This week 372 years ago, Sir Isaac Newton was born, physicist, mathematician, as well as philosopher, theologian and historian, one of the greatest scientists of all time and the founder of the scientific method
"I don't know how the world will see me, but to myself I seem like a child, who all his days played on the shore of the sea, and enjoyed finding every now and then a more chipped pebble, or a shell more beautiful than the others - while the great ocean of truth stretches before him, and no one has yet explored it or revealed its secrets" .
This week 372 years ago, Sir Isaac Newton was born, physicist, mathematician, as well as philosopher, theologian and historian, one of the greatest scientists of all time and the founder of the scientific method.
Isaac Newton was involved in many and varied fields of science, of which the most prominent are:
- Classical mechanics: In his book "Mathematical Principles of the Action of Nature" he published the three laws that bear his name and describe the relationship between the forces acting on a body and its linear and angular motion, which are taught to this day in high schools and form the basis of mechanical engineering today.
- The Universal Law of Gravitation: Newton discovered the formula of the law of gravity and its dependence on the masses of the two bodies and the inverse of the square of the distance between them. He was based on astronomical observations and Kepler's laws and showed the connection between them and the law he discovered. Newton was also the first to understand the action of gravity from a distance (on this background the famous apple myth was created, which apparently did not fall directly on Newton but was the result of many times when Newton saw apples falling in the orchards and deduced from this the principle of the distance action of gravity).
- Mathematics: Newton developed the differential and integral calculus, which is used in the various fields of science, and allows many of the laws of nature to be described quantitatively. Newton solved many problems in geometry with his help, including those that no one had been able to solve before him.
- Although Newton was the first to develop the heda, he published his research on the subject relatively late (after the German mathematician Gottfried Leibniz published his identical research, and at a better level of detail). At the end of a dispute that lasted for about 200 years about the first, today it is accepted to give the credit to both and the basic theorem of the differential calculus is called the Newton-Leibnitz theorem.
- optics: Newton discovered the fact that white light consists of the entire spectrum of colors, and conducted the explosion experiment in both directions: split white light into a beam of colors and combined a beam of colors into white light. He also proved that color is the result of the interaction of light and matter, and that light moves in a straight line. Newton was also the first to claim that the colors of light originate from different frequencies of motion, even though he actually claimed that light consists of particles.
In addition, Newton formulated the law of cooling, developed the first mathematical model of the movement of sound waves and also developed a model for chemistry that was used for many years after him.
The following film describes some of the lesser known points about his life:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=YPRV1h3CGQk
249 תגובות
A small question from Galileo could have prevented the emergence of Newtonian gravity.
Galileo Galilei dealt with the phenomenon of free fall, and he determined that all bodies
that are released at a certain moment will fall with the same increasing speed, and a body will not catch up with a body.
If Galili were to ask - why does speed increase and not a constant speed? He would discover the law of conservation of energy,
To discover the law of conservation of energy, Galili would take a large stone, go up to the 3rd floor of the Tower of Pisa, and release the stone. Its fall with increasing speed would have crushed a dry tree trunk that was lying on the ground.
Interesting, he would say, I went up the stairs to the 3rd floor of the tower and got tired.
If I had to crush the stem of time with the blows of an ax, I would get tired.
Now I understand why the stone falls with increasing speed.
The fall with increasing speed is intended to achieve equality in the amounts of fatigue, of raising a stone to the 3rd floor, and crushing a tree trunk.
If I went up with that stone to the 7th floor I would be much more tired, but the impact of it hitting the ground could crush a large tree trunk lying on the ground, and this tree trunk would require a large amount of fatigue from me to crush it.
Here Galili discovered the law of conservation of energy.
The energy of the height of a stone is replaced by the mechanical energy of its impact on the ground.
Newton, who did not know the law of conservation of energy, invented a mysterious force that erupts
from the earth, and his occupation is to drop stones with increasing speed.
If such a force does exist, then the law of conservation of energy does not exist.
Since the law of conservation of energy does exist, then Newton's gravitational force does not exist.
And if gravity doesn't exist, the history of science needs to be rewritten.
The poor state of theoretical physics stems from a belief in the existence of the law of conservation of quantity of matter, similar to the law of conservation of quantity of energy.
Energy is a quantitative thing, and the law of quantitative conservation applies to it.
The energy can change appearances, but the quantity is always conserved.
Matter is not a quantitative thing, so the law of quantitative conservation cannot apply to it.
Matter is a physical form, and the concept of quantity does not apply to form.
Gold is the name of a physical form, built from the combination of amounts of energy and passive time. This combination is called matter, but this combination is not a quantitative thing.
Carbon, hydrogen, nitrogen, lead, are names of physical forms, and each physical form is built from a combination of certain amounts of passive time and energy.
Any such combination is called matter, but matter is not a quantitative concept.
The passive time and energy that create matter are quantitative concepts.
Amazingly, Newton stated that matter is quantitative, and all the physicists who came after him accepted his statement without question.
This acceptance resulted in the poor state of accepted theoretical physics.
Newton also stated that matter has a gravitational force, which is proportional to its quantity.
A lot of matter - a lot of gravity, a little matter - a little gravity.
And here, too, all physicists accepted his assertion.
Physicists also accepted the idea that quantum matter is made up of particles.
Today it is clear that the poor state of theoretical physics is due to the acceptance of the Newtonian view, and the acceptance of the idea that matter is made up of particles.
The neural view offers a correction, with the help of a new and revolutionary physical concept, which is the passive time. Matter is a physical form, created by combining amounts of passive time and energy.
Passive time actually exists in reality, in contrast to active time that exists only in a person's consciousness, and it disappears as soon as you think about it.
Israel, I see that you also took some time off because of the "beautiful" style of the talkbackists, have you already proven that the distance is getting shorter or just the wallet?
Miracles
Your role in the force is to preserve the science channel on the site.
Israel
I get along with the fact that there are things I don't understand, when it's not in my field. If there is something I don't understand in my field... I try to learn it. Even if it's not in my field, I try to learn, but I don't have too many expectations of myself 🙂
All in all - the world is interesting 🙂
Miracles
You can't throw away water.
At most it can be dried..
And what bothers you about water? He is the Greek chorus, the old Cato who always repeats the mantra of going back in time.
On the one hand I like to know things that you haven't learned yet, on the other hand you don't like to learn yet. So we get along forever
Israel
If we managed to get the water out of here... the whole discussion was definitely helpful 🙂
In short, you are babbling, giving examples of breaking causality and canceling yourselves, good night
I don't deal with science, but in my opinion Einstein would not have outed himself in front of everyone in his most important paper since general relativity without looking at the details.
Because the fact that interweaving and non-locality do not contradict relativity and co-locality was known even in 1935. There is something more fundamental here.
But to parse it we will have to go into the difference between "known information" (the coin fell on a tree and the box is open and you can see it) and "unknown information" (it fell on a tree but we don't know it because the box is closed). And the difference between "information can be sent" (I am sending information consisting of 1 and 0, a tree and a fruit) and "information has passed" (the "tree" information has passed from box to box, but it cannot be sent because we do not know what the coin will fall on in advance).
The dismal past experience prevents me from continuing here, what's more, I don't think it particularly bothers you. We can conclude that interweaving and non-locality do not contradict relativity and coziness.
Ruth end?
The connection to virtual time is that it is not enough to just go back or just to the left, you need to both go back and change something, that is, also to the left in the virtual time and then you damage causality and this is possible according to the quantum equations. Sincerely
Israel
What does it matter what Einstein thought? Are we dealing with physics or psychology? (in séances in the case of Einstein, and also in the case of Feynman)
Ask Einstein. According to the entry in Wiki (not Wiki! 😀 ) he got:
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
Israel
So where's the problem?
No
Israel
What about weaving? Harms causality?
And no MM - sending information from MM (faster than light) damages causality according to relativity. point.
This is what we are talking about. So what does virtual time have to do with it?
Israel
That's right - this MM violates causality.
Miracles
Not only to move - you are also prevented from sending information.
Israel
I get the relationship. But pay attention - you are not allowed (to my understanding) to move quickly on the Orit MMM, this harms causality.
Miracles
You don't understand it, because the students don't understand it, Israel doesn't understand it, nobody understands it 😀
Miracles
The question is whether you are the one who accepts the relationship.
Do you accept that according to relativity, if you are able to send information faster than light, you can send it to the past and thereby influence it? Do you know the grandfather paradox?
If you accept it then there is really nothing to discuss.
Israel
Again - why do you decide that simulated time is negative time? I don't even understand what we are talking about. Do you accept the laws of relativity, or not?
So you approve of parallel universes and multiple worlds after Wiki or what? Sincerely
Because he asked for water nicely
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Imaginary_time
Something about simulated time, the island gives another dimension to time, meaning that moving backwards and forwards in time may have some friction, that is, another dimension, that is, the possibility of parallel universes, and freer backward movement. Respectfully blowing water
suppliers,
Not that it matters in any way, but I did refer specifically to the clip where Feynman is older
Miracles
Am I the only one who decides? If I can see photos from the Bar Mitzvah of my baby who was born yesterday, then is there something fake here that only I decide?
There were good experiments today. I managed to synchronize the signals from two different channels in the scope and see the difference between them with a difference of 500ns. learn while moving.
Israel
Again - there is damage, in the case of stationary systems, only if you decide that simulated time is negative time...
Miracles
Even in systems at rest, speed on Orit impairs causality.
I gave you the example of the Earth and Alpha Cantori which for the sake of the example will be considered stationary to each other.
If you could send information - in our case the results of a football game - from Israel to Alpha and back faster than light, you could arrange it so that the information would return to Israel even before it was sent.
This is the argument of relativity and I am not aware of any debate on this matter. The point I was making is that even if interlacing does not contradict relativity, it puts it to a severe physical test.
Israel
Yes - in systems in motion it is possible to damage causality at supersonic speed. I said I don't see such a situation in the static case.
If so - how is your position different from the "accepted" position?
