's watch shows a year - what is the problem with A sending a message with C to B that went out at time 0 according to A and B's clocks and arrived at B at the time of a year?"
"She left at time 0 according to A and B clocks" -? Set this time.
A message sent with C by A will reach B after 10 years or more as far as A is concerned.
B will receive the message from C one year after noticing C.
A can send a letter to B who sent him a message with C. The signal will come after 10 years to B, and about a year according to when he will meet with C.
"And since the distance between A and B is 10 light years and the message traveled in a year's time - doesn't that mean it traveled 10 times faster than light?"
No. The message traveled at a speed of 10, which is less than the speed of light, and therefore traveled over a period of XNUMX years or more.
-
Miracles
"B looks at A. When B sees C pass by A, at what distance does B see the encounter?"
B does not see C passing by A.
B sees C at a light-year distance from him. He does not see a meeting.
He sees the flash of light from A and the flash of light from C at the same time, but not at the same distance.
He sees C at a light-year distance from him.
Israel
What is the question you asked?
Israel
My question is so simple... for my part, it is possible to lay out a ruler from B to A and take a video. The film will show where the meeting took place.
I do not understand what is not understood here. I look at you and you shake Mario Livio's hand as he walks past you on his morning run.
Joseph?
Miracles
There is a bit of a problem with your question. It is difficult for him to know at what distance he sees the encounter.
Even when you look at the sun, it's hard to tell how far away it is. It looks the same size as the moon, we need parallax.
That is why we must stick with what we are sure of: shooting from a range of 0. Even Einstein uses a similar method in his articles.
What about the question I presented to you in the previous comment? That's the heart of the matter, isn't it?
Joseph
I will ask again. And please think before you answer.
B looks at A. When B sees C pass by A, at what distance does B see the encounter?
"B sees C for a year until they meet, same as C." When C reaches B, both clocks show a year.'
Mmm ..
So if when C arrives at B, B's watch shows a year - what is the problem with A sending a message with C to B that went out at time 0 according to A and B's clocks and arrived at B at the time of a year?
And since the distance between A and B is 10 light years and the message traveled in a year's time - doesn't that mean it traveled 10 times faster than light?
Mistake No. - Actually, who's counting anymore?
"When C reaches B, A and B show 10 years and C only one year. There is no doubt therefore that C's clock moves slower in the A-B system. This will also be shown by video footage from both sides of the clocks."
Mistake.
B sees C for a year until they meet, same as C. When C reaches B, both clocks show a year.
A sees C moving away from him. He sees the meeting between C and B at a time greater than 10 years.
"But according to relativity, A and B are in motion relative to C, therefore the clocks in A and B also move slower than clock C."
So how can it be if we have photographs that prove the opposite?"
Mistake.
Clocks B and C move together and slower than A.
-
"Therefore there is no contradiction to my previous claim that B sees C from a distance of a light year"
I mean a state of affairs without a collision.
-
Miracles
B begins to see C from a distance of a light year between them. He sees only the bow.
Oh miracles really, what kind of question is this?
If the nose survived and the tail remained behind, then C simply folds his tail and rolls it to him, what is unclear here?
Joseph
Imagine that C's nose survived the explosion and continued at its original speed. So you are claiming that B will see an explosion 10 light years away, and will see C suddenly change shape from a spaceship to a bow one light year away?
Please, try to maintain the culture of speech. Ignore those who speak badly to you.
"During the collision, C was stopped by A." The effect of relative velocity no longer affects.
Therefore one explosion is seen from a distance of 10 light years.
Therefore, there is no contradiction to my previous claim that B sees C from a distance of a light year.'
Mistake #6...
And the weekend is still young..
Miracles
Are you trying to subtly imply that Ussinho has now made mistake #5?
How dare you?! Troll ben Nemush, fool ben idiot..
At this rate, what will be left of our Yusaka, the name, comprands?
Oh, not that either.
But we have a real problem here that needs to be overcome:
We see that when C passes A on his way to B, all three clocks of A, B, and C show 0.
When C reaches B, A and B show 10 years and C only one year. There is no doubt therefore that C's clock moves slower in the A-B system. Video footage from both sides of the watches will also show this.
But according to relativity, A and B are in motion relative to C, therefore the clocks in A and B also move slower than clock C. So how can it be if we have photographs proving the opposite?
?
??
??! ??
Miracles,
A nice explanation, but does not require that 4 is correct.. (and I'm sure your friend wasn't able to think of it)
Given: Systems A and C collide.
What do you see from system B?
An explosion can be seen from a distance of 10 light years.
In the collision, C was stopped by A. The effect of relative velocity no longer affects.
Therefore one explosion is seen from a distance of 10 light years.
Therefore there is no contradiction to my previous claim that B sees C from a distance of a light year.
C simply stopped moving and there is no reason for it to be seen from a light year away.
You also need to add an explanation for the following problem:
How does your claim that C sees B at a light-year distance, and that B sees C at a distance of 10 light-years, reconcile with your reference to balanced inertial systems?
Regarding Emission theory: your friend finally answered.
It was very difficult for him - do you think he is hiding something, some unfamiliar version of the theory he believes in?
Joseph
Claim 4 must be true and here is the explanation (assuming you accept claim 3):
Imagine that C collides with A and both C and A explode.
Do you agree with me that B will see both explosions in the same place, and at the same time? If not - then he will see two explosions?
like I said. Physical mistake #3.
Mistake #4: Reading comprehension.
Here is what I wrote about Emission theory:
"Are you claiming that B would have seen the flashes at different times according to his watch?" - Yes !
And this is not true. See:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Emission_theory
For some reason the moron understood that I believed in the Emission theory, when what I did was bring it up to show that his claim "Are you claiming that B would have seen the flashes at different times according to his watch?" - Yes ! It is exactly the claim of Emission theory that was proven wrong by de Sitter and as explained in the link.
But we have another long weekend full of entertainment. Making popcorn and chocolate is going to be an unusual entertainment with the site's DPR.
The differences between the arguments:
Given: reference system Jana towards reference system A-B at a speed close to light (gamma factor 10).
The mole: reference system C will see reference system B from a distance of a light year.
The mole: reference system B will see reference system C from a distance of 10 light years!
The mole: C will appear to pass by A simultaneously in the same place and time, in relation to B.
Private relativity: J and B systems will see each other at the same distance, there is no difference between them.
Private relativity: C will not see simultaneous passing in the same place and time with A, in relation to B.
-
Note: I do not expect any intelligent explanation from a foolish follower of Emission theory.
-
You can see for yourself that claim 4 from your list is not valid according to special relativity, maybe according to Emission theory it is valid.
Contact your idiot troll master for clarification. In my opinion, he is nothing more than a troll who begins not to understand what he is talking about as soon as it is necessary to define and explain what goes beyond the notebook of pre-prepared questions in front of him.
In my opinion it is even possible that he gets paid for his comments which are intended to attract commenters with the intention of fooling them.
Isn't his greatest satisfaction is to count their mistakes in order to make you sleep - what a disgrace. Turns every discussion into an argument.
In my opinion he escaped from a hospital where he was hospitalized.
If you don't get an answer from him and about his membership in the Emission theory sect, draw your own conclusions about who you are dealing with.
As you can see, I express my claims without fearing to make mistakes and learn.
Not so with your friend who is driven by an inflated infantile ego who is very afraid of his mistakes which I have already exposed in many of my comments.
Israel
Yes, there are small children…
Miracles
Successfully..
After all, if he agrees with you, it will be an admission of error number 3 in the physicist's never-ending chain, by the grace of God..
Have you noticed this phenomenon of whiny and drooling babies who constantly lash out and demand that we waste time on their nonsense, get angry if you don't give in to them and start cursing and then accuse you of being the one cursing?
Joseph
I will ask again. There are 2 planets A and B, at a fixed distance of 10 light years between them. C comes from a distance and crosses A's speed towards B, at a speed of gamma == 10.
I claim that at the moment of the suit:
1. A sees B 10 light years away.
2. A sees C at a distance of 0.
3. B sees A 10 light years away.
4. B sees C at a distance of 10 light years.
5. C sees A at a distance of 0.
6. C sees B at a distance of one light year.
Why do you agree and why not? Israel agrees with me - on the assumption that special relativity is correct.
Enough for Hachima in Ramiza, and Yossi - in Kurmiza..
To the ground.
Whoever answers, who we don't know is dealing with a troll whose answer we are not at all interested in, is an idiot.
And an idiot who answers a question that is not defined correctly.
Miracles
2k? That's about 12 billion years from now. We'll try something more topical, maybe 2.7211234566699997
Be that as it may, with accurate enough equipment you will always be able to synchronize an attack with any level of accuracy you want.
But if there is a natural synchronized temporal system in the universe - how can postulate 1 exist? After all, we can always measure and know if we are in motion relative to this system and therefore also at what speed relative to another system whose speed relative to the natural system is known to us, right?
Furthermore: this system has a clear starting time - 0 - from which it is impossible to descend and a clear limited time - the age of the universe, 13.7 billion years - which cannot be exceeded, right?
Could there be a 60 billion year old twin today? Or minus 80 billion years old? Isn't that what you get if you reverse the twin paradox and let the rushing twin be at rest relative to the background radiation system?
Miracles
I don't know if I agree with you, since you sidestepped the issue in your conversation with your boss.
If my question to your boss is also your question, you know what to do.
Ask him the question and don't give up until you get a clear, precise, and exhaustive answer that cannot be mistaken.
And don't forget to ask him how he came to believe in Emission theory.
Joseph
Sorry, I missed the answer... According to your explanations, I think you agree with me.
Israel
I thought about this idea. The "Sh" hour is at a temperature of 2 degrees Kelvin. It is an absolute reference system, which does not depend on location and can be corrected for speed
I was taught that ZMM is plus or minus 5 seconds....
Miracles
Now it's your turn to feed the troll..
Did you get the thing with absolute time? My response has not been released yet, but there is the Friedman formula that shows that at any point in the universe it is possible to measure the age of the universe and thus synchronize the attack regardless of the spaceships.
Miracles
I have already answered.
Joseph
You're not answering me. Why? Did I ever insult you?
She decorated.
"Accompanies his frequent mistakes with exclamation points, orders, condescension and curses"
Come on, here's one example of swearing! and the commandments.
And exclamation points are not arrogance but in your imagination and feelings of inferiority.
And I would like to hear about my frequent mistakes, except for the ones I admitted to.
Preventing you from admitting your mistakes (ignoring my claims will also be considered your mistake)
My many demands in response is your admission of guilt even without admitting it.
Your refusal to respond to my claims is only evidence of your cowardice.
"See that I never start with you or others."
Sure - you ignore and avoid arguments, in quite a few cases you ask questions and ignore the answers as if they never existed, and then when you are criticized in a rude way, because there is no other way, then your ego explodes.
"Who understands very little about physics or any other subject."
Why didn't you say that you are a foolish follower of Emission theory? You would have spared us this whole discussion.
Of course you continue to dodge my questions as always which shows how much of an idiot you are.
I do not expect a reasoned and logical explanation of the reason for the differences from the ego-swollen eyes outpost - Israel Shapira.
One of the reasons is because he is a foolish follower of Emission theory.
Another reason is his shyness which he tries to mask with his childish accusations.
I claimed at the beginning that you are stupid because you are having a discussion with yourself (the shadow) without proving all your claims, your assumptions, and without defining them properly.
And here it turns out beyond any doubt that I was right.
And you still see others as arrogant, how pathetic! Break your own records with ridiculous perfection.
You are right.. it is allowed to make a mistake, making a mistake is not a sin.
But when a serial wrongdoer accompanies his frequent mistakes with exclamation points, commands, condescension and curses - it is no longer a sin, it is a pettiness.
And that's what you are, Yossi/Compenders/AFP/AFP/ANO/AnaAraf - pathetic. Pathetic pretender.
You are convinced that you know everything better than all of us dumb ass, but your every response shows how ignorant you are.
Follow the thread, in this article or any other. See I never start with you or others. But an Englishman speaks in English, a Frenchman in French, a Georgian in Georgian and a donkey in whip.
I have no interest in talking to you. You are a rude Swiss who understands very little about physics or any other subject.
Let's put it this way - system A-B and system C move at the same speed relative to each other; Why, according to you, should system C observe system A-B from a distance X, and system A-B should observe C from a distance 10X? Is the distance between them not the same distance?
As for you - I do not intend to address your personal problems with your mother that are reflected in your every response.
I stand behind these words - "Wretches and idiots". I limited myself to using them only and repeating your words.
To understand why scroll back and read your comments.
As for the mistake - it is allowed to make a mistake, admit the mistake and correct it. He who does not make mistakes does not learn.
A fool is not necessarily someone who is wrong, but someone who insists on not acknowledging his mistake - he is the one who deserves this title, that you are one of the most deserving of it.
Your idiotic cheers show what league you belong to.
As for your mistakes, they are expressed in every question that is asked that you avoided answering.
Expressed in lies that you lied and refuse to relate to or explain or admit to. Please scroll and start from 20 pages back and read your comments.
The hat is on fire on your head - you wrote: "Always avoids any question that shows how much of an idiot he is"
What is the definition for balanced inertial systems? How does it fit with your claim that C sees B at a light-year distance, and that B sees C at a distance of 10 light-years? And this time don't dodge and show how stupid you are.
"The expressions you usually use and their frequency are listed here on the website and also here indicate you and your type.
I have never cursed, you, on the other hand, started cursing in your last comment... and your comments are full of vile expressions. Please scroll back.'
Oh, oh, treat my Eussino without provocation, treat my poor Comprandos without any reason.
He didn't even write his first comment full of insults and condescension. It's not him who wrote:
"Ahbals conduct a discourse of ahbals without understanding what they are talking about. Open a school for idiots'
And if so, then what is forbidden to him? After all, this is about Yossi, my boy is successful..
You're living in a movie, comprandos, but okay, you're not the only one.
And regarding your mistake - this is not the first time, is it?
So you might ask yourself why a serial sinner like you allows himself to educate and preach and condescend to all of us?
Back to Amala Snooze, she will always forgive and understand her Yosla.
"Without cursing and disgusting bragging as usual - every response you make will be answered with "Kishta" or "Artzeh"."
The expressions you usually use and their frequency are listed here on the site and also here indicate you and your type.
I have never cursed, you, on the other hand, started cursing in your last comment... and your comments are full of vile expressions. Please scroll back.
"What is the difference between what you wrote and Emission theory?" - I have no idea, I haven't delved into the theory and this is the first time I meet it.
"Are you claiming that B would have seen the flashes at different times according to his watch?"
My answer was wrong because you were talking about times and I was referring to simultaneity. The lights are visible at that moment.
Allow me to change the wording of your question to - do you claim that B would have seen the flashes simultaneously?
Simultaneity - refers to an event at the same place and time.
The answer is no.
In other words, B would not see a meeting.
So what would he see? I leave you with the answer.
Before you ask a new question answer: What is the definition for balanced inertial systems?
"If you count the questions you are asked to answer and you don't answer, you are the champion of evasion."
You're right..
Questions such as does existence exist, eternity is eternal and nothingness is not..
But here is an opportunity to get rid of you easily:
Reporter:
"Are you claiming that B would have seen the flashes at different times according to his watch?" - Yes !
And here is the question that has been asked several times and you've struggled with it:
Do you still claim it? Can you tell what the times according to B's watch are when he sees the flashes from the meeting between A and C?'
We will add to this the question:
What is the difference between what you wrote and Emission theory?
And until you answer these two questions in a civilized style without cursing and disgusting bragging as is your habit - every response you make will be answered with "Kishta" or "Artze".
There is a very low chance that a creator like you will answer a matter-of-fact answer that will prove his folly in public, so we probably got rid of you.
What an idiot.
If you count the questions you are asked to answer and which you did not answer, you are the champion of evasion.
And your attempt to bring a delusional and unfounded theory as a justification for my supposed mistakes, is not a transparent attempt to confuse the discussion and turn it on its head.
Do you believe in Emission theory?
What is the definition for balanced inertial systems?
Joseph
Do you think I'm wrong?
we
waiting
But until you calm down: you solved the problem.
You don't need us, you solved the problem.
They don't even have to measure the temperature before leaving - it's enough for them to use the Friedman formula:
http://hyperphysics.phy-astr.gsu.edu/hbase/astro/expand.html#c3
You can enter the temperature in the calculator below, it will already give you the age of the universe, and vice versa.
So what does this mean about absolute and relative time?
Israel
Should the spaceships measure the temperature of the background radiation as it is before they set off on their journey and determine a certain temperature when they reach it then the attack will occur?
To remind you, the question was:
"Are you claiming that B would have seen the flashes at different times according to his watch?" - Yes !
Do you still claim it? Can you tell what the times according to B's watch are when he sees the flashes from the meeting between A and C?'
But a slippery eel like you always dodges any question that shows how much of a jerk he is.
What contradiction are you talking about? You still haven't realized that there is no contradiction?
Indeed, if in the meeting between A and C an event took place such as a handshake or the lighting of a flashlight, if only one side was blind or both were blind, B would see it in 10 years' time according to his watch.
Are you claiming something different? So maybe say what you're claiming instead of twisting and saying it's in front of your eyes?
Shatsanos
"Miraculous: "B sees C 10 light years away."
Nissim: "At what distance does C see B?"
Kashkashenos: "He "sees" B at a distance of one light year""
Do you realize there is a contradiction here?
Do you still claim that B sees a meeting between A and C?
You remain as dumb as before..
What did you mean when you wrote:
"Are you claiming that B would have seen the flashes at different times according to his watch?" - Yes !
Do you still claim that? Can you tell what the times according to B's watch are when he sees the flashes from the meeting between A and C?
Israel
Did you mean that my claim is not true because of your belief in a disproved theory, which competes with relativity, that you provided in the link, or that my claim is not true because in your opinion it is related to the aforementioned theory?
I understood that you believe in the Emission theory.
Then you don't get the private relationship and all the talk was unnecessary.
If you connected my claims with the above delusional theory, know that my claims are based on a private relationship and stem directly from it and have nothing to do with the delusional theory you found on the internet that has been proven many times to be incorrect.
If that's what you meant, you've shown again that you don't understand how relativity works.
"Where do arrogance and stupidity come from"
If arrogance comes from stupidity, then you have found a new way to testify to your stupidity and arrogance.
I know exactly what you said:
"Are you claiming that B would have seen the flashes at different times according to his watch?" - Yes !
And this is not true. See:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Emission_theory
This is where all your other mistakes come from.
Where does the arrogance and stupidity come from - that's another question. I told you I'm not interested in psychology.
Israel
"In our case - a meeting between clocks A and B that are at a relatively high speed to each other"
It's about Tuesday and Wednesday! (A is stationary in relation to B).
(But even if you changed the starting conditions, it doesn't change the contradiction in your responses)
"Waves progress at the same speed from the source to the observer regardless of the speed of the source, as in the case of water or sound waves."
What does it have to do with it? Special relativity is not based on the distinction between waves and particles.
-
I argued: the event of the handshake is not possible for simultaneous viewing from B's point of view.
Your claim: possible is also possible and more than that - it is bound by reality.
I'll leave you with your mistake. As far as I'm concerned, you don't understand physics to the point of distorting it.
No contact, not even eye contact.
Ramzoz B: In 1905 this was impossible.
Miracles
I didn't notice you wrote at that point.
No, the ships attack from different points. One is 1000 km from the north pole of the planet, the other from the south and the other two from the equator.
The distance between them is huge, the clocks are out of sync, and yet the attack is synchronized.
twist
I thought about braiding, but obviously that can't help. I also understand that the spaceships don't see each other right?
Coponders
A waste of your time and ours.
To see this, see your answer:
"Are you claiming that B would have seen the flashes at different times according to his watch?" - Yes !
"What time will he see the flash from J?"
Indeed, at what time? Adopt a little your thinking wheels (the answer is right under your nose).
Watch what you say:
If a certain event (in our case - a meeting between clocks A and B that are at a relatively high speed to each other) is observed by an observer, the time it takes for the light to reach that observer depends on the speed of the body from which the light originated.
This is true for rifle bullets but not for waves. Waves travel at the same speed from the source to the observer regardless of the speed of the source, as in the case of water or sound waves.
Newton also thought like you because he thought light was made of particles. De Sitter showed that this could not be more than 100 years ago.
Kishtomus.
Miracles
indeed. No contact or information transfer.
Ramzoz A.: An unrelated interweaving.
Israel
great. So this topic is closed.
Now regarding the attack - everyone should attack at the same moment, at the same point, without any transfer of information between them, right?
to Israelus Locus Kashkshanitos,
Realizing that your disdain boosts your self-confidence which has dropped wonders, don't hesitate to use it to justify your failed arguments.
"Don't you know the principle of relativity?"
What does the principle say about balanced inertial systems? About their reciprocity?
"Yes, in the eyes of A, B is 10 light years away from him, and in the eyes of C, only a light year. This means that the clocks of A and B are synchronized with each other but not with C."
And if A-B were not synchronized - would C see B 10 light years away?!
Do you understand what you are talking about?
"Are you claiming that B would have seen the flashes at different times according to his watch?" - Yes !
"What time will he see the flash from J?"
Indeed, at what time? Adopt a little your thinking wheels (the answer is right under your nose).
"From B's point of view, there is only one event here - a handshake, the lighting of a flashlight on one side, so it is simultaneous with what?"
Simultaneity is events that are observed at the same time. That's why turning on a flashlight is not simultaneous with anything, that's what I argued.
A "handshake" could be simultaneous from the point of view of an observer watching A and the arrival of C in front of A and the handshake. She could, but not obliged. Without it, by itself, it is not simultaneous.
Of course I accept, what am I Copenderos?
I even accept that even though A is close to C, he sees B 10 light years away, while C sees B XNUMX light year away and wonder and wonder - there is no contradiction!
Israel
Assuming that special relativity is correct, do you accept that the moment C crosses A, then C sees B at a light-year distance, and B sees C at a distance of 10 light-years?
Oh, my Yossi is successful..
But only in my mother's eyes, apparently.
"Miracles: "B sees C 10 light years away."
Nissim: "At what distance does C see B?"
Kashkashenos: "He "sees" B at a distance of one light year"
Do you realize there is a contradiction here?'
No contradiction, dumbass, don't you know the principle of relativity? Yes, in the eyes of A, B is 10 light years away from him and in the eyes of C, only a light year. This means that clocks A and B are synchronized with each other but not with C.
"Instead of shaking hands, they would turn on a flashlight at the moment of the suit" "So it was okay for you?"
of course not!
Pence's frame of reference is not in motion relative to B. Reference system C in motion relative to B.
Do you understand the differences between different reference systems?'
What does it matter which of them turned on the flashlight? Don't you understand that B would have seen the flash in an instant 10 years according to his watch anyway?
It was said that at the moment of C's suit over A, each of them would have turned on a different flashlight - are you claiming that B would have seen the flashes at different times according to his watch? We know that he will see the flash from A in 10 years time, but at what time will he see the flash from G?
"And what does it have to do with simultaneity anyway?"
You are not able and you are not qualified to understand my claims at all.'
I agree with you. Only your friend in the closed department is qualified to understand your claims.
Simultaneity by its very nature requires at least 3 factors. The viewer and 2 or more systems in which he is watching.
So what simultaneity are you talking about when you write:
"How come the simultaneous event "A touches B C" can be viewed simultaneously from B?"
So, as far as B is concerned, there is only one event here - a handshake, the lighting of a flashlight on one side, so it is simultaneous with what?
Tronchos..
we
I have to run for an MRI but the point is not so simple to explain. In the meantime, let's finish the subject of ships (miracles?):
They can decide in advance on the time to open fire, but they have a problem: because of all the rondels in space, they may be able to reach the Tzaddikim, but how would they know how to open fire simultaneously? Maybe there was a gap of 1000 years between the different clocks?
so how?
Israel
Look what you did..
..I think Yossi is a sensitive person. He is sensitive to science. Let's leave it now. Come and explain yourself, because I really can't understand you anymore:
I don't know how they speak in the palm springs, but we speak Dogri. what is your point Are you saying that faster-than-light speeds undermine causality?
If so, then it has been known for a long time.. in the circles intended for this..
We have already discussed the subject. And more with people who really understand more than me and you and Albenzo. (Of course except for the miracles of your shadow who understands everything 🙂)
If you wanted to say something else, then I'm sorry that I'm such a fool and I didn't understand you, I'd appreciate it if you could explain again and if possible without history and more... that's it.
Thanks in advance.
Joseph
I did not understand. do you agree with me
To Israelus Locus Kashkshanitos
Nissim: "B sees C 10 light years away."
Nissim: "At what distance does C see B?"
Kashkashenos: "He "sees" B at a distance of one light year"
Do you realize there is a contradiction here?
Will you understand that the contradiction and ignoring it is the stupid thing?
Will you understand that stopping the discussion at this point, as you did, is the stupid thing?
"Instead of shaking hands, they would turn on a flashlight at the moment of the suit" "So it was okay for you?"
of course not!
Pence's frame of reference is not in motion relative to B. Reference system C in motion relative to B.
Do you understand the differences between different reference systems?
Do you understand that distance and time are not absolute?
Do you realize that assumptions that seem self-evident to you, are not self-evident?
"And what does it have to do with simultaneity anyway?"
You are not able and you are not qualified to understand my claims at all.
Your understanding of physics speaks for itself and fails many times.
You can enjoy the doubt, or on the contrary the doubt will gnaw at you.
In the meantime, go mess around in Abus Hamuricus.
Oh, what a fool you are.
Has someone asked you what you think or mean about relativity? on accelerations? About the radiation? After all, you have proven several times your wonderful understanding of everything related to physics, we really do not need any more explanations from you.
The question was (for the fifth time): what's stupid about:
"A sees B 10 light years away.
B sees A 10 light years away.
B sees C 10 light years away."
As one who constantly preaches indolence and evasion you are without a doubt the maestro.
Your only reference to the question was:
"How come the simultaneous event "A touches B C" can be viewed simultaneously from B?"
And of course it's wrong, like what's new?
So let's say that instead of shaking hands they would have turned on a flashlight at the moment of the suit - so was that okay with you? So B would not have seen the flash from the flashlight at the time of 10 years according to his watch?
So what is the difference between lighting a flashlight and shaking hands?
And what does it have to do with simultaneity in general?
Andela babbling, let's go back to Diros.
To Israelus Locus Kashkshanitos
How am I not surprised that you didn't answer my last question? Isn't it - in my question accelerations that you didn't bring in philosophy with miracles (the shadow).
How can I help you without breaking my promise not to answer before receiving answers?
I will take examples and ask guiding questions, the common element of which is that you do not define your concepts, starting conditions, distances, times, places, directions, speeds, unproven claims, and undefined philosophy:
"Behold - wonder and wonder - even though they are the ones that accelerated, still according to their clocks time in spaceship C moves slowly,
And when it meets Planet B, its time will be a year and Clock B 10 years and a bit."
"Time in spacecraft C moves slowly" - moves slowly relative to what? What are the initial conditions of C;
Was it stationary or moving relative to the A-B system before they started accelerating? Why do you think it moves slowly/fast/the same/proven?
"And clock B 10 years and a bit" - where do you get it from? Proved why not much less than 10 years?
"And when it meets Planet B, its time (of C) will be a year"
What are the initial conditions of C in relation to A and B before their acceleration?
And what was the direction of their acceleration: chasing C or colliding with C?
If the starting condition was rest - what is the answer?
If in the direction of a collision - what is the answer?
If in the direction of persecution - what is the answer?
"He will reach B in a year according to C's clock and 10 and a bit according to B's clock." - Is this claim true and accurate?
"The first question that is asked is: if clock J is 10 times slower than clock B, how is it that clock B also moves 10 times slower than clock C?"
Stupid questions arise from contradictory assumptions!
"The second question that is asked is whether clock C is at rest relative to radiation,
And his time moves slower relative to system A - B, so in system A - B time moves faster relative to him."
Define rest relative to radiation. Is the description you gave a possible reality? proven!
"But then if they both started at moment 0 which is the age of the universe, very quickly system A - B will pass the age of the universe which is clock time C."
So what? Is there an absolute time?
"The problem is that he can't see it a light year away. Otherwise he could have also photographed it and seen what happened a year ago on a planet 10 light years away from him." Will the meeting be after 10 years on the planet?
When/at what distance will the spacecraft see the planet for the first time?
Miracles:"
6. At what distance does B see A's hand touching C's hand?
7. At what distance does B see C's hand touching A's hand?
8. Hint - the answer to 6 must be the same as the answer to 7.
9. Another hint - both answers are 10 light years."
How come the simultaneous event "A touches B C" can be viewed simultaneously from B?
Bambinos: "Who even paid attention to what B sees?" - An evasive answer is a stupid answer.
Miracles:"
A sees B 10 light years away.
B sees A 10 light years away.
B sees C 10 light years away." is it true?
How come the simultaneous event "A touches B C" can be viewed simultaneously from B?
-
You wanted answers, you got questions. Those who do not answer do not deserve more.
I don't expect you to understand. He who despises definitions does not understand the term in front of him.
If you have any questions, wishes, clarifications, please don't ask.
No, that doesn't answer my question.
The question was: what is stupid about:
"A sees B 10 light years away.
B sees A 10 light years away.
B sees C 10 light years away."
And you, as always, try to deflect so as not to admit that you messed up.
How come I'm not surprised?
To Israelus Locus Kashkshanitos Bambinus
Those who do not know how to define, do not know what they are talking about.
I ask, you answer!
Question: A spacecraft accelerates at 100G from Earth to 99% of the speed of light,
Think how much time has passed on earth? On the surface of the spaceship? The spaceship slows down at 100G until it reaches the earth at a relative speed of 0. Calculate how much time has passed on the surface of the earth? On the surface of the spaceship? Is the length of time from the moment of departure to the moment of return the same on Earth and in the spacecraft. If not, does that answer your question?
It's hard for people to understand how much you don't understand what you're talking about, like the dialogue between you and the shadow, the one swimming in the city is intentional and it's all one big mistake. So you have here one last chance to prove yourself.
Bib B Locus Bambinos
mere..
Look at Postulate 2, try to see if there can be another possibility besides the lengthening of times and the shortening of length that is consistent with all the experiments and observations including Michaelson Morley, Aspa Weiler.
we
You don't understand because you're not supposed to understand.. 🙂
Israel
I can not understand you.
Do you think the problem is with me if I don't understand you?
Israel
I also had an injection - and nothing helped. From the risks of the previous profession….
we
You are right, they have a serious problem with logic.
They believe that maybe A is A, 1+1=2 and there is a logical explanation for the assembly experiment.
I had a herniated disc 16 years ago, for 4 months I was on crutches, in treatments, chiropractic, amaiait..
In the end Dr. Friedman gave me a cortisone injection in the disc, the next day I was como nuevo.
No wonders wonders?
Israel
I am familiar with a herniated disc….. Happened to me many years ago, and still gives me trouble.
Israel
I got there following your conclusion, according to which: Dear Boris and Semyon, there is a problem with logic.
The problem is not in their understanding but in the limitations of their understanding of reality based on their logic.
Tuesday poker.
Aa sorry, Tuesday a hard drive at home 🙂
Miracles
It's Tuesday and I'm stuck at home with a herniated disc, so what's more fun than kicking the boat out of this snooze, Comprands/AP?
What do you bet he won't answer in physics but will try to divert the question in the direction of philosophy?
Israel
Are you feeding trolls again? Haven't you seen Gremlins?
Comprands
There is no connection between the radiation and the question I presented to you.
In short, you are AP. or one of his spiritual counterparts.
Get yourself tangled up in gibberish, you have no answer, and you hope to get out of the entanglement through a never-ending round of definitions, each answer to which will entail a demand for a new definition, so that in the end we will not be talking about physics, but about whether there is sleep, existence exists, and the fish in the sea.
Answer what I asked you, it has nothing to do with radiation, or let me go and go complain about someone else, snooze.
we
How did you get to that? Reality is objective.
Although our psychology works more or less as you described. The problem is that there are many who are not able to distinguish between the objective reality and the imaginary one in their head, according to comprands the fool and his associates.
Yossi Comprands
What are you complaining about?
Israel
So do you think reality is in the eye of the beholder?
To Israelus Locus Kashkshanitos
Give answers and definitions to everything you are asked.
what did i mean That if contradictory assumptions are introduced into the discussion, the result will be a school for idiots.
Ask your shadow to find your contradictory assumption. Not found, contact your physics teacher.
Snooze
You are pushed with:
"He didn't answer your previous question and wrote a stupid answer, and you reply to him with your own stupid answer?
"A sees B 10 light years away.
B sees A 10 light years away.
B sees C 10 light years away."
Ehbels conduct a discourse of Ehbels without understanding what they are talking about. Open a school for idiots.'
We didn't talk about the radiation before.
We didn't talk about definitions before.
So answer the question:
What did you mean by:
He did not answer your previous question and wrote a stupid answer, and you reply to him with your own stupid answer?
"A sees B 10 light years away.
B sees A 10 light years away.
B sees C 10 light years away."
To Israelus Locus Kashkshanitos Bambinus
I didn't say that B is resting - you understood what I read, Mr. Bambinos.
"And why didn't you answer the easy question I posed to you?"
I answered - Devil, read again.
Define "relaxed relative to radiation", I want to make sure you understand what you are talking about.
Define balanced inertial systems.
Tontitus
So it turns out you don't even know what the radiation system is, eh?
So why did you write "the velocity of B relative to the background radiation remains unchanged" if you say "set rest relative to the radiation"?
Devil..
And why didn't you answer the easy question I posed to you? Maybe because an answer will reveal how much of an Abelus you are and you don't have a conceptus, what are you talking about?
Run home to Amala Nodnikus, stop pestering Gadolimus.
And don't come back without an answer!
comprands?!
To Israelus Locus Kashkshanitos
"Who determined that the B ship under construction is at rest relative to the radiation and not the other way around?"
Define "rest relative to radiation".
Is it possible to distinguish between rest and constant speed in reference to radiation?
"On the contrary?" The opposite is not possible, because acceleration forces were applied on ship A.
Comprands
You have outdone yourself in obscurity and confusion.
Who determined that the B-ship being built is at rest relative to the radiation and not the other way around?
But we here in the system are attentive to the questions of the respondents. We'll give you something simpler to start with.
Reporter:
He did not answer your previous question and wrote a stupid answer, and you reply to him with your own stupid answer?
"A sees B 10 light years away.
B sees A 10 light years away.
B sees C 10 light years away."
If you can explain what's dumb about this miracle response, you'll be honored and treasured and even a small Nobel prize or two.
But if you don't succeed... maybe you should consider going back to Kechus, Chiros and Aspsos?
To Israelus Locus Kashkshanitos
1. Given that ship A passes by B, whose construction has not yet been completed, at a speed close to the speed of light, from the direction of B's tail to B's head:
A says, either I'm in the opposite direction to B and I have to turn the engines to slow down and come to rest in relation to B.
Or I'm moving in the same direction as B is moving away and I have to turn engines and accelerate and come to rest in relation to B.
B says either I'm in the opposite direction to A and I should not turn the engines in order to slow down and come to a rest in relation to A.
Or I'm moving in the same direction that A is moving away and I must not turn engines and accelerate and come to rest in relation to A.
Given:
A knows that she accelerated in a tail-to-head direction to reach her current speed.
B knows that she never started her engines.
A is the one who activates her engines in order to meet with B.
The two systems meet and B says that she never turned on her engines.
Is it possible to determine which of them is the acceleration? that A's speed relative to B was caused by A's acceleration?
2. When are systems unbalanced?
3. Will acceleration cause a transition to a rapid drop in temperature?
4. B claims that she did not observe a drop in temperature. A claims that she observed a rapid drop in temperature.
Is A's speed relative to the background temperature, which B observes unchanged, the reason for the differences between them?
"All systems are balanced - so why is it that when two spacecraft pass each other in Tiz al Nabi in space, one will measure a rapid drop in temperature and the other will not?"
The background radiation reference system is a reference system like any other reference system.
Its measurements depend on the surveyor's reference system.
Reference system A moves relative to B. Their relative speed relative to each other is the same speed, which is close to light.
Does this require that their speed relative to a third system be the same speed?
Do the results of their measurement of the background radiation system have to be the same? No.
And the reason is A's speed. B's speed relative to the background radiation remains unchanged.
since when
we
Causality - from the word causality.
If you can send information faster than light, you can send a picture of Dresden from 1945 to 1933 and thus convince the Perplucht Schweinz that it might be better not to choose Hitler and change reality, regardless of whether you sent matter or energy. This is what is called multiple worlds, according to Prof. Lev Weidman.
And this is indeed one of the interpretations of quantum mechanics, along with non-locality (one particle is in several distant places at the same time), additional dimensions and more.
We had some carts in the barn that were really cool.
In the barn of Yafim Boris and Siomka, cause preceded effect and carts would grow into cows and not the other way around.
In the barn of Yafim Boris and Siomka, each cow in the herd had a certain location and she could not mow grass in several places at the same time. For Hezron, the shepherd dog, the time it took to run between Adina the Dutch cow and Latifa the Damascus was equal to the distance between them divided by his running speed. The coordinates of each cow were length, width, height, and time. If you told Laif that the number of cows in the herd is the sum of the Dutch and Damascus cows, and the number of Dutch cows is equal to 6 squared and the Damascenes to the root of 64, he would tell you that there are 44 cows in the herd and not even 28 because that is what the math yielded.
So as always, the problem is with Yafim Boris and Siomka.
Israel
What is coziness?
You had a few cowslips in the barn when you were young, didn't you?
Oh yeah, they can also measure the temperature outside the not-really-ship
Israel
Weave them together with a very long thread and pass commands on the thread at a really fast speed...
Miracles
No speech, no reception, absolute wireless silence.
moreover. To confuse the planet's intelligence systems, the 4 ships make crazy zigzags in space, right, left, at near-light speeds that throw their clocks completely out of sync.
Therefore, everything depends on the navigators, who have to reach 4 points on the circumference of the planet without communication.
They can decide in advance on the time to open fire, but they have a problem: because of all the rondels in space, they may be able to reach the Tzaddikim, but how would they know how to open fire simultaneously? Maybe there was a gap of 1000 years between the different clocks?
So how to solve the problem in 1905, and how can it, at least theoretically, be solved today?
Israel
Did you mean without any ability to transmit and receive? Or just talk?
Israel
Assuming that the number of spaceships is known:
1. Everyone flies a distance d from the planet and reports arrival.
2. Attack at time t after the last reported arrival.
.
We are going to see Ilana Dayan, in the meantime the definition of the problem;
How would you synchronize a simultaneous attack on a distant planet with several ships without communication between them in 1905?
And how will you do it today?
Israel
Yes. I've read a lot of scraps for relative temperature - I don't think anyone even knows what to measure in such a situation. for example: http://fisica.ciencias.uchile.cl/~gonzalo/cursos/termo_II-05/seminarios/AJP_Callen-relativistic-thermo71.pdf
Here it is written that it is not at all clear when the temperature rises or falls.
Did you mean the background radiation? So why is the temperature drop directly proportional to the gamma factor?
Israel
What are you basing this question on? Our universe has a preferred frame of reference (for measuring temperature).
Mochus trullitus scaly.
By the way - did you know that E=mc^2 can be deduced even without special relativity?
In fact, the formula was arrived at by an Italian engineer as early as 1903 from... Lasage's theory and the site!
And don't forget that we still haven't solved the question: if Postulate 1 says that all systems are balanced - then why when two spaceships pass each other at Tiz al Nabi in space, one will measure a rapid drop in temperature and the other will not?
Acceleration cannot be the solution because we did not say which of the two accelerated. You can always arrange it to be the other way around.
Israel
Another troll trying to show he's smart…..
All right, comprands.
And now, back to Urvus, Phipi and Lishonus, Tontitus.
"Can you show me evidence that there is a shortening? Or is there no spaghetti monster?”
This question from Beit Midrash *Shapira* is stupid, only someone who understands nothing in the Torah of Relativity will not grasp how much. Without shortening the length, all the conclusions of special relativity are as if they never existed. *E=MC²* is a fortuitous reality. The entire Torah is abolished. All her conclusions are invalid. All physics after the famous formula is null and void. But what can be done that the stupidity gains fans and fame, and our friend Israel-imbecile allows himself a horrendous irresponsibility?
If Einstein thought he was asked to publish his theory, without proof of *shortening*, the twin paradox, which is not a paradox at all, and an influence on the past at a speed greater than light were not possible, and the question about *proof of shortening* could not have been formulated.
But Israel-imbecile does not understand what he is talking about, and his understanding of physics is inversely proportional to the size of his stupidity.
Thought experiments are ground-breaking means of understanding reality and that intellectuals such as Israel-imbecile will teach Einstein how to do science and how to interpret his teachings.
we
Who is prettier, Sandy Barr or Roseanne Barr?
Note that to answer, you don't need to define what beauty is.
But as I showed earlier with the astronaut, if you manage to do what I suggested, that is, to get a correct answer from him about an arithmetic operation regarding a number he did not know in advance faster than light - you have contradicted relativity. point. End of discussion.
And this - without defining information.
And since our concern is relativity and not information theory - this will suffice for our needs, won't it?
Although on second thought, Roseanne might win the inner beauty queen contest.
To be clear:
You can define it like this.
But in that case you will be considered mentally incompetent, because only mentally ill or physically brain damaged people like Down syndrome think this way.
And I came to know that you are not like that.
Israel
Thanks, but I understood all this at the time.
The point is that in the reality we live in, information cannot be used without defining what information is.
The information always represents something. And without the representation of the information, the same information cannot be expressed.
After all, you wouldn't think in your mind that heychkiyachhi is a representation of miyachkiyachhi, and this without having defined what heychkiyachhi is.
Isn't that how things are?
In Wikipedia under information they gave an example of how to write Wikipedia using combinations of 1 and 0 as I suggested, but I understood that it was not good.
But it is not really principled.
An astronaut is said to be a light hour away from you.
You have an agreement: every number you send to him, no matter which way, he gives you back its square and root.
At moment 0 with you, you send him the number 9 on the radio.
If in less than two hours you get a 3 and 81 back from him, you were able to transmit information faster than light, agree?
And this without even defining what information is, accept?
Do you understand why according to relativity if you send information like I described faster than light you are actually sending it to the past and can affect it?
Did you understand the example of the football game that the imbecile comprands didn't catch?
Israel
Since you are the last remnant of the Nephilim of the Knowledge Site:
Maybe you know what the information consists of?
And in general, what is the definition of information in Wikipedia?
I didn't check there so I don't know what wiki says.
I realized that I don't understand anything.
What about you?
I will not mention our "friend" Nissim - who of course understood everything.
What's the problem we, what didn't you understand?
Are you implying that serious questions can be asked here? I do not believe..
Anu, are you seriously asking?
Another idiot.
Comprandos, back to the barn.
Comprandos?
"Information is not material"... obviously. It's not a box of corn either...
You must have meant that information is not made of matter.
If so then please tell me, young professor, if information is not made of matter/energy, then what is information made of?
And what have we learned from all this thread?
Miracles….
What are you doing here, deaf blind dialogue. Everyone writes nonsense and ignores the other's nonsense?
The shutter speed of cameras has nothing to do with the theory of relativity except in Ahbel's fevered mind.
You wrote that there is no contradiction in the transfer of information, as long as it does not involve the transfer of mass. And therefore "because it harms the koziliyyah. There is no longer."
Is an answer that the moon is not made of yellow cheese equally inappropriate?
Information that is not matter cannot affect matter and therefore cannot explain phenomena, why is it difficult for you to write this?
Israel wrote to you that it is possible to send information about the results of a soccer match to the past because of the twin paradox.
Is that okay with you? Did you understand his example? Did you understand that she sucks her finger?
Why were you silent?
Feeds you harsh words, miscalculations, false assumptions, concepts out of sync with themselves, contradictions, and you remain silent.
Did you even understand his examples? Did they convince you? Or "miracles" = "Israel" is this the same person who conducts a monologue with himself?
Shazira sends something to the past, he told you. And you have nothing to say?
Interweaving contradicts relativity, therefore either interweaving is incorrect, or interweaving is incorrect, or nothing is sent in interweaving. "Nothing sent" solves all paradoxes, right?
Therefore, "the interweaving experiment contradicts the theory of relativity according to your understanding and perhaps also according to Einstein's understanding. In my opinion - you are both wrong, and you have not given any argument that makes me think otherwise." right. But what prefers to climb down and not put it in its place.
He did not answer your previous question and wrote a stupid answer, and you reply to him with your own stupid answer?
"A sees B 10 light years away.
B sees A 10 light years away.
B sees C 10 light years away."
Ehbels conduct a discourse of Ehbels without understanding what they are talking about. Open a school for idiots.
You prefer to keep your mouth shut, don't argue, don't show opposition, don't contradict, don't express disagreement, don't ask what you don't understand.
Probably this is the same person, or all idiots look the same.
Israel
indeed
Miracles
In chess, if you reach the same situation two or three times, then the game ends in a draw.
So Ruth is infinite?
Israel
In Wheeler's experiments there is a conflict with the special theory of relativity only by assuming that a photon is either a particle or a wave. So this assumption is probably wrong.
Interweaving does not harm coziness because it does not send information - only passing information.
Still, information passed into the past according to relativity and as shown by all the paradoxes of the effect on the past according to the Weiler experiment.
Israel
Does braiding hurt the cosiness? Can you get information before you send it??
Miracles…
"Here is a thought experiment that explains why bodies of different weights fall at the same speed (that is, acceleration). Suppose a heavy body falls faster than a light body. We will take two such bodies and connect them with a thread. On the one hand - we now have a new body, even heavier and therefore will fall faster. On the other hand - the light body will cause the heavy body to slow down, which will cause them to fall together at an intermediate speed. We have come to a contradiction.'
Wow, beautiful.
And now let's say you perform the experiment and what happens is that the heavier bodies fall more.
So what's all your thought experiment worth?
This is what happened in the Bell experiments, which disproved the conclusions of the thought experiment proposed by Einstein in the EPR paper.
"The problem with transferring information is an effect on the past. Information is not matter and I don't think that the theory of relativity sets limits to the speed of information, as long as there is no contradiction.'
Any transmission of information faster than light contradicts relativity because it damages constancy. no longer
I showed you this yesterday with the example of the football game.
"You need a better reason to reject such a successful theory as the theory of relativity. The Torah derives from an axiomatic basis that corresponds to reality, and there is no phenomenon that, according to expert physicists, invalidates the Torah.'
You don't need to disqualify it - just integrate it as a special case in an extended theory that includes non-locality, just as Newton's very successful theory was integrated as a special case of the theory of relativity.
Israel
The problem with transferring information is an effect on the past. Information is not matter and I do not think that the theory of relativity sets limits to the speed of information, as long as there is no contradiction.
The theory of relativity in itself does not rule out movement at a speed beyond the speed of light - it rules out the acceleration of a particle with mass from a low speed to an infinitely high speed. Einstein himself said that the "only" problem is that particles moving above the speed of light can damage causality.
We need a better reason to reject such a successful theory as the theory of relativity. The Torah derives from an axiomatic basis that corresponds to reality, and there is no phenomenon that, according to expert physicists, invalidates the Torah.
Israel
Here is a thought experiment that explains why bodies of different weights fall at the same speed (ie, acceleration). Suppose a heavy body falls faster than a light body. We will take two such bodies and connect them with a thread. On the one hand - we now have a new body, even heavier and therefore will fall faster. On the other hand - the light body will cause the heavy body to slow down, which will cause them to fall together at an intermediate speed. We have reached a contradiction.
"What you said about Aristotle is a meaningless jumble of words."
Mmm ..
ZA that since the time of Aristotle until Galileo they didn't believe that heavy bodies don't fall faster?
"Length shortening provides a simple explanation for the twin paradox, a paradox that has experimental evidence. "We will not see Israel" is not exactly an argument that convinces anyone - so far you have not given any reason to think that there is no contraction.'
Can you show me evidence of shortening? Or is there no spaghetti monster? Or is there no boss? Or are there 10 dimensions?
I didn't say I don't think so. I asked you a few questions about shortening:
"Imagine that you accelerate a camera in Israel so that the gamma factor is equal to a thousand. It is complicated but possible.
So what, if you take a picture of Alpha Centauri it will "see" you 1000 times closer? And what will the photographs show from such a distance - the newspapers that were published in it 4 years ago or the day before yesterday? He is less than two light days from you, isn't he?
And in general, what will be its diameter in the photo? 1000 times bigger because it's 1000 times closer? Is it optically possible?'
can you answer
"The entanglement experiment contradicts the theory of relativity according to your understanding and perhaps also according to Einstein's understanding. In my opinion - you are both wrong, and you have not given any argument that makes me think otherwise.'
A mesh experiment does not contradict relativity according to my understanding, but rather puts it to a difficult physical test (I've said this about 80 times, so this is probably the 81st time).
But yes, according to Wiki Einstein said so.
I gave you an argument, I explained why transferring information faster than light contradicts relativity. If you were to delve into it, you would perhaps see the problems that the interweaving poses for relationships.
Israel
Surely there is evidence that disproves the boss. The thing is, as soon as you define the boss, you immediately find something that refutes it. Go find a believer who is ready to give a definition to the boss...
In a thought experiment - they actually show that bodies of different weights do fall at the same speed, and not at different speeds. What you said about Aristotle is a meaningless jumble of words.
Length shortening provides a simple explanation for the twin paradox, a paradox that has experimental evidence. "We will not see Israel" is not exactly an argument that convinces anyone - so far you have not given any reason to think that there is no contraction.
The entanglement experiment contradicts the theory of relativity according to your understanding and perhaps also according to Einstein's understanding. In my opinion - you are both wrong, and you have not given any argument that makes me think otherwise.
The main thing I forgot -
"Special relativity is a mathematical model that provides good predictions, and explains a great many observations."
Also Newton's theory.
Miracles
How did you suddenly jump from A B and C to right or wrong?
"You said that evidence from experiments should not be shortened, but there is also no evidence that disproves the idea." There is also no evidence that disproves the boss.
"On the other hand, you keep quoting Einstein to attack quantum mechanics."
Reading Comprehension:
I use quantum mechanics to knock down special relativity.
"Our entire thought experiment is based on special relativity. So now all of a sudden you think the Torah is wrong"?
Let's do a little thought experiment:
It is said that the whole world believes that a heavy body falls faster than a light body (which was true until 1500).
Aristotle comes and offers a thought experiment:
We will take several bodies of different weights and throw them from a tower. Since the heavy ones fall faster, they will arrive in Israel before the light ones of course, which will prove the theory.
Now Galileo comes and actually conducts the experiment that Aristotle proposed, but wonder of wonders, all the bodies reach the ground together!
What to do? Shrug your shoulders and say it's happening?
What do you do if the whole world believes that light moves in the site which is the absolute reference system and Michelson and Morley come and show that the site does not have an absolute reference system? They say the experiment was not successful?
Because here comes Einstein and offers a thought experiment: we will take two particles intertwined at great distances, we will measure the position of one and the momentum of the other. Because of the distance we can do this without a problem and thus know both the momentum and the position of each particle contrary to the uncertainty principle, which proves that quantum theory is a regret.
Otherwise, says Einstein (according to Wiki), there is a contradiction here to the principle of relativity that information cannot exceed the speed of light.
But the experiment (almost identical) was done, not in thought but in the laboratory, the results are what quantum mechanics predicts - and everyone shrugs their shoulders, shakes their heads, and says what to do, Einstein probably doesn't understand relativity.
So why should I say anything at all if the maestro does all the work for me?
Israel
The special theory of relativity is a mathematical model that provides good predictions, and explains a great many observations.
You said that evidence from experiments should not be shortened, but there is also no evidence that disproves the idea.
Our entire thought experiment is based on special relativity. So now you suddenly think the Torah is wrong?
On the other hand, you keep quoting Einstein to bash quantum mechanics.
He "sees" B at a distance of one light year.
Roa Elek.. imagine that you speed up a camera in Israel so that the gamma factor is equal to a thousand. It is complicated but possible.
So what, if you take a picture of Alpha Centauri it will "see" you 1000 times closer? And what will the photographs show from such a distance - the newspapers that were published in it 4 years ago or the day before yesterday? He is less than two light days from you, isn't he?
And in general, what will be its diameter in the photo? 1000 times bigger because it's 1000 times closer? Is it optically possible?
Did you know that there is no experimental evidence of length shortening?
Israel
Nice - A sees B 10 light years away.
B sees A 10 light years away.
B sees C 10 light years away.
Now - at what distance does C see B?
Dias Anios de Luz.
Israel
Please, what are your answers to what I asked?
Miracles
Your friend will write whatever he wants, and it doesn't matter what you write to him.
You are dealing with a chronic short in communication. Understand who you are dealing with.
comprands ka paisno?
Who even considered what B sees?
What you wrote is:
"By pressing top - C sees A and B together, 10 light years away, agree"?
And C is not B because it is not synchronized with B and therefore from C's point of view, B is one light year away from him.
No miro son no los misamos?
Chaim P
Thanks! This is true of many people who talk nonsense.
Israel
Sorry - let's do it even slower. Please - concentrate!
1. B sees A ten light years away.
2. C crosses A.
3. A holds a hand up.
4. C takes a hand out of the window of the spaceship.
5. As soon as their hands touch - everyone clicks top.
6. At what distance does B see A's hand touching C's hand?
7. At what distance does B see C's hand touching A's hand?
8. Hint - the answer to 6 must be the same as the answer to 7.
9. Another hint - both answers are 10 light years.
comprands, who amigo?
Sent in the middle.
The result reaches D in time 6 years according to D's clock.
Since he meets A only at 10 a.m. according to his watch, he has no problem giving him the results of the game.
But the time in A at the moment of the meeting is only a year, and the game was held in year 3, ZA only in two years..
That's why there is no problem in A to fill in a toto and mark the known result of the game that has not yet been held and bring a Thamka.
This is called a violation of coziness.
Do you understand now what the problem Einstein saw in non-locality in quantum entanglement?
No.
If C already "sees" B - then it is a light year away. After all, he was moving towards him at almost the speed of light.
The problem is he can't see it a light year away. Otherwise he could have also photographed it and seen what happened a year ago on a planet 10 light years away from him.
I'll save you the trouble. There is a fundamental difference between C and B. C moves in the synchronized system A - B which is not synchronized with it.
If you take the explanation a little further, you will see why it is also impossible to send information faster than light.
Because in order for the system to be completely symmetrical, we need a D clock 10 light years away from G in the C - D system, which moves at the same speed as C and is synchronized with it but not with the A - B system.
When C passed A on his way to B, A passed C on his way to D. The time on all clocks at this moment is 0.
Because of the symmetry, A will meet D at a time of one year according to his clock and 10 years and a bit according to D's clock.
It was said that in year 3 in A, a soccer match was held there, and they can transfer the result to B in 2c. Therefore B will receive the result in year 8 according to their time.
When C arrives at B in time 10 years and a bit according to B's clock, they have no problem conveying to him the result they have already known for over two years.
C, whose time is now a year, sends the result to D in 2c
Israel
Yes, at the same speed, but not over the same distance. It's not complicated and you're not AP, but let's take it slow.
first step
------
C crosses A towards B and everyone presses top.
stage B'
----
By pressing Top - C sees A and B together, 10 light years away, do you agree?
for miracles
Sorry. I misidentified your last comment because I scrolled back.
With regard to the statement you said in response to mentioning the path of the ultra-Orthodox:
"Take false axioms, and retarded rules of inference, and kill anyone who does not believe in what you have deduced"
Lenisim: Speak on your last statement. Accurate and successful.
Miracles
B moves towards C exactly as C moves towards B, and at exactly the same speed.
Israel
C sees the distance as one light year. About a year goes by on his watch. B sees the distance as ten light years, therefore on his watch about ten years will pass.
Can we close the first point?
Believe it or not, all you have to do is take a normal thermometer out of the spaceship in a shaded area and it will already show you what the temperature is outside.
And the temperature can always be weighted by measuring the background radiation and the Doppler weighting in two directions.
Miracles
We were left with the same problem as before.
Let's look at the half of the paradox.
Two clocks A and B, synchronized with each other at a distance of 10 light years.
At instant 0 on the clocks, clock C passes by A on its way to B. Gamma factor is equal to 10.
He will reach B in a year according to C's clock and 10 and a little according to B's clock.
Note that there is no acceleration here, and even if there is, each system could accelerate in the direction of the other, so the acceleration is irrelevant.
The first question that is asked is: if clock J is 10 times slower than clock B, how is it that clock B also moves 10 times slower than clock C?
Note that it doesn't matter at all who is moving or resting relative to the background radiation, you will still get the same problem.
The second question that is asked is if clock C is at rest relative to radiation, and its time moves slower relative to system A - B, then in system A - B time moves faster relative to it.
But then if they both started at moment 0 which is the age of the universe, very quickly system A - B will pass the age of the universe which is clock time C.
And it's a bit difficult because the A-B system is part of the same universe and if it moves fast enough relative to radiation, it theoretically has no problem even being 100 billion years old, while the universe of which it is a part remains only 13.7 billion years old.
Capish?
Israel
You brought up the issue of temperature. In general - how do you define temperature at high speeds?
Israel
Did the idiot fly away? 🙂
A.P.
Whatever you say, you are right as usual. The truth is on your side, as always.
Your last rant is also true. If two spaceships meet each other in space, then one of them will have a rapid drop in temperature and the other will not. Crystal Clear.
But in whom? B or B? And why not the other way around?
Ah ah ah..
Run to Amala, she knows she has a genius son. He knew how to count to 100 already when he was only 10 years old.
Israel Shapira,
The discussion with you is over. He speaks for himself.
And a compulsive genius who is busy with ego games, who is interested in an argument for the sake of an argument. That truth is seen in his eyes as arrogance - what misery.
The discussion ended with the hater of truth and fairness.
To the respondents who lack the luck and wisdom not to demand from you conditions for a rational discussion, before any discussion, I wish you success.
No one knew about background radiation in 1905 when the paradox was raised.
And the background radiation is not the direction for the solution, but how is it related in our case?
Israel
The background radiation provides a reference system. What does this have to do with twins?
Miracles
This still does not solve the problem I raised:
If the two systems are balanced - why does the temperature drop faster in the hurrying twin than in his brother?
Israel
In any case - the acceleration component is meaningless. There is no obstacle for the speed to increase at time 0 to a high speed, and the stop can also be at time 0. The paradox comes from the shortening of the range due to the speed, that's all.
I don't even understand why you are having a conversation with him. I have known slippers more intelligent than him.
Miracles
The twin paradox can be broken into several parts. In a certain case the first part is:
The twin accelerates from planet A, which is 10 light years away from planet B, when the clocks of the two planets are synchronized. Gamma factor is equal to 10.
If the twin left at moment 0 in the clocks of the planets and in his clock, he will arrive at Planet B when the time in his clock is a year and in the clock of Planet B a little over 10 years.
However, it is equally possible to use another spaceship C that passes over planet A at moment 0 in its season and clocks and its speed is such that the gamma factor is equal to 10.
Note that in this case there is no acceleration - moreover, it is possible to arrange that spaceship C is at rest and planets A and B are the ones that accelerate compared to it and, after coming to rest, synchronize their clocks.
When planet A meets spaceship C, the time in its clock and its clocks will be 0.
And here - wonder and wonder - even though they are the ones that accelerated, still according to their clocks, time in spaceship C moves slowly, and when it meets planet B, its time will be a year and clock B will be 10 years and a bit.
So what does acceleration have to do with it?
Try explaining that to the genius of a mother, AP. The falspen.
Israel,
"You have 2 spaceships passing each other in space. How do you know which one is the speedster?"
The accelerator will report a rapid drop in temp when it passes the other one that was not accelerated.
"Why does the temperature drop quickly in one and not in the other?"
One watches the history of the universe at a speed that is close to light and therefore this history unfolds before her quickly.
the other is not.
Getting 0, if you continue in the same direction you will go below zero.
Israel
I have also heard learned people say that the twin paradox is related to accelerations.
Post whatever you want, for now you are only posting your stupidity.
You have 2 spaceships passing each other in space. How do you know which one is the speedster? Why does the temperature drop quickly in one and not in the other?
Not enough.
Israel,
Any spaceship that passes at the same speed as the speeding twin is accelerated to the same speed.
It seems to me that you show here that you do not understand physics.
Fails.
-
Bring the axioms with agree/disagree next to each one.
If you do not bring it, it will be publicly announced here that the principle of reciprocity does not apply to you in the discussions. This is for you to consider.
As I thought, you don't understand the twin paradox at all. It has nothing to do with acceleration.
To see this, think of another spaceship passing the source spaceship after the twin has left it and its speed as its speed.
She did not accelerate but passed the mothership just as the mothership passed her. Both systems are equal.
And since she is flying at 0 speed relative to the speeding twin, what happens to him will happen to her, i.e. a rapid drop in temperature.
So why does the temperature drop quickly in her and in the spaceship is it slow if the systems are balanced?
Fails.
Israel,
please:
Acceleration and deceleration forces were applied to the fireplace system in motion in order to bring it to a speed close to the speed of light,
and in order to meet again with the resting brother system. No forces were applied to the stationary hearth system.
Therefore the systems were not inertially balanced and therefore could be distinguished between them.
Now bring your answers.
A.P.
As I mentioned, I have no interest in philosophy.
But I can faithfully assure you that you do not have a simple and clear answer to my question that shows the lack of sense in it.
Based on my experience with you and your wonderful understanding of physics, it must be something decidedly decisive and wrong like your answer from two weeks ago:
"The conclusion is not that someone cheated, because it is impossible to cheat, but that such an experiment is not possible at all and has not been done and will never be done."
And now let me go please and go get angry at those who agree to tolerate your endless arrogance that is not backed up by anything.
Israel,
My demand precedes your demand in days and hours. Answer her in the name of fairness without getting clever!
I have a simple and clear answer to your question that shows the lack of taste in it. That is, your lack of understanding of physics.
To remind you in a fair discussion there are no conditions regarding questions that are asked. Answer and continue.
You have made the discussion here a continuous waste of time! Instead of researching, knowing, understanding, whether quantum "information transfer" is possible and required by reality, as you informed everyone.
You proved that this was not your intention. You meant the opposite. Avoid in any way a proven and binding conclusion.
Their intention was not knowledge but lack of knowledge!
If you continue to take time, I will close the discussion.
If I see that you understand the material, I will also answer the question if a tree falls in the forest and no one is there to hear it, does it make a sound.
Meanwhile, twins.
Israel,
I understood your question.
"If the two systems are equal, then why does it go down quickly in his case and not in his brother's?"
You are asking for an explanation of how it is possible for balanced systems to observe results that allow for a distinction between them.
OK - I will address this in my answer.
Now present your answer in correct format as I requested.
A.P.
Before you bother me, I want to know if we both understand what this is about. Otherwise it's a waste of time for both of us.
Please answer what I asked:
If the two systems are balanced, then why does it go down fast in his case and not in his brother's?
Or let's end this nonsense now.
Israel,
Copy the axioms and write agreements next to each one.
What you wrote is unacceptable and meaningless.
A.P.
Ann Dan Dino.
agree.
agree.
agree.
agree.
agree.
twins?
Israel,
I will answer your question, if you answer my demand: give an evaluation on the screens/disagree to each of the axioms I mentioned!
It will be one-sided as your habit of not responding to my request and of course you won't know if my answer will be right/wrong.
By the way, are you sure of the answer you have, or have you found, in your opinion, a way to disprove one of the assumptions of special relativity?
This is a test of what applies to you as well. Do you take that into account?
relative absolutes.
The mufflets also came out relatively cold.
Israel
Relativity is absolute, isn't it? 🙂
A.P.
Thanks for the character scores you give me.
My interest in psychology is minimal. You have your axioms, I have mine.
And the first of them is: not to waste time on a discussion with someone who I am not sure that he understands what he is talking about, and that I am not sure that he strives for the truth.
So since you allow yourself to give me character and fairness tests, I will give you a test on what is fundamental to the discussion in my opinion: your understanding of physics.
Reporter:
"So why is the heating on now?"
Because the history of the universe unfolded before his eyes millions of times faster than before the eyes of his brothers.
Time is a relative concept.'
The principle of relativity states:
The laws of physics do not change when moving from one inertial frame of reference to another inertial frame of reference. For example, a person in a sealed train car cannot, through any experiment or physical measurement, determine whether the car is moving at a constant speed or is at rest.
But here, according to your words, there is a simple way to determine whether you are moving at a constant speed or standing at rest: if with Twin A, "the history of the universe unfolds to his eyes millions of times faster than to his brothers' eyes", that is, the temperature drops according to his clock millions of times faster than his brothers', So he is the one who moves and his brother is at rest, isn't he?
If the two systems are balanced, then why does it go down fast in his case and not in his brother's?
Answer it. To me, this is dozens of times more important than the questions of whether existence exists, whether eternity is eternal, or whether relativity is relative.
Israel,
You did not understand.
We are not conducting a discussion here about axioms and I have no intention of maintaining one.
What are the axioms that you accept on the basis of which such a discussion will take place?
The discussion here is about fairness in the discussion.
My role is not to show you under which axiomatic system theories in physics exist. I am not the speaker of those theories and I am not their creator.
It is my job to show you that the discussion between us is conducted under a system of axioms, and even though it was not explicitly stated, it does not mean that it does not exist.
After they have been published at your request, it is your duty to express your agreement/disagreement to each of them so that we can know if we speak the same language and can reach the same agreements.
Preventing you so far is a useless, unfair and dishonorable nonsense and I have already expressed my opinion about it.
In other discussions that were here I argued that Darwin's theory and quantum theory do not accept the axioms "nothing exists from nothing", "chance does not exist", "every result has a cause" and "eternity exists".
That is why it was relevant for me to treat them on an axiomatic basis.
It is not relevant for me to judge any Torah as long as its claims are not jarring to me.
A worldview advocated by Lawrence Krauss - "something from nothing", contradicts the axioms "eternity exists", "every result has a reason", "there is nothing from nothing". That's why it would be relevant for me to require him to accept them before discussing with him.
The truths of science are not eternal, their preoccupation with an alternate universe and their alternate essence.
The truths of science are based on the void and nothingness, the universe started from nothing, that started from nothing has no end.
The truths of science are the truths of emptiness and nothingness and therefore contradict the axioms of nothingness and eternity.
That is why it is relevant to discuss the truth of science based on the axioms I brought and those I did not bring.
Science is based on the axiom "the senses exist", meaning there are no senses, no science, no axioms, nothing.
Knowledge conditioned on an alternative starting point is alternative knowledge. The knowledge of science is conditioned by the senses and therefore it is alternative and lacks an eternal truth in its foundation.
And again the discussion between us is not about axioms but about fairness.
That's why you must give an evaluation on the screens/disagree to each of the axioms I mentioned!
I will also ask you to give a definition for a fair discussion.