What is the debate about anyway?
safkan
Don't get confused. We understand very well which YouTube clips we are talking about and which parts of them we are talking about. If it's not clear to you, take a look two comments south of your comment, or two pages back and you'll see that we linked and talked about this YouTube segment as well. I actually linked to the section before Israel and simply the response waited a long time in the moderation cellars.
Vendors
I agree with you on the pointlessness of discussing Feynman. Those who want to continue - fine. Those who don't - from. I do not.
Regarding the transfer of information between the interlaced particles, my opinion is that there has never been a real discussion on the subject here on the site. Ehud actually did have a discussion, but stopped at the question stage about the assembly experiment. If you understand the subject, I would be happy to discuss it with you, because as I have already mentioned many times, it is possible of course that I have a mistake.
On the other hand, if you are not interested or know or whatever, then of course there is no pressure.
Israel
I refer below only to the third paragraph in your last response to me. Regarding the second paragraph of your response - I have nothing to add or subtract from the part of my response that you quote. I formulated it to the best of my ability, I can't do more than that (because there will be no end to my different formulations in different variations).
To the best of my recollection, you claimed that there is a transfer of information between parts A and B that are intertwined (and are at some distance from each other). You may not have used the explicit word "information" but that is the only reasonable interpretation of your question about the relationship between part A and part B.
Perhaps instead of the word information (assigned out of disgust) you used other words, for example you asked something similar to the following wording: "How does part A know how to adjust its spin to the spin of B", a question in the wording I just formulated has no reasonable interpretation other than "transferring information from part A to part B".
It is possible to formulate the situation you are talking about (about part A and part B) without it sounding like "transfer of information", but I am only referring to what you said yourself. Can't get into your head and don't want to.
As I wrote in my previous response, I do not want to continue the discussion with further responses, I share in your sadness. Your new Chilaba may be able to give an intuitive explanation to this question, but he doesn't want to, maybe he can't (for some reason) so he preferred to refer you to Skorai. The others present here, including me, cannot give an answer that would be quite accurate but also intuitive. What I said is to the best of my ability, if I didn't help you there is nothing I can do. Ehud (the physicist) could also perhaps answer you and he is a more considerate person, but he is not here (and perhaps he would not want to answer either).
And now for those who responded to you today.
I have a feeling you're having a dialogue of the deaf regarding the hour plus YouTube clip you're talking to me about (Feynman looks quite old with gray hairs). Your interlocutors may refer to another film clip in which Feynman is younger (still black hair). What is the point of dialogue of the deaf?.
Miracles
I do not think so..
But if you follow my explanation in the information transfer reaction (it is not that complicated and quite intuitive) you will understand why if information can be sent faster than light it is possible to influence the past.
Through interlacing you cannot send information faster than light, in fact you cannot send information at all (unless you are referring to integrated systems). Therefore, interlacing does not contradict relativity from the logical point of view.
But if you follow the argument at the bottom of the comment, you will see what I think bothered Einstein. Although interlacing does not contradict relativity, it puts it to a difficult physical test.
If I remember correctly, Zvi wrote at the time that relativity can hardly be extracted from the results of an assembly experiment or something similar. I wish I could remember where.
Israel
Is simulated time negative time?
Israel
I don't think so, otherwise it would have been more difficult for you to reconcile a quote that is quoted because it is funny - http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=eLQ2atfqk2c&t=21m20s - with a quote that in the bottom line contradicts it less than a minute later, which you will not hear quoted because it is not funny or inspiring -
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=eLQ2atfqk2c&t=22m17s
I said good night because I mistakenly thought we wouldn't respond anymore today.
Is it possible to return to Newton on the Science Channel?
Here is the solution to the Tanai riddle brought by Prof. Yonatan Granot:
Prof. Jonathan Granot 19:05 13/11/14
Hello Eli,
First, kudos for trying to solve the riddle of Israel.
In any inertial system, there must indeed be conservation of energy. This is completely consistent with the fact that the value of the energy of the same physical system measured by different observers in different inertial systems will be different.
In the puzzle there are two inertial systems and in both there is conservation of energy. On the ground it is easier to see the conservation of energy - the potential energy of the spring becomes the kinetic energy of the car. In the space system it is harder to see the conservation of energy, but it is still conserved. The kinetic energy and potential energy of the spring both go towards the work done by the car on Earth in the space system. There is no such work in the land system because the land is there at rest. In the space system there is such work because the earth is there in motion. Even though the puzzle was asked about Newtonian speeds it is relatively easy to show it for general speed (so it will also prove the Newtonian case, among other things).
Suppose the rest mass of the toy car is m0 and its final velocity relative to the earth is v = beta*c so that the energy conservation of its initial mass including the spring energy in the earth system is m=gamma*m0 and its energy is m*c^2 = gamma*m0*c^2 . In the spacecraft system his initial energy is gamma*m*c^2 = gamma^2*m0*c^2, and his final energy is m0*c^2 because at the end he is at rest in this system and without any potential energy of the spring. It turns out that in the spacecraft system its energy decreased by a rate of gamma^2*beta^2*m0*c^2. The momentum there has decreased to zero, that is, at the rate of the initial momentum, gamma*beta*m*c = gmma^2*beta*m0^c, or at the rate of energy decrease divided by v = beta*c. Now, it seems that the rate of energy decrease is equal to the work that the earth does on the car or minus the (positive) work that the car does on the earth, given by the integral over F*dx = F*v*dt, where v is the velocity of the earth which is constant in the space system and therefore can to go outside the integral and remain with v times the integral over F*dt which is exactly the expression for the change in momentum. We saw that this is exactly what we got earlier - that the change in energy is equal to v times the change in momentum, and hence the work of the earth on the car explains exactly the decrease in its energy.
Such work exists only in systems where the earth is in motion so that v is not zero, while a change in momentum can always be because it is given by the integral over F*dt in which the velocity of the earth v does not appear. For the Newtonian case the stray change is m0*v and the change in energy due to the work done by the earth on the car is m0*v^2 which is twice the initial kinetic energy or the kinetic energy plus the initial potential energy in the space system.
Best regards,
יוני
And here is what I wrote to him:
Hello June, I just noticed your (correct) answer.
Indeed, Father's answer to Tanai was:
My son, your energy was not wasted, it was invested.
in real estate (land).
Wookie
I believe I understand what you are saying. I simply do not agree with you, and I am tired of the topic.
Good night (what night? 1 in the afternoon).
Greetings to Maya.
Israel
You asked me to explain or show you how the sentence in question was taken out of context and why Feynman doesn't really mean that no one understands quantum mechanics. I tried to explain to you, you didn't understand, or you didn't want to understand, I don't know which one. Somehow every response of yours is that I understood you and what you mean, but from your words it becomes clear to me that you did not understand me, and instead of addressing what I am trying to explain to you, you return to your starting point, and do not wish to move from it. I explain to you the context in which the things are said and what Feynman is trying to do there, and in the response I get no reference to what I said, but you understood me, which is irrelevant and everything stays in place because that's how it is.
Don't want to understand? Do not need. Your choice. Good night.
Thanks
Miracles
You're right about Feynman, it doesn't matter.
Look at the formula for the Lorentz transformation. When V is greater than C, the root and with it the entire expression becomes imaginary.
This is the moment when you can go back in time.
Why does this Feynman nonsense matter so much? Does it matter?
Israel
Where does she claim that? I remember that there is a root in the formula...
Israel,
I still don't understand what the hell it matters if he thinks no one understands quantum mechanics but in the 1965 clip not only does everyone laugh after this joke, he also implores the students not to take the lecture too seriously. I watched this segment with sound?
The tone in addition to the previous section in which he explains that the attempt to understand quantum mechanics through analogies to Newton originates from our uncontrollable impulse accompanied by arrogance demonstrates unequivocally that he means the strange reality.
The other passage you referred to I have now seen and at least the short passage I have seen, is completely consistent with the other quote you brought, the one from 1965. Note that very close to the time when he says that the professor also does not understand he is talking about the strange reality. This is reality that is not understood and the laws through which we understand reality are so messed up that we don't believe in them (in his words).
I say again: reality is not understood (yet) and neither is quantum mechanics! Quantum mechanics is not reality but only a partial description of it.
Anyway, what's the point of all this? For me, to demonstrate to you that context, mimicry, body movements are super important for understanding the poet and the lecture from 1965 demonstrated to me once again how much a quotation without context should not be believed.
Wookie
You talk a lot about "wanting to be right".
Why don't you accept that people don't have to agree with you and that it is possible to close a matter even without agreeing.
I don't think Feynman was joking when he said that nobody understands quantum mechanics.
And I am not interested in continuing to discuss the beaten subject beyond what has already been discussed.
Capish?
No, unwilling to answer or no, disagree?
Wasn't it for Wookiee..
Miracles
How did I get in 1??? I sent on the 4th. Are you claiming that time moves backwards at supersonic speed?
Yes... that's what relativity claims.
No. End of discussion.
Israel
How did I get in 1??? I sent on the 4th. Are you claiming that time moves backwards at supersonic speed?
Israel
agree or not? unconditional
Wookie
If I say I agree, are we done?
And he did not say that it is impossible to understand - he said that no one understands.
Miracles if you are at the YMCA and sent the game results at 4PM when the game was already over - then you got them back from Alpha at 1PM, before it even started.
Not a contradiction in terms?
safkan
The lecture was not given to students, it was given to the lay audience.
Israel
Do you agree that the 1965 lecture is a joke?
Vendors
It's also quite clear to me that he meant it seriously, especially in the section at about 21.30 where Feynman says This is not a joke.
I don't understand what you mean by "regarding the matter of interweaving as an apparent contradiction regarding the speed of information transfer. I would suggest you leave it. You probably have a lack of understanding that is difficult to bridge with an intuitive explanation."
When did I ever claim "that there is an apparent contradiction in interweaving regarding the speed of information transmission"?