Israel
Axioms are not necessarily true. As you said, the fifth is not correct in our world.
In the context of our friend's axioms... I have already said mine. The man is terribly dishonest.
Shoin Yes, axiom..
Israel
"Not so axiomatic".... I don't even understand what that means.
There are axioms, there are rules of inference and there are theorems. Beltrami proved that the axiom of parallels cannot be deduced from Euclid's first four axioms. Therefore the axiom is not a theorem.
Once, it was thought that the fifth is not an axiom, today we know otherwise. You have to move forward in life...
Because as I said "the axiom of parallels, the fifth, is not so axiomatic".
Don't you see the difference between her and the others? Anyone arguing with the others?
Israel
You will not come to any contradiction. Why do you ask?
What a fix? that the fifth postulate?
Why would you come to any contradiction if you assume that through a point outside the straight line there pass an infinite number of lines parallel to the straight line or not even one?
Israel
Can't you get a fix? 🙂
Miracles
The subject we are discussing (general) relativity is built on the Riemann curve geometry.
His teacher, the mythological Gauss, is its original thinker:
"The idea that the axiom of parallels can be replaced by another axiom, thus obtaining a geometry different from Euclidean geometry but equally valid, was first arrived at by Gauss, who was afraid to publish such an innovative idea."
Israel
To be precise - the fifth postulate is axiomatic (yes, that's what it's called). What Sakhari and others tried to show is that Euclid was wrong, and the postulate is a theorem.
As we know - they failed.
And before you jump - the axiom of parallels, the fifth, is not as axiomatic as Gauss, Riemann and others showed, so I did not include it.
A.P.
In Euclid's book "Fundamentals" 4 axioms appear, for example between 2 points only one straight line passes, which is also the shortest distance between them.
The basis of the special theory of relativity is built on 2 postulates (the physical equivalent of the axiom) which are: the equality of all inertial systems and the same measurement of the speed of light by every measurer.
Can you show me a reference in some physics book or in some physics publication to one of the following axioms:
1. Eternity exists.
2. There is sleep.
3. Nothing is gone.
4. The absence of contradiction.
5. There is nothing.
And if you don't find it - does this mean that physics is not valid in the sense that it does not rely on these axioms, just as geometry or relativity are not valid without the axioms underlying them?
Israel
Copy my reference to "axioms". He doesn't ignore you.
Israel,
"Whether or not existence exists are questions that belong in a physical discussion. I would appreciate it if you could show me a reference to these questions in Einstein's article on relativity, in the EPR article or in Feynman's lectures."
As long as you do not accept the axioms, your questions will be meaningless... and my answer will not be understandable.
These axioms are conditions for rational thinking. Conditions that precede any topic of discussion. Necessary starting points.
Assertions of the non-existence or existence-non-existence type are irrational forms of thinking.
If you do not accept these axioms you are not bound by any conclusion, proof, argument, as you nicely demonstrate.
Nothing can be proven to you.
For example from our discussion:
I have proved to you that only one absolute reference system is possible. And what was your response? "Disagree".
No counter-proof, no reason-based argument. is nothing. Because as mentioned, it seems to you that you are not obligated to an argument of the form "something does not exist because it has been proven that it does not exist".
When they prove to you that infinite speed is not possible and you refuse to accept the proof without showing that it is incorrect, this is an example of not accepting some of the axioms I mentioned along with not accepting the laws of logic.
I didn't mean to have a philosophical discussion with you, be sure. why?
Because basic assumptions, axioms are not debatable.
I don't accept, no problem, the discussion is over.
"I don't know" is not an answer. "I don't know" is understood: "I don't know what I'm talking about, and I have no desire to know."
What are the axioms you don't agree with?
A.P.
If you think questions such as whether existence exists or non-existence are questions that belong in a physical discussion, I would appreciate it if you could show me a reference to these questions in Einstein's article on relativity, in the EPR article or in Feynman's lectures.
And if when I refuse to be drawn into a philosophical discussion that may interest you but not me, you claim that I am avoiding or shying away or afraid, then it is a clear sign that the discussion has exhausted itself.
Israel the freckled.
Israel, you are confusing fairness with aggression.
You attribute the unfairness on your part to the aggression of the other party.
Be fair and things won't seem aggressive to you.
Here is what you wrote in response to the statement that rational discussion is based on axioms: (page 14)
"But what if my axioms differ from yours?
Shouldn't we agree on the starting premises before we can move forward with the arguments? This is the only way I see to maintain a relationship between us."
You asked to see my axioms so we could have a rational discussion. Now that you receive them, you deny your request and say that they are of no interest to you!
The point is that if you stick to a rational discussion, you must express your agreement/disagreement with them. You have no choice here if you want to be consistent.
Not to be interested in one understanding; that you are not interested in a rational discussion.
You are not conducting a rational discussion here, and you do not want to conduct one, and you did not intend to conduct one in the first place unless you meet my demand.
Answer my question, which is your question in quotes, be fair to me and to yourself, respect the discussion here and don't make a circus out of yourself.
I understand that accepting some of the axioms will work against you and not accepting them will work against you.
A real pilot shuns ego considerations. A true pilot free of ego. Any real pilot of any kind is also an astronaut.
The discussion will end here, if you don't respond to Einin.
PS: I have not heard of an Israeli pilot who is a mole and it is a shame that I will.
Israel
Regarding harming a person, I agree with you. Regarding damage to the body of a fighter plane less. In older aircraft the tail is made of aluminum coating on an aluminum honeycomb (in the Phantom the height stabilizer is made of titanium) and in newer aircraft the rear surfaces are made of composite materials. I don't think there is a situation where a 0.5 bullet does serious damage to the tail in either case, regardless of speed.
Wiki says that Einstein thought that…. Ask the writer on Wiki, I said my opinion and I agree if I myself in this case - what connects the particles (links, not passes) does not harm causality and therefore there is no real problem for the theory of relativity.
I received a drawing of a book in my response that says volume 4.
I guess that's the new mark for waiting.
?Hahaha... a pilot..
Maybe an astronaut…
But I was a lot in aircrew and visited neighboring countries without a passport and visa.
How does this relate to physics or philosophy?
Israel,
Were you a pilot in the past?
Miracles
If you get hit by a rifle bullet, you don't want it to be too slow. Which are the worst?
The fast ones make a small hole and get out without causing much damage.
Try shooting a watermelon, you'll see that it only explodes at a certain speed.
Interweaving and non-locality do not contradict relativity, but that is not what Einstein said according to Wiki as we all saw. He said that a contradiction does exist.
why? Because of what I asked you about transmitting information faster than light. She moves to the past.
Israel
Can be.
A.P.
13 just doesn't interest me.
Maybe it's really better if you find someone who agrees with your aggressive style of discussion.
Israel, the evasive and evasive.
Miracles.
A rifle bullet that hits the tail too slowly or too quickly doesn't do much damage. Only at medium speed will he take half a tail with him.
And slow or too fast neutrons do not cause a chain reaction in uranium, only those in the middle.
Israel
Relativity assumes axioms and draws conclusions from them. No scientific theory can allow contradictions, but, a priori, there is no danger of contradiction in interweaving. This is my understanding.
And in connection with an anti-aircraft missile - a projectile that penetrates more, is more damaging. If the bullet comes out the other side, there is no longer any meaning to the additional speed. And if it's an explosive projectile - slower is more dangerous. I have a friend who fired a missile at a MiG-25. The speed of the suit was so close that the MiG was not damaged by the explosion.
Israel,
Your answer sounds more naive than an answer.
You asked at an earlier stage of the discussion that I present axioms that are acceptable to me. I presented some of them.
Does my answer look/not look good to you - it will be very easy to understand if you answer it directly.
Answer my question directly without evasion: did you mean that you agree with all the axioms, or you don't know if you agree with not even one of them?
A.P.
13 sounds more like philosophy than physics.
Israel,
It is not clear what you mean by "don't know" in your answer to Q13.
Did you mean that you agree with all the axioms, or you don't know if you agree with even one of them?
A.P.
When you ask - you ask..
1. Don't know. According to Feynman, every particle, an electron for example, goes through every possible path including jumping to Andromeda.
(Which raises the question: if the electron managed to visit Andromeda on its short journey from the cathode to the detector then it must be moving faster than light, no?).
2. No.
3. Disagree.
4. Like 2, no. 0 time.
5. Not understood.
6. No. Measurement eliminates it.
7. Measurement.
8. Yes.
9. Unclear question. The interlacing took place even before the cancellation of the superposition.
10. Unclear question. Interweaving exists or not even before the collapse.
11. On the quantum state of the particle: spin, polarization, momentum...
12. Do not know.
13. Do not know.
Miracles
For you: Why is it impossible to send the results of a soccer match faster than light according to relativity?
And in preparation for what is to come: if the N.M. They shoot at you with 0.5, which projectile will cause the most damage to the wing:
1. which hits it at a relative speed of 1 m/s.
2. 1000 m/year.
3. 100,000 m/year.
Israel
You must be really bored…. 🙂
Israel,
The questions:
1. Given that T=0 and V=∞, in what route/distance should the information move?
The answer should be given in the category of distance/route.
2. There is no such thing as infinite speed. Do you agree/disagree?
3. Only one absolute reference system is possible, as I proved (from 16.05.2016 on page 11).
Therefore, it is not possible for anything to move at a speed greater than that. It is not possible to transfer information at a speed greater than the speed of light. agree/disagree?
4. There is no such thing as infinite speed. agree/disagree? If not, how long will it take to cover half the distance? And the whole distance? What does "transition" mean in this case?
5. Is superposition collapse the reason for the lack of interlacing?
6. Does communication eliminate the superposition?
7. What cancels the superposition when the two poles are tilted?
8. Canceling superposition is information that needs to be passed yes/no?
9. How does superposition cancellation information decide whether the result will be interlaced or not?
10. Are there two types of information here; One is responsible for the existence of the interweaving, and the other is responsible for its non-existence?
11. Referring to question 10, what is the information that goes through the communication model responsible for? In the Bell experiment?
12. Is the information that passes/does not pass a form of energy?
13. Of the following axioms, state the ones you do not agree with. Add your axioms.
1. Eternity exists.
2. There is sleep.
3. Nothing is gone.
4. The absence of contradiction.
5. There is nothing.
A.P.
Beauty. So we agreed that according to you relativity is the obstacle to sending information faster than light, and not for example that in 0 time there is simply no information that can pass unless it is 0 information, which can easily be implied from your previous claim.
Regarding game results, it has nothing to do with how they are sent. According to relativity if you can send information faster than light you are sending it to the past. Therefore, if in the previous question we talked about 50 million dollars, here you can win much more if you fill a toto before the games when you already know the results.
Regarding your axioms or the rest of your questions, I asked you to re-upload them one by one. You can start now.
Israel,
"So you accept that the reason for the limitation on sending information faster than light and basically at any speed is relativity?"
This is a new question.
Relativity, yes, is the reason. There is another reason that I haven't brought up yet, so I won't go into it right now.
"And the results of football games are not matter or energy, so why is there an obstacle to sending them faster than light?"
When we talk about sending something in everyday language we mean material means.
If such a means does not exist, or is not possible, then there is no point in talking about sending any information.
You should have phrased your question differently, like this: So why is there a barrier to sending information about the results faster than light?
Answer: Information in itself, apart from the means of sending it, is an abstract thing that exists only in consciousness.
What is meant by sending it from here to there in the mind?
If everything is in the mind there is no obstacle to send the information as quickly as you wish, but not through the physical space.
-
I see that I am answering you without getting an answer to my question: do I accept some/all of the axioms I mentioned? And are there any others that you own?
You must answer all the previous questions that are worded as agree/disagree.
You can answer other questions, one at a time. If you don't have an answer, you can reply with "I don't have an answer".
If you don't start replying I'll end here.
You still haven't given an unequivocal answer to the question:
So you accept that the reason for the limitation on sending information faster than light and basically at any speed is relativity?
Yes or No?
And the results of football games are not matter or energy, so why is there an obstacle to sending them faster than light?
In short, ask one question at a time. Even so, the responses are long and it's hard to know why you want an answer of less than a scroll.
Israel,
"What about sending the results of football games in 2c - possible or not according to relativity?"
A: Not given according to relativity.
-
Before continuing, you must answer my previous questions, and do you accept some/all of the axioms I mentioned? And are there any others that you own?
You can combine new questions/answers at the same time.
So you accept that the reason for the limitation on sending information faster than light and basically at any speed is relativity?
Because you wrote:
"If it is about the transfer of information that is not made of energy material, then it does not harm the relationship."
What about sending the results of football games in 2c - possible or not according to relativity?
Israel,
Before 1905 it was thought that any speed was possible in physical space. And they could think that 2C is also possible and that information can be transmitted through it.
Before 1905 they thought in terms of absolute space and time.
Starting in 1905, they realized that the concepts of time and space are not self-evident. Understand new ways of defining and thinking about them. Suddenly they realized that there are limits on maximum speed in physical space.
A.P.
Maybe you didn't read to the end, so here it is again:
"So will you now answer the question: What happens at a speed of 2c? Is information transfer taking place there?'
See the question as if it was asked in 1904."
As I recall, Relativity was published in 1905.
Israel,
Answer your question:
"What happens at 2c speed? Does information transfer take place there?
It's strange that you ask, because you already know the answer even though I didn't answer specifically in relation to 2C.
Definition of absolute space - space that does not depend on reference points.
2C speed in absolute space is as fast as any other speed.
Physical space is not an absolute space but a relative space.
In relativistic space, no speed greater than C is possible, and this implies that it is not possible to transmit information at a speed of 2C.
"If you were to answer the question of what happens at a speed of 2c, you would see that if at such a speed there is a transfer of information, then in fact it is also possible at any other speed."
I answered and see that it is not possible to transfer information at a speed greater than C according to relativity, and according to the proof I gave here that only one absolute frame of reference is possible, and according to another explanation that does not depend on the speed of photons and an absolute frame of reference, which I did not present to you.
(Can we assume that you don't accept special relativity?)
Now that you have received an answer to your request, answer two questions:
1. What are the axioms from the list that you accept and don't accept, and are there any other axioms that you hold that I should consider?
2. What are the answers to the questions I asked you here (below)?
Israel
True - "Take wrong axioms, and retarded inference rules, and kill anyone who doesn't believe in what you deduced."
Even in life.
Believe it or not, Dossians also have their own logic.
Israel
I wasn't talking about philosophy. In mathematics there are many types of logic.
Philosophy is great as long as it is taken in the right proportion.
Aristotle, the hero behind the scenes in the Nephilim Rebellion, is the enemy in Zen and the art of motorcycle maintenance.
And Kroy, the knight of reason and logic of the 70s, ended his life as a half-madman haunted by dark forces in a small apartment in Tel Aviv.
Israel
This is true. And the truth is that the fourth condition is also not true in any logic, in the way Aristotle formulated it. That is - not everything that is not true is a lie.
Miracles
What are the principles of Aristotelian philosophy? People who have read too much Ayn Rand tend to see the principles as an absolute and singular truth and usually also adopt the decisive and uncompromising style of expression typical of Moshe Kroy.
A.P.
Your responses are long, philosophical and aggressive. It's hard for me to know what exactly you want, what's more, it seems to me that our understanding of physics is different.
You have the right to withdraw from the discussion, maybe it's also better if we finish. If you believe I'm being evasive and irrational, then shovein.
If you would still like to hold some kind of discussion, please answer what I asked several times and did not answer, as I wrote to you yesterday:
"The move is proper and rational, and you would have been present if you had answered what I asked.
Because your claim was that information cannot pass in 0 time, therefore there is no transfer of information.
If you were to answer the question of what happens at a speed of 2c, you would see that if at such a speed there is information transfer, then in fact it is also possible at any other speed.
So will you now answer the question: what happens at speed 2c? Does information transfer take place there?
See the question as if it was asked in 1904.
A.P.
Reporter:
1. Eternity exists.
2. There is sleep.
3. Nothing is gone.
4. The absence of contradiction.
5. There is nothing.
Well:
1 - Not necessarily true, and probably not true.
2 – meaningless
3 – meaningless
4 – This is true
5 - Not necessarily true, and probably not true.
Nothing……. And that's what you're trying to base an argument on? seriously?
Israel,
The proceedings of the discussion are presented to you:
1) (on page 10)
A.P.
T=V\X
If V=infinity, what should X be for T=0?
any distance Infinite solutions. So which way does something go? (the recurring question, which you refuse to answer)
Your answer: No answer.
My answer: I still haven't received an answer to my question: "Which way does something go?" (Page 10)
Your answer: "How would I know, me or someone? I have an idea but I have no proof, only evidence." (Page 10)
2)
A.P.
There are two possible answers to my question.
1. This something goes all the way.
2. Something does not pass in any way.
1. Hence it moves everywhere in zero time, that is, it is everywhere, therefore it does not move.
2. We do not pass through in any way, therefore "we do not pass".
The final answer is that this something does not pass! Exactly as I explained earlier. (Page 10)
May 15th, 2016
Your answer: "There is more." I can suggest at least one way." (page 11)
My answer: "Offer her!"
Your answer: "This something travels like anything else that travels at the speed of light and below, only faster than light."
I mean, here you start replying off topic. Responds in terms of speed instead of distance!
My answer: What is it? Give a certain numerical value! (page 11)
Your answer: "I gave one: 400,000 km/year. But any speed greater than light is also possible, up to infinity"
My answer:
The question was: if the transfer time is zero and if the transfer speed is infinite, which way does the particle travel?
Does your answer answer my question? (page 12)
Your answer: "As I have shown, there is at least one more way. Transition in 2c.” (page 12)
(Again a completely unrelated answer. Distraction)
My answer:
Do you agree that V=T\X?
The question was:
Given that T=0 and V=∞, in what route/distance should the information move?
The answer should be given in the category of distance/route. (page 13)
your answer:
"And the answer was:
v does not have to be infinite but can be as large as we wish." (page 13)
3)
A.P.
My answer:
Do you change the question and then give an answer?
An improper move and completely unacceptable in a rational discussion! This is called wasting time and evasion.
You must answer what was asked. Then indicate that you are changing the question and giving an answer to a different question.
The framework for my question was beyond infinite speed. The question is intended to make it clear that there is no meaning in passing a distance when the speed is infinite.
Therefore there is no such thing as infinite speed.
Do you agree/disagree? (page 13)
your answer:
"The move is proper and rational, and you would have been present if you had answered what I asked.
Because your claim was that information cannot pass in 0 time, therefore there is no transfer of information.
If you were to answer the question of what happens at a speed of 2c, you would see that if at such a speed there is information transfer, then in fact it is also possible at any other speed.
So will you now answer the question: what happens at speed 2c? Does information transfer take place there?" (page 14)
– Tell me, where are you asking me about 2C speed? I have not come across this question at all. The response here contains all the quotes on the subject and as you can see there is no such question here.
The only question I found that contained "2C" was:
"2. If I send the same message at a speed of 2c - do you accept that I am sending you information at twice the speed of light?" (page 12)
A question that has nothing to do with my question, which appears in the middle of the discussion, not before it.
OK-there is a limit to perfection.
Answer my question!
Your answer is essential in order to be able to continue.
Avoiding a factual answer is an admission of the correctness of my claim.
On page 10 you can read again my claims regarding the meaning of the term "infinite speed".
It is not possible to have a discussion, if you have built one of the principle solutions to your problem which is controversial and disagreeable.
My argument is that you can only talk about something that happens in zero time. happening in the same place or in many places.
- Only one absolute reference system is possible, I proved. (on page 11)
Therefore, it is not possible for anything to move at a speed greater than that. It is not possible to transfer information at a speed greater than the speed of light.
Since you did not bring any proof of my proven unwillingness, we both have to accept it.
You can bring it now, if you have it.
If you neither bring nor accept my position, it means that you are choosing the irrational path.
Negating the transfer of information at an infinite speed does not exclude the possibility of its transfer at a finite speed.
I proved in another way, which has nothing to do with the theory of relativity, that the transfer of information is not possible between two interwoven particles at any speed.
There is no point in bringing it up as long as the rules of the discussion deviated from the rational.
-
I asked:
""The framework for my question was beyond infinite speed. The question is intended to make it clear that there is no meaning in passing a distance when the speed is infinite.
Therefore there is no such thing as infinite speed.
Do you agree/disagree?'
Your answer: "I don't agree." (page 14)
Without your consent there is no point in continuing. But if you agree to "something happens in no time", we can continue.
Another possibility is that you prove that my claim is not true, even then we can continue.
If you don't prove it, a rational discussion requires you to accept my argument.
""But that is irrelevant. Do you agree that at any speed that is as large as we want but that is not infinite, there is a transfer of information even if it is higher than c?
Do you agree/disagree?"
I do not agree, because as mentioned I have two independent proofs that prove the incorrectness of your claim. I brought one of them. I can bring the second one later, provided that you treat my arguments that are presented to you rationally.
Israel,
Some of the axioms I talked about:
1. Eternity exists.
2. There is sleep.
3. Nothing is gone.
4. The absence of contradiction.
5. There is nothing.
-
"I don't remember getting away from anything"
Now you dodge again.
You did not provide any logical proof that contradicts my proof - that there is only one absolute reference system possible.
"The reason why information cannot exceed the speed of light is a violation of causality"
Before defining a speed greater than light as a violation of causality, a speed greater than light must be defined as a violation of the principle of an absolute reference system.
If it is about the transfer of information that is not made of energy-matter, then it does not harm the relationship.
"Does a physical problem arise for the relationship - yes. Still information passed into the past"
If the past does not exist (since it has already ceased to exist), then there is no harm. The violation of causality is subject to interpretations.
"Asking, but I don't have an answer. It doesn't particularly concern me either"
"As long as we agree that this other thing runs faster than light, it is kosher in my opinion"
Your two claims are inconsistent with each other:
Your answer to the questions that refer to the possibility of passing information faster than light: "I have no answer. Nor does it particularly concern me."
I mean, you don't want to know the answer.
The topics of discussion were communication, information transfer, information speed, and the necessity/absence of logical necessity in information transfer.
All these issues are interrelated.
Your reluctance to know the answer is a clear and explicit admission of withdrawing from any desire to know the truth.
So before proceeding please clarify your words.
"So why is the heating on now?"
Because the history of the universe unfolded before his eyes millions of times faster than before the eyes of his brothers.
Time is a relative concept.
-
For part D:
""In the currency model when the result is fli-fli (entwined situation)"
(What does the state of the coins have to do with interweaving?)"
In the coin model there is a communication solution, then when coins fall on the same side they simulate an interweaving situation, while the markings (0 or 1) simulate the measurement results.
"Undoubtedly de-interlacing. Also the cancellation of the superposition of all the states in which the photon was before the measurement.
There is no "cancellation of interweaving" - only the cancellation of the superposition and a collapse into a defined state that did not exist before the cancellation"
Decide: cancellation of interlacing, or no cancellation of interlacing.
Why is it that collapsing into a defined state that is not interlaced, when there is a condition that interlacing must exist, cannot be called breaking interlacing (by the name of the result)?
Superposition is an indeterminate state. It is not measurable. He does not exist physically.
In entanglement, the photons are always entangled. Fact is, when the polarizers are both in the direction of the polarization axis, the results are always intertwined.
Does he claim that superposition causes the photons to not be entangled when the polarizers are tilted, even though the photons are always entangled?
Does he claim that superposition knows what the tilt state of two distant polarizers is?
"Indeed, except for the "cancellation""
Indeed what? Communication twin?
Should the media cancel the superposition?
""The information you require to be passed is not the information about the interweaving itself but the opposite about its cancellation".
"Indeed not. There is no cancellation of interweaving, only cancellation of superposition"
Canceling superposition is information that needs to be passed yes/no?
How does information about the cancellation of the superposition decide whether the result will be interlaced or not?
Are there two types of information here?
Do you mean one type or both, when you require information to be passed?
"indeed. I showed the difference with the example of the radio coins - it is not possible to transfer information through quantum communication."
Right, because quantum communication is random.
Information cannot be transmitted through a random mechanism, regardless of speed. That's why Einstein is not particularly important.
It's just not about speed!
If the same conclusion is reached from opposite assumptions (the assumptions here are communication through movement, as opposed to communication without movement),
So one of them is not true or both are not true.
Referring to "something else":
You will have to return to this "something else", if one day you are convinced beyond any reasonable or improbable doubt, that there is nothing that passes between interwoven particles.
- Answer to part C, in the next response.
Israel,
Answers will be given later.
rival,
:). Successfully.
rival
You learned from - "True, there is no way to know if a series of numbers is random or not, without knowing what produces the series."
I cannot prove that there is no way - if you claim that I am wrong, tell the forum how you know that a series is random.
And to save you wasting time read:
http://math.stackexchange.com/questions/26563/how-do-you-check-if-a-sequence-of-numbers-is-truly-random
https://www.researchgate.net/post/Is_there_a_test_to_determine_how_random_a_number_sequence_is
http://stackoverflow.com/questions/14321616/is-it-possible-to-prove-if-input-sequence-is-random
Albanzo
Yes you are right. And this is an important correction.
elbentzo,
Well run away, how easy it is when there are no answers. You sent me to read articles on the internet, none of them claim what you claim, you brought a quote that is supposed to support your claim, it also doesn't really say what you claim.
If your argument had any basis I'm sure you would have found in about 5 minutes a clear piece of text that clearly states this. But no, you will send me to read books, to get a professor's degree in mathematics and physics, maybe in a few years I will by chance find somewhere a mention of your claims, and I am lazy.
OK.
Miracles,
Or something else we didn't think of...
Albanzo
That is - either there is randomness or there is God. And we know there is randomness…..
A.P.
Sahtain for the paucity of punctuation marks. Isn't it nicer that way?
"What is illogical and unacceptable to me is defining an argument as an opinion only and treating it as an expression of opinion.
It is possible to disagree with an argument by proving that it is a failure or by claiming that it is not understood.
But not by arbitrarily canceling it.
You avoided handling the argument (that the speed of light in the real universe constitutes an absolute limit to speed) that contradicts your position.'
I don't remember getting away with anything. But what if my axioms differ from yours? Shouldn't we agree on the starting premises before we can move forward with the arguments?
This is the only way I see to maintain an interweaving between us.
The speed of light is not "an absolute limit to speed". The speed of the group can exceed it, and there is no theoretical contradiction to the passage of information faster than light according to relativity. EPR paradox. Contrary to Wikipedia's claim to a contradiction, it was proven in the experiment that Einstein was wrong in his assessment of the results of the experiment and relativity has not yet been hidden.
How? Why?
The reason why information cannot go beyond the speed of light is a violation of causality. If you send a message faster than light, you are actually sending it to the past according to relativity and it can be influenced which leads to a contradiction, aka the grandfather paradox.
But this is not what happens in non-locality in interweaving.
To see the difference, think of two coins linked by radio. When one of them falls on a tree or a pile, the radio relays the message to the other, and it ends up in the same situation as the other.
Is there communication and transfer of information between the currencies? Of course, the radio. They can't always be on the same side without the radio, agree?
Is it possible to send a message using the coins from one side to the other? Negative. In order to be able to send a message we need to know which side the coin fell on and then send this information to the other side.
Therefore, although communication and transfer of information takes place between the currencies, it is impossible to send information through them.
What happens with the radio coins, happens in the interweaving. The information - spin, polarization, momentum - passes between the interlaced particles, but it is not possible to send information through interlacing.
So is there a contradiction to relativity - technically, no. Relativity comes out entitled on technicalities.
Is there a physical problem for the relationship - yes. Still information passed into the past, although it did not affect it as in the case of known information. And since Einstein is a realist who abhors explanations that include additional dimensions that have no evidence and proof, or logic in which 3=1+1, I think he would have had a hard time coming to terms with such a possibility and was forced to generalize special relativity as a special case in a more comprehensive theory that includes non-locality.
"The question everyone should ask themselves is how does it happen and what is happening?
How does a certain identity created in one place appear in another?
To do this, you must choose a starting point.
Your choice is "passing information" and it is the simplest and most obvious one that anyone could have chosen.
There is no problem with your choice.
"Transition of information" raises questions:
1. What is the information that passes?
2. What is it made of, is it a form of energy or something else?
3. What is the speed of information transfer?
3.a Is its speed infinite?
3.B Is its speed finite and greater than the speed of light?
4. Does information even need to be transferred? And is there something else going on here?'
Asking, but I don't have an answer. I don't particularly care either.
"If you argue using logical arguments that are acceptable to you, that from the answers to the questions in part one there is an unequivocal conclusion that information transfer is not possible, will you agree to give up the starting point: "information transfer"?
If I prove it, of course.
"There are additional problems with relativity in my opinion. First and foremost, its relative time conflicts with the absolute time of the Big Bang theory."
This is a side issue, but there is no problem with relationships. why? Because the big bang theory stems from relativity.
All the viewers who are at rest relative to KDA will agree on the same time. All observers who are at the same speed relative to the KDA will agree on the same time. So there is no one "absolute" time. There are many. You can choose any of them.'
This is not a side issue for me, but the main one. The quanta interest me much less than relativity.
The big bang theory does not derive from special relativity, and general relativity is a theory of gravity.
"There is no one "absolute" time. There are many. You can choose any of them.'
But everyone without exception has the same time which is the age of the universe, right?
And the age of the universe can even be measured by measuring the background radiation temperature, right?
So how could a traveling twin who flew in space for a few minutes and returned to his 13.7 billion year old brother claim that his time is just as valid as his brother's time? If only a few minutes have passed in the universe as he claims, why is it so cold outside? After all, when he left the spaceship the air conditioner was working because of the heat, so why is the heating on now?
"Part III:
"The question was:
Given that T=0 and V=∞, in what route/distance should the information move?
And the answer was:
v does not have to be infinite but can be as large as we wish."
Do you change the question and then give an answer?
An improper move and completely unacceptable in a rational discussion! This is called wasting time and evasion.'
The move is proper and rational, and you would have been present if you had answered what I asked.
Because your claim was that information cannot pass in 0 time, therefore there is no transfer of information.
If you were to answer the question of what happens at a speed of 2c, you would see that if at such a speed there is information transfer, then in fact it is also possible at any other speed.
So will you now answer the question: what happens at speed 2c? Does information transfer take place there?
"The framework for my question was beyond infinite speed. The question is intended to make it clear that there is no meaning in passing a distance when the speed is infinite.
Therefore there is no such thing as infinite speed.
Do you agree/disagree?'
Disagree.
But that is irrelevant. Do you agree that at any speed that is as large as we want but that is not infinite, there is a transfer of information even if it is higher than c?
Do you agree/disagree?'
"Part D:
"The particles are intertwined because of an action that was done on them in the past and the measurement causes them to collapse. What's the deal with de-interlacing? How does a weave even get undone?"
I need to make sure we are intertwined on this topic:
In the problem I raised with the prize, the entangled particles that solved the problem are not random.
Which particles underwent a common preliminary action that caused them to interweave, and after being separated, were brought to the various rooms by conventional means at sub-light speed.
Therefore they had to be first both in Israel, both in Mars, or both in some other point.
I say this because of sentences such as:
"In the currency model when the result is fli-fli (entwined situation)"
(What does the state of the coins have to do with interweaving?)
"In the Bell experiment, the direction of polarization is measured. The photons are always entwined and the polarizers always give identical results when they are not biased.'
The photons are entangled because they have undergone a preliminary entanglement operation, regardless of the polarities.
"When one of the polarizers is tilted, you get a 25% discrepancy in the results even though the photons are entangled.
I called this mismatch "uncoupling".
Deinterlacing for sure. Also the cancellation of the superposition of all the states in which the photon was before the measurement.
There is no "cancellation of interweaving" - only the cancellation of the superposition and a collapse into a defined state that did not exist before the cancellation.
"The conclusion is that what happens does not depend on the measurement of a single polarizer but on both."
indeed.
"In analogy to the currency model, the remote measurements have to coordinate among themselves through some kind of communication the cancellation of the interweaving of pairs that reach them."
Indeed, except for the "cancellation of interweaving".
"The information you require to be passed is not the information about the interweaving itself but the opposite about its cancellation."
Indeed not. There is no interlacing, only superposition cancellation.
"And another new question:
Is there a binding relationship between these types of information?
If "interlaced" information is passed, does it require "non-interlaced" information to be passed, or vice versa? Or is there no connection?
Do you agree/understand/disagree with the analysis in this section?
A believer who understands your intention but does not accept your interpretation of the essence of the interweaving or its cancellation.
"In real communication both parties know that they are communicating at every moment during the communication.
In "quantum communication" they know nothing about a connection between them until the moment of comparing the measurements.'
Surely both parties know about the connection between them - they use intertwined particles and not non-entangled particles.
"In quantum communication there is no communication in the sense you are talking about."
indeed. I showed the difference with the example of the radio coins - it is not possible to transfer information through quantum communication.
"You don't know anything until you compare results. Don't know if information has been passed. And it could be that he passed without them knowing, and that in itself is already meaningless.'
Know the difference between the use of intertwined particles and those that are not. great meaning.
"There is no such thing in normal communication. Know that information passes when it passes.
Therefore, in the case of quantum "communication" is it not about information passing but something else?
I have no problem calling it "something else", or even "another thing".
As long as we agree that this other thing runs faster than light, it is kosher in my opinion.
No, a rival. I have no intention of continuing to address anything you say. If you think you understand better than me, shame on you. I don't really care what you think and I have no desire to explain anything to you. For my part, you may think that I talk nonsense and that I do not understand anything in physics, mathematics or anything else. I'll sit back and laugh. I have no interest in wasting one more second of my time on you. Good luck later.