Isra, typo correction
Instead of writing:
Transfer of information, because the separate parts do not exist separately (as a whole).
Had to write:
Transfer of information, because the separate parts do not exist separately (by themselves).
(Only the last word was corrected, the line is somewhere at the end of my long response).
Israel
If I sent in 0 time, then I sent after the game, and if I got back after 0 time, then again it's after the game…..I don't understand what you mean. Suri.
Miracles
Not in the other planet, in ours.
If you send the results of the Beitar - Sakhnin game to Alpha in 0 time and you can return them to Israel in 0 time, you will be able to know the results of the game several years before it happened, even if you have not left the YMCA.
Israel
Regarding your response today, January 21 at approximately 20:00 p.m.
I watched the about an hour plus movie of Feynman that you brought. I watched from the beginning until about minute 30, then I broke down. What I can say is right now that you are _partially_ correct about Feynman's position on entanglement in quantum theory. Can't go into more detail because I've finished my daily writing quota.
Anyway:
* Feynman had no claims in the above passage regarding interweaving as a contradiction to the speed of information transmission.
* The reference in the film was to the students and he says that they probably won't understand everything even after 4 years of study, but they must not despair.
* His reference (in the style of "quantum theory is not comprehensible at all") was not intended for professionals (only for students).
* With regard to professionals, there were claims of a different kind of misunderstanding (for example, the claim "There is an insoluble complication given many parameters", or "It is not possible to understand the structure of the atomic nucleus, only the basic structure _at the level_ of protons, neutrons, electrons", "the mechanism of radioactivity outside to the field (at least during his course)").
Since I didn't try to dig deeper and the broadcast quality is not good, I may not have been accurate.
In any case, the difficulty he is talking about is a substantial difficulty, not just a joke, in that you are right.
Regarding the matter of interweaving as an apparent contradiction regarding the speed of information transfer. I would suggest you leave it. You probably have a lack of understanding that is difficult to bridge with an intuitive explanation. If I were knowledgeable on the subject I would try to give an intuitive explanation, but I don't want to get into trouble, nor am I sure that an intuitive explanation is possible at all. Says only this:
My feeling is - an interwoven system does not consist of a number of separate parts, but it is an object that is built from only one part, the position of the one part in space is not a point but extends over a section of space, for example, an interwoven object extends over several sections of space that are distant from each other. It's a strange topology of objects, it's a topology that doesn't resemble the topology you know in everyday life. But a strange topology does not mean a contradiction in theories. Assuming that it is one object (not separate objects) - there is no transfer of information, because the separate parts do not exist separately (as an object).
The question arises whether there is a contradiction between quantum theory and Einstein's theory of relativity (the original) - it is possible. After all, if we are talking about different topologies, they are not compatible with each other (not only in the matter of interweaving).
I have already written more than I intended. I probably won't add anything on another day either.
Israel
Follow mine... I don't understand where I'm going wrong. If the game is at 13:00 how on another planet will it be shown earlier?
Amlak Elek..
Wookie
Your detailed response has finally been released.
As you say, "he is no longer among the living" and we will not be able to know what his intention was. Does it matter? I don't think so.
Each of us said his word, made his intentions clear, if the other side was not convinced then so be it. That's my understanding of what Maya is saying and she's the boss at home, isn't she?
Miracles
Follow my information response. I don't have a shorter way to get the point across.
Israel
Do you agree that the 1965 lecture is a joke?
Israel
I missed the riddle... maybe because of Amlak? 🙂
Israel
how exactly? pray tell…
The game was at time a. Communication time b. Therefore they will know the star at time a+b. According to what I remember: if b>0 then a+b>a.
Miracles
If you could send the results of a football game to Alpha Centauri faster than light you would know the results of the game before it even happened.
Wookie
We already have a movie channel here. Are you interested in adding a psychology channel? break up I have no interest. I'm only interested in the science channel.
How about my motion puzzle in mechanics? Or do all the bodies fall to the ground at the same speed regardless of their size? Miracles?
Israel
you play games The meaning is that you choose to see things crookedly just to preserve your righteousness and not out of the search for what is the truth. It is neither psychology nor technology nor games or jokes. We all know that Feynman was an entertainer so we will look at his words and decide that he is not joking when he tells a joke and the audience laughs with him, yes? Is this how we should behave?
The lecture you gave is the lecture I linked to in Eternal Waiting. I will give you a part of it that is not a repetition of things that have already been said.
Are you looking for definitive proof that he doesn't seriously mean that quantum mechanics can't be understood? You'll probably never get it because you're looking for a quote from Feynman that he didn't mean it seriously and he was joking. This will not happen for two reasons.
1) He is no longer among the living 🙁
2) If you have to explain a joke you've ruined it
Israel
And how does it affect causality? I know of no example of this. I don't see a way in this situation to reach the past...
Shmulik
We all know Feynman was an entertainer. This is one of the reasons for the popularity of his lectures. So what? Does that mean he didn't mean what he said about quantum mechanics? Why didn't he say that about the mechanics? thermodynamics? Electromagnetism?
Anyway, my opinion is that he meant what he said seriously. The lecture I gave, some 20 years after the previous one, shows this clearly in my opinion.
Miracles
What is meant by "between two points in the same inertial system - transferring information at any speed does not harm causality"? Certainly, transferring information in the same inertial system faster than light damages causality according to relativity!
Wookie
With you as usual, a lot of psychology, a little technology.
Yes, I want to be right. Why do you want to be wrong? To be right in the technical sense means to say true things.
And I believe that's what I did in the Feynman case. Do you believe he didn't mean what he said seriously? Did you see the lecture I gave? Give up! I can live with disagreements.
Shmulik
Sorry. I didn't mean that at all. It was just my inelegant way of tweeting that I had a response pending
Israel
My waiting woman will wait forever and I don't have the strength to fight your ego that badly wants and needs to be right and is ready to ignore the eyes and ears for that. It seems to me that you have lived in the US long enough to understand what tongue in cheek means (if you don't just search there is even a wiki entry (yes, a wiki not a wiki)) and if you can't see it when it's in front of your face I really can't help you .
Israel
I can't understand what the point is. Between two points in the same inertial system - transferring information at any speed does not harm causality. In other cases it can damage causality. What's wrong with that?
Israel,
What does it matter? The lecture I referred you to talks about a completely different Feynman? Other? wrong and your right?
I will watch the lecture you gave, that I will have time and because it is fun, but the part from which you brought the quote of "No one understands quantum mechanics" is from the music video I brought and I expect you to watch it and do what you ask of us. You brought this quote in
https://www.hayadan.org.il/issac-newton-bigraphy-1101152/comment-page-4/#comments
If you don't convince me that this is a sentence that is at least partially humorous, we will agree to disagree. The first minutes of the lecture talk exactly about the tension between our intuition and the reality described in quantum mechanics. He specifically says (7:30) that the question: "But how can it be" stems from our uncontrollable, but arrogant desire to understand quantum mechanics in terms of something familiar.
Sound familiar?
As mentioned, I'm going to watch the lectures you recommended, maybe while running, (what's better than that?) but I really don't understand what does it matter. what's the point
The rest of the story is of course cool and I'll let the physicists criticize the physics, but in my opinion it's gravity that's the problem and why is relativity mathematical and quantum mechanics isn't? I also disagree with Professor Alter Ego that quantum mechanics is ugly, surely that means reality is ugly. On the contrary, it is wild and fascinating. Give me cats and leave the slobbering and licking dogs with you!
Write the rest of the story already. except for the second law.
Even though you are voting for Entangel in the next Knesset elections, you are trying to convince me of things that I was already a part of, and that is sending messages back in time, and also making some paplinos out of it. Respectfully blowing water, keep persuading in the end we will also withdraw the train,
Miracles
A somewhat long explanation about the transmission of information and the problem that I think Einstein encountered when he wrote the EPR paper.
First we will see why it is not possible to send information faster than light without violating the principle of causality (causality, Elek). For this we must return to the transgalactic double railroad, the same railroad whose construction cost the lives of thousands of unfortunate slaves and slaves.
On each track out of the two parallel to each other runs a train that is 10 light years long in its own rest system, so that the relative speed between them is such that the gamma factor is equal to 10. Train A travels on track A and train B on track B. Each train sees itself as stationary and the other as submissive, and each train's clocks are synchronized with each other but of course not with the other train.
At instant 0 on clocks 2 the locomotive trains pass each other.
According to the twins' paradox, when the locomotive of train A arrives at the collector of train B, its clock will show one year and the clock of the collector will show 10 years. Because of the symmetry, the locomotive of train B will also meet the collector of train A at a time of one year according to his clock and 10 years according to collector A's clock.
It is said that at the moment of the meeting with Massif B, Massif B transmits a message to Locomotive A, which is adjacent to it, and Locomotive A could have sent a message to Massif A on the super space radio faster than light, for that matter at infinite speed.
Masaf A would have received the message in a year's time according to his watch. Since he meets Locomotive B at a time of 10 years according to his clock, he still has 9 years to wait for the meeting with Locomotive B when he received the message, and at the moment of receiving the message he sees only the track of track B in front of him. He meets Locomotive B at the time of a year according to Locomotive B's clock, and he has no problem passing on to him the message he received from Locomotive A, and this is because at the moment of the shift, Collector A and Locomotive B are adjacent to each other.
It therefore follows that locomotive B receives the message that was sent in 10 years according to Masaf B in no more than a year according to his watch (possible even less). He now transmits the message at 0 time to the array B, which also receives it at a time of one year according to his clock.
This is how Masaf B receives a message that he himself sent, 9 years before he sent it.
No wonders wonders? No magic spells? Didn't you try miracles? Not a prohibited violation of cosiness?
That's the principle. The speed can be reduced to the speed of light, but at any speed higher than the speed of light we will get the same violation of causality.
Not to mention that if V is greater than C, the denominator in the Lorentz transformation becomes imaginary, and with it the entire expression.
In interweaving it is not possible to send information, but we agreed that the measurement of particle A immediately causes an effect on particle B. If we use the previous example but instead of a radio in space we use entangled particles, then at a time of 10 light years according to the clock of Masaf B, which is the time of a light year according to the clock of Kater A, he will measure his particle and that of Kater A, which according to the previous logic , will cause the particle in array A to collapse. Since Array A meets Locomotive B at a time of one year according to Locomotive B's clock, it follows that at the time of the meeting, which is one year's time in Locomotive B, the state of the particle in Array A has already been determined, and this is due to a measurement conducted 9 years later in Array B .
confusing?
Trust me, but I find no flaw in the argument.
Wookie, Shmulik
It seems to me that this is not the lecture in question.
You can see it at:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=eLQ2atfqk2c
And the section on which the debate revolves starts at about the 20th minute and lasts about 6 minutes.
If after you watch it, especially in the segment at about 21.30:XNUMX where Feynman says This is not a joke after he explains why no one, including himself, understands what he is going to lecture about, and you are still not convinced that he means it seriously - we will agree to disagree.
I recommend that you also see the theoretical part of the lectures on QED, four in total. Also the "Feynman Lectures" from which the passage you brought is worthwhile and fun to listen to. You can also buy or download them and listen to them in the car while driving.
Shmulik, the explanation for why the law professor does not like quantum mechanics is the same sentiment expressed by Einstein when he spoke about the "ugly" quantum mechanics. I think it is possible to go back with him to the Pythagorean school which, according to the narrator, fell apart due to the discovery of the irrational numbers, and even to the original sin, the choice of the tree of knowledge over the Garden of Eden.
The choice is between the beautiful and clean theories of Newton and Einstein with their lines of symmetry that are so suitable for logic and our concept of beauty and Newtonian psychology, and the crooked and uncertain quantum reality that is the true way in which nature operates.
The second law by the way, the alleged defendant in the trial, represents the quantum logic, and he is the one who wins it.
Professor Boltzmansky sat on the defendant's chair, shaking slightly from a chill and fearing what was to come.
The second law surveyed him with a look that lasted, it seemed to the professor, an eternity.
-Professor Boltzmansky- The law spoke quickly - why do you scientists touch the laws of physics and frighten them out of their place?
-what? The professor snapped in his chair - who is this who cares about the laws of physics? The laws of physics are good, honest and friendly to life. You are the only saboteur!
-Really so? Law asked dismissively.
-exactly like that! The first law of thermodynamics is a wonderful law. Traffic laws - a work of thought. The law of attraction is genius. The laws of electricity, magnetism, fluid dynamics...
- And quantum mechanics? The law interrupted him.
The professor was silent.
-The structure of the atom? The elementary particles? Radioactive decay?
The professor filled his mouth with water.
-something happened? Law put on a worried face.
Now the professor spoke quickly - I don't like quantum mechanics. The truth is that I don't like all modern physics. Particles that are waves, electrons jumping from place to place without being in the middle, the strong force that is estimated only approximately and changes its direction without prior notice.. Uncertainty... Uncertainty...
- and the theory of relativity? The study of the law.
-its Yes! The professor is happy. This is a charming theory of charms! However, the theory of relativity is fundamentally mathematical, wonderful and heavenly mathematics.. The professor was filled with excitement when he dealt with his favorite subject.
- Its principles, especially that of general relativity, are somewhat difficult to understand, but from the moment they are understood they are consistent and unequivocal, even though - the professor chuckled to himself - its geometry is a bit crooked.
-something funny? The law demanded.
- No.. nothing.. a private joke.. I was thinking about Riemann...
- Can you quote us anything from the famous equations of the theory of relativity?
-of course! replied the professor knowingly. - The Lorentz transformations, which link the mass and length of a body to its speed, or the well-known formula 2^E=MC. The energy of a body is equal to its mass multiplied by the speed of light squared.
- Accused! - The law interrupted him dryly - Is it true that in the past you physicists wanted to prosecute the speed of light?
Astonishment and shock in the courtroom named after Solonio!
-No!!! exclaimed the professor. not exactly!! You take things out of context!
-No? Do you want us to subpoena the speed of light? She's an old friend of mine, you know.
- I... we... the professor had a hard time digesting the quick turnaround in the trial, and the treachery of the audience who now booed him - anyway, why am I being accused? This is the sentence of the second law! I protest! I want to go home! He turned to leave the dock but was stopped by two burly ushers.
- You knew this was a two-way trial when you volunteered to testify, and now obey the law - said the law sternly. take your place I want to present Exhibit No. 1 - he pulled out a flashlight - and call prosecution witness No. 1 to testify, the quickness of the quickness - he pressed the button of the flashlight, - the speed of the...
-no no! exclaimed the professor. I confess! Just let me drink a glass of water and recover, and I'll tell everything.
- The second law turned off the lantern, a chain of victory poured over his face.
walkie,
Sorry! Somehow I missed it and by the way, I suggest starting from the sixth minute.
What do you say, humorous or not?
Shmulik
I linked to this lecture several responses ago and a response is pending that also includes a version of the lecture on the basis of which the book was built. It doesn't exactly seem to me that Israel watched, but maybe now that you said it too, he will watch.
And again, Mr. Shmulik, there is an example of how in the two slits experiment, a particle splits into many worlds, passes, and when it stabilizes, the worlds converge and unite in interference and testing. With respect to water
Honorable Mr. Shmolik, speaking of intuitive reality, whoever does not see the multiple worlds that appear in the interpretation of the quanta, he is missing other worlds and therefore the reality that has consequences in them as well, is not intuitive for him. Sincerely
Israel,
I will wait patiently for your explanation although I am a little disappointed with the delay.
Regarding Feynman, I assumed that there would be no chance that you would find the excerpt in which he said the quote, so I found it myself. I think I was spot on when I wrote that there is a humorous tone to the quote (the audience explodes with laughter) and this without knowing this lecture. The minute is the eighth minute, but I suggest listening to the sixth minute (for those who are in a hurry) and the entire lecture for those who have time:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=OCFX_NHBefI
Obviously, the lecture talks about how reality is not intuitive (at least until the eighth minute) but this is the problem of our intuition.
Israel
What psychology? Why can't you answer my questions that are asked to help me answer yours? Why do you always conclude that you already understand where I'm going and can skip everything?
Here are the two lectures with the quotes you brought
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=OCFX_NHBefI
- 8:00
http://www.vega.org.uk/video/programme/45
או
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=eLQ2atfqk2c
(20:00 zone) (In the book things are written a little differently than what was said, and also probably not exactly the same specific lecture because it is with a tie) (According to Wikipedia the book is based on the same series of lectures 4 years later in 1983)
Context is not only what other things are said around but also where it is said.
Are you looking for definitive proof that he doesn't seriously mean that quantum mechanics can't be understood? You'll probably never get it because you're looking for a quote from Feynman that he didn't mean it seriously and he was joking. This will not happen for two reasons.
1) He is no longer among the living 🙁
2) If you have to explain a joke you've ruined it
elbentzo said tongue in cheek. It seems to me that you have lived in the US long enough to understand what it means (if not, just search there is even a wiki entry (yes, a wiki not a wiki)). Look at the lecture and say you don't see it there.
I've already said that I'm not Feynman, I don't know what's really going through his mind, and I can't ask him either, so I can only guess what he means based on what he said/wrote. The best way to do this is by looking at the totality of his words, and not at specific sentences carefully chosen out of context.
Where are the things said?: In a lecture for the lay audience.
Where in the lecture were the things said?: In the introduction, the section where the background is presented and they try to convince the audience to listen and not go away or fall asleep.
How does a lecturer do this?: Gives them a general introduction that is simple to understand, which gives the impression that the lecture can be understood. Tell them it's okay if they don't understand or won't understand some or all of what they hear, and in this way you take the pressure off them and the expectations and allow them to stay with him for better or for worse. Seasoning with jokes or jokes here and there to lighten the atmosphere, creating motivation to continue listening, and creating a connection between him and the audience (and by the way, there are no jokes that break the distance between people like jokes that supposedly laugh at the narrator). And in general trying to create a good atmosphere that will give the listeners motivation to listen and try to survive and understand later through all the points in the middle that they are expected not to understand and get stuck in.
What evidence do we have that this is what is happening in this passage?: The extensive passage ends with "What I have done so far is to get you into the right mood to listen to me. Otherwise, we have no chance. So now we're off, ready to go!”
Some of the things Feynman says don't sit well with him thinking that quantum mechanics can't be understood. for example:
What I'd like to talk about is a part of physics that is known, rather than that which is unknown. People are always asking for the latest development in unification of this theory with that theory, and don't give us a chance to tell them of the theories that we know pretty well....
I would like to tell you about a subject that has been very thoroughly analyzed.
"It is my task to convince you not to turn away because you don't understand it."
It was said right before "You see, my physics students don't understand it either. That is because I don't understand it. Nobody does
Your testimony that Feynman thinks no one understands is adjacent to his promise to listeners/readers that they will not understand. Why? Just to strengthen them to stay with him. Both funny and relaxing at the same time. Are you welcome to hear if they are laughing or not?
Two more things, one about the cone with the progress of the light - if you send rays from two opposite directions when the two cones cross each other, you can show the transmission of information backwards in time. The second thing about repeating with a slightly different method, if I knew that in my next world after adding a little information with pepper, I would earn something more than now, both because I already told a little more once and also because it involves problems, I would pour, respectfully, blowing water
Dear Mr. Israel, there is a method to live life one more time after the return and transfer a little information to the side so that you have it for your next time, the return is so strong that even things like death go back in time and there is an afterlife. Respectfully blowing water
Well, today is Tuesday when it is said twice that poker.
For those who remember the movie "Back to the Future 2", the evil Biff Tannen manages to get a booklet from the future with the results of sports games and thus correctly guess the results of the games and bring a hit.
The question is how to reproduce the trick if it were possible to go beyond the speed of light.
Israel
I don't think there is a violation of causality in your example.
and…?