You make a certain claim, and are not willing to do the minimum to prove it is true, what an attitude.
Amendment - Sections 2, 3 and 4.
elbentzo,
Would you please refer to sections 1, 2 and 3 in my message?
Miracles,
Yes, assuming that the dynamics itself is symmetric (which is a reasonable assumption). This is actually a pretty good way to set up a chaotic system - it only takes a small nudge in the initial conditions to mess up the whole end result.
I'm not sure what you mean by "understanding the initial phase", but there is actually quite a lot of knowledge about why our universe looks the way it does, assuming that the homogeneous medium had small disturbances in the early universe. The question is how to explain these disorders. Quantum mechanics provides a very natural explanation - in fact, quantum mechanics cannot exist without these small perturbations. This does not mean that the same results cannot be achieved artificially.
rival,
I'm really not looking to take out anger on anyone. I just don't like wasting my time that much. So fine, let's agree that I won't "take out anger on you" and you will learn how to open a book yourself without running to the science website and asking people to do it for you. If you can read and you don't trust any commenters on the site who have a *little* more knowledge than you, then why even raise the questions? Just go to the literature, read for yourself, and you will understand better than the rest of us what is written in it. Maybe you can even teach us.
I'm really sorry you can't understand, but I don't see how it's my fault.
Miracles,
so what? Why does this not allow the formation of the universe?
rival
Every time you roll a die under the same starting conditions - you will get the same result.
Miracles,
"The idea is that if there is no randomness then everything will be symmetrical, and nothing can be created"
But even in the randomness created by throwing dice there is no symmetry, why would this not allow the creation of the universe?
elbentzo,
1. No, I don't notice it, what I do notice for a long time is how you are constantly looking for inexplicable pettiness to fight here with people and get on your nerves, it's a real shame that this is your attitude.
2. In the quote you gave, it is said that for a series to be calculated randomly, the numbers in it should be produced in such a way ***that they look as if they were pulled from a well-mixed container*** and that each of them has the same chance of being chosen, which is completely inconsistent with your claim.
According to this definition, if you have two different mechanisms, one based on neutron decay and the other based on some mechanical mechanism and both produce a series of numbers *that looks like it was randomly drawn from a container of balls*, then both series will be considered random!
3. The quote talks about pulling numbers out of a well-mixed container, a process whose outcome can be predicted in advance if you know the exact position of each and every atom at a certain moment. So what, suddenly such a process whose outcome can be calculated in advance is indeed random in your eyes? Really interesting.
4. In the same article that you quoted from so beautifully, there are also additional definitions that clearly talk about the properties of the numbers in the series as a basis for determining whether it is random or not. Should I ignore all these passages of text just because angry Mr. Albancho said so?
Albanzo
That is - the only way is that the initial conditions are not symmetrical. And if the system is chaotic then you don't need much asymmetry to explain the complexity we see today.
It seems to me that we are far from understanding this initial stage, right?
Miracles,
I don't know such an explanation, but theoretically it is possible. There are deterministic chaotic systems. Besides, there is a matter of initial conditions here - if the universe began in an inhomogeneous way, for example, then even a completely symmetric dynamics can lead to an asymmetric intermediate state. In other words, your argument seems to have an implicit assumption that the universe began its life completely symmetrical and something had to destroy the symmetry. So although mathematically it's possible, I don't know of any non-quantum mechanisms that well explain the inhomogeneity (or rather, the source of the disturbances in the medium).
And by the way, obviously the answer to your question is yes.
Let's say there is a lottery drawing, and any numbers come out. If you go behind the scenes and see a quantum number generator, and if you go behind the scenes and see that there is a person who decides which balls to take out and which not, you will probably treat the "lottery" differently, even though both produced the exact same series. The randomness is defined according to the process that generates the number/series/phone number.
Albanzo
Can the inhomogeneity of the universe be explained without randomness?
say, opponent,
Atev really really doesn't notice your mental laziness, and the fact that you are just busy handing out tasks here to people who will bring you things and find things for you and read passages for you and summarize them?
"To be a random number sequence, the numbers in the sequence must be generated as if they were independent draws from a well mixed urn where each number is represented once in the urn."
rival
exactly! If I open the box and see a mechanical mechanism - I will know how to calculate the next bits that come out of the box. Then - the series is no longer random.
And regarding the universe - this is something I thought about and I'm not sure if it's true. The idea is that if there is no randomness then everything will be symmetrical, and nothing can be created. There must be something to break the symmetry, so that in one place there is a photon and in another place there is no photon.
Miracles,
"Without quantum randomness, the universe could not have been created"
why not? If it was randomness like tossing a coin or rolling a die why couldn't the universe have been created under these conditions?
elbentzo,
As far as I understood from reading the links that you mentioned, the definition of a random series always refers to *the features of the series* (for example, each sub-series of finite length has the same chance of appearing in the full series) and not to the way it was created.
It is true that they talk there about different ways to create random series, but nowhere have I seen it written that the definition of a "random series" depends on the process that created it.
According to what I understand from Nisim and from you, if we have two black boxes (closed, the mechanism inside is hidden) that produce the exact same sequence of 0 and 1, if we open them and find that the right one is grating the numbers based on a radioactive process and the left one is grating them in some mechanical way, then for you the sequence The one that came out of the right box is random, and the sequence that came out of the left box is not random, even though they are both exactly the same?
Could you copy here a text section(s) from one of the links you mentioned that states that a series is defined as a random series based only on the process that created it?
rival
Definitions are tools for human use.
In order to understand the meaning of randomness in physics, it is important to distinguish between quantum randomness and randomness resulting from a lack of knowledge. I will say again - in my opinion, without quantum randomness the universe could not have been created.
For gaming, encryption and simulation purposes - sometimes the distribution of the bits from their source is more important. For example - let's say I want to test a game that has a random element. I will create a vector of values that will seem random enough for the test. But every time I check, I would like to use the same vector.
elbentzo
Rigorosi in Hebrew is rigid
By the way, I looked at the first four results in a Google search. The first is the Wikipedia page that explains exactly what I said. The second deals with a slightly different definition, but since we start reading a document from the beginning, it is easy to see that the first thing he explains is that in the classical definitions of randomness there is no way to tell whether a certain series is random and that there is no such thing as a "more random" and "less random" series unless We know how the series was created. So, he starts talking about different definitions (while clarifying that these are new ideas from recent years and that they are alternative and not rigorously presented). In the third link they say what I said, and even emphasize it in bold. In the fourth link there is one answer, and it mainly talks about the mathematics of random variables and is a little less clear, but it also immediately goes in this direction (that the randomness is defined by the way the variable, or series, was drawn and not by its content).
rival,
First, I already told you that it appears in every introductory probability book. Asking me to find such a book for you and find the definition in it is simply assigning me tasks that you can do yourself. Second, when you search on Google you get dozens of results. The first is, for example, Wikipedia, where it is written exactly what randomness means in the mathematical sense.
Miracles,
"If the sequence is finite, the series cannot be random"
Even if it is a finite sequence of, say, a million digits zero and one that were determined based on the decay of neutrons?
Miracles,
I'll check.
elbentzo,
Why do you say I didn't bother looking? I checked close to 10 sites including through the link you gave and in all of them the definition matched what I mentioned!
You claim that the definition of a random number series is related to the way the series is received and not to its content, is it so complicated to direct me to a specific source where the things are listed? Will it disrespect you?
At no point will I have a problem admitting that I was wrong if it turns out to be true, I have no stupid pride games.
rival
Write in Google coin toss 51 49
The explanation for the phenomenon is simple. The number of half turns the coin makes is even or odd. In the even case, the number of tree mikars is equal to the number of feli mikars. In the odd case, the number of tree cases (if we started from a tree) is greater than one of the number of fall cases.
Percy Diakonis from Stanford showed this in experiments and also gave the explanation.
rival
If you look up the definition of a random sequence, you will find that it is an infinite sequence of numbers that cannot be seen in advance. If the sequence is finite, then it cannot be random. The only way to define an (infinite) series is by a process. The process (function, algorithm, device) can be random, pseudo-random, or non-random.
Israel,
The subject of interweaving is multi-faceted and complicated.
Need to reach points of agreement and disagreement.
In the following discussions I will have to ask you often if you agree/disagree with what I said.
My logic is based on the three laws of logic and a number of axioms.
What comes next is the right/wrong use of those laws.
What is illogical and unacceptable to me is defining an argument as an opinion only and treating it as an expression of opinion.
It is possible to disagree with an argument by proving that it is a failure or by claiming that it is not understood.
But not by arbitrarily canceling it.
You avoided addressing an argument (that the speed of light in the actual universe is an absolute limit to speed) that contradicts your position.
Your point of departure: there is a transfer of information at a speed that is greater than the speed of light.
You can choose any starting point.
But if it is possible to draw conclusions that contradict the starting point, it must be abandoned. This is a logical and normal course of discussion.
Not giving up means giving up on rational discussion.
Your starting point is based on others.
1. The initial state of a particle is not defined.
2. The particle in relation is related/connected/is in relation/affected by a quantum super-law, which can be summed up in one word "entanglement", with another distant particle.
3. The first observer of one particle determines the quantum state of both particles.
The question everyone should ask themselves is how does it happen and what is happening?
How does a certain identity created in one place appear in another?
To do this, you must choose a starting point.
Your choice is "passing information" and it is the simplest and most obvious one that anyone could have chosen.
There is no problem with your choice.
"Transition of information" raises questions:
1. What is the information that passes?
2. What is it made of, is it a form of energy or something else?
3. What is the speed of information transfer?
3.a Is its speed infinite?
3.B Is its speed finite and greater than the speed of light?
4. Does information even need to be transferred? And is there something else going on here?
End of part one.
Do you agree/disagree with what has been said so far? individual.
Part II':
If you argue using logical arguments that are acceptable to you, that from the answers to the questions in part one there is an unequivocal conclusion that information transfer is not possible, will you agree to give up the starting point: "information transfer"?
Do you understand that if you don't agree, that will be the end of the discussion and that it will go to irrational lines? (You must also answer this question on the \disagree screens)
-
"There are additional problems with relativity in my opinion. First and foremost, its relative time conflicts with the absolute time of the Big Bang theory."
This is a side issue, but there is no problem with relationships. why? Because the big bang theory stems from relativity.
All the viewers who are at rest relative to KDA will agree on the same time. All observers who are at the same speed relative to the KDA will agree on the same time. So there is no one "absolute" time. There are many. You can choose any of them.
-
Part C:
"The question was:
Given that T=0 and V=∞, in what route/distance should the information move?
And the answer was:
v does not have to be infinite but can be as large as we wish."
Do you change the question and then give an answer?
An improper move and completely unacceptable in a rational discussion! This is called wasting time and evasion.
You must answer what was asked. Then indicate that you are changing the question and giving an answer to a different question.
The framework for my question was beyond infinite speed. The question is intended to make it clear that there is no meaning in passing a distance when the speed is infinite.
Therefore there is no such thing as infinite speed.
Do you agree/disagree?
"?? What answer?”
The answer should have been given in terms of distance, but your question was formulated in terms of speed. From here you should have understood that your question is irrelevant.
-
Part D:
"The particles are intertwined because of an action that was done on them in the past and the measurement causes them to collapse. What's the deal with de-interlacing? How does a weave even get undone?"
In the currency model when the result is poly-poly (entangled state) mark (0,1) through communication to get 25% mismatches.
In the Bell experiment, the direction of polarization is measured. The photons are always entangled and the polarizers always give identical results when unbiased.
When one of the polarizers is biased, you get a 25% mismatch in the results even though the photons are entangled.
I called this mismatch "uncoupling".
It can be argued that something local happens between the tilted polarizer and the photons that reach it that disrupts the entanglement measurement.
But when both polarizers are biased you get a 75% mismatch which is much greater than the 50% maximum that can reasonably be calculated. There is a 75% cancellation of interlacing which is not possible according to local causality.
The conclusion is that what happens does not depend on the measurement of a single polarizer but on both.
In analogy to the currency model, the remote measurements have to coordinate among themselves through some communication the cancellation of the interlacing of pairs that reach them.
I called this information "Information on de-interlacing". In analogy to the coin experiment, this is the information you require to pass between the measuring systems in the Bell experiment.
The information you require to be passed is not the information about the interweaving itself but the opposite about its cancellation.
Failure to distinguish between these two types of communication creates confusion.
About this information, the same questions asked in part A are asked.
And another new question:
Is there a binding relationship between these types of information?
If "interlaced" information is passed, does it require "non-interlaced" information to be passed, or vice versa? Or is there no connection?
Do you agree/understand/disagree with the analysis in this section?
-
Smooth':
"In other words, your claim does not convey information about reality. If there is no comparison it has no value. And after the comparison, there is no information that can be said to have passed"
"It has a very definite value in the problem I raised: $50 million."
In real communication both parties know that they are communicating at every moment during the communication.
In quantum "communication" they know nothing about a connection between them until the moment of comparing the measurements.
In the problem you raised, you assume that there must be communication and you have reasons for this.
But you ignore arguments against.
In quantum "communication" there is no communication in the sense you are talking about.
You don't know anything until you compare results. Don't know if information has been passed. And it could be that he passed without them knowing, and that in itself is already meaningless.
In normal communication there is no such thing. Know that information passes when it passes.
Therefore, in the case of quantum "communication" is it not information passing but something else?
rival,
First, there is no contradiction between the two things I wrote. If you think there is a contradiction - read again, or more carefully. Second, it's not impudence that you asked, it's impudence the way you asked. As you saw in the link I attached, what I said is not something you couldn't find out on your own with a search in the most available and simplest search engine in the world. But you didn't bother to do the minimum to find out the answer to your question, but preferred to demand that I teach you - and not just, but also that I actually go to the books and find for you exactly the sentence that sums up the subject and direct you to the page level.
I'm not sure if you're angry now because you've been caught in your own badness (that you accused Nissim of being wrong and even though he's making up definitions when in fact he's completely accurate) or because you're ashamed that you couldn't do a Google search, but in any case it's something you need to close between yourself and yourself. And by the way - this isn't the first time you act like I work for you either, right? I remember at least one more time in the past when you scolded me because I didn't answer you in a few hours. In other words, no one owes you anything and if you want to learn something new, there are many people here who will be happy to help you (including me, and I have answered your questions many times in the past) but Rabak, at least ask nicely and put in minimal effort.
previous:
"In mathematics there is also a definition, randomness (for example, of a series) is related to how the series is obtained and not at all to what its content is"
But when you ask to see a reference for things then suddenly:
"In mathematics there is no such thing as a number that is random or a phone that is random or a series that is random. I can't give you a source for that because it's like proving you don't have a sister - how can I give you a source for the fact that something *doesn't* exist?'
And in general, what audacity on my part to dare to ask at all.
elbentzo
Whatever you say.
http://lmgtfy.com/?q=randomness+in+math
rival,
Some high demands, don't you think? How much sugar do you want in the coffee and do I need to make panels as well?
In mathematics there is no such thing as a random number or a random number or a random series. I can't give you a source for this because it's like proving that you don't have a sister - how can I give you a source for the fact that something *doesn't* exist? Randomness is defined in probability theory (and its subfield, statistics) with the help of random variables - which are variables whose value is determined randomly. A random variable can of course also be generalized to a random series or a random number, etc. The point - the randomness only concerns the way the variable is extracted (or the series, or the phoneme) and not what its content is. The number 3 is no more random than the number 187439. The degree of randomness only concerns how we got these numbers - whether we drew them from a random variable or not. The source for this claim is any introductory probability book, and forgive me if I'm not going to give you a page number. Nevertheless, if you ask a question and want to learn something new, it is appropriate that at least a minimal percentage of the responsibility for this should fall on you, no?
Miracles,
"Just something interesting - if you toss a coin then there is a higher probability that it will fall in its initial position - if there was a tree on top then there is a higher chance of getting a tree. Experiments show a bias of 51% versus 49%, quite significant."
Can you provide a link to such a study?
elbentzo,
"Randomness (for example, of a series) is related to how the series is received and not at all to what its content is"
Can you please give some source (eg one of the books you mentioned) where the randomness is defined as you wrote? Please also indicate the page number, I want to read what is written there.
Albanzo
Just something interesting - if you toss a coin then there is a higher probability that it will fall in its initial position - if there was a tree on top then there is a higher chance of getting a tree. Experiments show a bias of 51% versus 49%, quite significant.
rival,
I don't know about dictionaries or Wikipedia, but in mathematics there is also a definition, according to which Nissim is right. Randomness (for example, of a series) is related to how the series is received and not at all to what its content is. He is also right more generally that there is a difference between something random (such as how we understand quantum mechanics) and deterministic processes that our lack of knowledge about causes us to model them with the help of random processes (sometimes with great success), such as flipping a coin. Theoretically, if you gave me a supercomputer and provided me with the information about every air molecule in the room (its position and its momentum) and all the information about the coin and how it was tossed, I could solve all the equations of motion and tell you whether the coin is going to fall on a tree or on Peli The randomness is only an approximation that results from our inability to deal with all this information.
Israel
I agree with you.
rival
The series I gave is a BCD representation of the first few digits of pi, after the decimal point. 14159265…
Do you think Pi's digits are random? You can do all sorts of statistical tests on them and think they are. But, the Kolmogorov complexity of this series is low, so the series is not considered random.
Please - try listening now. You are confusing properties of a mathematical series with properties of the real world.
Let's start with the mathematical world. Here it is simple - there is no series in mathematics that is random. For certain purposes, such as simulation, such as games, such as (simple) encryption, it is possible to produce what is called a pseudo-random series. Common methods are Linear Congruence Generator, and Mersenne Twister.
In the physical world, the situation is different. There are two types of random processes. The first is a state of not knowing, like tossing a coin, a die or the location of the molecules in a hot gas. In a certain sense - randomness is equivalent to entropy. What is important is that such a process is deterministic. It is theoretically possible to know the past and the future from the present.
Quantum processes are different, and that's what Einstein talked about. No information will help you know the future. If I keep a neutron with me for a month and give it to you - there is a 50% probability that it will disintegrate within 10 minutes. If it didn't fall apart within 10 minutes - then there is still a chance that it will fall apart within 10 minutes.... And so on :).
And I'll say it again - in my opinion, without quantum randomness, the universe could not have been created.
Miracles,
"Rival, the series 00010100000101011001001001100101
Random or not?'
I don't have the mathematical or statistical tools that would allow me to answer your question, but notice what your claim implies, you say that if a machine based on neutron decay produces a sequence of a billion zeros and ones then this sequence is random, but if a parallel machine will generate the same sequence Just by flipping a coin, this sequence is not random.
Do you understand the problem with your argument?
Miracles there is a clear definition for the word randomness, check in the dictionary, check in Wikipedia, there is nothing in the definition that even implies that any sequence is random or not depending on what created it, all definitions refer only to the properties of the sequence.
A.P.
"Please answer the question on what logical foundations are you or I conducting the discussion that you do not agree with?"
You're making me work too hard, and you don't agree with what I'm saying anyway. So why don't you answer?
"1. Transfer of information at a speed greater than the speed of light.
2. Another explanation that does not depend on information passing at any speed.
For me, one option is wrong. Even Einstein would not have chosen the option that contradicts his theory.'
In my opinion 1 is the only option next in the account, but it does not contradict relativity.
There are more problems with relativity in my opinion. First and foremost, her relative time conflicts with the absolute time of the Big Bang theory.
"The question was:
Given that T=0 and V=∞, in what route/distance should the information move?'
And the answer was:
v does not have to be infinite but can be as large as we wish.
Does this close the corner?
"Hence the answer to your question 3".
?? What answer?
"Requests that when you talk about information that passes, make a distinction between information that states that particles are intertwined, and information that states that they are not intertwined.
In the currency model you prove that there must be communication, but it is communication that eliminates interweaving and not that causes it.'
Do not understand.
The particles are entwined because of an action done on them in the past and the measurement causes them to collapse. What's the deal with de-interlacing? How does a weave even get undone?
"You keep mentioning that the result of the measurement affects the other side and forget that only by comparing the results of the measurement can the interweaving be noticed."
same as above.
The interlacing exists regardless of measurement. Did you perhaps mean the mutual influence that can be distinguished when comparing the results?
"In other words, your claim does not convey information about reality. If there is no comparison it has no value. And after the comparison, there is no information that can be said to have passed."
It has a very definite value in the problem I raised: 50 million dollars.
Without using interweaving, it is impossible to win the prize and it doesn't matter which way you use, including radio.
"How will you formulate your claim in a way that can be physically examined"?
It is partially formulated in the article brought by Meir Amiram. I try to do the physical exam (which is very difficult) almost every day in experiments.
Miracles
"A black hole puts general relativity to a severe test. So what? Quantum theory puts our intuition to many difficult tests.'
Black body radiation also puts Newton's theory to a severe test. Michaelson Morley also tested Maxwell's theory.
So why not say that we simply do not have the tools to deal with the questions and that our intuition is wrong? Why all this mess with the quanta and relativity, why not say that there is simply a fifth dimension that explains the failure of the MM experiment and the discontinuous spectrum of the radiation and close the matter?
Israel
I don't even have Hebrew on my keyboard...
A black hole puts general relativity to the test. So what? Quantum theory puts our intuition to many difficult tests.
Accept "my" correction to general relativity, and the problem is solved. The correction is that the impulse resulting from desire does not impair causality, and therefore does not contradict the theory of relativity.
Ineal Dracom these Amazons, they sent me a Hebrew keyboard where the "m" looks like a t.
Sentence. not a mustache
Miracles
The mustache you requested:
Non-locality puts relativity to a severe test.
simple enough? Especially since I've already written it some 50 times?
Israel
Maybe just write your claim in one simple sentence?
Israel
I did not understand. Because something is not intuitive then there is a God?
Israel,
Please answer the question on what logical bases do you or I conduct the discussion that you do not agree with?
"So you think Einstein, in his most important paper since general relativity, used the wrong term? your right"
Not exact. I would say what Einstein said at the time. And I would say that an assembly experiment is not feasible.
After the experiment I would be faced with two logically valid options. (Remember the box experiments?)
1. Passing information at a speed greater than the speed of light.
2. Another explanation that does not depend on information passing at any speed.
For me, one option is wrong. Even Einstein would not choose the option that contradicts his theory.
"As I have shown, there is at least one other way. transition in 2c"
Do you agree that V=T\X?
The question was:
Given that T=0 and V=∞, in what route/distance should the information move?
The answer should be given in the category of distance/route.
Rest twice in the category of speed instead of distance.
Hence the answer to your question 3.
-
Requests that when you talk about information that passes, make a distinction between information that states that particles are intertwined, and information that states that they are not intertwined.
In the currency model you prove that there must be communication, but it is communication that eliminates interweaving and not that causes it.
-
You keep mentioning that the measurement result affects the other side and forget that only by comparing the measurement results can the interweaving be noticed.
That is, your claim does not express information about reality. If there is no comparison it has no value. And after the comparison there is no information that can be said to have passed.
How will you formulate your claim in a way that can be physically examined?
-
So why not just say that everything will be fine and close the matter?
Or that 1+1=3?
Israel
Or it puts our understanding of relativity to the test.
In particular - there is no prevention of a non-local effect as long as it does not harm causality.
Fix:
In quantum particles, measurements on side A affect measurements on side B and vice versa.
And this is in contrast to gloves that the measurements do not affect.
"Your claim is that there is an incompatibility between quantum theory and relativity"?
This is the wiki claim on the EPR article.
My claim is that there is no contradiction between relativity and non-locality, but non-locality puts relativity to a hard test, maybe even too hard.
Israel
Your claim is that there is an incompatibility between quantum theory and relativity?
Israel
No. In our case, if we make additional measurements after measuring on the vertical axis, we will not find a correlation. I think…
That's why I wrote: Squadron 119 is something.
Something Something.
I actually have the feeling that Einstein understands relativity quite well.
And that's why wikis showed the contradiction between non-locality and relativity.
But before we move forward, I want to make sure we're all in the loop about the problem I've presented.
1. If two gloves have been separated and I receive one of them, I also receive a lot of information about the glove on the other side: whether it is left or right, the number of fingers (if it is multiple - the middle finger), the size of the fingers, and more.
But after I received it and made all the possible measurements, all the possible information is already with me and there is nothing I can do to extract more information about what is happening on the other side, to influence the other side or to be influenced by it.
agreed upon?
2. The situation is different in the case of entangled particles. Even after all possible measurements have been made, it is possible to influence what is done on the other side from A or B.
agreed upon?
Miracles?
AP?
A. Pap.?
rival?
friend?
we?
Commentator A?
Reactor B?
A cool commenter?
Israel
I have a lot of feelings for a bat!!!
Ok, and where exactly is the problem with special relativity?
In my opinion, the problem is in Einstein's understanding of his own theory.
Miracles
I did not receive any information - the photon did.
Do you know how the EPR paradox goes?
Miracles
119 Squadron is something.
Squadron 119 can be spread over the entire Mazat and theoretically throughout the universe.
But every phantom in the squadron is in one and only one location on the 509's screens.
If No. 1 of 119 turns on the radio and informs the entire squadron to attack the headquarters building in Syria, the message travels at the speed of light to every plane whose radio is tuned to No. 1's frequency ("intertwined" with it).
Therefore, even though the squadron is everywhere, its components interwoven through the arc51 are located locally and communicate with each other at the speed of light.
At the same weight, the wave function is everywhere and the particles intertwined with it communicate with each other at infinite speed.
Ruth end?
Israel
I'll try again... there is a pair of interlaced photons, one for me and one for you. Does a measurement I make on my photon affect your photon? To clarify - I measure on the vertical axis. One twisted pair, one measurement - what new information did you get that you didn't know beforehand?
Israel
You agreed that "something" can be in all space, but you do not agree that "something" can be in two places.
When you decide, tell me.
rival
Series 00010100000101011001001001100101
random or not?
A.P.
Here is where I disagree with you.
You write:
"Did Einstein consider all the reasons we put forward? No.
So what is relevant about what he said?
He used the term zero time communication. In my opinion this usage is wrong in the sense of transition.
In my opinion, the reasons and arguments I gave rule out the possibility of passing information.'
So do you think Einstein, in his most important paper since general relativity, used the wrong term? your right I think he used the correct and accurate term.
"There are two possible answers to my question.
1. This something goes all the way.
2. Something does not pass in any way.'
As I have shown, there is at least one other way. Transition in 2c.
And the main thing I don't agree with you:
"I didn't say it wasn't information! But information (something) does not pass!
Something can only pass in time. This does not mean that if it does not pass it does not exist!
This is information. Information that we do not pass.'
To see why, try answering the following questions:
1. If I send you a message on the radio - do you accept that I am sending you information at the speed of light?
ֿ
2. If I send the same message at a speed of 2c - do you accept that I am sending you information at twice the speed of light?
3. Now tell me exactly how fast from c to infinity the information does not pass. million c? A billion? A billion billion?
Israel,
A.P≡A.P.P
If I write an email, my response will be delayed for 24 hours.
-
"As I said, I do not accept the axioms of logic. In my opinion, they are only the opinion of the author."
Not clear. Which axioms do you accept and which do you not?
Wasn't the discussion between us based on the axioms of logic? On what basis was he conducted?
"It's a bit difficult to express an opinion when you don't know what the poet meant"
Those who need to understand understand very well.
A.P. (P?).
"Your response does not constitute any weight against a claim formulated through a logical argument.
You must bring a logical argument against me.'
As I said, I do not accept the axioms of logic. In my opinion they are just the opinion of the author.
"Those who understand logic and understand the definition of an absolute reference system, understand my proof very well and know that it is absolutely correct."
So maybe you should have the discussion with someone who understands logic, I probably don't. In my opinion, you did not prove, but made your opinion.
"Today's proofs in physics are considered, only if they are written in high and complicated mathematics, despite this there are proofs that can only be expressed in simple language."
I agree with you, although I think there is a good reason for this: the high and complicated mathematics is unambiguous.
A good example is Bell's inequality theorems: instead of dedicating a semester to study them, you can simply say that what is in A and not in B + what is in B and not in B is greater or equal to what is in A and not in B.
It is sufficient for physics, but not rigorous enough mathematically.
"Only one absolute frame of reference has far-reaching implications for many theories in physics.
Among them the inflationary model, the acceleration of the universe and the multiplicity of universes.
"If among all the constants in physics there is one absolute, then everyone is connected to it.
It means that there is one reason that links all the constants in physics. They are not accidental!
This means that this whole system of constants is neither arbitrary nor accidental.
This means that what caused this system to come into existence out of countless possibilities is not the case and is not some kind of law.'
It's a bit hard to express an opinion when you don't know what the poet meant.
Miracles
"You have already decided what causes the phenomenon, and you are not ready to listen. This discussion is futile.'
Your words are somewhat obscure.
Did you not receive the message from the tower that you can stop using the light blue code and it is allowed to use openly?
What cause of what phenomenon are you talking about? twist? Is locality?
And what have I been doing for two weeks besides listening to you?
once again:
We have shown that it is impossible to solve the problem I raised and win the prize without communication between the parties or using quantum juggling. getting?
We have shown that through normal communication the minimum time to prepare the tables is the time it takes for light to travel between the 2 rooms. getting?
We showed that by using the quantum juggle they can be prepared in less time. getting?
We came to the conclusion that through the quantum juggle one particle affects the other faster than light. getting?
We settled on something that connects the particles instead of information. getting?
So where, in the whole long discussion, did we even talk about a factor or a gourmet?
Present yourself for the hearing with Ran Packer at 0700.
There is certainly no evidence to suggest.
I assembled a radio from copper, a piece of iron, graphite, silica, made a circuit and a radio came out.
I didn't even know I had a radio.
Satisfied with my success, I took hydrogen and oxygen tanks, made all kinds of connections between materials and metals and mounted the radio on this thing.
I was told that the assumption that water is composed of hydrogen and oxygen cannot be proven, so I didn't worry and sent the whole business to the planet Pluto which is just a circle of light. I calculated the distance between him and the Earth and then I was told that I calculated nothing because I cannot prove my assumptions.
To my surprise, the whole thing rose up, soared into the sky and reached the planet Pluto, and from there it began to broadcast on the radio I built inside it. I was told that the business is called Til, which even I didn't know.
I was told that it is not possible to prove that radio waves exist and that this is just a delusional theory that I invented. So I asked them if the material is made of atoms that cannot be seen with the eyes? They said it was another delusional theory I invented. What you don't see doesn't exist.
They asked if I wanted proof? I said yes even though I knew there was no such thing. I was told that an iron ball falls faster than a wooden ball.
I asked what is the proof? Iron was said to be heavier than wood.
I told them there was a theory that said they fall at the same speed. We did an experiment and both balls hit the ground at the same moment.
I told them what are you saying now?
They said that if an assumption is proven to be false, it does not mean that the opposite assumption is true, even if the two claims are contradictory and only both are possible.
In short, I asked?
They said that my theory is incorrect and theirs is correct, but they are willing to compromise that both theories are incorrect.
I asked them if they were willing to undergo surgery by a doctor who does not wash his hands from surgery to surgery.
They said they would. I wished them luck. they need her.
I told them that Darwin's theory was proven beyond reasonable doubt. I was told that there is no doubt about it. Millions of studies and facts prove it.
I said, but assumptions do not prove.
I was told that it is so obviously wrong, and it goes without saying, and since assumptions do not prove, there is no choice but to accept Darwin's theory as the truest and most proven theory in science.
To my surprise I agreed with their words. Now I was sure that the rocket I sent would find life on Pluto.
I asked them if it is possible to distinguish between a fool and a moron?
They said yes.
I asked how?
They told me, explain that science is based on evidence.
I said, but science is not based on evidence, that's what you said.
They told me, true, but the idiot will accept your argument.
21:24 16/05/2016
Miracles,
"True, there is no way to know if a series of numbers is random or not, without knowing what produces the series"
You are of course entitled to come up with your own private definitions, but this is not the accepted definition of randomness. Randomness means lack of order or pattern, inconsistency, chaotic situation, lack of correlation between the data, usually it is a uniform distribution in which each value has the same chance of being accepted.
As long as this feature exists (in a series of numbers for example) then there is randomness, and it really doesn't matter what caused it.
I hope it is clear to everyone that there are no proofs in physics. You can postulate a model that describes reality and prove everything that follows from it. You can perform an experiment and see if what you proved actually holds. If this holds, then the model training will increase, and if it does not, the model training will decrease.
Logic must have nothing to do with our world. Logic is the combination of assumptions and rules of inference. She cannot prove that the assumptions are correct!
Israel
A rainbow is only in the eye of the beholder, just like a figure in a mirror.
Your example is interesting - maybe this is also true for the electron. Until a measurement is made, the word "location" has no meaning at all.
Israel,
You wrote "information only" about proving that only one absolute reference system is possible in this universe and in fact in all universes!
Your response does not constitute any weight against a claim formulated through a logical argument.
You must provide a logical counter-argument.
-
Anyone who understands logic and understands the definition of an absolute reference system, understands my proof very well and knows that it is absolutely correct.
If you see my proof in future scientific publications, know where it originated and when.
You are guaranteed that those who renounce it will return to it.
Today's proofs in physics are considered, only if they are written in high and complicated mathematics, despite this there are proofs that can only be expressed in simple language.
Only one absolute frame of reference has far-reaching implications for many theories in physics.
Among them the inflationary model, the acceleration of the universe and the multiplicity of universes.
If among all the constants in physics there is one absolute, then they are all connected by it.
It means that there is one reason that links all the constants in physics. They are not accidental!