Miracles, the question is this:
Why is it that if I manage to transmit the results of the football game between Bnei Sakhnin and Jerusalem Beitrael faster than light, the causality will be compromised.
For my part, you could use a plane that moves forward with flapping wings and an angular blink of its red-green side lights as the passengers sing "Hey Jeep."
Just that.
Israel
Therefore the plane will look further away at the moment of the explosion. How do I determine the distance to the plane? According to the angle I see between his navigation lights (the green light and the red light at the tips of the wings). At time t, the distance is c+v. multiplied by t.
Why? The speeds add up, and the light reaches me at the new speed which is c+v. So what?
Israel
A contradiction, because it means you see the plane at two different points at the same time.
Is this a contradiction? Who cares where I see the plane. Even in binoculars that are looked at upside down, the objects are seen further away. So what?
What about our information, why does its transmission faster than light conflict with causality?
Israel
Imagine you are standing at the end of the runway and watching a plane coming in for landing. All of a sudden, the jeep of the follow me crosses the middle of the track, and there is a collision. Suppose that the speed of light of the plane's flashlight was connected to the speed of the plane. So, you would see, at the moment of impact, the plane a little further away. This is the contradiction.
Miracles
Not everyone remembers Mario's example. Can you repeat it?
Israel
I was not talking about a contradiction to the theory of relativity - but a logical contradiction. And light cones actually give the intuition of where there is a contradiction - because then the future can influence the past. And I have previously given the example of Mario Livio, which shows that a contradiction is created, without cones……
Friend, learn from Maya.
At this sensitive stage, anything we say on the subject can be considered a reason for an explosion. As in the northern border. Isn't it better to wait a few days and let the flames subside?
Nissim, I hope the good question you asked will be considered neutral. I will answer you with a question that I am quite sure will interest everyone and that the answer to it is critical to understanding the issue before us:
Why does transmitting information faster than light contradict relativity?
By the way, the answer is very nice, but I would like to give the forum an opportunity to discuss the question. It is of course possible to use Minkowski's space-time diagrams, elk light cones. But perhaps it is better that we leave the discussion in the field of intuition, for society.
Wookie, please spare me the psychology. Just answer what Feynman said that makes you think he meant something different than what he said.
And what about Tenai?
Do not put a full stop.
I didn't learn to make a big smile 🙁
another try:
😀
If it doesn't work, what am I doing wrong?
Israel,
So let's ask Professor Alter Ego why he doesn't like quantum mechanics :D.
I would love to hear your explanation.
I hope I'm not talking nonsense about the tension between general relativity (Israel) and quantum mechanics (Albanezto): if you look at a piece of space through a microscope, in a short time, you should see gravitational fluctuations due to the chaotic quantum reality. If I remember correctly, attempts were made to detect these fluctuations and they were still not detected (perhaps because of the difficulty of detecting such tiny gravitational changes?) so Einstein still gives a fiat, doesn't he?
http://www.infoplease.com/cig/theories-universe/quantum-mechanics-vs-general-relativity.html
Regarding your request regarding the quote from 1965 and how it can be taken out of context. So:
a) When it is presented out of context then it is absolutely clear that it is not presented in context.
B) https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=OCFX_NHBefI
(You can start at 8:00 to see a few seconds and get only the quote or start earlier and continue later as well, the results will be accordingly)
Israel
The reason I asked you to show me how I'm not actually saying that all people with purple skin color should be killed (*summarized paraphrase), is so that I can understand your way of thinking and then try to adjust my explanation of Feynman's words to it, since all other explanations have failed the task.
Israel
So let's say that "information" passes between the interwoven particles. As long as it doesn't create a contradiction, I don't have a problem with it. What does this have to do with relativity?
It's okay to disagree. I just gave my impression.
Just one small matter, do you understand how to write something like: "So why don't we go back to the sane, Newtonian channel?" Could imply, even if that's not what you meant, that the other channel is insane? Can you understand why someone who has been involved all his life in channel XNUMX might not like the one you imply is insane? Why not take my advice and just add a smiley at the end 😀 (I learned!)
But I am, of course, against deterioration. If you believe that this is what will cause the deterioration, you can give up the continuation.
Maya
Instead of e) in the standard smiley, put D.
I somewhat disagree with you about the sequence of events in the debate about the transfer of information.
But I had a problem here: I promised Albenzo that I wouldn't respond to him anymore. If I respond to you, I will be forced to involve him, contrary to what I promised. I don't want us to once again degenerate into a stupid and continuous fight, so why don't we go back to the sane, Newtonian channel?
What about my motion puzzle? The baby beats his fists on the floor and screams that his energy has been stolen. Anyone volunteer to help? Shmulik. Miracles? water?
Working.
Israel,
But why didn't you explain to me how to make the smiley?
I do not appeal to authority. I read your and Albanzo's discussions with great interest (did I mention that I don't watch reality shows?) and draw my own conclusions. You asked people to express their opinion and I decided to do so (the devil knows why, addicted to action).
Regarding what you said about things that do not fit your understanding, it is very clear that there are things that do not fit your understanding. Definitely ask! Asking is important. If you don't ask how will you know? And here we enter the matter of appearance versus content. I saw how you ask questions and I can tell you, again as a side reader, of course I have no idea what you meant (as you said, only you know that) but I can tell you how it goes, at least to me. It comes across not as if you are asking a question but as if you are criticizing and claiming that there is something wrong with the theory. Again, I'm not saying that's what you claimed, I'm saying that it looks that way for some episodes. When a question is asked in this way, it automatically creates antagonism in the reader, especially if the reader understands the field very well and it is clear to him that there is no real problem, but rather a lack of understanding on the part of the writer of the question. This antagonism takes away the desire to answer the question. And despite that, I saw in several discussions that Albenzo did try to answer your question (even in a bit of a stinging way, I admit, I'm guessing that it stems from the antagonism that was created in the first place, but that's my interpretation) and after a while, when it seemed that you weren't listening (and again, I emphasize , it seems that this doesn't mean that you really don't listen, it means that this is the impression that a reader from the side can get) He turned to the "go and learn" response which, by the way, is not an inherently inappropriate response in my view, even if it was the first response. He specifically told you what to learn: what is information, what is local and non-local correlation (you see? Even I remember and I have no intention of learning these things). This is a very legitimate response when it became clear to him in a way that is not implicitly implied that you do not know what these things are and they are probably very basic to understanding the subject. As time went by, the number of responses before the "go learn" response got shorter and it seems quite natural to me, after you send someone to learn and he doesn't do so. If you want my opinion, my opinion is that at no point did Albanzo fully understand exactly what your problem was and this is due to two reasons: the first is that you did not phrase it correctly and the second is that he did not read it correctly. You must remember that when you ask a question, the person who reads it after that is not in your head, so it is very important to make it clear to him what exactly is in your head. In addition, if I have more to recommend, when you ask a question, start the question with: "I have a question" or "Here's what I don't understand" and not with "I found a contradiction in the theory of relativity". Just for fun, it seems to me that it would provoke less antagonism (the quotes here were the fruit of my free will and we didn't really intend to quote anyone). And the bottom line, after Albenzo understood at least approximately what you meant and told you that you lacked a number of concepts (we'll leave how he said for the moment, although I understand that how he said can in exactly the same way antagonize the other side), it's really a bit of a problem that you then repeat the question again without learning the above concepts. Have you ever taught? I was involved in teaching a lot and I can tell you that this is typical and frustrating student behavior that is a waste of time. that's it.
and the smiley How do you make the smiley?
Shmulik
You quote me correctly: "What Einstein knew that we don't know." This is stated in the context of the EPR article.
Your interpretation of what I meant ("subtext" Alec) is wrong. Hope you agree that I'm the only one who knows what I meant.
If you want, I will explain to you why I think Einstein realized that if quantum mechanics is correct and with it its central principle, the uncertainty principle, then this puts relativity to a severe physical test. But it can be very long and complicated.
Now, so that I won't be quoted later as someone who claims that the relationship is wrong, that's not what I'm claiming. This directly relates to the issue of information transfer between entangled particles. As I have said many times, I may not understand the subject well enough, but my questions have never been answered with more than "you learn" "I am not your private teacher" and "you are ignorant".
I claimed that there is something not to like about quantum? It is Professor Boltzmannsky who claims this! In claims to come to him, not to me. What am I, his father?!
Oh ..
Good..
Maya
Not on these kids, eh?
Can I try to offer you something? Don't take things for granted just because someone who claims "authority" claims them. You saw with your own eyes, I hope I never claimed what I was claimed to claim, and yet you also repeated this claim (how is my complex sentence with the root of the claim?).
Is it possible that the other claims against me are also based on the same inverted logic?
I read everything you wrote in your first comment. I honestly have no intention of hurting anyone's soul, but what can I do if there are things that do not add up to my understanding, in our specific case the question of how quantum particles can always be in the same state and this without information being transferred between them? not ask? And what to do if the targeted question is not answered with a focused answer but with inclusive references and accusations of anti-scientific subversion? Don't keep asking in the hope that someone might answer?
Israel,
I don't know how to make the big smiley 🙁 all I know how to do is colons with open or closed brackets after it 🙁
I will share with you the discussion I had yesterday with my lovely 4-year-old daughter who complained about her 6-year-old older sister:
"Mom, she called me stupid"
Here is my response: "Okay, are you really stupid?"
Her answer: "But she called me stupid"
My response again: "I understood that this is what she said. What I'm asking you is if you think you're stupid"
"No"
"So what do you care what she said?"
Do I need to repeat this discussion with you?
I don't know who said what when and why and I don't care either. Let's just agree that at this point in time (which is currently the only point that matters. I've never believed in history) nobody thinks you think quantum theory is wrong and get over it.
I have my eyes on the future. I am like that. So, right now I'm mostly worried about never finding a job in the future, so if anyone can help… 🙂 (really how do you make that really happy smiley?)
Come on work. Two more publications and maybe we will still be able to enter the Israeli academy.
Israel,
No, like everyone else, I'm also not claiming that you claim that quantum mechanics is wrong, but the beginning of this thread and your question, which has been asked here on the site several times, "What did Einstein know that we don't know" tells me that you really don't like the direction in which science is rushing (maybe I'm being too dramatic here, but flow, for the sake of science, flow) and therefore I will present a question (in an attempt to get out of the unnecessary discussion that is going on now): What is there not to like about quantum mechanics? It has everything: multiple worlds, virtual elements, electrons that also move through an andromeda (if we accept Feynman's interpretation and I hope Albantezo does not turn over in his seat in view of my probably wrong interpretation of what Feynman proved) or in short a reality whose complexity exceeds all imagination. The reality is a fine MDB, for free.
So: what's not to like???
By the way, a cool book written about quantum mechanics Quarantine by Greg Egan
Maya
A joke about the smiley, but if it's a smiley, why not one with teeth that explodes with laughter? 😀
You say: "No one is saying that you said that quantum mechanics is wrong. Why do you insist that someone say you said that?"
Here is from Albanzo's response yesterday:
https://www.hayadan.org.il/issac-newton-bigraphy-1101152/comment-page-5/#comment-579246
"It is impossible to understand quantum mechanics or he claims that it is non-intuitive, but despite this we absolutely must not conclude that it is wrong. That in one concise line, every claim I've ever heard Israel make on the website."
Yeruham admits and leaves?
Oh, Israel, it's hard for you. I just asked you to read what they write to you. Here are the things that Albenzo really says you said and you did say all of them:
"The criticisms you voiced, which included the claim that there is a tension between private relativity and quantum theory, that there is a transfer of information between entangled particles contrary to what we know in a quantum system, that the ether needs to be returned... these are all claims that are contrary to modern scientific knowledge, that is - criticisms of it."
Here is what I specifically wrote about what we all think about quantum mechanics:
"You all agree that whether quantum mechanics is difficult to understand or not (it is difficult for me), it describes reality well."
No one is saying you said quantum mechanics is wrong. Why do you insist that someone say you said that?
And in general, is that what you got from the long, flame-throwing and touching speech I wrote? 🙂 (I added a smiley because I had a smile on my face when I wrote this sentence...)
Albanzo
OK, I won't respond to your words. You won't respond to my words either? What do you think, instead of a day or two, we take a year or two?
Shmulik
When I wrote to you that there is nothing more accurate than quantum mechanics, do you think I meant something different?
Wookie
I agree with you on everything about purple people. How does this relate to Feynman?
Maya
You say: "Israel, in your past you said all the things that Albenzo claims you said." What do you mean? Did I ever say that quantum mechanics is wrong? Can you show me and the forum my quotes where I claimed this?
And after you go through 4 years of comments and find nothing, could you perhaps explain what are the things that Albenzo claims I said are anti-scientific?
Well, I'll summarize my impressions so far:
1. I don't watch reality shows, but it turns out that the science website provides a not bad substitute at all.
2. Israel, in your past you said all the things that Albenzo claims you said. The conclusion I also, as a bystander, drew from this is that you indeed insist on not learning and not understanding and only because of this you repeat the same questions. I don't think you have no interest in learning, I think you think the answers are simple enough for Albenzo to be able to explain them to you in two sentences in a knowledgeable response and that's probably not the case.
3. Again Israel, Albanzo's most extreme and angry reaction stems, in my opinion (and sorry if I analyzed incorrectly) from the fact that you hurt his soul bird and I can understand that very well. If you were to talk that way about research that I am involved in and understand very well, probably nothing would happen, but that's only because I'm a moron. I was very, very offended. Really, personally. When you say things that are not true about the science that a person is engaged in intensively most of his life and then refuse to listen to the things that he answers you, it is difficult for me to explain how annoying and frustrating it is. It's enough to spit a man's work in the face. I'm sorry if I'm blunt, but that's the truth.
3. Albanzo, this whole discussion started with a really amusing claim that Israel made about Niton which was also, it is clear (to me at least) that it was said in a humorous tone. You really snapped at him right away. I think you did it because of the past sediments. While I can understand that, it's a shame to me because it was really the only thing that caused this monstrous discussion to escalate so much. I think that Israel really does not mean anything bad. I think he is interested in learning, just up to a certain level. I think you can help him a little and you refuse to do so (your right too, it takes time, but it also seems to me to be related to the sediments of the past). I also think that many of the things he says he says with a smile that just doesn't travel well through the internet waves and you take things for granted.
In conclusion, friends. Let's face it: nobody really knows what Feynman meant (I, by the way, haven't read anything except the sentences written here, so I probably don't know) and anyway, I don't think anyone really cares. You all agree that whether quantum mechanics is hard to understand or not (it is hard for me), it describes reality well.
I offer you the following solution:
1. Israel, when you write something and while you write it you have a smile on your lips, draw a smiley lid what you wrote. Just so we know.
2. Albanzo, please respond to anything that is anti-scientific that Israel says, but please try not to carry the previous debates into the next ones. Don't forget that you are writing these things mainly for the sake of the onlookers (which you said you don't want Israel to drag them into the pits) and many of them are not at all aware of the previous debates. Therefore it is recommended to answer the matter of the last comment.
3. Both Israel and Albanzo. You don't read what is written to you and most of the times you just fight over things you didn't understand the other said. Please, read carefully, take some time to think about it. If you are not sure what the poet meant, first of all ask it and then rant.
4. If it is possible to get rid of the personal clashes, I, personally, would be happy (even though then it will no longer be a substitute for reality shows) because it is really unnecessary in my opinion. Stop appealing to each other's egos. You both have it. We all understand that. You can move on.
I do think that it is possible, even between the two of you, to have a fruitful discussion on the site that other people will also get something out of. It will require effort from you. It is up to you if you wish to undertake this endeavor. Anyway, I enjoy reading the things you write (when you don't act like five year olds). Albanzo, your knowledge is very impressive and contributes a lot to the site. I enjoy it and am always happy to read your professional comments. I learn a lot from them. There are not many people here who really understand physics and it is a pleasure to read someone who does especially considering that your explanations are very eloquent and understandable. Israel, your philosophical ramblings challenge my brain to the point where it is about to explode. I am just now reading an old discussion of yours about "where is the self in us". pleasure. really. In short, you are capable of more.
that's it. You asked for an opinion, you received an opinion letter.
Israel
Wait, are you saying that I'm not actually saying that all people with purple skin color should be killed? how do you know that? What does that suggest to you? Which quote shows that I don't mean exactly what I say? I said it so clearly, didn't I?
Girl, you're slowly starting to itch back to teasing, maybe you shouldn't go back there.
Sometimes the morning programs interview politicians whose words during the conversation sound reasonable. In the half flash, the editor takes a sentence or two from an entire conversation, broadcasts it and it immediately becomes the absolute representative of the entire conversation. Quite often I am amazed at the impact a single sentence without context has. I remember the conversation that took place a moment ago, the sentence that was said was in the conversation, nothing was disturbed but suddenly when he is alone, without grief before him, without grief after him, without maybe before him, this single sentence takes on a power that it does not deserve.
When it comes to quotes on paper, the situation is even worse because, in addition to the problems I described, it is impossible to hear the tone of the speaker's voice let alone his facial expressions or body movements.
I mean, in my opinion, there is an inherent problem in deciphering meaning from a single sentence (and by God, I discovered America), but that doesn't mean you can't enjoy quotes, because you can spend a whole day reading quotes from Mark Twain, Bernard Shaw and Homer Simpson. You have to remember that at the end of the day it's just quotes and you shouldn't always take them too seriously but with a hint of caution, especially those who make larger than life claims and in no way take them at face value because after all, these sentences have not been proven. After all, Feynman did not prove that no one understands quantum mechanics. Did Feynman mean that no one understands quantum mechanics (simplification of the sentence)? It kind of conflicts with another quote of his (in the quote where he says that an idea sometimes takes several generations to catch on) and also with his work, so who is right? Which Feynman?
In the framed article I again claim that the intention is that reality is not clear and neither is quantum mechanics. I also agree with Nissim that it really doesn't matter what Feynman said in the lecture, but if it interests you, Israel, try to get the whole lecture, at least we'll know the context.
Personally, I wouldn't get hung up on these quotes too much, and if I link hanging on these quotes to the question you used to ask (and maybe still do): "What did old Einstein know that we are not?" then I come to the disturbing conclusion of an appeal to authority and I have written about it before.
Regarding your story, I enjoy of course, also the wonderful Hebrew, but tell me, where is the gravity? Isn't the binding gravity failing us in trying to get closer to the other forces? Is it her?
Israel,
Let's go really slowly, word for word, and see if you understand.
"You interrupted my sentence in the middle to twist my words and cause a misrepresentation in which I claim that all of your claims are that quantum mechanics is wrong, when what I really said is that all of your claims are "if I don't understand something then it is wrong."
If I explicitly say that I interpret my words as a claim that Israel says that quantum mechanics is wrong *it's a distortion of my words*, then does that mean that I claim that Israel says that quantum mechanics is wrong?
Do yourself a favor, don't respond right away. Take a day or two to think about it. Maybe in the end you will understand.
What I said is that you refuse to accept things you don't understand, so you make up unfounded criticisms. For example, does information pass or not between entangled particles, is it possible to define special relativity without relying on the fact that a photon has a classical trajectory, is there tension between special relativity and quantum mechanics, etc. These criticisms are unfounded because they have an answer, which you steadfastly refuse to learn.
I understood why every article you comment on stretches over 1000 comments. You just move the gate obsessively, and never answer any claim that is put before you.
Of course, of course.. but you still haven't answered me how you deduced from me that I claim that quantum mechanics is incorrect. I wrote exactly the opposite.
Does it happen to you often that you hear things that were not said? Do you sometimes hear… voices?
Israel, the shameless liar.
Israel is right
and answers to your questions.