This means that this whole system of constants is neither arbitrary nor accidental.
This means that what caused this system to come into existence out of countless possibilities is not the case and is not some kind of law.
-
A. Pap
ILP
Israel,
Communication was disqualified from the considerations I brought up in the previous discussions.
Transfer of information is disallowed regardless of definition of information per se.
It was the transfer that was rejected.
Instead of the term communication I would choose the term information-coordinated.
The question of how the quantum particles know their state from a distance is correct.
In fact, the question implies the assumption that they should know.
The particles don't need to know. They are coordinated.
The gloves/coins model reflects the assumption that the information existed in them in advance.
An assembly experiment contradicts this assumption, because according to the glove model it is not possible.
Therefore, there was no hidden information before the measurement.
Now a new wording for the question:
How are distant particles correlated?
The answer: information.
Information, but not information transfer. What is the nature of this information?
This information is law.
The law exists in force before the measurement and actually becomes an inseparable part of the physical when measured and observed.
The law requires the particles to be coordinated, without explaining how.
-
I remind you of the course of the discussion:
There are two possible answers to my question:
1. This something goes all the way.
2. Something does not pass in any way.
You: "There is more. I can suggest at least one way.”
Me: Offer her!
You: "This something travels like anything else that travels at or below the speed of light, only faster than light."
Me: Offer her!
You: "I gave one: 400,000 km/year. But any speed greater than light is also possible, up to infinity."
The question was:
If transfer time is zero and if transfer speed is infinite, which way does the particle travel?
Does your answer answer my question?
Israel
You have already decided what causes the phenomenon, and you are not ready to listen. This discussion is pointless.
A. Pap.
"1. communication (disqualified)'.
Why?
"is not V because the reference system C does not depend on any reference system including V".
c is approximately equal to 300,000 km/year. If v is equal to 400,000 km/s, the difference between them is 100,000 km/s.
"Two different speeds that do not depend on any frame of reference are not possible!
Only one absolute reference system is possible!'
Opinion only.
A simple example of a system whose distance is always equal in any measure: a rainbow.
Like the speed of light, you cannot reach it, stand under it or exceed it.
And like any photon, it is basically everywhere in the measured field, but is observed only at a certain distance.
"What is it? Give a certain numerical value!'
I gave one: 400,000 km/year. But any speed greater than light is also possible, up to infinity.
"The opposite of someone who is not resolute. that we do not undertake to speak.
It is not possible to agree or disagree with his words. A discussion with him is a discussion that never ends. A discussion that usually does not go beyond endless talk that does not lead to any result.'
You can speak your mind, but take into account that it is absolutely possible that you are wrong. The main thing is to strive for the truth.
My opinion is that multiple exclamation marks and expressing judgmental and decisive opinions is a weak form of expression that leads to closures and blows. But after I commented, everyone has the right to do as they wish.
Miracles
and..?
The subject: immediate effect faster than light.
Does what you said contradict that? It seems to me that strengthens.
rival
Right. There is no way to know if a series of numbers is random or not, without knowing what produces the series. A series of a million "1"s can also be the result of a true random process (although very unlikely).
Miracles,
That is, according to what you say, if we have a sequence of say a million numbers (zeros and ones) that have no connection or correlation between them, what determines for you whether this sequence is random or not is whether it is the result of a coin toss or the result of the decay of free neutrons?
This sounds a bit strange to me, I'm not sure most mathematicians/statisticians would accept it. According to what you say if we have a large sequence of numbers we cannot determine if it is a random sequence or not if we do not know what created it.
Israel
I meant and said the measurement of the electron. If the position of the electron is measured before hitting the screen, there is no interference. At this moment there is change everywhere.
Entanglement, like the measurement of an entangled particle, announces in the universe the collapse of the wave function at 0 time.
In interference, what happens in interweaving happens: the wave function collapses and the message about it is sent in 0 time to the entire universe.
rival
I think you are wrong. A coin toss seems random, and an eddy current seems random. But there is only ignorance here, not randomness.
And on the other hand - take a free neutron. It will disintegrate, with a 50% probability, within ten minutes. Now pay attention. Take a trillion neutrons. Every ten minutes, half will fall apart. Now - after some time take 100 neutrons left from the trillion. Half of them will fall apart after ten minutes!
There is no lack of knowledge here - that is, no matter what additional knowledge you have, you will not know when a certain neutron will decay.
And again - without true randomness, the universe in my opinion could not have been created.
Israel
In the entanglement experiment, if we check where the electron is, something happens simultaneously in the whole space. That's what you agreed to, so what's the problem with interweaving?
Miracles,
Randomness is randomness, you are talking about something else and that is why there is randomness:
1. For no reason.
2. Because of some physical mechanism that causes this randomness.
But even if the answer is 1 and even if it is 2 it is still random, in this respect that there is no correlation between the values and you can in no way predict what the next value will be.
Einstein as far as I understand was not opposed to the idea that there is randomness in the quantum world, he just wondered to himself what causes it. See again the quote I brought before, I think things are quite clear.
Miracles
Does anything pass at all between the interwoven particles? If so, what? And why did Einstein talk about a particle that "knows" and "communicates"?
rival
"Normal" randomness in physics is ignorance, like the fair toss of a coin.
The randomness of quantum theory is true randomness, and does not arise from a lack of knowledge.
These are very different things. In my opinion, without true randomness, the universe could not have formed.
Israel
Einstein's mistake, in my understanding, is that there is a contradiction with the theory of relativity. What "passes" between entangled particles is not information.
Israel,
My response is pending.
Israel,
"And what about a billion c? Or a billion to the power of a billion?"
The one moving at this speed passes through every point in its trajectory. Each point has a time it passes through.
Every time has a place where it is.
"How does the particle know the quantum state of the other particle if it was determined only at the moment of the measurement that took place at a huge distance without communication? Is it possible without communication?"
Solutions:
1. Communication (disqualified).
2. A predetermined situation. A sine wave can be used as an example. Two peaks can be measured light years apart without having any communication between them. In other words, treat the pair of particles as a wave.
3. A law that exists outside of space and time.
4. The assumptions of quantum theory.
5. Metaphysical solutions about the nature of space and time.
6. Epistemological solutions (which arise from the theory of recognition).
-
The solution to the problem of two different speeds that do not depend on any reference system:
What is the relative speed between these two systems?
is not C because the reference system V does not depend on any reference system including C.
is not V because the reference system C does not depend on any reference system including V.
There is no difference between them for the same reasons.
There is no other speed for the same reasons.
The conclusion:
Two different speeds that do not depend on any reference system are not possible!
Only one absolute reference system is possible!
This is true of all universes. Only one absolute reference speed is possible for all, if any!
I sign this with my most accurate name: A. Pep.
-
"This something travels like anything else that travels at the speed of light and below, only faster than light"
what is it Give a certain numerical value!
"And use less exclamation points and phrases like never and never."
Exclamation marks are intended to emphasize important points in the hope that they will not be forgotten. Doesn't always help.
Clear and unambiguous expressions are intended to facilitate the discussion.
You can refer to them simply on the screens\disagree, true\false.
They testify that I am not afraid to make a mistake and correct the mistake.
The opposite of those who are not resolute. that we do not undertake to speak.
It is not possible to agree or disagree with his words. A discussion with him is a discussion that never ends. A discussion that usually does not go beyond endless talk that does not lead to any result.
-
Good afternoon .
"Infinite speed between two points is inherent in that a thing is at two points at the same time."
I will flow with you. What about a million c? Here there is no doubt that the process started on one side or the other.
And what about billion c? Or a billion to the power of a billion?
"The interweaving experiment contradicts relativity only if communication is assumed."
Explained why he assumed communication. How does the particle know the quantum state of the other particle if it was determined only at the moment of the measurement that took place at a huge distance without communication? Is it possible without communication?
"vc"
wrong!
"I answered. Understands (as before) the claim, but does not accept it"
You do not accept, because you did not answer correctly. Answer correctly!'
I believe I answered correctly, but I would love to know what the correct answer is in your opinion (assuming you meant that no matter what v is, the difference will remain c).
"There is more. I can suggest at least one way"
Offer her!'
This something travels like anything else that travels at the speed of light and below, only faster than light.
"In any case, you mustn't make a mistake? Are you never wrong? Is this your proof that I'm wrong?
Don't lower the discussion to this level!'
Don't turn your nose, A.P.
My intention is to ask us to be too judgmental and decisive in our conclusions, and to use less exclamation marks and expressions such as never and never.
Good night.
"Can you show in a physical system the difference between an infinite speed and a speed that can have any finite value in terms of results?"
Infinite speed between two points is inherent in that a thing is at two points at the same time.
A thing moving at a finite speed passes through every point in space. Can be adjusted to any time point or vice versa.
"Didn't we show that according to the claim of the inventor of the theory, a physical experiment conducted contradicts it?"
No.
The interweaving experiment contradicts relativity only if communication is assumed. If no communication is assumed, there is no contradiction.
Einstein did not reach the point where he had to reexamine his assumptions. He believed that an assemblage experiment was not possible.
If he knew he was successful, he would change his assumptions.
"vc"
wrong!
"I answered. Understands (as before) the claim, but does not accept it"
You do not accept, because you did not answer correctly. Answer correctly!
"There is more. I can suggest at least one way"
Offer her!
"But such an experiment is not possible at all and will not be done and will never be done."
As I recall was proven wrong."
True, but then I didn't take into account Aspa's experiment.
In any case, you can't make a mistake? Are you never wrong? Is this your proof that I'm wrong?
Do not lower the discussion to this level!
Miracles,
"I think Einstein was wrong. He also claimed that there is no randomness in the world, and I think he's wrong about that too."
This is absolutely not true, have you read the article? It is said in the commentary that Einstein did not claim that there is no randomness in the world, he only tried to understand what it originated from.
Just two examples from the article:
"Einstein thought that if we delve deeper into the unresolved issues of the Copenhagen interpretation, we will probably discover that quantum randomness is no different from any other type of randomness in physics, which is the product of processes that occur at a deeper level.... Einstein tried to find an explanation for the randomness of quantum mechanics, not to give an excuse why it should be rejected.'
wrong? in what?
He explained nicely in the article: if non-locality exists, then the particles communicate with each other faster than light. Where is the mistake?
Didn't you try to solve the problem yourself? Didn't you see that there can't be a local explanation? Didn't you see that the only explanation is communicative or quantum?
So where is the mistake?
Israel
I think Einstein was wrong. He also claimed that there is no randomness in the world, and I think he's wrong about that as well - without randomness we wouldn't be here today to discuss it 🙂
Miracles
According to Wiki, Einstein said non-locality in entanglement contradicts relativity. Therefore he concluded that non-locality is impossible.
This is his mistake - completely reasonable at the time, almost no one believed in non-locality, not even Bohr.
This still does not mean that non-locality does not contradict relativity. According to Einstein, it does contradict.
If he had known the results of the Aspect experiment, he would, in my opinion, have had to change the APR article, and perhaps also the relativity.
Israel
So Einstein was wrong. Why does it matter to you? Einstein also claimed that there are no gravitational waves, even though these waves are a result of his equations….
Please Eraf, you said "It is possible to think of explanations that do not create contradictions, neither internal nor with other teachings".
So if Einstein says that entanglement contradicts relativity, maybe he knows what he's talking about?
Israel
And you are still commenting on unrelated things? What do we care what Einstein said now?
"It is possible to think of explanations that do not create contradictions, neither internal nor with other teachings"
So why according to Wiki Einstein says non-locality in entanglement contradicts relativity? What do we understand that he is not?
Israel
A possible explanation for the entanglement is the same explanation you are willing to accept for the interference - the invention of a "particle" in a large space at the same time. Until a measurement is made, there is a greater than zero probability of finding the particle anywhere. At the moment of measurement, the probability changes. This change happens instantly everywhere.
I don't say for a moment that I understand a plot, or a struggle. But, I do say that it is possible to think of explanations that do not create contradictions, neither internal nor with other teachings
Nice
Where in everything I've written, myself or others, is the explanation for interweaving, and how did you conclude that I'm not getting anything?
Israel
So why is the explanation acceptable to you as an explanation for a particle fighting with itself, and not as an explanation for interweaving?
A.P.
"So in every respect that is physical it is infinite."
No.
Finite is finite and infinite is infinite.'
Can you show in a physical system the difference between an infinite speed and a speed that can have any finite value in terms of results?
"No - there is no limit to all speeds. It is a limit only within the framework of a physical theory that is accepted as true.'
but why? Aren't we talking about the reality of that physical theory right now? Didn't we show that according to the claim of the inventor of the theory, a physical experiment conducted contradicts it?
"Suppose there is another speed that is greater than the speed of light which is the same speed in any frame of reference.
What will be the speed between it and the speed of light?
vc.
"If you answer this question, you will understand that there is only one physical limit to all speeds, and that is the speed of light."
I answered. Understands (as before) the claim, but does not accept it.
"There are two possible answers to my question.
1. This something goes all the way.
2. Something does not pass in any way.'
There are more. I can suggest at least one way.
"The final answer is that this something does not pass! Just as I explained earlier.'
A somewhat hasty conclusion, like the conclusion from a week ago:
"The conclusion is not that someone cheated, because it is impossible to cheat, but that such an experiment is not possible at all and has not been done and will never be done."
As I recall was proven wrong.
Israel,
"So in every respect that is physical it is infinite."
No.
Finite is finite and infinite is infinite.
"So what? Why does that mean she is the limit of all speeds?"
You asked whether a new fact was added and received an answer.
You did not ask whether it is the limit of all speeds.
No - there is no limit to all speeds. It is a limit only within the framework of a physical theory that is accepted as true.
1. Einstein claimed a paradox because he assumed that a speed greater than the speed of light could not be possible, therefore for him there is a contradiction to relativity.
2. Leave to your judgment.
3. Who says there is no contradiction, Einstein or someone else?
"One more time - so what? Why does that mean she's the speed limit?"
In the framework of relativity, any frame of reference that moves at a speed less than the speed of light will show a frame of reference that moves at the speed of light at a constant speed.
That is, it will not be able to cause the relative speed between them to be greater than the speed of light.
Einstein's conclusion was that the speed of light is a physical limit to physical speed.
That is why he made the speed of light a starting point in his theory.
Suppose there is another speed that is greater than the speed of light which is the same speed in any frame of reference.
What will be the speed between it and the speed of light?
If you answer this question you will understand that there is only one physical limit to all speeds and that is the speed of light.
"I still haven't received an answer to my question: "Which way does something go?"
How would I know, me or someone? I have an idea but no proof, only evidence."
There are two possible answers to my question.
1. This something goes all the way.
2. Something does not pass in any way.
1. Hence it moves everywhere in zero time, that is, it is everywhere, therefore it does not move.
2. We do not pass through in any way, therefore "we do not pass".
The final answer is that this something does not pass! Just as I explained earlier.
"1. No. There is no limit as long as the transfer speed is not infinite."
But it can be as big as we want, right? And we can always increase it without limit, right?
So in any physical sense it is infinite. But for our needs the "no limit" will suffice.
"Indeed - to the theory of relativity.
The fact is that the speed of light was found to be constant in all experiments.'
So what? Why does this mean that it is the limit of all speeds?
Here comes a relativity thinker in his own right, Einstein, neither an angel nor a fire, and offers a thought experiment, EPR.
He says that if the results of the thought experiment are what quantum mechanics claims - this contradicts relativity.
Since this implies that one particle is communicating with the other instantaneously across space, ie, faster than light
The experiment was conducted - not in the mind, in the laboratory, thousands of times - and the results are what quantum mechanics claims.
Questions:
1. If despite the results of the experiment (aspect) there is no contradiction to relativity - why did Einstein claim that there is a paradox in this? Does he not understand relativity at least as much as we do?
2. Or maybe he saw something we are missing?
3. If Einstein claims that the results of the experiment as they actually are contradict relativity - then why is there no contradiction?
(Perhaps because despite Einstein's explicit claim according to Wiki for Communication and Information Transfer:
Einstein, Podolsky and Rosen asked how can the second particle "know" to have precisely defined" momentum but uncertain position? Since this implies that one particle is communicating with the other instantaneously across space
Isn't this a contradiction to relativity in the sense that even though information has passed - we are still unable to send information as the no-communication theorems prove?
"In addition, Maxwell's equations prove that it does not depend on any frame of reference."
One more time - so what? Why does that mean she is the speed limit?
Just to remind you - Maxwell did think that there was a reference system - the ether.
"I still haven't received an answer to my question: "Which way does something go?"
How would I know, me or someone? I have an idea but no proof, just evidence.
Israel,
1. No. There is no limit as long as the transfer speed is not infinite. (one answer to the two questions about speed)
Indeed - to the theory of relativity.
The fact is that the speed of light was found to be constant in all experiments.
In addition, Maxwell's equations prove that it does not depend on any frame of reference.
I still haven't received an answer to my question: "Which way does something go?"
I still haven't received clear answers:
1. Is there a limit on the speed of information transfer in 1904?
Yes or No.
In 1904, could the speed of information transfer be infinite?
Yes or No.
"T=V\X
If V=infinity, what should X be so that T=0?
The problem is that in each derivative we also let X reach 0. This is mathematically forbidden, no matter what V is.
"that new facts were added and a theory was added to explain them, and the perception of space and time was changed."
We like clarity.
You mean Einstein's special theory of relativity, right?
And what new fact was added in 1905?
Israel,
"What's the difference from 1905?"
that new facts were added and a theory was added to explain them, and the perception of space and time was changed.
"As a counterpoint to every derivative we do where we divide by a denominator that aspires to 0 but never reaches it?"
What is the connection?
T=V\X
If V=infinity, what should X be for T=0?
any distance Infinite solutions. So which way does something go?
Your other words are not understood and their relation to the subject is not clear.
No, is there no limit on the speed of information transfer in 1904?
And if the answer is yes, what is the difference from 1906?
And is your definition "moving at an infinite speed not moving, because nothing moves." This is found in at least two different places or in all the places in between" can't it also be used as an antithesis to every derivative we make in which we divide by a denominator that aspires to 0 but never reaches it?
As you remember, the reason we do succeed in deriving the function is that we allow its limit to reach 0.
And this - despite the prohibition on dividing by 0.
So maybe mathematically the operation is not completely kosher - but physically it works great, doesn't it?
Israel,
Answer no.
Let's say we are in 1904.
Do you agree that information can be transferred from point A to B at a speed of 100 km/h?
If you claim that there is a limit on the transfer of information speed - can you say what this speed was in 1904 and why it is not possible to add one more km/h to it?
Israel,
Everything is relevant, including the examples.
Is it possible for you to copy and paste the relevant claims?
To Israel,
"Can you prove that the transfer of information in 0 time is impossible based on assumptions accepted by both of us?"
I know what the discounts are for me. Read them below and indicate what is not acceptable to you.
Miracles
Oh, clear things.
No, I don't think otherwise.
A.P.
The reference to Einstein was to show that my claim makes sense, and your interpretation is just an opinion, not a proof.
Can you prove that passing information in 0 time is impossible based on assumptions accepted by both of us?
Israel,
It's strange that you write what you write, that you appeal to personality.
Until now, the discussion has been conducted based on logical reasoning.
What will appeal to personality add? Don't you trust your logic anymore?
Did Einstein relate to all the reasons we put forward? No.
So what is relevant about what he said?
He used the term zero time communication. In my opinion this usage is wrong in the sense of transition.
In my opinion, the reasons and arguments I gave rule out the possibility of passing information.
The paradox that Einstein saw was against the theory of relativity. That is, he himself realized that the communication solution creates a problem.
If the interweaving experiment was not successful, it would be said that because a paradox is not possible.
Inherent failure lack of communication. There was no communication neither on time, nor in zero time.
That is, failure would not support your position that the term "communication in zero time" has meaning.
Now that he succeeded, the communication solution creates a paradox and hence is not correct.
Hence, for Einstein himself, communication could not be used as an explanation.
According to Einstein's logic, there was no communication, because otherwise a paradox would have arisen. He would look for another solution.
In other words, success would not support your position nor cancel it. Einstein would say it is useless.
So why did you bring Einstein?
Israel
Try me, what have you got to lose?
I think the explanation for the electron's interference is that it is everywhere at the same time. Do you think otherwise?
Miracles
"I don't understand what you're rowing about. In your opinion, there is no such thing as a plot?'
How did you deduce that? Of course there is, what are we talking about here all the time?
"The tussle of an electron with itself".
relevance? Do you want us to start entertaining other topics?
Did you know the date of birth of the rock doe? Where were you in Esdi Eretz? Speak if you knew her!
A.P.
"There is no logical meaning to the transition in zero time because the concept of transition is based on the concept of time."
Allow me to dispute this (axiomatic) assertion, and enlist Einstein's help.
According to the Wikipedia entry on the EPR article, Einstein proposes a thought experiment that is almost identical to the one conducted by Aspect 50 years later.
Einstein claims that according to quantum mechanics, certain results should be obtained in the experiment, results that were indeed obtained in that aspect experiment.
Einstein claims that if the same results are obtained, this is impossible because then:
Einstein, Podolsky and Rosen asked how can the second particle "know" to have precisely defined" momentum but uncertain position? Since this implies that one particle is communicating with the other instantaneously across space, ie, faster than light, this is the "paradox
One particle "knows" the state of the other, so it communicates with it in 0 time.
instantaneously across space, ie, faster than light
And this is what he believes leads to a paradox.
But - we all know as mentioned that this is exactly what happened, and despite this there is no paradox. (In my opinion, the paradox that Einstein saw is a time reversal paradox, which does happen in quantum systems).
But for our purposes, what is important is that the results of the interweaving experiments testify to the transfer of information instantaneously, i.e. in 0 time.
So if Erez like Einstein says this - why would Izov Kir disagree?
Israel,
"Why? Why not in no time?"
I explained this in several previous comments.
There is no logical meaning to the transition in zero time because the concept of transition is based on the concept of time.
The concept of transition always contains time.
Therefore "transition in zero time" is a concept that contradicts itself.
It should be said "happens in no time".
-
Quotes from my previous responses:
1.
"Definition for passing information:
The passage of information is the passage of something in time.
Moving at infinite speed is not moving, because nothing moves. This is found in at least two different places or in all the places in between.
"affects" = "causes" = "cause". Therefore, "affects" does not mean "beyond" in any case."
Correcting the wording: Therefore, it affects in zero time in the sense that there is no transition.
-
2.
"And what is the difference between a year and a billionth of a second if the effect takes 0 time?"
Critical question!
Since the effect cannot pass at all, it does not pass between A and B, not even in zero time.
And if it passed in zero time, what if on the other side the system will be ready for operation in a million years?
That's why something happens, but doesn't pass!
post Scriptum:
I already explained that it is not possible for something to pass in zero time, because passing means a change in time.
This is the question of the definition of the meaning of "transition".
"Transition" is a change between here and there. This is a quantitative difference and therefore not possible in zero time. "
I will add: "transition" is a change that moves from here to there, but if there is no time between here and there but the same thing happens here and there, then there is no transition.
-
What is the definition of something that happens in zero time?
Something that happens without time.
Something that does not happen through a transition from point to point, from state to state. why?
Because transition has a certain amount of time. But when something happens at once in all parts of the system, it happens in zero time.
If something happens without transition from point to point, then it does not pass!
Since "transition" is related to time, it has a direction. Because time has a direction.
They say: passed from Al. But in zero time there is no time and therefore no direction.
Therefore, moving in zero time has no direction. What has no direction is not "passing".
Example Two red balls are in different places. Nothing passes between them.
Both balls change to blue. Each of them changes one to blue in zero time.
Is there anything that can pass between them when they change? The emphasis is on when they change in zero time.
When one of them changes?
When both change?
Nothing can pass between them, because it has no time to allow the passage.
A transition in zero time is a linguistic image for a change to sukura in zero time. Logically the image is a contradiction, but linguistically it expresses a change in zero time.
example:
Israel moves from L.A. to Tel Aviv in zero time. Suppose such an event happens. He was in L.A. and now he is in Tel Aviv. It seems he did move from there to here.
But the event happens in no time. That's why "fetus" does not apply here.
What does catch?
The picture of reality changed in one, like a screenshot changed in another. Nothing passed between the characters on the screen. The reality has changed (the screenshot symbolizes the reality).
-
"So what's wrong with something passing between the particles in 0 time? Does that contradict something?"
This contradicts the concept of "transition". When you use a concept that contradicts itself for an explanation, your explanations will be misleading or meaningless.
When something "passes" between particles in zero time, it is at every point between them in zero time, so it does not pass.
It is possible that something like this exists, but it does not pass.
The minimum is that this something will exist in both particles at the same time in zero time, therefore it is not "passing".
Israel
I don't understand what you are trying to do. In your opinion, there is no such thing as a plot?
But, let's go back to a simpler experiment - the struggle of an electron with itself. Can you explain this in an understandable way? Ah, to say that an electron is both a particle and a wheel is not a simple explanation.
If so, then everything is probably fine. There is no contradiction.
So what's wrong with something passing between the particles in 0 time? Does it contradict something?
Because as seen by anyone who has tried to solve the problem I raised, it has no solution using knowledge or technology that existed before Bell's inequality theorems. Yariv feared that he was going to be disappointed with the solution, and A.P. claimed that she had no solution.
What I tried to show here is the fundamental difference between a pair of separated gloves between which nothing really passes, and quantum particles between which something does pass in 0 time. The game I proposed - which is only classical - can mark the dividing line between classical physics and quantum physics. The end of the age of innocence.
But if we accept the unfathomable but inevitable - that is, that something physical moves at infinite speed - does that say something about existing physics?
In my opinion, a lot.
Israel
A tough test, right? But - what is being tested is our intuition. Interweaving does not damage causality and does not require acceleration of a particle above speed c. Quantum theory works, and relativity works, so the problem is with us.
Right. There is no contradiction to anything.
But in my opinion this puts the relationship through a difficult physical test, that as Zvi said at the time (or Ehud, I'm not sure) she escapes it by the skin of her teeth.
Going to church.
Israel
So there is no contradiction here to special relativity, right?
A.P.
"Something can only pass in time."
Why? Why not in no time?
Miracles
No.
Israel
My question is about a single bit of information.
Israel
There is a pair of intertwined particles, one for me and one for you. Is there any way you can tell I've taken a measurement?
Israel,
Obviously the original problem didn't mix. Totally classic.
This is a comparison between systems. Call them whatever you want. They are inside black boxes and you can't tell except that one is in a communication system.
This is about logic. It's a question of logic and that's all.
"If there is no communication and information here - why did Einstein say that what experimental results he collected are what they actually were, so yes it is communication and information transfer at time 0?"
Oh Israel, you are really driving and not reading properly.
I didn't say it wasn't information! But information (something) does not pass!
Something can only pass in time. This does not mean that if it does not pass it does not exist!
This is information. Information that we do not pass.
A.P.
I'm driving, but remember that the original problem didn't involve quanta - it's completely classical.
Please answer one thing:
If there is no communication and information here - why did Einstein say that what experimental results he collected are what they actually were, so yes it is communication and information transfer at time 0?
From the side where the measurement was made first to the other side and to the entire universe in fact.
And this "something" is the announcement of the collapse and premature demise of the late wave function.
To Israel,
"2. Do you accept that in presenting the original problem, if I had changed the stipulation of 25% matches in the Peli - Peli situation and replaced it with 50%, it would have been possible to solve the problem and win the prize even without communication or quantum means?
When both parties mark inconsistencies in 25% of the cases, the total amount will not exceed 50% inconsistencies."
An unclear question.
In the original question each side is required to change 25% and accept 75% discrepancies in the final result, which is impossible.
If each side sleeps 50% on their side, the end result can reach 100% mismatch.
"Cancel the interweaving?"
Referring to the gloves, the glove markings are (1,1) or (0,0) for each pair. The marking can be changed to (0,1) according to a predetermined rule.
When it comes to photons they arrive entangled and marked as (0,0) or (1,1).
When they are not intertwined they are denoted as (0,1).
(0,1) is considered to indicate a mismatch.
A mismatch means that the weave is broken.
When we talk about a 75% mismatch we are talking about 3 out of 4 photons that were entangled and became unentangled.
In my previous response I proved that entanglement breaking is not possible through the transfer of information between the photons.
that it is not possible to transfer information from the near pole that would change the state of the photon at the far pole.
agree/disagree?
"My logic at least says that if there are only 2 possibilities to win the prize - physical communication that transmits information or a quantum device - then the quantum device transmits information in some way."
1. Insert the glove experiment (including communication) into a black box. 2. Put the quantum experiment into a black box.
- Getting the same result.
And the conclusion? The conclusion is that either communication took place in the quantum experiment or it did not.
logic:
From A comes B.
From C comes B.
Is A the same as C? Either yes or no. Both options exist.
Either only communication caused the result or something else other than communication could have caused the same result.
Non-communication can be the opposite of communication or anything that is not communication.
In order for communication to remain the only option, all others must be ruled out.
The opposite of communication is immediately ruled out, since it is not possible for the same result to be obtained from contradictory premises.
The opposite of communication is no communication. Therefore it is not possible that the lack of communication is the cause of the quantum result.
The non-communication options remain.
In my opinion, it has been proven that communication is not possible in the quantum experiment.
Therefore the cause of the quantum result is not communication!
PS: "Something" - includes everything and information in particular.
I explained that in terms of the meaning of concepts "something" cannot pass in zero time. The concept of "to pass" does not refer to zero time.
Something can only pass in time.
Israel
Yes? From which side to which side did this something go?
You are asking too much.
Israel knows nothing, Israel is just a small pawn in the great game of life.
But maybe you know someone who can answer your questions? I do not. I have hypotheses, but they have not been proven.
At the moment I'm only asking to show that in the experiment something collected went from one side of the experiment to the other in zero time. I believe I did too.
Yisrael Tzfal'd.
Israel
Principle of non-admissions? What is? I lower ledges to increase lift when I want to fly slowly. I throw biddies when I'm in immediate danger. The Zazat antenna is negligible in relation to the drag or the weight of the aircraft.
But how does this relate to uncertainty? What about an uncertain wave?
You can open shelves and increase the lift, but then the speed decreases.
You can increase the speed by releasing the fasteners, but then the range decreases.
You can give up the ZAAT antenna to improve maneuverability, but then the IBA will tell the anti-aircraft to send a TKA towards you.
This is called the uncertainty principle.
Israel
Yes, but... so why can't I reduce the amplitude of the wave? What kind of wave is this?
Miracles
Because he is a wave.
A.P.
Cancel the interlacing?
Company, we are starting to get into interpretations and speculations that we have no confidence that they reflect reality.
Let's see what we agree on with a high enough level of plausibility.
I asked a few questions that I think sum up the issue:
1. Do you accept that there are only two possibilities to win the prize according to the conditions I presented at the beginning:
A. Through communication between the rooms that is limited to the speed of light.
B. using a quantum device that is not limited by any speed.
?
2. Do you accept that in presenting the original problem, if I had changed the stipulation of 25% matches in the Peli-Peli situation and replaced it with 50%, it would have been possible to solve the problem and win the prize even without communication or quantum means?
If you accept 2, then we see that when the matching percentages change from 25% to 50% the reality becomes non-local.
This is exactly the topic that Einstein talked about in the EPR paper, the conclusion of which was that quantum mechanics is incomplete. From Wikipedia:
Einstein, Podolsky and Rosen asked how can the second particle "know" to have precisely defined" momentum but uncertain position? Since this implies that one particle is communicating with the other instantaneously across space, ie, faster than light, this is the "paradox
Note that at least according to Wiki, Einstein talks about communicating and knowing.
Therefore, I can say with a high degree of confidence that it was impossible to build a device that would allow winning the prize according to the conditions of the problem before Bell showed mathematically that Einstein was wrong in the 60s, and before Aspa (Aspect) conducted his experiments in the 80s of the last century. Even the experiments carried out by Shimoni before him in the 70's were not considered meticulous enough because the state of the polarizers in them was fixed and therefore there was a possibility that the polarizers would "cooperate" with each other (by definition, AP) and the effect therefore passes at sub-light speed.
Aspect succeeded in an engineering miracle to change the state of the polarizers quickly enough to prevent such combinations between the polarizers.
An aspect experiment is the answer to B in question 1. As Yariv showed, there is no problem in winning the prize using A in question 1.
My logic at least says that if there are only 2 possibilities to win the prize - physical communication that transmits information or a quantum device - then the quantum device transmits information in some way. But I have no problem dropping the charged word "information" and saying that "something" passes between the 2 ends of the experiment.
And this is in contrast to the experiment where the matching rate in the Peli - Peli condition is only 50%, where nothing passes between the ends of the experiment because the "gloves" already contain everything required to solve the problem and win the prize even without communication between the rooms.
"One polarizer does not affect the other polarizer - it does affect the measurement results on the other side."
This is about a mutual influence on the measurement results. That was my intention. I proved that it is not possible for a pole to affect the measurement results on the other side.
When the distances are not equal, only one side can influence. If only one side can influence, then it cannot influence at all, because both sides should have equal influence.
Conclusion: no measurement results on one side can affect the measurement change on the other side.
Notice what you wrote:
"Therefore, on the side where the early measurement was conducted, it also determines the state of the photons on both sides, and the measurement on the late side can no longer change the quantum state of the "long photon" but only discover it"
The measurement on the delayed side cannot change the quantum state of the photon, so how is it supposed to change it in order to cancel the entanglement?
"How can Pole B, which is far away in a light year from A, have any effect on what happens in A? After all, all the results in A were already measured and recorded before the photons reached B, right?"
Exactly, this is what I claimed, and I concluded that the results of the measurement on one side cannot affect=change! the results on the other side.
"And what is the difference between a year and a billionth of a second if the effect passes in 0 time?"
Critical question!
Since the effect cannot pass at all, it does not pass between A and B, not even in zero time.
And if it passed in zero time, what if on the other side the system will be ready for operation in a million years?
That's why something happens, but doesn't pass!
post Scriptum:
I already explained that it is not possible for something to pass in zero time, because passing means a change in time.
This is the question of the definition of the meaning of "transition".
"Transition" is a change between here and there. This is a quantitative difference and therefore not possible in zero time.
-
No to your question.
Israel
Can you please answer my question? It is related to the matter - because you mentioned the idea that a particle is everywhere at the same time.
... there are those who read a book by Shankar and Skorai and Galila Ron-Feder... and still are unable to answer the question... what is the point? "The taste in milk" answers them with an ending from the barn, simple and delicious milk. Without all kinds of additions and tricks. Just milk. tasty. got out of there Here is a cow and there it goes out. This.
Thank you, good luck to you too.
Israel,
So here we will end the discussion. I will still recommend you to do the test I suggested regarding the textbooks. I hope you agree that what matters is not what the publisher wrote behind the book, but what is taught and what is not, right? I mean, if they wrote about a book by Benny Goren that it was at the level of a doctorate in mathematics, it wouldn't change the fact that it contains high school material, and that already in the bachelor's degree you learn more advanced things from more advanced books, right? So if you want - and of course it's only up to you - I explained to you exactly how you can see that Sakurai's material is taught in undergraduate degrees (regardless of what the publisher wrote on the cover) and in the same way you can check that advanced degrees use much more advanced books. But it's between you and yourself, we're done. Successfully.
Albanzo
On the back page of Skorai it says:
MODERN QUANTUM MECHANICS is designed for the first year graduate student who has already studied quantum mechanics at the junior or senior level
I don't remember that I wrote that in 1940 they already knew the answer to the question.
I remember asking:
"So how - technically - will you do this in 1940 when there is still no decision between Einstein and Bohr?"
I believe this is impossible, but maybe I'm wrong and it can really be solved without a billion percent problem.
No problem, you're free. I will not contact you again unless you contact me - twice - first.
Good night.
Israel,
Do you really not understand the difference between the sentence "If the question had been asked in 1940, in my opinion, they would have answered it easily, because the great difficulty is not in finding the answer but in raising the right question" and the sentence "In 1940 they already knew the answer to the question"? But here I am repeating myself again.
By the way, Sakurai is an undergraduate book. If you don't believe me, go to the website of the Hebrew University. Go to the Tel Aviv University website. Go to the website of the Technion and Ben-Gurion, Princeton, Harvard, Chicago, and King's College. The courses and their syllabi appear on all websites. I can't guarantee you that everyone uses Sakurai (although some do, for sure, because I taught in them or I know someone who teaches them), but you can look at the subjects that are taught and see that this is exactly what Sakurai has. Another clue that this is an undergraduate book is that Schenker is an undergraduate book (as you wrote), and you are welcome to compare their Bibles and see that they cover exactly the same material. So wait, when Shankar teaches the composition of the Hebrew Bible it is the material of a bachelor's degree, but when Sakurai teaches it (and even in exactly the same way) it suddenly becomes a master's degree?
In the last response I asked to end the correspondence between us. If you can't bring yourself to stop contacting me, the correspondence will not end and it will degenerate to exactly the same place it reaches every time, especially in light of the fact that you don't really read what I say to you and therefore I have to write everything 3-4 times. It's time to show a minimal amount of maturity and just stop.
Thanks in advance.
In short - how is it related..
or to the Stratocruiser
Or to the Dakotas..
Israel
I did not understand your answer.
Everything will be in his word. As written in the book Yosod Olam:
P. 874
... In his coals in the day of his nose and in the time of his anger with the grace of the love of his uncles, but he shines his light, enlightens the sons of Olah, and instructs a generation, and rises up and strives in the religion of righteousness and in the faith of the righteous.
And he added: And why is this supposed to matter to me?
If you continue with the kitbag questions, we will have no choice but to transfer you to 103.
Which is better - corns or rhinoceros?
Israel
How do you explain to this company that Futon is struggling with himself?
A.P.
Let's start from Sipa -
"What does catch is that there is no possibility that one polarizing situation will affect the other."
One polarizer does not affect the other polarizer - it does affect the measurement results on the other side.
"When the two photons reach the poles, they arrive at the same moment."
They cannot, technically, arrive at that moment. There will always be a clear fraction of a second where one will be ahead of the other - and that is enough.
How could polarizer B, which is far away in a light year from A, have any effect on what happens in A? After all, all the results in A were already measured and recorded before the photons reached B, right?
And what is the difference between a year and a billionth of a second if the effect passes in 0 time?
Do you accept that in presenting the original problem, if I had changed the stipulation of 25% matches in the Peli-Peli situation and replaced it with 50%, it would have been possible to solve the problem and win the prize even without communication or quantum means?
Miracles
"I do think that you have not presented anything that contradicts what I believe in."
The problem is not with you. I understand that you believe in a fifth dimension and in the same particle that fills the universe, so there is no problem that particles will affect each other in zero time - they are touching each other in the same folded dimension anyway.
The problem is not with those who believe in a higher power either. There is no need to convince them that the boss must obey the laws of nature - after all, he created them and is not obligated to them.
The problem is also not with scholars who specialized in vector fields of linear algebra where if the system is mathematically closed - everything is possible.
The problem was and remains with Yafim and Boris, two heavy-bodied dairy farmers and science enthusiasts, who believe that here and there is there, and if system A affects system B a million light years away - then something must pass between them through all those kilometers.
To Israel,
"Therefore, on the side where the early measurement was conducted, it also determines the state of the photons on both sides, and the measurement on the late side can no longer change the quantum state of the "long photon" but only discover it"
Your answer does not answer my whole question.
According to your answer, only the closest party will determine whether there will be an interweaving or a breaking of an interweaving.
That is, all three photons that break the entanglement originate on the near side. There is no experimental proof of this and theoretically the two polarizers should have an equal effect on breaking the interlacing. Even in terms of the polarizer it is not possible, because it is limited to 25% discrepancy at 30 degrees.
You write:
"Therefore only the state of one photon out of the four changed from up to down or vice versa."
Each polarizer can cause the change of only one photon.
When two polarizers are activated - 2.
It is agreed that there must exist a third photon whose state will change.
The question is what is its origin?
You say - the effect of the opposite polarizer.
I showed that it is not possible for the far pole to affect the near one, and the near one for the far one, when the distances from the source are not equal. When the distances are equal, according to you, the opposite polarizer should affect/reverse the photon that reaches the opposite polarizer.
But this is not possible.:
When the two photons reach the poles they arrive at the same moment.
Since they are intertwined both will be changed which will undo the change.
The number four I mentioned was due to the fact that if one polarizer affected the other side, then due to symmetry considerations, in the experiment on the next pair the other side will affect the first. Therefore two more photons were added.
Now from considerations of distance I see that the explanation does not catch on. So 4 doesn't catch and neither does 3.
What does catch is that there is no possibility for one polarizing state to affect the other.
The question remains what is the origin of the third photon?
-
1. Yes.
2. No.
Israel
I don't know how to answer you. I do think you haven't presented anything that contradicts what I believe.
Miracles
It doesn't matter if he sees it immediately or not, the main thing is that the effect has passed.
how? Is there no connection between the rooms?
Everything now boils down to the new question:
1. Do you accept that there are only two possibilities to win the prize according to the conditions I presented at the beginning:
A. Through communication between the rooms that is limited to the speed of light.
B. using a quantum device that is not limited by any speed.
?
2. Do you accept that in presenting the original problem, if I had changed the stipulation of 25% matches in the Peli-Peli situation and replaced it with 50%, it would have been possible to solve the problem and win the prize even without communication or quantum means?
If there is agreement here - the issue is closed.
Israel
Yes, but it takes time for him to see it. He won't know immediately either.
A.P.
'Hence two photons changed their state. For reasons of symmetry, the same thing happens on both sides. That's why four photons changed their state and not three.'
does not commit logically. In fact - technically impossible.
There is no symmetry between the 2 sides. There will always be a side where the measurement was made before the other (we can talk about a common time for both sides if we put synchronized clocks on them). As soon as the measurement was made on one side or the other, the wave function collapsed into a unique state, while before the measurement it was in a superposition of every possible state.
Therefore, on the side where the early measurement was conducted, it also determines the state of the photons on both sides, and the measurement on the late side can no longer change the quantum state of the "long photon" but only discover it.
Which also answers your question:
"In addition, the second polarizer may change its state hours after the first, for example if it is 10 light hours away from the source and the first is 10 meters away from the source (and therefore it will measure first).
How could the second polarizer affect the results of the first or vice versa?'
A question that Yariv also raised at the time.
But I'm really not sure about this interpretation. About two years ago I conducted an interesting experiment to test its "trivial" effect. If there is demand, I would be happy to tell about it.
for everyone:
1. Do you accept that there are only two possibilities to win the prize according to the conditions I presented at the beginning:
A. Through communication between the rooms that is limited to the speed of light.
B. using a quantum device that is not limited by any speed.
?
2. Do you accept that in presenting the original problem, if I had changed the stipulation of 25% matches in the Peli-Peli situation and replaced it with 50%, it would have been possible to solve the problem and win the prize even without communication or quantum means?
Israel,
Given the activation mark "30" on one side, 25% of the results obtained will be marked with (1,0) which indicates a mismatch.
For testing:
What will happen if the activation sign is activated twice on the same side, what does it mean?
When the two operations do not overlap we will get a 50% discrepancy.
When some of them overlap, we will get less than 50% because of mutual cancellation.
The discrepancy will be calculated as: "overlapping results"-"50%". 7/16 = 1/4*1/4 – 1/2.
We will get 43.75% mismatches and 56.25% matches.
When each party separately activates the activation sign "30" we will get the same result.
Therefore it is not possible to get 75% mismatches in this way. 50% is the maximum mismatch that can be achieved.
Therefore there must be a cause for the 75% result in a quantum experiment.
Is reason structured information? Yes.
Is there a built-in reason beyond information? Not necessarily.
Definition for passing information:
The passage of information is the passage of something in time.
Moving at infinite speed is not moving, because nothing moves. This is found in at least two different places or in all the places in between.
"affects" = "causes" = "cause". Therefore, "affects" does not mean "beyond" in any case.
There is another option besides "affecting" and that is "enabling".
And it is that changing the state of the polarizer allows something to happen. The change is like an activation code. For example, for a simultaneous observer.
-
"Since we showed that only one photon out of 4 can change its state with me when I change the state of my polarizer from 0 to 30 degrees, it is guaranteed that 2 changed state with you: one because you changed the state of the polarizer with you, and the other because I changed the state of the polarizer with me."
Hence two photons have changed their state. For reasons of symmetry, the same thing happens on both sides. Therefore four photons changed their state and not three.
In addition, the second polarizer may change its state hours after the first, for example if it is 10 light hours away from the source and the first one is 10 meters away from the source (and therefore will measure first).
How could the second polarizer affect the results of the first or vice versa?
The number of possible state changes out of 4 (theoretical) when both polarizers are working are:
one. (Suitable for a single pole - 25% mismatch, or for a pair of poles with one overlap)
two. (Suitable for a pair of polarizers - 50% mismatch)
three. (disqualified for symmetry reasons)
four. (suitable for a pair of polarizers with 100% mismatch or 100% matching)
Only 3 gives the desired solution of 75% mismatches.
But 3 is not possible.
Neither solution gives the desired solution unless...unless the two polarizers change the state of the same photon.
Miracles
What about an observer watching timultaneously on the 2 adjacent rooms? Does he not see that a change in the angle of the polarizer in one room affects the records in the other?
Israel
No photon changed its state! We have no idea what the other saw. Each received 4 photons and measured 4 values. Moreover - each of us received a uniform division of the polarization states.
We do not know that there is a correlation between the values. Not a single bit of information passed between me and you.
Albanzo
1. The question was already changed a few days ago. The word information was removed from it and its new wording is:
To win the prize, does changing the angle of the polarizer on side A affect the 1's and 0's in column 3 on side B in the experimental setup or not?
I have always stated that it is not possible for one side to know a thing and a half about what is being done on the other side. Therefore the question only holds for a third viewer watching simultaneously in both rooms.
Shankar (first degree book) and Skorai (secondary) do not deal with information (I didn't have much time to browse them, waiting for vacation. I found a small technical error in Skorai, probably a typo). But I think I understand the general idea: information is supposed to innovate something. Therefore if I tell you "tomorrow the sun will rise" I have changed very little. "It will rain tomorrow" I repeated more in January, and a lot in August.
But there is something I don't understand. You wrote:
"I am a billion percent convinced that if you had presented your riddle in 1960 or even in 1940, they would have solved it without a problem."
How would you solve it in 1940? Einstein published the EPR paper in 1935 and died in 1955 believing he had found the flaw in the hated quantum mechanics.
If there was a solution in 1940, he would have had to withdraw from EPR, wouldn't he?
So how - technically - will you do this in 1940 when there is still no decision between Einstein and Bohr?
A.P.
"Are you sure about section 4?"
Do you mean:
"4. On the other hand, if your polarizer stays at 30 degrees and I tilt my polarizer so that it is also at 30 degrees, then in order for us to get a 75% mismatch percentage, 3 photons need to change state'?
If so, if before there were 4 out of 4 matches, then in order for us to get a 75% percentage of mismatches, 75% of 4, i.e. 3, have to change the situation, right?
Israel,
beautiful model
It can be used as a basic assumption, a starting point for comparison between it and the quantum.
Checking your answer to miracles, where the "how" begins to be used as an explanation. which has a logical explanation (not necessarily correct).
Are you sure about section 4?
Israel,
This will be (probably, not guaranteed) the last response I write to you. Why? Because I find myself repeating the same things for the 1001st time. More or less I have already answered all your questions, but you are not listening. I feel like I'm talking to a wall, and I'm convinced (again) that you're not really interested in understanding or learning, but only in proving to everyone - including yourself - that what you decided a priori is correct. I'm starting to get annoyed and it's hard to see how this conversation won't end like every other conversation we've had.
1. It has been explained to you many times that information theory does not distinguish between what you know and what you don't, but between what can be known and what cannot. Under the umbrella of "unknown information" you also include things that have absolute mathematical proofs that cannot be known (such as the Hegel theorem, or the collapse of an entangled state) and this is simply not information. I don't care if you open the box or not, it doesn't change anything.
2. You have never defined. It was explained to you several times that what you are giving is an example and not a definition. A definition should be general, so that it can always be applied and it can always be *checked* whether it holds or not. In other words, if you defined why you read information, you could check through a direct calculation whether it passed or not. But even you are forced to use assumptions (which as I explained are simply unnecessary or wrong) to find out if there is already information or not. You can't use the setting to check when too passes and when it doesn't. You give an example and not a definition.
3. The question you present is not the "critical question" at all. It is just a different formulation of what Einstein called spooky action at a distance. The spins are intertwined, so it is clear that a measurement (any measurement!) that you make on one affects the other, and in particular if you make two different measurements (separated from each other by the angle of levy at which the spin is measured, what you call polarization) you will get a different effect. But it says nothing about information. It just means the spins are intertwined. The critical question is whether one end user can know anything about the angle of the polarizer at the other end. This is what will tell us if any information is passed. And the answer to this is absolutely no - there is no measurement, no experiment, no processing system, that one end user can carry out in order to discover something about the measurement made at the other end. This is exactly what is proven in various no comm theorems. You insist on *assuming* that if there is any effect (and no one disputes this) then information has passed. But the only reason you can do this is that you are intentionally working with completely vague "definitions" of information that do not allow you to check directly, and because you cannot check directly then it is impossible to prove you wrong.
4. How the hell did you get to the point where you write the sentence "Are you saying that it is possible to solve the problem I raised and win the prize without transferring information in classical physics?" Using knowledge and technology that existed in 1960?"? Haven't I already written about ten times that information must be conveyed classically? Haven't I already written about ten times that it is because you limit yourself to classical physics, and that it cannot be concluded from this that a quantum solution also includes information transfer? Didn't I already write that it doesn't matter what they knew in 1960? Didn't I give examples of physical questions that would lead to a certain conclusion if you were to limit yourself to 19th century physics but with the help of 20th century knowledge we reach completely different conclusions? Besides, while there's no way to test this, I'm a billion percent convinced that if you had presented your puzzle in 1960 or even 1940, it would have been solved without a problem. Bell's greatness was not that he was the only one who managed to solve the problem. His greatness was that he was the only one who thought about such problems and what could be learned from them.
Beyond that, I am becoming more and more convinced that you simply do not know what logic is and only run away to this word because you know that at the level of physical knowledge you have no ability to deal with physicists who know what they are talking about, know information theory, etc., but if the question was logical... So you might have had a chance and you wouldn't have given the impression of a delusional layman trying to convince everyone that the scientists are wrong and he is right.
I don't think there is any more point in this discussion. In a last burst of an honest attempt to help, I will advise you to re-read the things written to you and think about them objectively. Successfully.
Miracles
1. Let's say we started from a situation where the polarizers are at 0 degrees on both sides and an adversary sends us a photon to each side out of 4 fully correlated pairs.
In that case we will get 100% matches.
2. You tilt your polarizer by 30 degrees.
If my polarizer is still at 0 degrees, in order for us to get 75% matches or 25% mismatches, 3 of the 4 photons that reached you must be in the same state as those that reached me.
Therefore only the state of one photon out of the four changed from up to down or vice versa.
3. The same with the photons that reach my side when I tilt the polarizer by 30 degrees and yours remains at 0: only one of the 4 changes state.
4. On the other hand, if your polarizer stays at 30 degrees and I tilt my polarizer so that it is also at 30 degrees, then in order for us to get a 75% mismatch percentage, 3 photons need to change state.
Since we showed that only one photon out of 4 can change its state with me when I change the state of the polarizer from 0 to 30 degrees, it is guaranteed that 2 have changed state with you: one because you changed the state of the polarizer with you, and the other because I changed the state of the polarizer with me.
Since the same logic also works on the opposite side, it can be seen that when using many pairs of entangled particles, changing the polarization on one side affects the situation on the other side.
Israel
Does not affect the photon, in my opinion.
Let's do an experiment. An opponent sends me and you a photon, the two photons are intertwined. I measure my photon polarization with a polarizer at a certain angle.
How did it affect your photon?
...if "pilots" are like miracles... It is already better to invest in the artillery corps. 🙂
Israel
I "must" point out that your questions, in retrospect, reveal the knowledge of those who respond to you. Except for Albenzo, who understands something about physics (despite his inflated ego, it is not clear where he inflated it from - after all, there are thousands upon thousands like him), all the rest simply fail at the beginning. They seem to have difficulty understanding logic.
A.P.
Experiment 1.
Each side comes with 100 sticks of 4 standard gloves that were randomly separated.
Therefore, if the right got right, the left got left.
The instructions for both sides: write 0 in the polarization column.
The instruction for the right side: every time a right glove arrives, write down 1. When a left glove arrives, 0.
The instruction for the left side: every time a right glove arrives, write 0. When a left glove arrives, 1.
We can be sure to get 100% matches, or 0% mismatches on every stick.
Experiment 2.
Each side comes with 100 sticks of 4 standard gloves that were randomly separated.
Therefore, if the right got right, the left got left.
The instructions for the right side: write 0 in the left column of the polarizations.
The instruction on the left side: to write in the left column of the polarizations randomly 3 times 0 and once 30, so that out of every 4 times we will get 25% 30 entries.
The instruction for the right side: every time a right glove arrives, write down 1. When a left glove arrives, 0.
The instruction for the left side: every time a right glove arrives and the entry in the polarization column is 0, write 0. When a left glove arrives, 1.
When the polarization is 30, replace 1 with 0.
We can be sure that we will get 75% matches, or 25% mismatches in each stick.
Experiment 3.
Like experiment 2, but this time the right side is the one that randomly writes 30 in the polarization column in 25% of the cases, and the left writes 0.
We can be sure that we will get 75% matches, or 25% mismatches in each stick.
a question:
What will happen if both parties randomly write 30 in the polarization column in one of 4 cases?
Answer: We will get a 50% or less percentage of mismatches in each stick.
Question: Is there any way to get 75% mismatches?
Answer: No. If one party is instructed to record 30 in more than 1 out of 4 cases in a patch and therefore change more than 25% of the polarizations, he cannot tell if the other party did not always leave them at 0, thus exceeding the 25% mismatches he must accept in experiment 1.
The same thing happens when the parties randomly write 0 or 30 in the polarization column: it is not possible to meet all the conditions in mathematics and classical physics.
Therefore, in order to meet all the conditions and win the prize, they cannot in this way, or any other classical way, meet all the conditions without communication between the rooms.
Israel,
"When 0 is written on one side and 0 on the other, 100% matches or 0% mismatches.
On one side 0 and on the other 30, 25% discrepancies.”
Not clear.
Give examples that show how this happens.
Does a right glove and left glove fit?
"When we wrote down 0, then when we wrote down 30, we cannot change more than one state of registration if we don't know what was written down on the other side, because if there is written down 0, that's the only way to get 25%. agree?"
Not clear.
give examples
"And therefore the only way to get 75% mismatches is to know what was recorded on the other side, accept?"
Even if I don't understand the course of the experiment, I understand that it is a classic experiment like the one you presented with the coins.
Regarding it we agreed that without passing information or without interweaving it has no solution. So what's new?
-
That information transfer and interweaving provide the same solution does not mean that they are equal, that one results from the other and vice versa.
In weaving the nature of reality is different. A new dimension was added that was not taken into account in a classical experiment.
In understanding the nature of reality until now it was customary to take into account 3 out of 6 possibilities of here and there:
1. Here.
2. Name.
3. Either here or there.
4. Both here and there.
5. Neither here nor there.
Options 4 and 5 were not taken into account.
If they are taken into account, then possibilities that were considered impossible are revealed.
In quantum interweaving, options 4 and 5 are taken into account, which are not possible in the case of classical interweaving, such as a pair of gloves.
Therefore the conclusions of quantum entanglement do not allow information to pass, in fact they deny it.
Therefore, Bell's theorems do not apply to quantum reality, and their conclusions are not valid for it.
A.P.
We already agreed that there is no need to call it information as long as we agree that changing the angle of the polarizer on side A affects the drawings on side B, right?
In fact, you don't even need polarizers. The whole story is simple logic.
Let's simplify the experiment to its basic elements:
There is the "glove separator" that separates 4 pairs of gloves and sends one of each pair to different sides. He can put anything he wants into the gloves, including any information and equipment he wants.
Each side has a board on which you can write 0 or 30 in the left column.
We can do whatever we want with the gloves or any equipment in the room, including polarizers and entangled particles, so that we get the following adjustments:
When 0 is written on one side and 0 on the other, 100% matches or 0% mismatches.
On one side 0 and on the other 30, 25% discrepancies.
We see that it doesn't matter what instrument or algorithm we use when we wrote down 0, then when we wrote down 30 we can't change more than one state of writing if we don't know what was written on the other side, because if there is written down 0, that's the only way to get 25%. agree?
Likewise for the other side.
Therefore, when 30 is registered on both sides, the maximum mismatch rate can reach 50% (actually less, if both sides chose to change the registration against the same glove, we will get a match and the mismatch rate will drop to 0%).
And so the only way to get 75% mismatches is to know what was recorded on the other side, get it?
It can be said - and indeed it has been said - that quanta have their own rules and logic and classical logic does not apply to them.
On the other hand, it can also be said - and indeed it was said - that everything is up to him and no logic applies to the boss.
Both explanations have similar weight in my opinion, and maybe they are indeed the explanation.
But Yafim will stick the pitchfork in the haystack and say to Boris: Pisdiomet.
"There are many things for which we still do not have a detailed, or partial, explanation. Does that mean they don't exist?"
It is not about existence but about the explanation for existence. Information transfer is a possibility. A possibility is not an existence.
There are things that have no explanation, but their existence is a fact.
Information transfer is not a fact. Transfer of information will become a fact when proven to exist.
"Does the change of polarization on side A affect the 1's and 0's in column 3 on side B in the experimental setup?"
There are four possible modes of explanation:
1. An information transfer takes place and he explains the results.
2. There is a transfer of information, but it does not explain the results.
3. There is no transfer of information and it does not explain the results.
4. There is no information transfer and it explains the results.
Only one of the four answers is possible and only that one is interested.
Therefore, it is not possible to answer your question with yes/no.
Your question includes 4 questions, the answer to which should be clear and certain.
-
Question (regardless of the weaving experiment):
How does a single polarizer that is tilted at 30 degrees to the polarization axis work?
Does it transmit only 75% of the photons that reach it, or does it transmit only 75% of the photons in the direction of the polarization axis?
In the first case he transfers 75% of the total.
In the second case he transfers 3\4*1\2=3\8 of the total.
Miracles, amazing.
On my part, put on a tefillin.
Does changing the angle of the polarizer on side A affect side B or not?
Israel
I realised. If you assume that a particle is in two places at the same time - does this create a problem?
Nice, now I can sleep much better when I know that there is no way that an Israeli pilot recognizes Israeli vehicles and attacks them.
Regarding the photon polarization, when I wrote "Does the change in polarization on side A affect the 1's and 0's in column 3 on side B in the experimental setup?" I meant the change in the angle of the polarizer.
Israel
Where was the polarization change? Has the polarization of an X photon ever changed?
In vision devices (back then) you don't see colors, and in a tank's eye it's the size of a pixel. In any case, I don't know of a situation where a pilot identified Israeli vehicles and attacked them.
rival
I also got to know Ilan Ramon well - he was the deputy commander, and commander, of my squadron.
Albanzo
If "my dog gave birth to 7 puppies" is information, and I didn't open the email, then at least for me, the information is unknown, isn't it?
And if on which side a coin fell is information, and I don't know which side it fell on, then at least for me, the information is unknown, isn't it?
And if no one in the universe knows which side the coin fell on, then the information is unknown, isn't it?
That's why I defined several times: the coin fell on a tree inside a box is information. If the lid is open, the information is known. Closed - the information is unknown. That's what Schiff and Boris agreed when they moved hay to the wagons.
Makes sense, does not it?
But I can see the enormous benefit of the information theory you talked about. In the kibbutz, if someone's wife was unfaithful to her husband, it was (juicy) information that the whole farm knew except for the owner of the horns.
Since in some cases it was really a matter of mind control, then perhaps it is better that if the information was not known to him then it simply does not exist, like the moon which does not exist if you do not look at it.
On the other hand, it can be argued that the whole economy has known her as a butterfly since high school, so the fact that she cheated didn't change anything and the logarithm is actually the natural number e, and so is the probability that she will cheat: 1.
Are you saying that it is possible to solve the problem I raised and win the prize without transferring information in classical physics? Using knowledge and technology that existed in 1960?
But everything boils down to the critical question:
To win the prize, does the change of polarization on side A affect the 1's and 0's in column 3 on side B in the experimental setup or not?
If you accept that the answer is positive, the matter is closed.
A.P.
"If the answer is positive, then there must be a detailed explanation of how the information is transmitted."
There are many things for which we still do not have a detailed, or partial, explanation. Does that mean they don't exist?
Do you accept that in order to win the prize, changing the polarization on side A affects the 1's and 0's in column 3 on side B in the experimental setup?
Miracles
Leave now relationships, sponsorships, sponsorship fees.
To win the prize, does changing the polarization on side A affect the 1's and 0's in column 3 on side B in the experimental setup?
This is the important question.
And what happened there with the 91st Division? Did they have orange markings or not?
Israel
The particles are intertwined. That is, there is a certain connection between them. I don't mind if you say that information passes between them in zero time. In my understanding, as long as you didn't create a paradox, you didn't contradict special relativity.
You are trying, I think, to use your intuition to understand the physics. We know it doesn't work…
Miracles,
Got it, interesting. So in retrospect you got to meet one of the most famous figures in Israel. It really hurts for what he went through, but I guess this is one of the risks in this profession, when you are most of the time deep in enemy territory.
rival
For two days, yes.
Miracles,
I didn't understand, so you joined them?
rival
Yes, I got to talk to him. In Shalom HaGalil, for example, a couple of photographers from my squadron in the center spent two days in his squadron, in the north.
Beauty
What is a "serious question"?
I would expect from the respected commenters here,
Don't try to answer the stupid question at the top of the article...
This question is more serious than the question, if life (the whole variety of life)
They are random, not deliberate intelligence…
Israel,
"Bell's experiments show, in my opinion, that the answer must be positive"
If the answer is yes, then there must be a detailed explanation of how the information is communicated.
I do not have such information, so I cannot confirm that information is being passed.
Yes, the information exists regardless of whether someone has read it or not. Its existence depends only on whether it *can* be read.
And - if you *assume* that every solution to the question is a communication transition, and as we saw there is a quantum solution through entanglement, then you have a logical proof that entanglement transmits information. But this assumption is simply pure nonsense. Not only is there no reason to assume it, but also that if we really bother to define what information is (something you have been avoiding for at least a few months) then it seems that under the accepted definitions it is actually possible to prove that it is incorrect. This is what is called gigo logic.
Albanzo.
Regarding 3, the question was:
3. If I sent information and you did not open the email - does the information not exist?
Your answer was: "Yes". To verify, did you mean: Yes, the information exists?
logic:
Assumption 1: It is not possible to win a prize without a communication channel passing information between the two parties.
Assumption 2: It is possible to win a prize through a quantum trick.
Conclusion: The quantum trick is a communication channel that transmits information between the two parties.
You can say that assumption 1 is wrong, but if you accept it, from the logical point of view the conclusion is correct.
No?
And one word about the wave phonon and its existence as a mathematical object: it can be proved (very easily) that there is always - for every problem in quantum mechanics - a continuous infinity of wave phonons that are physically equivalent. That is, that there cannot be any experiment that would give different results for different wave numbers from this collection. If so, how do we decide which wavelength is the physical object?
Israel,
I am on the second floor. There are two ways to get to the ground floor:
1. Jump out of the window. This solution to the problem will result in a broken leg.
2. Go down the stairs.
Logical conclusion: if you go down the stairs, you break your leg.
Forgive me for the sarcasm, but I just don't understand how you can continue to take a property that is proven only about one solution and conclude that it also holds for the other. You claim that it is not physics but logic (which is wrong, because the different solutions - their very existence and not just the difference between them - are exactly what is called physics). If this is the case, please logically prove your claim. Remember that any logical claim can be proven in an unambiguous way with the help of the logical quantities from the set of assumptions, and also remember that such a logical proof will be strong for theoretical physics and therefore will win you the best prizes and fans. Successfully.
Shmulik,
Happy Independence Day. I hope you are not offended. The sentence "I already told you that..." was not worded as a rebuke but as an explanation that the article is relatively low on my list of priorities and therefore I am not sure when I will get to it.
Israel,
I don't think I quite understood your questions. I'll try to answer, but as you'll see, you'll have to clarify quite a few things.
1. As I said before, it depends on the system. Information is defined (in a very simplified way) according to how much you could predict the outcome in advance. That's why it is possible to build systems that convey the sentence "My dog gave birth to 7 puppies" without conveying any information. A trivial example - two computer terminals, one at mine and one at yours. I type a message (whatever I want) and when I press enter the phrase "My bitch gave birth to 7 puppies" appears on your screen. No matter what I wrote, you always write the same thing. In this case no information was passed. But in general - obviously yes. If you pass me some sentence that I could not know its content in advance, then information has passed between the endpoints. The amount of information depends on the number of characters you sent me, etc.
2. The question is not clear to me.
3. Yes. As I said earlier, information is not defined by whether I read it or not, but by the fact that *there* is a process by which the information can be extracted (mathematically, this is defined by some unitary transformation on the system). That is, even a message in a language I don't understand contains the same amount of information as a message in a language I do understand, because it is possible to translate. Even a message encrypted with the most advanced imaginable codes contains the same amount of information because they can theoretically be broken (that is, every code has a key), etc.
4. It is not clear to me. These are two different questions and I answered both, I don't understand the question "what is the difference between them".
5. This is a bit of a difficult question. You can send another message that says "Correction: instead of ... in the previous message, there should be ...". In this case it is clear that more information was passed. It seems to me that what you are aiming for is deletion - you want to delete the previous message (or part of it) and replace it with something else. In this case, it is possible that the final message (after the correction) will contain the same amount of information as the original, or even less, but the deletion process is something very special and interesting that has been studied in depth (especially in the context of error correcting). It can be proven that it always requires an investment of energy and it cannot occur naturally (similar to, say, holding an electric charge in place, contrary to its equations of motion).
Miracles
I didn't say polarization, I said "state of affairs".
This can be seen as follows:
It was said that we would give up the coins and leave only the polarizers and particles intertwined in the picture. Still, the mismatch percentages will remain as they were: when one polarizes at an angle of 0 and also the other, we will get 0% mismatches (100% matches). When one is at an angle of 0 and the other is at 30 degrees, 25%, and when both are at 30 degrees, 75%.
It is said that the experimenters or the devices or the zebras manage to determine a certain code to get these percentages without knowing what the state of affairs is on the other side but only from data that reaches them from the particles on their side.
Like a pair of separated gloves, each of which carries the data of what the other is, but is unable to affect the other.
When one polarizer is tilted by 30 degrees, it has no way of knowing if the polarizer on the other side is not at 0 degrees, therefore the difference in the state marked 1 and 0 from the state where it is at 0 degrees must be 25%. The same on the other side as well.