1. In the period of several days when I did not respond here to let the story calm down, you accused me of attacking you because you express opinions different from mine (to which you were answered by walking death, which is clearly not why I am answering you), and then you provided a link to a picture of fundamentalist Muslims protesting Against the freedom of the press to present the Prophet Muhammad, with an interpretation (sorry for the paraphrase) that this is what people who attack those whose opinion differs from theirs look like (exactly the claim you made against me a little while ago).
2. About six months have passed since the first argument between us. Have you since learned what information is? Have you taken any step towards learning the theorem you were directed to, which proves that no information passes between entangled particles? Have you taken any step in trying to test my claim that relativity can be formulated without assuming that we know both the position and the momentum of a photon, but only assuming that the universe is described by a 4-dimensional sheet that has hyperbolic rotational symmetry? Have you taken any step in trying to learn what is local correlation, what is non-local correlation, what is the difference between them, why is one possible only quantumly and what is the connection to the transfer of information? You asked questions, you got answers. These answers require academic effort on your part, and since you are neither capable nor willing, you act as if there are no answers.
3. “Huh?” This is the most intelligent question you have asked so far. In fact, she is so intelligent that I have no answer for her.
4. The criticisms you voiced, which included the claim that there is a tension between private relativity and quantum theory, that there is a transfer of information between entangled particles contrary to what we know in a quantum system, that the ether needs to be returned... these are all claims that are contrary to modern scientific knowledge, i.e. - criticisms of it.
And another thing - as usual, you don't lie to try to sound right. My quote you brought is a sentence you cut in the middle without any shame. If you hadn't done so, you would have seen that the full quote is: "Everyone can decide for themselves whether Feynman claims that it is impossible to understand quantum mechanics or whether he claims that it is not intuitive, but even so we are absolutely forbidden to conclude that it is wrong. That in one succinct line, every claim I've ever heard Israel make on the website - "I don't understand it intuitively and therefore it can't be true."
That is, the claims I attribute to you are that you do not understand something and therefore you refuse to accept it, which is exactly the phenomenon that Feynman comes out against in his quote. You interrupted my sentence in the middle to twist my words and cause a misrepresentation in which I claim that all your claims are that quantum mechanics is wrong, when what I really said is that all your claims are "if I don't understand something then it is wrong".
In case it's not clear - taking a quote from a person, cutting the sentence off in the middle and thus twisting its meaning completely - is a lame lie. nothing less and nothing more. Therefore, you - Israel Shapira - are a miserable liar.
Israel,
Unlike you, I don't pick one sentence every time, cut it out of context, and then use the freedom to interpret it as I wish. For example, I don't forget that you claim that information passes between entangled particles, when in the formalism of quantum mechanics no information passes between them. Either way, it doesn't matter: even if your argument is "only" that the theory of special relativity needs to change, you are still doing exactly what I say - you don't bother to study the subject, demonstrate your ignorance in public and try to force nature to conform to your understanding (which as mentioned very limited - if only because you don't make a minimal attempt to learn the subjects you are talking about). For example, if you didn't insist on refusing to learn, you would know that there is no tension between private relativity and quantum mechanics. You would know that relativity can be formulated in a quantum form and quantum mechanics in a relativistic form. Of course this has also been explained to you in the past, but God forbid you listen to people who have made an effort to learn. No, it's much easier to continue being stupid and at the same time shout loudly that everyone around you is missing out on what you know...
Well, gotta go to sleep. But there is a phenomenon that intrigues me:
Two days ago, in response to Shmulik, I wrote:
“Now, does that mean that either one of them claims or I claim that quantum mechanics is wrong? God forbid. As far as I know, there is no more correct or accurate science than quantum mechanics, and the predictions it gives are accurate to fractions of a percent in microns. Even a frontal attack like that of EPR failed to collapse it but only strengthened it.
In the so-called conflict that exists between relativity and quanta, my opinion is that the one that may undergo a revision is relativity."
A few hours later you responded:
"Everyone will be able to decide for themselves whether Feynman claims that it is impossible to understand quantum mechanics or whether he claims that it is not intuitive, but even so we are absolutely forbidden to conclude that it is wrong. that in one concise line, every claim I've ever heard Israel make on the site"
Could you explain to me, to the forum, and especially to yourself, how you were able to conclude from what I wrote that I think quantum mechanics is wrong?
You can also quote any of my other comments in any article.
Wookie, you are the subtext expert. Perhaps you will be able to explain how it is possible to understand from what I wrote what Albenzo deduced from my words?
Good night everyone. Tired of skiing in Dubgadol.
We are back on the second channel..
"Despite the lie you are trying to sell here to everyone who claims that I want to kill anyone who expresses a different opinion than mine."
where?
"If only you weren't firmly and principledly opposed to accepting the scientific answers based on "I don't understand it so it's not true"
where?
"It is our duty to explain to you why the things you say are not only factual errors, but also a clearly anti-scientific approach"
Oh?
"They don't have the necessary tools to recognize all your criticisms of modern physics"
What review?
arise from the fact that you are unable and unwilling to learn the material
where is this from?
"I never told you to "overlap" (as you usually tell me on every occasion), I never invited you to stop commenting on the science website (as you have done to me several times in the past)"
Only when you enter personal papers. I've told you several times to let me know when you're only interested in talking about physics.
"You continue to write scientific reviews that are based on ignorance and an attitude that is the absolute antithesis of science"
Bring a quote of mine that is based on ignorance in this article.
Why don't I contact the site editor and ask him to censor comments from you? Because unlike you, I have no interest in gagging. I believe in freedom of speech and I believe in the free forum, despite the lie you are trying to sell to everyone here that claims that I want to kill anyone who expresses a different opinion than mine. I think you have every right to ask your questions and express your opinions. In fact, as I have already said before - I think your questions were perfectly fine, if only you were not firmly and fundamentally opposed to accepting the scientific answers based on "I don't understand it so it is not true". You have the right to express your opinion and voice your ideas, and it is our duty to explain to you why the things you say are not only factual errors, but also a clearly anti-scientific approach, and it is our duty to do everything in our power to ensure that your errors and your basic lack of understanding regarding what science is do not infect innocent and curious readers, who do not have the necessary tools to recognize that all your criticisms of modern physics are due to the fact that you are unable and unwilling to study the material. When I say "our duty", I am not speaking on behalf of other commenters (they are big enough to decide for themselves if they want to intervene and if so, in what way). I express my personal belief regarding a person's duty to help others avoid falling into the pit of ignorance if he is able to do so.
I never told you to "shut up" (as you usually tell me at every opportunity), I never invited you to stop commenting on the science site (as you did to me several times in the past), and I never tried and will never try to silence you. But you can count on me that as long as you continue to write science reviews that are based on ignorance and an attitude that is the complete antithesis of science, I will continue to comment on it.
Meanwhile, on the Newtonian channel, a puzzle for the Newtonian physics forum.
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?
Wookie
The principle is clear to me, but I wrote "I just don't see how this is applicable in Feynman's case", and asked you to show me how.
To be sure, I went back and read the entire introduction to QED and it still doesn't seem to me that he meant anything different from what he wrote: that no one understands quantum mechanics, and this despite the fact that QED is the crowning glory of physics and gives extremely accurate predictions.
My computer also gives very accurate predictions. My child uses it all the time and gets very accurate calculation results, but that doesn't mean he understands how the computer works.
Israel
Maybe you understand what I mean, but your comments make me think you don't. In any case, I have no further explanations. Well maybe one more, we'll close a little circle.
_________________________________________________________
I say now, in a clear and unequivocal way, and that no one will mistake these most obvious words, that all people with purple skin color must be killed*.
______________________________________________________
What do you understand by this? Am I saying here that all people with purple skin color should be killed or am I saying something else?
*The purple is hypothetical so as not to accidentally hurt anyone. It seems to me that there are still no purple people. It can be replaced by thoughts in any other color as far as I'm concerned.
We came back from a big bear despite the traffic jams.
Albanzo If you believe from reading the comments of my "friends" (whom I have never met) that "everyone without exception tells you that I am right and you are wrong" then leave.
But as a scientist, why on the safe side would you just ask them if this is indeed the case? Just to get verification to find out from him.
And if you believe that I am "speaking anti-scientific opinions" - why don't you contact my father and ask him to tell me to stop? I solemnly undertake to accept the ruling of the website editor without appeal.
Wookie
I believe I understood exactly what you mean by taking things out of context. I simply don't see how this applies to Feynman's case, so I asked you to show me how things were taken out of context. If you can, show me also how his obvious and well-known sentence:
"I think I can safely say that nobody understands quantum mechanics"
taken out of context.
But here is a sentence that was probably taken out of context and may be the one that caused the commotion. The sentence(s) I wrote in my first response:
"Oh, Newton, Newton, where have you gone, where, where are the times when logic and common sense were the cornerstone of physics.
Why do we even need all this modern physics, what was wrong with us with Galileo Newton and Maxwell".
Here is the full context:
- Towards the end of the nineteenth century - the professor began - the physicists thought that their work was almost finished.
- The English Newton's laws of mechanics, and the Scottish Maxwell's electromagnetism, gave an almost perfect description of the physical world as a composition of waves, matter..
- Everything is waves - muttered the law.
- Waves and bodies - corrected the professor.
- Waves and compressed waves - muttered the law.
Thermodynamics, the professor continued, with its two powerful laws, was reduced with the discovery of atoms to a branch of kinetic mechanics, and now, everyone hoped, we could all relax in the comfortable and orderly world that the two British gentlemen had arranged for us, and sip a cup of tea at recess.
- Ah, those were the times, it was a real time - the professor sighed and wiped the beads of nostalgia from his forehead - imagine in your mind the magnitude of the idyll, the magic of a universe where space is absolute and time is absolute and compare them to the chaos and confusion that prevail today.
My grandfather says that in his hometown a wave was a wave, a particle was a particle, and no wave dared to behave like a particle or vice versa. Electrons were happily frolicking around Mother Nucleus - clear, sharp, measurable, in perfect oval elliptical tracks. There are still some small matters to settle. Black body radiation, the speed of the earth through the ether - really not hunting bears and lions, but at most a lazy pursuit of field mice.