Therefore, when the two polarizers are tilted by 30 degrees each, the mismatch rate cannot exceed 50% if they have no information about what is happening on the other side.
Since in practice it reaches 75%, it is guaranteed that a change in the polarization of one affects the situation on the other side.
Do you see another option?
Miracles,
So did you know him? Did you get to talk to him?
Israel
Where does a change in polarization on one side affect the polarization on the other side?
rival
Ron was in the pilot course towards the end when I was at the beginning of the course. His course was in the ground studies phase and they served as course commanders, for my course.
Ron was called Choco in the course, because he used to walk with a hood on his head.
A.P.
With your permission, I would like to close the crucial issue:
"For me, confirming that a change in polarization on one side affects in some way the state of affairs on the other side, closes the differences of opinion."
There is a good reason for this because without it it will be difficult to advance in any direction.
Bell's experiments show in my opinion that the answer must be positive, but I would like to know if there is another possibility and what it is.
A.P.
It doesn't require that you have 2 dollars in your pocket... but it does require that the numbers represent a physical thing. Otherwise it is a thought experiment where the numbers have no meaning because they do not represent anything.
Israel,
I addressed your question:
"Does the change of polarization on side A affect the 1's and 0's in column 3 on side B in the experimental setup or not?"
And I wrote: "For example, one can ask whether the change in polarization has an effect, or is the change just a sign for something else that will work?" To show that change is possible in different places without there being a connection between the changes.
"In my game, the matches should be combinations of wood and pelts from both ends of the rod. Is this also the case here? If so, the system transmits the information, doesn't it?"
Yes this is the case.
The system does not transmit information through the rod. But information from the ends of the system reaches one place/factor.
The example is an example of something happening at the edges, but not between the wood and pelt markings which can symbolize particles.
And suppose that some system transmits information, the question is how?
What is the importance of my question?
When you know "how", you can be sure that the system is transmitting information, but when you conclude that the system is transmitting information from other considerations, you may be wrong.
I do not see in your answer - the wave function - an answer to my question "how?"
why?
Imagine that a quantum experiment is carried out, at a time when nothing is known about the quantum theory, could the concept of the wave function be an explanation at that time?
The question is how do you translate the wave function into a specific action and result of a certain being in a certain place and time?
"The fact that you called it a function, a mathematical concept, does not require that it is not a mathematical description of a physical state of reality."
It's not about mandatory/non-binding, but about the identity of the physical condition you're talking about.
1 + 1=2 does not require/does not require that you have 2 dollars in your pocket, when the concept of the dollar does not exist.
500 years ago this sentence had no meaning.
This is how your explanations relate to physical reality.
The physical condition you are talking about is far from physical. This is a function of probabilities and possibilities. Possibilities are not a physical thing just as the chance of a cube falling on its side is not a physical fact.
In terms of the wave function, there are no surprises. The calculation predicts the results of the experiment without assuming information transfer.
If the results of an experiment can be predicted before it is performed without assuming an information transition, then there is no information transition!
Therefore the wave function proves the opposite of the cutoff that there is information transfer.
But it is possible that the wave function implicitly assumes information transfer, so it is important to know "how?", or to be an expert in the smallest details of quantum mechanics.
"For me, confirming that a change in polarization on one side affects in some way the state of affairs on the other side, closes the differences of opinion."
OK - that's a question. This is what we study and try to find out.
In my opinion, you need to understand the "how?" In order to answer this question correctly.
Let's start with the detector:
The detector is a calcite crystal plate. A lump of material.
There is nothing superphysical that passes between the plates of the crystal and there is no special physical event that happens when a photon passes through them.
A.P.
"Given a rectangular wooden pole.
On the ends of the pole, symbols are engraved on the opposite ends of each wig: tree-tree, pel-peli, pel-tree, tree-pel.
The rod is dropped on a surface with sensors that detect the marks.
The sensors are connected to a translation system of the results into the digits "1" and "0":
100% (1,1) in the case of a tree-tree, 75% (1,1 or 0,0) in the case of a tree-peli, and 25% (1,1) in the case of a poly-peli".
I'm not sure I understand the example.
In my game the matches should be combinations of wood and pieces from both ends of the rod. Is this also the case here? If so, the system transmits the information, doesn't it?
"In other words, if the answer is positive, you should be able to answer my question."
And indeed I replied:
"If we see the wave function that fills the universe as something physical in which information passes instantaneously, then it is the one that instructs the intertwined particles (which are part of it, making them one entity in the entire universe) how to behave, including the distribution of adjustments in the case of a change in polarizations."
"A wave function is an abstract mathematical concept. It is a description of states of affairs rather than a causal explanation. It is not the actual object (if it exists) to which it refers."
Not necessarily. The fact that you called it a function, a mathematical concept, does not require that it is not a mathematical description of a physical state of reality.
To remind you, when Maxwell brought the electromagnetic description in 1860, many treated it as an abstract description unrelated to physical reality. Only after the Hertz experiment did they realize that it was describing a physical reality.
"The question is not whether we have reached an agreement, but whether we understand what is happening here."
For me, confirming that a change in polarization on one side affects in some way the state of affairs on the other side, closes the differences of opinion. Everything else is extremely important and worthy of learning, but not essential for me.
"Does the change of polarization on side A affect the 1's and 0's in column 3 on side B in the experimental setup or not?"
This is exactly the question I asked you, with a different wording.
That is, if the answer is yes, you should be able to answer my question
(providing a logical explanation (a logical explanation is an explanation that A results from B, that A causes B) for a quantum experimental system).
If you are not able to answer my question, then you do not know the answer to your question, right now.
A wave function is an abstract mathematical concept. It is a description of states of affairs rather than a causal explanation. It is not the actual object (if it exists) to which it refers, just as the concept "throne" is not a throne.
The actual object will serve as an explanation for the existence of the wave function and its operation in the physical world.
In my understanding, this is what we are looking for - this object. Without it, the explanations given will be vague and uncertain.
For example, one can ask whether the change in polarization has an effect, or is the change just a sign for something else that will work?
for example:
A rectangular wooden bar is given.
On the ends of the pole, symbols are engraved on the opposite ends of each wig: tree-tree, pel-peli, pel-tree, tree-pel.
The rod is dropped on a surface with sensors that detect the marks.
The sensors are connected to a translation system of the results into the digits "1" and "0":
100% (1,1) in the case of tree-tree, 75% (1,1 or 0,0) in the case of tree-peli, and 25% (1,1) in the case of poly-peli.
According to the example you can see that there is no need to transfer information between the ends.
The question is not whether we have reached an agreement but whether we understand what is happening here.
PS: Not that I agree/disagree with your claims, but that the claims made here and their context must be understood before reaching certain conclusions. For example, in a classic experiment your conclusions are understandable, correct and therefore safe.
-
A vertex is funnier than one. We will leave a vertex.
A.P.
If we see the wave function that fills the universe as something physical where information passes instantaneously, then it is the one that instructs the interwoven particles (which are part of it making them one entity in the entire universe) how to behave, including the distribution of adjustments in case of changing polarizations.
This is the best explanation so far that sheef and Boris have been able to produce between the alfalfa and the milk.
Let's go back to the dilemma.
I still believe that if there are only two ways to win the prize:
1. Classical - only through a channel for transmitting information, and it doesn't matter at all how we define it. The channel is well defined - cable, radio, smoke signals, something physical that creates communication between the rooms.
2. Quantum - using entangled particles.
So from the logical point of view the interwoven particles form a communication channel carrying information.
It can be said - and it was indeed said:
"Physics is *different*. A court will not help. You completely changed the laws, all the old conclusions based on the old laws flew out the window.'
But this is not about physics but about logic. The logic may not be valid in quantum systems, but it is still the only logical possibility I see.
I think the problem boils down to this question:
To win the prize, does the change of polarization on side A affect the 1's and 0's in column 3 on side B in the experimental setup or not?
If the answer to this is positive - we have reached an agreement and the rest is a quibble about the definition of information.
So have we come to an agreement?
Israel,
Could you give a causal explanation/description (that the conclusions derive from the assumptions, as you gave in the explanation for your classical system) for a quantum experimental system that would explain how information tells the measurement systems to detect 25% entangled photons, much less than expected, when both are activated on both sides of the experiment?
And how do the systems do this?
As you remember, the systems are calcite crystal plates that polarize the light.
albentezo,
Thank you indeed.
Happy Independence Day!
If it's not a secret, did you happen to meet Ron Arad?
Did he serve in your time?
rival
In the world of flight there are no tops, or commanders. There is a leading structure, which is addressed as "one". The leader is assigned to the task, and is not always the senior in terms of rank. Yeftah Spector, a lieutenant colonel at the time, was number four in the attack on the reactor.
This is the tip of the F-16.
Miracles,
I thought the word "top" had the same meaning everywhere in the army, in every unit and in every corps.
A reasonable translation for a somewhat graphic and abstract article in the field. It is strange to me that today we "re-enter" Einstein's mind when he was half-resentful-against-half-joking-with Niels Bohr at some conference (and indeed it must be remembered that the debate as a whole was already seen as the height of theoretical intellect). He said a saying/proverb/criticism/joke/grunt, and he said it nicely. But that's enough, it was. Those who will no longer learn enough to advance quickly to the theoretical and empirical innovations - will remain in retrospective philosophical reflections on the principle of equivalence or perhaps even on its foundations in Galileo's writings. But for those who are still awake enough to the here and now of the field, let's try to deal with the central question with the newest tools at our disposal. After all, even so, we already quite understand that it is very difficult to judge the correctness of this or that statement, not to mention even the correctness of the equations, under a great deficiency as we suffer today in the theory of physics. I mean, so what is the truth anyway? An actual superuniverse structure with pocket universes? A "current" universe expanding forever with the eternal and infinite power of a positive cosmological constant? Copenhagen school? School of multiple universes? Anything else at all? The inelegant standard model? An original unification of forces, fields and particles or is there some basic misunderstanding in the models? And by the way regarding Einstein, in any case I never heard that he actually tried to prove determinism. Neri's main concept was that there is a union between pure geometry and the tangible universe. that observed objects are energetic-stereometric disturbances in space-time. I don't really see how this requires any kind of determinism. The fact that he also conducted the Podolsky-Rosen experiment is seen more in this context as part of the theoretical-empirical research aimed at finding out the meanings of quantum effects within the framework of the theory that is being discussed at all. And it still does not reach the level of the fundamental question.
Let's say that you received a 333 p.c. M.A. that was downloaded by M.A.
If it turns out that you have lost the Rana, which is known to be part of the MHA - the top of the BHA will already take care of raising you to 1065.
Israel
So what is a "vertex"? 🙂
No
Israel
I guess you weren't in HA. I'm right?
A.P.
I forgot to mention that I write 1 in all of them.
But there is no doubt that this is not an easy task. These photons are not small intellectuals.
A.P.
I pick up the phone to Nisim in the other room and tell him: Kudkod, here are two of the Mustard structure. I got number 37, write down 1. Numbers 56, 134 and 233 also came out, write 0.
Or simply connect the computers of both of us that will break thrash and prepare tables.
Albentezo
Thanks for the detailed response.
Questions:
1. If I send you a message that you received "my dog gave birth to 7 puppies" - did I send information? Logarithms are not involved in the message.
2. If not - how can I send the message?
3. If I sent information and you did not open the email - does the information not exist?
4. Is there a difference between 1 and 3? If so, what is it?
5. If I sent the message and it is considered information, can I correct it before it was read without sending additional information?
Israel,
Give a numerical example/table where you show how, using information, when the coins are in flip-flop mode, you create a marking of 25% of the flip-flop results, using the same marking (two ones or two zeros).
Shmulik,
I don't know the article, but I know one of the authors very well. I'm not sure if I got to delve into it so soon. My very, very, very strong feeling is that it is much less powerful than it appears. All the assumptions in it are based on definitions unique to the article and it is necessary to examine how general they are or how specific they are. But I already told you once that interpretations are very far from my areas of interest and specialization.
My apologies for the long and late response - as I said, I'm writing an article and that doesn't leave much time for comments in science.
Israel,
I'll start from the end: when I referred you to Sakurai (and maybe also to Shankar - I remember that I referred Nissim to him, I didn't remember you either) I told you *explicitly* and in a way that is not ambiguous that there is nothing in the book about quantum information. I have told you repeatedly that the book will satisfy two needs:
1. Getting to know the basic concepts of weaving (which are necessary for understanding the field) and their mathematics.
2. The realization (hopefully) that right now - and I don't say this to insult, but only as an objective assessment as a person who teaches undergraduate and graduate students - you have huge knowledge gaps in undergraduate quantum mechanics, especially in more advanced topics. Therefore, instead of getting upset when I tell you that you need to study, maybe reading this basic textbook (the level of which does not exceed a bachelor's degree) will help you first, to know that you don't know. I mean, I hoped that reading the book would help you in the change of perception that I think is necessary.
I said these two things when we talked about the book. Maybe you forgot, maybe you're bored. In any case, I also gave you a reference to the definitions of information (I told you several times that there is a fairly basic and good introduction to the subject on Wikipedia, and after your insistence I even gave you the link) and I told you that if you want, I would be happy to refer you to professional literature in the field (and I am still happy to do so, although I must warn you that you probably won't get along with her until you reach a level where Sakurai and Shankar are clear to you).
Now, to his point.
As I told you in my first response - the answer to your first question is unequivocal, no! The fact that if we limit ourselves to classical tools means that there is a solution to the problem only on the condition that we have communicated between the two endpoints, does not mean in any way or way that if a quantum solution exists then it includes the transfer of information. This is simply not true, and I'm sorry to repeat myself, but the example I gave at the time is simply a perfect analogy for this - classically, it is not possible to find a particle at point A and B, unless there are at least two particles in the system. Does this mean that quantum mechanics - which as we know provides simple scenarios in which particles can be found both at point A and B - "adds" to the system of particles? no and no. Quantum there are other laws, and the conclusions you drew when you limited yourself to a classical system (that passes information, or for example - that there are two particles) are simply no longer valid, unless you know how to draw them again within the framework of quantum laws.
The fact that the coin is classic is completely irrelevant and meaningless. The process is quantum and it is not at all like complex numbers in classical wave theory for example, which are just a mathematical aid and if you are diligent enough you can do everything even without them. Here, quantum mechanics is a necessary part of physics and is not just an auxiliary tool that is "discarded" at the end of the process - without it, the processes we have described simply cannot exist. Physics is *different*. A court will not help. You completely changed the rules, all the old conclusions based on the old rules flew out the window. The cars I counted this morning on the way to work were also absolutely classic. Does this mean that it is possible to ignore that the radiation of the sun and the light that reaches us is a quantum phenomenon? That without quantum mechanics there would be darkness here? Definately not. You cannot decide that because you gave the game the title "coin toss" then the quantum processes that participated in it (and as you said - in no way can the results be reproduced without them) are not important. They are. You have completely changed your physical model, all the old conclusions are no longer valid. Sorry for the repetition.
Side note: with all the respect I have for the commenters here, what does it matter what they said or didn't say? What does it matter if they were able to solve or not? Does it matter what year they discovered the phenomena with which we built the solution? All these are just distractions from the only question that can be asked here: we found a solution. Let's *check* (we won't assume, we won't guess, we won't say what we would like to happen or how we feel that a process happened) if information has passed or not in the solution.
To check this, first of all you need to define information. What to do, I go with the flow here (colleagues sometimes laugh at me for having a tendency to develop my own language and define things rather differently than the mainstream, but here I go with the flow). I have studied information theory, I am aware of the amazing things it achieves under its definitions, and because I understand them and have applied them many times, I also think they are very intuitive and consistent with what most people would call information. Before I continue, I'll say something I've said 80 times already - you have the right not to like them, and you have the right to define new definitions (in particular, ones that differentiate between "known information" and "unknown information", which according to information theory is simply not information - note that this is information that is not is known and cannot be known with the help of any unitary transformation on the system). In this case and under these new settings, information may indeed have been transferred. But Rabak, first you will have to define, then you will have to show that your definitions are consistent with our current knowledge (both in that they maintain the intuitive perception of information and in that they reproduce all the successes of information theory), and finally you will have to prove that information passes under these definitions. I really don't understand why this is not obvious.
Now let's get back to the solution. First of all, within the framework of information theory it is possible to calculate. The Torah is a well-defined mathematical Torah and there is no need to guess or wave your hands. You can calculate. Unfortunately, we will not provide the calculations here (although there is a very simple example of calculating the entropy of information on a Wiki page, and entropy is one of the tools for quantifying shared information in a system or subsystem). Of course this is unnecessary, because as we have said dozens of times already (hopefully this is the last), in information theory what Israel calls "unknown information" is simply not information, because information must be able to be measured in relation to the predication for the retrieval of some random variable. In other words, if no information can be extracted from it, it is not information. And we agree (to the best of my recollection) that the statements that say that information cannot be extracted from spin entangled measurements alone (that is, a signal cannot be transmitted through them no matter how complex our processing and extraction system will be, provided that no more components are added to the system - for example a classical bit) are correct and mathematically proven . That is - even those who do not want to spend a lot of time studying the field have an easy way to see that no information has been passed here (unless you define information in a new and different way).
Finally, regarding my comment that all the information was already in the system. So we started with 300 interlaced spin pairs, right? But wait, how did we get them? And is it enough to know that they are intertwined? Each pair should be produced by local measurement. That is, before the start of the experiment, the two experimenters (the one from KDA and the one from Mars) had to meet somewhere and produce the intertwined pairs. But it is not enough. They must know exactly which interlaced state they have (because even the smallest system has at least 4 interlaced states), otherwise the code cannot be set. So not only do they have to meet before and perform a measurement, they also have to know exactly what measurement they performed and what was the process of the collapse of the system. Only then can each of them go to their end point and perform the experiment. That is, they come with a *huge* amount of pre-matched information, and all they do during the experiment is collapse it with a local measurement, each on their own spin. There is no difference between this solution and any other solution of a pre-coordinated classical code (as some of the commenters here have tried to suggest), except that this code operates according to quantum laws, and in particular it is found in superposition (as you know, the secret of the magic of entanglement is that it is a state of superposition, and not just but a special superposition which is non-spherical to pure subsystems).
Hope everything is relatively clear.
Be it evening or be it Monday morning and there are no comments.
So here is the problem I see in Albatanzo's correct solution to the problem I raised.
The problem as raised does not involve quanta at all - all the objects in the problem are classes: coins, tablets, chalks... The quantum solution goes in and out like imaginary numbers that are used to solve a real problem and the imaginary part is ignored.
In fact, theoretically the problem could have additional, non-quantum solutions that we don't know about.
But is there a classic solution to the problem as everyone has tried without success?
The answer is negative. This is proven by Bell's inequality theorems.
That's why I can say with absolute confidence almost completely to Nissim and Rival, that although technically they did not agree to the non-transmission of information, they could not solve the problem without familiarity with Bell's theorems and experiments, just as Einstein, Bohr, Heisenberg and Schrödinger could not solve it when Einstein brought up the EPR paradox in 1935 (And my opponent and miracles will be forgiven if they were offended by the comparison to Einstein and Heisenberg, I really didn't mean to offend).
The only way to solve the problem with the knowledge and technology of 1960 is through communication and transfer of information between the rooms.
But this point, if accepted, raises two logical questions.
1. If the only classical way to win the prize in 1960 is through technical means to transfer information, and today we can do it through quantum technical means - does this not require that the same quantum technical means transfer the information between the rooms?
2. Since in 1960 the minimum time to prepare the tables is the time for light to pass between the 2 rooms (actually much greater), while the quantum trick requires less time than the time for light to pass - doesn't this mean that the information passed faster than light?
To try to answer these questions, let's try to get into the technical details of the experiment. For that you have to click on my name (didn't I tell you that the answer is right in front of your eyes?).
Albantezo's solution is described in it, and at the bottom there is a table (ANGLE BETWEEN SPOT ARROWS).
From the table we see that when the angle between the polarizers is 0 the match between the polarizers is 100%, when it is 30 degrees 75%, and 60 degrees 25%.
A 75% match can be called a 25% mismatch, and a 25% match a 75% mismatch.
Therefore we see that when the angle difference is doubled, the mismatch percentages are tripled.
This is forbidden by Bell's inequality, so the only possible solution is non-local.
But after all, what is meant in the field?
Let's look at the following table below, with the purple arrows.
It is said that a million particles reach the left pole, and pass it with a probability of 25%. The same goes for a million particles passing through the right polarizer.
Albatzo said:
"Actually, it's funny, because when I gave an example of transferring a number (456777 as I think) that does not include transferring information, you said that this was clearly not the case (where the information was already in my pocket, and I just revealed it). If this is your solution, then know that this is exactly the case.'
If there was no dependence between the particles, just as there is no dependence between a note sent to the recipient to the right and a note sent to the left, then the fact that we changed one pole should not affect the percentage of particles that pass the other pole, and the maximum mismatch percentage could reach 50% (actually less).
Just as if I changed the text in a note sent to the left, it cannot affect the text in a note sent to the right. It's still 456777.
So how do the mismatch percentages reach 75%? How can the polarization of a right polarizer affect the percentage of particles that pass through the left side without information passing between the sides?
My logic says: information - the polarization angle of the polarizers - passed between one side of the experiment and the other.
But I would love to have another explanation. I searched in Scourai and Shankar and did not find it. In fact, I did not find a definition or description of information in either of them.
Israel
Of course they won't agree. Because then they will have to
But you didn't come up with a solution...
What about the second part:
And now a question: It was said that the game was held in 1960. With such a huge sum as a prize, many would try their hand.
Is it possible to win it without transferring information - cable, radio, smoke signals - between the parties?
"But did you notice that everyone but you didn't think it was possible without information transfer?"
I didn't agree either: "Regarding your question at the end, I still don't agree" (but you have to agree first that in order to win the prize, information must pass from one side of the experiment to the other. Agree?)
The gatekeeper, from your mouth to the ear of…
Even if instead of 1.3 million readers who read at least one article in 2015 there will be 13 million, this will not change the perception of the site by those who are supposed to finance it, not to mention advertisers. The site's revenue needs to grow 10x to provide a reasonable salary.
Israel
I did not agree with you...
Yes, by fax.
To see him only but not to redeem him..
Not amazing and wonderful as I promised?
And now a question: It was said that the game was held in 1960. With such a huge sum as a prize, many would try their hand.
Is it possible to win it without transferring information - cable, radio, smoke signals - between the parties?
Wow, that sounds really interesting, there is no way I would come up with such a solution unfortunately with the little knowledge I have about quantum theory and particle entanglement. I hope that someday I will have time to delve into this solution and understand a little more deeply how and why.
Israel, you send him the check, right?
Beautiful. I'm proud of you and suggest it's time to turn a new page.
But did you notice that everyone but you didn't think it was possible without information transfer?
So I would appreciate it if you could explain to all of us how it can be said that no information was passed between the parties.
Israel,
Yes, you are the little boy here looking for fights.
I read your puzzle. Just as I guessed, she is simply a recreation of Bell's experiments. The solution (or at least one solution) – the experimenters take with them 300 fully correlated spins on the z axis (numbered from 1 to 300, one for each coin toss). They summarize the following rule among themselves in advance: if the toss of a suit comes up, then measure the spin in the z axis and record the result (1 for up, 0 for down, for example). If the toss is Peli, then the toss of the spin is measured but not on the z axis, but rotated by thirty degrees (with the first experimenter rotated clockwise and the second counterclockwise). Since the offset of the measurements goes like the cosine of the square of the angle difference between the measurements, it is guaranteed that if they both dropped a tree there would be a 100% match (they both measure the spin in the z axis and to begin with the entangled particles ensure that each measurement in the z axis will give the same result in both spins), if one tree And both Peli then have a difference of 30 degrees between their measurements (the direction does not matter here), and the square of the cosine of 30 degrees is 75%, and if both of them have a Peli, then the difference between the directions of their measurements is 60 degrees, and the square of the cosine of 60 degrees is 25 %.
I don't know if this is the solution you wanted (I assume it is, because it's simply Bell's Gadkenexperiment), but in this solution no information passes under the definition of information in information theory (so far you have not provided any other definition that is mathematically well defined, although it seems that you are not accepts the conventional definition because you continue to distinguish between information transfer and information transition, a distinction that cannot be made under the conventional definition).
In fact, it's funny, because when I gave an example of transferring a number (456777 I think) that does not include transferring information, you said that this was clearly not the case (where the information was already in my pocket, and I just revealed it). If this is your solution, then know that this is exactly the case (which is also why I chose that example at the time). I would be happy to explain why, when I have a little more time (however, at the same time as all the physics we do here in the comment section of the science site, someone also needs to do the dirty and unnecessary work of real research and writing articles and even - God forbid - define in a mathematically consistent manner quantities that will allow make calculations that can be checked accurately, as is appropriate for exact science). maybe this evening
This? Now that I've answered your riddle, can you stop being a 3 year old? I mean, if I now ask you to end the communication between us (except for a brief explanation of the solution I wrote that will not be addressed to you but to anyone who is interested), will you be able to comply with that or will you continue to write responses to miracles that include stings towards me, perverse distortions of things I said, and impending doom affected?
Israel,
I maintained my right to remain silent/anonymous, but you revealed my name through style checks.
Waiting to test your magic where you will pull the rabbit out of the hat and prove to everyone that it is possible to get 25% fli-fli match through information transfer, and keep all the conditions for the problem as you set them.
ANO\A.P
Israel
Yes, my mistake. What does Vicky and Einstein have to do with the subject?
But according to Wiki, this is what Einstein claimed, in the EPR paper.
Miracles
general relativity? You probably meant private.
No, I don't claim that.
Israel
I claim that entanglement does not contradict general relativity, and you claim that it does. I understand you right?
Well, apparently I'm the one who started the personal comments. As always.
Probably because of another discussion comes another time to fight and curse. as usual.
By the way, if you haven't noticed, Yariv asked me not to say what the answer is, but it's just a fact.
I understand that you did not read the problem I raised (first time by the way..).
So if you're into physics and not fights, try to answer it, people are interested.
Or maybe you did read and you don't have an answer?
albentezo,
The following article sounds, to a layman like me, very important because it deals with the basis of quantum mechanics (if it is true...)
As a layman, about page 5 the article started to escape me.
I would love to hear your opinion if you happen to read it
http://arxiv.org/pdf/1604.07422v1.pdf
To Israel - he didn't even read the problem and dares to argue. Amazing.
Boiling with a stinging insult demands that you ignore classical logic that contradicts quantum and at the same time warns you that if you have a classical logical solution of the false dichotomy type it does not contradict quantum logic.
That is, he performs a classical contradiction in order to claim that it does not exist in quantum logic.
Claims that he knows in advance that you are wrong because he knows in advance that if your solution is correct, then it will not contradict quantum information theory:
Here it is: "First, it means that all your claims - even if they are true under the new definitions you invent - do not contradict anything from the physical knowledge today, including the explicit claim that no information passes between two particles (under the definition of information theory, of course)"
Then he claims towards you: "It's like trying to distort reality and say that I claim that I didn't read the problem, but I know that you're wrong" -
And contradicts his own words - claims that we are not claiming to say that you are wrong.
crazy? insane?
This is the reason why people who are not committed to logic and fairness should be required to explicitly agree with every key point that is clear to them as correct before proceeding with the discussion, otherwise you will find yourself going around in circles with people who deny their own words, distorting your words and their own words.
Attention all readers of the science site
How the more complicated the issue,
The more professional and unique the writing,
That way there are more comments,
That is, more "smart" people who understand the subject,
More "experts" and opinionated (but perhaps mindless?),
It's good... since more comments mean more hits,
More hits = more advertising income options,
Therefore:
All opinionated mindless people,
Please continue!
of course. The two quotes you gave are completely innocent. As mentioned, you read them through the lens of a small child who is looking to insult because you want to fight. You may claim that I'm always looking for you, but you're forcefully trying to create a fight. Another proof of this is that when I said we should leave the discussion - even though I understand that at the time you were already hurt - you "agreed" to stop, and used the day I wasn't here (because I was busy at work, where I research real physics and write articles) to try to hit me. And not once or twice, but in some five different posts. Someone above the mental age of a 16-year-old child could have balked at what he considered an insult (even though there was no insult in any of these quotes) or said, "I don't want to leave the discussion because you insulted me - you said I was so-and-so or implied that I was so-and-so" and so'.
What I was trying to tell you is that if you have something to say, just say it. This is how science is done. This is how things are understood. That's how you help other people understand what you understand and they still don't. *present the work you did*. Show the arguments. There are already more than a hundred comments here and all you do is ask guiding questions and ask people to give you their word that they will agree with you before you present your argument to them. I didn't say that your argument lacks content because I haven't heard it yet - I tried to advise you (and of course you are not ready to accept criticism or advice because you are much more interested in playing her as a victim and insulting) that there is no place to create another correspondence of 1000 comments where no one says anything, simply Present your argument. I ask you - in all sincerity and seriousness - do you think that at a conference of physicists, when someone goes on stage, just before he gives his lecture and shows everyone what he has discovered, he says to everyone "Before I present the work to you, I ask that you all agree that if I have solved the problem X then it must exist that Y”? Or does he first present his solution and then everyone tries to understand what its implications are for what we have thought so far and what we will investigate in the future?
Miracles
"I have no problem agreeing that there are situations of transferring information at any speed - as long as it does not create a contradiction. This is also what, in my understanding, the special theory of relativity says.'
I've said this several times already, so here it is again:
Sending information faster than light creates a contradiction with special relativity. point. colon no mother
But if there is demand, I will try to explain why.
In general, it seems to me that you have some misconception about relativity and quanta. The relationship is complicated and non-intuitive, but understandable. Quantum is a different league.
Even Feynman when he said his famous saying that nobody understands quantum mechanics, he explicitly distinguished it from relativity which, although it is difficult, can be understood and many do understand it.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=XGulRS2IyF8
Miracles
What I'm trying to say is that you can't win a prize without passing information from side to side.
getting?
Albanzo
You write:
"In the meantime, what happened here is that I tried to start a matter-of-fact and mature communication, I saw that nothing came of it, and I decided pleasantly and again - maturely - to end the conversation."
Are comments in the form:
"Don't you feel like you're grinding water a bit? Repeating the same tired arguments over and over again?'
"There is nothing that indicates a lack of content more than a person who cannot simply say what his idea is. You don't notice that 99% of the time you don't say anything, but just leave questions in the air that you hope, given the empty space left, people will think you're right.'
Do you consider business and mature communication?
Do you have a solution to the problem I presented or have you not had time to read it yet?
Israel,
"If Albenzo has a solution, I would be happy if he brought it. Just don't start getting into personal insults as usual."
In the meantime, what happened here is that I tried to start a matter-of-fact and mature communication, I saw that nothing came of it, and I decided pleasantly and again - maturely - to end the conversation. So I went for 24 hours and when I came back I found that meanwhile in every post of yours you write some kind of sting about me (either directly, like trying to distort reality and say that I claim I didn't read the problem but I know you are wrong, when all my comments towards you only referred to the things you said around and not the puzzle itself, or accuse me of personal attacks "in my own way") or indirectly (like your compulsive reference to the need for definitions and their unimportance, when this is part of the criticism I passed on your words).
What you're doing now is just looking for a fight. You would think that a sixty-year-old person would be capable of the maturity level of a 15-year-old boy. On the other hand, you would also think that a person who invests such a large part of his life in physics would be able to pass the knowledge level of a first-year student in a bachelor's degree. How is Sakurai doing? Let me guess - easily. You looked at the book and saw that everything written in it is trivial in your eyes. You know how to do all the calculations and solve all the questions, and all physics is clear to you. Putting together plays from the Bible is small on you, Dirac's monopoles are something you know from the age of 0 and you developed the degenerate perturbation theory while you were still in diapers.
Good luck Israel. I can only hope that by the next time you look here in the comments you will at least be mature enough not to look for wars to replace your feeling of failure to deal with physics. I understand that arguing with a person is easier than sitting in front of a page and feeling like an idiot, but that's no excuse.
Israel
what are you trying to say I have no problem agreeing that there are situations of transferring information at any speed - as long as it does not create a contradiction. This is also what, in my understanding, the theory of special relativity says.
There is no way I can set a number and send it to you faster than the speed of light. And regarding probabilities, we both know that classical intuition doesn't work in the quantum world.
In particular - with the help of entangled particles, I think it is possible to reach a solution to your problem.
Israel,
The last time I mentioned your name in a conversation with other people, you threw a tantrum that wouldn't shame a 12-year-old girl and for weeks you chased me and everywhere you saw my name you wrote posts like "Where's the proof you promised?", "You don't understand what you're talking about", "Everyone sees that you are wrong and that there is no such proof" etc. To remind you - all of this was due to the fact that, although you have been writing about the subject for several years, you have never bothered to read even the basics of the basics of quantum information theory and prove that there is no difference (within the accepted definition in information theory) between the transfer of information and the transmission of information.
I'm writing this because of what you wrote to Nisim, "Albanzo already said he didn't even read it but knows I'm wrong. But what about you? Are you connected to reality or not?" He is a display of extreme childishness at best, stupidity, and appalling dishonesty at worst. This is an extreme misrepresentation of my words. What I really said is that I did not read the details of the problem and therefore I will not pretend to talk about its solution, and all the other things I wrote do not talk about the problem at all:
1. I drew your attention to the false dichotomy you create (and continue to support even now. I understand that when I suggested we ignore each other you took it as a sign to ignore any criticism I directed at you, whether it was legitimate or not, and not as "let's stop reacting To each other" - which I would be happy to do if you didn't see fit to create a misrepresentation of my words in a conversation with Nisim). You keep saying - and I quote - "God forbid." To win the prize there must be a transfer of information between the rooms", but the only "evidence" you have for this is that you know that in classical physics this is true. Once you moved into the quantum world you changed the rules. That is, you first decide that a solution is not possible without passing information, and then say that if there is a solution then it means that information has been passed, when what really needs to be done is to first find the solution and then *check* if information has been passed. I explained it to you and here we enter section 2:
2. I explained to you how to check if information has passed between two parts of a system.
3. I drew your attention to the fact that you continue to make assumptions that are explicitly wrong according to information theory (the difference between information transfer and information transfer), and that if you want to demand that they be correct you must change the definition of information from the way it is defined in information theory. This will have two consequences: First, it means that all your claims - even if they are true under the new definitions you invent - do not contradict anything from the physical knowledge today, including the explicit claim that no information passes between two particles (under the definition of information theory, of course), but They will simply be another language to describe things with a different set of definitions. Second, you will have to define well (also mathematically) the new set of definitions you are working with, and show that it makes some sense. That is, that you can reproduce the amazing results of information theory and quantum information theory, and add to them. Otherwise, all you're doing is no different than inventing a new definition, "information is something that passes between two entangled particles" and then claiming that you've proven that information passes between two entangled spins (because it's trivially true from the definition).
I hope that now everything I said is clear (both to you and to others), and above all it is clear why I didn't really read the riddle you presented and allowed myself to relate to your words anyway (simply because I didn't say anything about the riddle itself but only about your statements around it, and therefore at no point I did not speak out of ignorance or arrogance).
I also hope that you can be given the benefit of the doubt and assume that you did not mean to sting on purpose or make a (ridiculous) misrepresentation of my words on purpose. As I said before, I am ready (and would be very happy) to let go, but it also requires a minimum level of maturity on your part.
rival
Lee is not on fire. For my part, it is possible to extend it until Judgment Day.
If Albenzo has a solution, I would be happy if he brought it. Just don't start getting into personal insults as usual.
My solution cannot be acceptable or unacceptable - as I said, the experiment can be carried out with the existing technology. With an experiment it is difficult to argue and philosophize.
"In general, I have the feeling that you just complicated matters instead of simply asking if there is a way to transfer a random number (20 digits for example) between the two sites. Why did you put all this fuss with the percentages? Is this really necessary or were you just trying to drive us crazy?'
Not only is it not possible to transfer a 20-digit random number between the 2 sites, it is not even possible to transfer a known one-digit number between the sites.
The only way is with the percentages.
Let me know if and when you agree that in order to win the prize information must pass between the ends of the experiment.
Israel,
Do you want to give an extension of time until Independence Day? I just don't like leaving everyone here in suspense 🙂
Regarding your question at the end I still don't agree, by the way do you think your solution will be acceptable to Albenzo as well?
In general, I have the feeling that you just complicated matters instead of simply asking if there is a way to transfer a random number (20 digits for example) between the two sites. Why did you put all this fuss with the percentages? Is this really necessary or are you just trying to drive us crazy?
rival
That's how you get out cheap? 🙂
I promise that the answer will not be disappointing but surprising and amazing (unless I have a mistake) and eventually everyone will get it.
But you must first agree that in order to win the prize, information must pass from one side of the experiment to the other.
agree?
Israel,
For me you can find out I just don't have time right now to keep checking. Intuition told me that it might be possible to find some combination of weights and conditions and synchronization to the clock that would give the percentages you asked for, but so far I haven't found the right combination that would give a solution.
So you are welcome to find out, but I have a feeling that the answer will be disappointing and will not be acceptable to everyone.
So let's go to the solution.
waiting
we
Einstein says that only b c in a vacuum.
To me it's a bit strange, because if the photon doesn't have a defined position before the collapse and it can also be a light year away from the source a second after it was created, then how does it only move at one speed, c?
Trying to test it in California.
Yes, the allies helped a lot, especially with equipment.
But the soldiers who died were overwhelmingly Russian, most of the German war effort was on the Eastern Front, and most of their losses as well.
When Barbarossa began, the German soldiers were told that the Russians were subhuman.
After the Battle of Moscow, many German soldiers began to call the Russians a top man.
They did not cry out when they were wounded, they fought bravely, and very quickly learned the war methods of the Germans. Two years after the invasion, in Kursk, they inflicted a decisive defeat on the Germans in a summer battle without surprise and without a large numerical advantage, against an army much better equipped than them.
Isn't it a joke that France is among the 4 "powers" of the alliance? France, which surrendered after a month, and cooperated with the Germans with total will in the extermination of the Jews.
SS There were soldier heroes in front of helpless children and babies. I would like to see them against Golani or 890. The glorified Luftwaffe against Air Force.
And let them say thank you that they are dealing with merciful and forgiving Jews. If they had done to the Arabs a tenth of what they did to us, and the Arabs had the nuclear power we have, Germany, Ukraine, Poland and Lithuania would not have existed a long time ago.
Israel
In the meantime, God is preparing the solutions for us..
It is true that the Russians lost tens of millions, but in my opinion the victory would not have been achieved without the help of the Allies.
Israel
"I am here" as the genius nightingale.
For the avoidance of doubt, I am not ano.
Israel
Which is more correct:
Light travels at speed c.
Or is the speed of light c the limit that can be measured?
Miracles
For 4 days now everyone is trying 1 without success.
ANO strongly claimed that 1 is impossible (he also claimed that 2, but in my opinion he is wrong).
If you can show that 1 is possible, I will personally give you $50 million.
(It's not hard, it's just the small excess from the royalties I'll get from the awards).
You can, of course, philosophize and define information in all kinds of strange forms, but it still won't change the fact that if you managed to send the number 1 from one point to another faster than light, you sent information and broke relativity.
And this, wonder and wonder, without defining any information at all!
So what are you saying? Real money or pointless philosophy?
And where did a rival go? Changing the mobile? 🙂
And ANO? And AP? And God? And ghosts?
Is it possible to win a prize without passing information from side to side?
Yes or No?
Israel
Obviously, 2 is mandatory. But, we didn't rule one out, did we?
So at least faster than light? Don't forget, light takes 10 hours to travel between the 2 sides, and we finished preparing the table on the 7th..
So there are two options:
1. There is no need for information to pass between the 2 parties to prepare the table.
2. Yes, you should.
If you choose 1 - explain how it can be prepared without passing information.
If in 2 - this requires the transfer of information faster than light, no?
Israel
Yes. But - from the fact that there is a solution, it does not follow that information passed at an infinite speed.
Miracles
Well, an unequivocal answer.
But do you accept that if information were to travel between the ends of the experiment at infinite speed the prize could be won?
I have no solution
Miracles
OK, so the lamp is in two places at the same time.
So can you use this explanation to win the prize? Or maybe the $50 million is also in two places at the same time including your bank account? 🙂
Come on, Hals the grouch. Is there or isn't there a solution to the problem I raised? Albanzo already said he didn't even read it but knows I'm wrong. But what about you? Are you connected to reality or not?
God
Both bulbs change state at the same time. From whom does information go? In my opinion, and as Albanzo explained, in total we have one lamp that is in two places at the same time. It may contradict human logic, but human logic is not something....
boss
"Israel has already indicated that the solution can be possible even without the transfer of information between the rooms!"
God forbid. To win a prize there must be a transfer of information between the rooms.
Miracles
I am firm in my opinion. You can win a prize according to the definition of the problem.
On the other hand, if you were to ask Einstein, he would say that the answer is negative.
Ramzoz D.: The problem can be solved using knowledge and technology that exist today and did not exist in Einstein's time.
Israel
Not necessarily. I have not examined the problem enough to conclude that there must be a transfer of information.
Miracles, you talk about interlacing, but interlacing does not allow information to be transmitted faster than the speed of light and although your fluorescents are interlaced with each other, their spin change (in our case, the flickering) is carried out by a command that travels at the speed of light.
In any case, regarding the puzzle, I must emphasize that Israel has already indicated that the solution is possible even without the transfer of information between the rooms!
Israel, correct me if I'm wrong...
God
The idiot who commented on your behalf can try to impersonate, but he can't change his poor writing style.
Within a minute or so I realized it wasn't you. This false god begins with the letter M.
What's the problem with the fluorescents? Give me some time, I'll build you such a facility.
Miracles
Right, I guess you can win a prize.
But this is only if there is a transfer of information between the two ends of the experiment.
getting?
Israel
Let's say I have two bulbs. These are old fluorescents that flash all the time. The flickering seems completely random, although I have no way of proving it's random of course.
But, I noticed something strange - at any given moment - one is on and one is off! And it stays that way even when I move the bulbs further apart, even to huge distances.
Does this seem possible to you? Does this create a contradiction?
I must point out that the God who has responded so far is a troll and I am the real God!
God troll, find another name for yourself and don't troll on my name!
When I respond, I respond to the matter and not like an idiot...
Israel
You make a wrong assumption and draw a wrong conclusion from it. You guess you can win a prize…. Am I missing something?
No problem. will finish.
Miracles and the others.
If you managed to transmit the number 456777 to an astronaut on Mars and he returned to you after two minutes with a double of the number - you sent information faster than light and contradicted relativity. Also the number 1.
And this - without having defined what information is.
If, on the other hand, your coin says 1 on one side and 456777 on the other, and the two coins always fall on the same side, it does not mean that you can send information and there is no contradiction.
But you did read the problem and you know that there cannot be a simple solution like the suggestion that the information simply already existed in the rooms and we just discovered it. There is no way to get the requested matching percentages and win a prize without communication between the rooms.
And since the distance between the rooms is greater than the distance that light can travel in the time allotted to complete the tables, there is no escaping the conclusion that communication traveled faster than light, in fact at infinite speed.
Do you see another option?
Good night.
This of course depends on the experimental system. For example, if I write the number 456777 on a piece of paper and give it to you before the experiment begins (but you don't look at the paper and have no idea what is written on it), then after you have traveled to the other side of the galaxy and the experiment has begun, you take the page out of your pocket and see the number written In it, then no - no information was transferred. If you have a machine that can take an arbitrary number from one side and transfer it to the other side, then information has been transferred.
But enough with the games and guiding questions. There is nothing that indicates a lack of content more than a person who cannot simply say what his idea is. Don't you notice that 99% of the time you say nothing, but just leave questions in the air that you hope given the empty space left people will think you are right? If you have a protocol that transfers the number 45677 from point A to point B faster than light, then instead of playing games I suggest you write it and send it for publication. In the article I also suggest that you refer to the way in which all the nice theorems from information theory are broken.
And by the way - now I see that you wrote to Nisim (again) about the difference between passing information and sending information. The last time we spoke it was explained to you that there are simply no two such things, as long as you define information as in information theory, and that if you don't - you must provide a mathematical definition of what you call information and show that you can reproduce everything we know about information before you can invent any Various theories.
Now I realize that it was a mistake to think that the discussion had progressed, and that it was a mistake on my part to write to you again. It's better that we go back to the old pattern where we ignore each other's existence before things get worse, that's why I suggest we stop here (by "stop" I mean of course stop referring to or writing to each other, I'm not trying to interfere with your interaction with others, even if I think it's grinding water and fundamentally wrong).
Successfully.
Albanzo
If I managed to send the number 456777 from one side to the other - then I didn't send any information?
Indeed there is no contradiction and no problem.
If information travels faster than light, there is no contradiction to relativity. Just sending information.
If my magic coin always lands on the same side as yours, there are two options:
1. I can direct which side he will fall on and thus influence the other and send him information. It contradicts relativity.
2. It fell randomly on one side or the other like the coins, and the other one worked out the same way. Here I cannot send information and there is no contradiction.
For example, in the experiment I proposed, it is impossible to get the matching percentages and win the prize without transmitting information faster than light between the parties. But this does not mean that information can be sent using such a facility.
The problem with saying that information went from one side of the experiment to the other faster than light, is that there is no reason to believe that this is true, and there are many reasons to believe that it is not. The very fact that a certain phenomenon cannot occur in classical physics without the transfer of information, but it can occur quantumly (full disclosure: I did not really read the riddle you presented, I assume from reading the responses that it is a correlation that can be produced with the help of interlacing but cannot be produced classically, a variation on the experiments Bell's) - this really does not mean that quantum information passes. This is the so-called false dichotomy - you dictate to nature that there are only two possibilities, and as soon as you reject one, you assume that the other is correct. In classical physics, one particle cannot be found in two different points at the same time, but two can. Quantumly, one can too. Is the obvious conclusion that quantum mechanics "produces" more particles and turns one into two? Definately not. Quantum mechanics is simply different from classical mechanics, and we do not have the privilege of performing a quantum experiment and then drawing conclusions from it that are drawn from classical intuition.
To test the statement that "information passed between the parties faster than light", one must first define information in a way that is well defined mathematically. If we agree on the definitions of information theory - which has so far had quite a dizzying success in the field of understanding information (both theoretical in mathematics and physics, and applied in computer science and various fields of engineering), then to show that information has passed you need to show the statistical difference between your predictions and the experiment and between the actual results as a random variable (assuming you want to solve the puzzle with entangled spins, this is the collapse to a non-entangled state after measuring one of the spins). You can not believe me and call me a liar, etc., but in any case I will give you a piece of advice - don't waste your time on it because there is a mathematical proof that it is not possible (as long as a classical beat does not pass between the edges).
Don't you feel like you're grinding water a bit? Repeating the same tired arguments over and over again? The last time we spoke I got the impression that you are right to read a bit on the topic of quantum information and maybe make some progress. I hope I wasn't wrong.
Israel
As long as it cannot create a paradox, there is no problem.
boss
Tabenkin - United.
Kiryat Anavim - Union.
Good night.
Israel Shapira
Yosef Tabenkin is angry with you. He wants the library in Ramat Afel to be named after you and because of your behavior he is starting to think twice
What is the problem with saying that information passed from one side of the experiment to the other faster than light? Does it contradict something?
Israel
There are many things I believe in that I do not know how to prove.
Miracles
If in order to win the prize there is a transfer of information between the two ends of the experiment, it must pass quickly through the light.
If it is possible to win a prize without transferring information between the parties, show. I don't believe this is possible.
boss
We've already gone through the story with Hakel Lech. In the end, what hole did you send me to? And what about the promise to be a large and huge gentile, why is there more gentiles than me in every small province in China?
not going!
Israel Shapira
Go away from your country, from your homeland, from your father's house to the land that I will show you. Return to Kibbutz Mazra. Yaakov Hazan and Tenkin have a word with you.
Israel
We haven't been able to find a way to transfer to solve the puzzle, but I don't think it can be concluded from this that the solution is necessarily to transfer information above the speed of light.
Lucky you didn't push the eye..
We are trying to find out if it is possible to carry out the experiment I proposed - to prepare the tables with the percentages of adjustments required within seven hours, when ten hours of light separate the ends of the experiment.
If I manage to show that this is possible - do you accept that information passed between the ends of the experiment faster than light?
Of course, I may be wrong, and that's what you're here for.
Who changes mobile?…. I found the pen, but because of some idiot I pushed it into my ear, and now I can't hear anything....
No worms and no frogs.
The technology exists, the experiment can be conducted tomorrow.
Maybe he was called to the reserves? Did you catch a Cornes plane - a miracle?
Yes, when there are difficult puzzles Nissim always changes his mobile, it has already become a regular excuse.
Maybe a wormhole can be used to fold the space between the rooms and transfer information between them faster than the speed of light? 🙂
rival
It's a shame to waste your time.
There is no solution without passing information from one side to the other, ask ANO (AP? same writing style). He checked all the options.
So how can this be done? We have 7 hours to prepare and broadcast the tables from each side, and 10 hours of light in between.
Or maybe the task is impossible?
How am I in Leyash? And where have miracles gone? Still changing the mobile?
Israel,
I understood you... so it begins to appear to me that a solution is that, following the direction I suggested earlier, both of them decide that until a certain time from the beginning of the time count in the case of 'tree' they both always put 0, and after that time in the case of 'tree' they both always put 1.
Although in the meantime in my calculations even with the help of adding this condition I still haven't been able to reach the percentages you asked for.
rival
"Even if they decide to always put 0 when 'tree' comes out"
That's not what I meant.
I say that when a tree comes out, you can sometimes put 1 and sometimes 0 and still get 100% matches.
God, I didn't see you here!
We were just talking about you.
Israel,
stop trying to fool us ok? 🙂 Even if they decide to always put 0 when 'tree' comes out, it doesn't change anything in terms of percentages and it still doesn't allow for a solution.
rival
To your question to Israel, "God does not exist, who are you talking to?" Know that he does séances and communications with me. Do you want to join?
God is both Polish and Ashkenazi? Oh wee nightingale.
I would suggest that you check your basic assumptions, for example "if someone gets a tree, it is always number 1". He can put 0, provided that on the other side they also put 0 in front of the same counter number with a tree, right?
How am I in trouble?
Israel Shapira
In your response to the words "Ashkenazi are you suddenly becoming us?! "Know that I'm Polish. Ti Rozumiash XNUMX is brought (in phonetic transliteration into Hebrew).
Israel,
God doesn't exist who are you talking to?
I checked and saw that it is indeed not possible to reach a solution with the help of the combination method, but I continue to think of other directions. For me, if there is no solution by Sunday at 12:00 noon, then you can find out.
I hope but that it will be a logical solution that everyone here will agree with you that it is correct.
God
Not Ogle Mogle - Google-Mogle.
Are you suddenly becoming an Ashkenazi?!
we
"The conclusion is not that someone cheated, because it is impossible to cheat, but that such an experiment is not possible at all and has not been done and will never be done."
Aren't you a little hasty in your conclusions?
In the meantime, until Nissim searches for the pen, an opponent struggles and hesitates, God has gone to Givatayim and a ghost floats on the surface of the water - let's set up the experiment precisely, so that some Jacky doesn't suddenly jump up on us and squeal uh, uh, uh, you said a coin but you didn't specify if it A nickel or a quarter, so the experiment doesn't hold.
1. The experiment was conducted in two places: Kadaha and the newly discovered planet, x.
2. Distance between them for the purpose of the experiment: ten light hours.
3. Each side has a clock that is synchronized with the other side.
4. You can prepare for the experiment for as long as you want.
5. Any possible equipment can be used for the purpose of the experiment, as long as it does not affect the fair coins. You can use a computer, cover your ass, radios, postal units, braiding, singing, interwoven particles, interwoven braids, braided challahs, cracking jokes, tarot cards, Babylonian Talmud, mental retardation, anything goes - as long as it doesn't affect the coins.
6. At time 0 on the synchronized clocks, the coin is tossed for the first time, followed by one-minute intervals for five hours until all the numbers up to 300 are filled in the count column.
We must use the means at our disposal to fill column 3 with 1 or 0 according to our choice.
We will allocate another two hours for data processing and registration, then at 7 hours on the clock the table is photographed in both directions and sent by radio to the prize committee.
If we succeed in this way in getting the requested adjustment percentages - the money is in the bank.
We, in preparation for the day of victory over the Nazis of the "Allies".
Elk allies.. the Russians do all the work and the Americans reap the rewards.
In just a few days from west to east
A big event will be in France
We'll celebrate the biggest myth
.of the north western alliance
..
and who will come on may the seven
Who fought and won in word war two
America' the Russians even
The French, the English will come too
..
And every country throws a party
and everybody raises a glass
from the Ukraine to the Pacific
The cries of victory will pass
..
So brother let us get ecstatic
Let's toast and cheer and toast again
but lets remember some statistics
before we go back to our champagne
..
That in all of embattled Europe
in Stalingrad and the Ukraine
In Africa and the Pacific
In Tobruk and El Alamein
Japan, Hawaii, Canarian islands
Dunkirk, Paris and Antwerp
The west - had lost nine hundred thousand
– The Russians
Twenty million men
No problem, take your time. But you asked if I had already prepared a place at home for the Nobel Prize I was about to receive? If you manage to solve the problem using classical physics and without communication and transfer of information between the rooms, you will prepare the whole city as a warehouse for the Nobel prizes you are about to receive.
I agree with all three sections.
It is not possible to cause a situation of 25% fli-fli adjustments without the transfer of information.
One and the same is impossible according to the conditions of the problem!
The transfer of information will allow the rewriting of the results to the desired result and the rewriting can only be done at the end of the experiment, but not during it.
The marking definitions require that of the 4 combined options, 81.25% will be marked with 1,1. 18.75% will be marked with 1,0 and 0,0.
(100% tree-tree is marked as 1,1 and another 75% tree-peli and pli-peli are marked as 1,1; 1\4 + 3\4*3\4=13\16 which is 81.25%)
In order to reach the result 1,1 for 68.75% of the sums which includes only 25% of the fli-flis marked as 1,1, one must know the identity of the results and change them as desired. (1\4 + 3\4*1\2 + 1\4* 1/4 = 11/16=68.75%.
Suppose you do such an experiment and find that 25% of the flip-flop results are marked as 1,1 and not 75% as expected.
and assume that the results cannot be rewritten.
The conclusion is not that someone cheated, because it is impossible to cheat, but that such an experiment is not possible at all and has not been done and will never be done.
-
Let's say that such an experiment is done, but it is possible to arrive only with the results of the registration of the ones and zeros and without the results of the tree/fleece.
It is expected that from the comparison of the records a result of 1,1 will be obtained in 81.25% of the cases.
Is a result of 68.75% possible without correction after the fact? Yes.
All 11 out of 16 results must be marked with 1 without considering the tree/peli. and mark 0 in the remaining 5.
What does it mean physically? Nothing.
What does it mean in terms of tossing the coins? same as above. Nothing to do with coin toss.
Israel
Enough with the philosophizing. Start writing a short story or start eating lekrade with honey and if that's not enough, take ogle mugel with anchovies
Israel,
1. What you are saying here is very similar to what I proposed before (the method of combinations in the probability of X and Y) and you said that I am not in the right direction at all.
2. I have a direction, but give another day or two to think about it.
3. Are you sure you have a solution? Don't suddenly surprise and say that you don't know how to solve it either.
4. Without more hints let think.
we, adversary, god,
You are all right.
Let's see what is stopping us from solving the problem in the usual way of combinations as Yariv and Nisim tried.
From the definition of the problem:
1. Get 100% matches when the coins both fell on a tree in both rooms.
As a rival suggested, it can be done in the following way:
"If one of them gets a tree, it's always there 1".
The next step is:
2. Get approximately 75% matches when a coin in one of the rooms fell on a tree and in the other on a straw.
This is also not particularly difficult: if out of every four times that Pele comes out in three we write 1 and in the fourth 0, we will get approximately 75% matches. agree?
The problem is in the next step:
3. Receive approximately 25% adjustments when both coins fell on a tail.
Because if we followed the method I suggested in the previous step, it seems that the 3-column table is already full. Only in 25% of the cases will we get a situation where Peli will be in front of Peli, and in 75% of them we have written 1 on each side in front of Peli. That's why we will receive approximately 75% adjustments this time. agree?
A question before going to sleep: Is anyone able to think of any way to meet the conditions of the problem and win the prize without transferring information between the rooms and no matter how fast? I can't think of such a way, certainly not at 4 in the morning.
Good night.
I don't think it is related to quantum entanglement, we already had a discussion on the subject not long ago and we came to the conclusion that one side cannot transfer information to the other side (for example 'yes' or 'no') faster than the speed of light.
Miracles
How exactly will you test it "when you find a pen"?
Will you stick the pen in your ear? And check if there is any sense there?
Israel
Enough to abuse them. simple enough.
And don't ask me to solve the riddle for you either... the only one who can solve it is a ghost... 🙂 ?
A week of victory over the Nazis may their name be erased, happy be it to you and everyone. And stop whining like Jews and start behaving like Jews.
Great article, by the way.
Israel Shapira means the transfer of information by quantum entanglement.
I'm talking about existing technology that has been tried successfully.
I have a question is it allowed to use a wormhole? Because then the information can be transmitted faster than the speed of light.
Israel,
Please wait until tomorrow and don't find out yet... I have a direction to the solution but I want to think about it a bit (unless someone solves the riddle before it is not great wisdom because I have already tired it).
Miracles,
If you solve it we share the money.
My friend, I'm sorry, you're not in the right direction.
There is no classic solution to the problem, no matter what you do.
Can you explain why?
Israel,
What a mobile changer.. Since this morning he has been cracking our heads with this puzzle and telling us stories...
Besides this is no longer wisdom I gave him a direction, notice how much his solution reminds me of my solution, besides it seems to me that according to the conditions of the question it is forbidden to toss the coin more than once for each index.
It's better to ask N.C.
He will find us the only possible solution - the trivial one, meaning that it just happened by chance.
otherwise 1 of course...
Thirty million dollars - and he replaces my mobile phone..
Israel
If a tree comes out, write 1.
If it comes out flat, cast again.
If Peli comes out again, write 0
Otherwise Peli.
When I find a pen I will check it out….
I have an idea, we'll ask you outside the box! He knows how to think outside the box 😀
out of the box where are you??
Miracles,
Enough with the excuses, solve the riddle 😀
Israel
I am changing mobile ….. a lot of work!!
It is impossible without quanta (can you explain why?).
But you should see it clearly before moving forward.
Is the solution based on quantum theory?
Is it possible to reach a solution without quantum theory?
There is a tip in the article.
And here is Ramzoz B: Einstein would say that the task as I presented it is impossible.
Ramzoz C: Einstein was wrong.
The truth is that I haven't had time to read the article yet (even though it looks interesting), so far I've only read the title, are you saying that the clue is in the article?
no no.
When I say get out of the rectangle, I mean the rectangle of the response..
Scroll up and read the article.
Nissim Ineal Darbcom, where did you go?
It seems to me... that it has to do with the synchronization of the clocks between the two rooms... if the current second that started at time 00:00:00 is, say, even (or divisible by 4) they make a certain choice that they agreed upon in advance, otherwise... they make a different choice.
Is there a direction?
Not in the right direction at all.
Ramzoz A: The data is in front of you, but you have to get out of the square, or the rectangle.
PS - the probability X or Y can range from 0 to 100%.
Hey... I don't have a solution yet, but I think it's something like this:
1. If one of them gets a tree, he is always there 1.
2. If it comes out first Peli is there with some predetermined 'X' probability 0 otherwise 1.
3. If it comes out in two, it is there with some pre-determined 'Y' probability 0 otherwise 1.
Just tell me please if I'm on track.
No.
In the case you described, when someone goes out, you will get 50% matches.
You should get 75% and 25%.
no money.
Only minor fix:
"in the current column" = "in the current row".
In fact, I'm pretty sure this is the solution 🙂
Israel,
Basically I'm bad at math/statistics but I have a logical way of thinking, they decide that whenever one of them gets a 'tree' they write 1 in the current column, otherwise they write a random value 0 or 1.
Am I in the right direction? 🙂
You can retire, but there is no money.
Actually I think we will charge your bill for the plumbing.
Actually, it's a shame to bother you just like that:
The experiment requires two stages:
1. Preparing the tables. For this you do not need communication between the rooms.
2. Comparing the results. Need communication.
The problem is this: how can you prepare the tables in less time than it takes for an electromagnetic signal to travel between the rooms, and still get the desired match percentages.
Israel,
No, this is not acceptable to me, a radio signal takes a maximum of 10 minutes to reach from Earth to Mars, and then the solution is simple.
I am retiring and I want the money back.
For that matter, half an hour.
(The check takes a little more..).
How will you do it?
Israel,
I think it is definitely possible, how long does it take for a radio signal to get from Earth to Mars when they are close together? I think two hours is definitely enough.
(PS - I still haven't received the check)
rival
Not related to my experiment.
The clocks are ticking, and you're wasting time. Is there a theoretical possibility or not?
Israel,
I imagine it has to do with the home experiment you are planning to do that has to do with quantum theory. Have you already prepared a place at home for the Nobel Prize you are about to receive?
I already sent the check.
By fax... you won't have a problem seeing it.
And here is step three:
Like phase B, but one room in Israel, the other in Mars.
The time is currently 00:00:00 on both rooms' clocks.
You have two hours to submit the compared tables to the committee, so you better get moving.
50 million.
Israel,
Yes, easily.
But first I want to see the check 😀
rival
Beautiful. You brought the obvious solution from Elio: communication between the rooms. The check in the mail.
But as mentioned, this is only stage one.
Step B: Each room has a clock, and the clocks are synchronized with each other.
At time 0 on both clocks, the game begins.
You have two hours to submit the compared tables with the matching percentages to the award committee.
Could you theoretically do this?
10 million.
It seems that the conciliators strive for an unequivocal binary solution. But matters get more complicated as the subject becomes more complex, that is, different layers of time enter the set of calculations - until it is impossible to follow them and thus an unexpected, spontaneous element is created. And this is not proof of God. In my opinion, God has a mental psychological role - Like how hot or cold I feel in relation to my body heat - but not so in relation to states of accumulation or the heat of the grasshopper or the snake
Israel,
Your question is not that clear, you say they can use any equipment so I assume that also includes walkie-talkies or phones with which they can communicate with each other (or by knocking on the wall). So what is the problem after they toss a coin to communicate with each other and decide what to write in the third column (1 or 0) in order to get the results you asked for
?
Miracles,
No, I don't think otherwise, this randomness, which is also expected according to quantum theory, is what made possible the formation of dense gas clouds that, by gravity, clustered into galaxies and then into stars, etc. This is also what was said in the lecture that I linked to recently ("A universe created out of nothing", by Lawrence Krauss).
Here's another nice article that shows how randomness creates clusters rather than uniformity as people usually intuitively think:
https://sharp-thinking.com/tag/מקבצים
A thought challenge for the forum on randomness.
We have two rooms, each with a fair coin, blackboard and chalk.
Level A':
Make a table on the board with 4 columns.
In column 1 we write the numbers from 1 to 300 from top to bottom.
1. We must toss the coin and write down the side it landed on in column 2.
2. We must write 1 or 0 according to our choice in column 3 of the table.
Repeat the process 300 times.
We will get a table that might look like this in room A:
1…..Fly……1
0…..Fly……2
0…..tree……..3
1…..Fly……4
1….Fly 5
0….tree 6
1…..tree……7
Like this up to 300.
We have no control over what is written in the left or middle column. The left is only counter numbers, and the writing in the middle dictates the coin. Only with the right hand we are allowed to decide what to write.
Each room has different experimenters. They are allowed to use any equipment they want, any handwritten instructions, anything they want - but they cannot influence which side the fair coin falls on.
After the tables are complete, they must be compared. Measurement 1 in room A versus measurement 1 in room B, 2 versus 2, so up to 300.
In column 4, write + if there is a match between the 1 and 0 entries on both sides (a 1 is recorded on each side, or a 0 is recorded on each side), and - if there is no match (a 1 is recorded on one side and a 0 is recorded on the other).
We will receive an updated table in which we will register in room A:
+ 1…..Fly……1
+ 0…..Fly……2
– 0…..tree……..3
+ 1…..Fly……4
– 1…. times 5
+ 0….tree 6
– 1…..tree……7
Like this up to 300.
It is understood that the adjustments will be the same in both rooms against each meter number.
Objective:
Sum up all 300 columns.
1. Get 100% matches when the coins both fell on a tree in both rooms.
2. Get approximately 75% matches when a coin in one of the rooms fell on a tree and in the other on a straw.
3. Receive approximately 25% adjustments when both coins fell on a tail.
The prize for the successful: 5 million dollars.
As mentioned, everything is allowed except cheating with the coins.
Successfully.
rival
And regarding the article - I don't understand how a universe without randomness is possible. Without randomness, everything would have to be symmetrical and then no universe would have been created. It's like a fog chamber or a bubble chamber - everything would have remained homogeneous.
Do you think otherwise?
rival
Are you falling into the trap again and referring to this retard?
AP,
The real stupidity and folly is to decide that if we don't understand something then "God did" and "God planned" this must be the right answer.
God just exists, why? So!
AP,
The real stupidity and folly is to decide that if we don't understand something then "God did" and "God planned" this must be the right answer.
God just exists, why? So!
"In fact, our bodies and minds are small multi-universe systems, and it is the multiplicity of possibilities that gives us our freedom of choice and our freedom."
So can we conclude that a pile of sand or a game cube is a multi-universe system with freedom?
So what is here?
The same logic that mixes words apart from their meaning and then according to the spirit of the article a new hierarchy should be created that explains itself without explanation.
Then the on-duty genius explanation and the new folly are widely disseminated in order to program the dumb robots, who begin to suspect that they are being worked on.
The almighty science tells them that there is no soul and no freedom, and life was created by chance, and consciousness is just a collection of atoms and the universe began with nothing, and life has no purpose.
feel that something is wrong. And here is the solution! Levels of hierarchy, levels of meaning. And the novelty?!
The novelty is that there is no binding connection between the levels! They are not dependent on each other, because one is coincidental and the other is not and it doesn't work out.
That's why they simply exist, why? So!
There is no question and the problems disappear and the question "why" has been removed from the lexicon. And the word "planning" that can sometimes be used as an answer long ago disappeared from the language and its use was banned, and became underground and bold and challenges the levels that exist for granted.
And if the robot is not convinced, then Einstein will be mentioned and the words will gain a touch and weight and meaning and they will be taken seriously.
Brave new science. The science of folly.
Classical chaos and free choice, but a mechanistic system's choice of one of two possible solutions at random according to language conditions is not free choice. The question of free will will continue to preoccupy scientists and philosophers. In my opinion, there is a meaning to free choice even if our genes determine who we are plus environmental conditions, and there is a moral meaning to our choices in my opinion only.