- Well, then what happened? The law was interested.
- The speed of light refused to cooperate - answered the professor sourly.
- What does it mean?
- She did not agree to sum up.
-Perhaps it would be useful to explain to a poor and stupid law like me what you mean? The law got angry.
A growl of approval was heard from the audience.
- It did not agree to sum up in a vector form like any other speed. The Mickelson and Morley experiment showed that the speed of light is always constant, regardless of the speed of the light source, and in fact regardless of any factor.
- And what's so terrible about that? The law is confused.
-What's so bad? Now the professor is the one who got angry - don't you understand anything? Everything was already ready and ready for a simple and comprehensible grand unified theory of classical physics. All we wanted to know was our speed through the site. Is that so much to ask? turned to the audience with a crying voice.
Stifled sobs rose from the audience.
-But no, the prima donna did not agree to settle under any conditions. You know how much we asked, how much we begged... In the end, the idea came up to bring the wretch to justice, but it didn't come to fruition.
-What happened?
-Einstein announced that due to the sad circumstances it was decided to cancel the site, and it was agreed that the speed of light is the only absolute constant in the universe. Everything else is relative.
-What exactly is relative?
- All physical factors: time, distance, mass - everything.
-Professor Boltzmansky - said the law with emphasis. Is it possible to exceed the speed of light?
-No. is the upper limit.
-why?
- Because a speed greater than the speed of light would be a contradiction to... The professor fell silent.
-Contradiction why? I thought you said she was the only absolute.
The professor mumbled unintelligible words.
-Are you going to answer the question or will we declare you a hostile witness?
-Contradiction to the second law..
-What second law? of mechanics? of electromagnetism?
- of thermodynamics - whispered the professor.
- And the time? The law whipped without mercy, - how is the direction of time defined?
- The direction of increasing entropy - Lele the professor.
- Is it an increase? The law urged.
- The second law of thermodynamics..
-Professor Boltzmansky - the law has now spoken graciously - you are no longer accused, and I am about to release you from the stand, but you must remember one thing for good:
- There is only one constant in physics and it is the second law of thermodynamics.
Everything else is relative.
The professor smiled with a flash of sudden understanding.
-Have we learned our lesson today?
The professor nodded.
- Because I don't want us to have to repeat this lesson one more time.
The professor shook his head at the law and stepped down from the podium to the applause of the audience.
http://www.amalnet.k12.il/machine/articles/20040005.doc
Hope this might help to understand what the poet meant.
Miracles
Jealousy which is really semantics on some level. Apparently we just drag it out of inertia or boredom. The truth is that right now I'm just trying to explain to Israel what it means to look at something in its context.
elbentzo
The first sentence was only half-serious enough, because some of the quotes were a bit unrelated.
A man says he's going to play poker, won't you tell him to have fun? And if he's going to go skiing in Big Bear, won't you tell him good luck in the traffic? Not that I really mind being called a friend of Israel, it's just not really true. There is no connection between us except for the exchange of words in the comments on the Hedan website here and there.
walking dead,
The context is right here, the quotes I provided are more like bullets for reference purposes. I agree that quoting the commenters here is not a very good idea and I tried to avoid it, but what can't be done for Israel. If you (or anyone else whose comments I referred to) feel that I have misrepresented his intent, I apologize to him and would appreciate it if he would explain what he meant.
As for you being friends, I was based on an impression I got from conversations that seemed friendly (mostly about poker, I think). There was no intention to deceive here either. In any case, the point was that, unlike me, Bakhem Israel does not suspect that you are here only for the purpose of abusing him and persecuting him and threatening him with murder because he does not agree with you. I think even if I misjudged your relationship, that point is still valid.
walking dead
I can't understand why what Feynman said during one lecture is so important.... We all understand (I think) that his whole intention was that it was a bit counter-intuitive...
Why is it so important to grind it over and over again?
elbentzo
You are a bit guilty here of the sin of quoting outside the context of Israel, whether by mistake or on purpose so that he will understand.
In any case, defining me and Israel as friends is quite inaccurate. We tend to disagree on a lot of things, and over time it seems to me that we've learned to find some kind of status quo of how to argue with each other without freaking each other out. One of the things that helped me is to accept Israel with some equanimity, is to understand that many times I do not properly understand what he even intends to say, and that many times he does not understand what I mean.
One more thing. It seems to me that when Feynman says that no one understands quanta, he can equally say that no one understands gravity, or no one understands whatever, with the intention that no one understands why it behaves the way it does, but does understand how it behaves.
Israel
I don't think I know how to explain it to you in a way that you understand. When you come back to me and tell me that I didn't provide a quote that shows what Feynman said was taken out of context, it tells me that you didn't understand what I meant, because it just doesn't work that way. Looking at the whole means looking at the text as a whole and trying to read and understand it as such, therefore finding a quote that shows something specific is exactly the opposite. You tried to explain in the best way I thought I could, and I thought I gave a pretty good explanation too, but apparently it wasn't understood. Well, let's try again.
Imagine that you have to give a lecture in your field of expertise, which is clearly unintuitive, to ordinary people who don't understand anything about it, in fact they don't know it at all. You know or assume that if you start talking to them directly about the whole thing they will come across something that they don't understand or that seems strange to them and from there they will immediately lose you or seal in their antipathy towards what you are going to present to them. What are you doing? You give an introduction that puts them in a frame of mind where they will be able to hear you. You give them a general introduction that is simple to understand, that will let them feel that they can understand you. You tell them that it's okay if they don't understand or won't understand some or all of what you tell them, and in this way you take the pressure off them and the expectations and allow them to stay with you for better or for worse. You spice it up with jokes or jokes here and there (and by the way, there are no jokes that break the distance between people like jokes that supposedly fall on the teller). And in general trying to create a good atmosphere that will give the listeners motivation to listen and try to survive and understand later through all the difficulties.
I tried to appropriate? I don't own anything. Unlike you - I read the responses of others. They speak for themselves.
For example, walking death said the following:
1. "I don't think you told shameless lies, but Shani does think you commit a fallacy when you pick specific sentences out of an entire text and read/present them out of context. I'm sure for example if you quote my words selectively in the comments here you can convince people that I preach hatred of people with purple skin color (or whatever)."
2. "As I said before, looking at the entirety of what is written in QED, I disagree with elbentzo's point of view."
3. "From reading Feynman's full words, I must say that I side with elbentzo's opinion"
Nissim said:
1. "You quote a sentence without its context"
2. "You are doing exactly what Albenzo says over and over again - dressing up on some quote and not considering the context"
3. "Israel
I read the context surrounding Feynman's famous theorem. As far as I understand, he says exactly the opposite of you."
And Shmulik said:
1. "There seems to be a humorous tone."
2. "I also think that the intention is that reality is the one that is difficult to understand and not the quantum mechanics."
Forgive me if I don't go back to the last time we argued and go through 1000 or so comments, but you know as well as I do (and all the other commenters know) that you asked them to intervene and then each and every one of them told you what I told you from the beginning: that you are trying to throw your intuition on the nature I mean, you're trying to force quantum particles to behave like coins because you understand coins and quantum particles don't.
Well, you have to take the kids skiing. Bye.
Take responsibility for a change.
You are the one who said "Pay attention - is this the first time you ask your friends (and it is important to emphasize here that these people are your friends, not mine - that is, I hope you trust them that they are not trolls who are chasing you and want to murder those who disagree with them) to intervene in the discussion, And everyone, without exception, tells you that I'm right and you're wrong" and thus you tried to appropriate the opinion of the respondents to your advantage.
When I last asked their opinion, the question was whether they thought I told shameless lies as you claimed. Contrary to your claim, not a single one did. If I'm wrong, show me where.
Miracles, we completely agree that this is what Feynman Bohr and the entire mythological quantum community claimed.
Israel - Albanzo
I said exactly what I thought. I don't know who agrees with me or who doesn't.
To me the argument seems semantic: Feynman, and also Bohr, say that physics does not correspond to intuition, but it works....
Even the fact that the earth is round is not intuitive...
Come on... ask people to choose. like a little boy
Maybe instead of putting everyone in a super uncomfortable situation, just read their comments. I promise you that you will get answers even without putting your friendships with them to the test.
" Pay attention - is this the first time you ask your friends (and it is important to emphasize here that these people are your friends, not mine - that is, I hope you trust them that they are not trolls who persecute you and want to murder those who disagree with them) to intervene in the discussion, and all without exception They usually tell you that I'm right and you're wrong."
You may be right. Let's check:
Who thinks that Albenzo is right and Israel is wrong?
Walkie?
Maya?
Miracles?
providers?
Shmulik?
Israel,
As usual, expecting you to understand reading at the elementary school level is a recipe for disappointment. What I wrote is that I don't accuse you of an anti-scientific *agenda*. I am not suggesting that you consciously want to eradicate science. I argue that saying that there is a problem in modern physics because Israel Shapira, from the height of his scientific education (which does not include the definition of information), fails to understand how it is possible for there to be a correlation between two measurements even though no information passes between them - this is an anti-scientific claim. For months now you have been asking "questions" (pay attention to the quotation marks, because it is clear to me and you and everyone else in this forum that the questions are not complete questions, otherwise you would have bothered to at least study the answers given to you) that claim - implicitly or indirectly - that there are such and such problems in modern physics, To this day, the only evidence you have given for this is that you do not understand. Whether it's that you don't understand how there can be correlation without the transfer of information, or that you don't understand the difference between quantum mechanics and field theory, or that you don't understand how the Lorentz transformation affects light rays, or that you don't understand how private relativity can be formulated consistently with quantum mechanics. In other words, all your criticisms are based on ignorance.
Now, that's fine in principle. Everyone needs to learn to know, and if you haven't learned then it's only natural that you don't know and ask questions. But what makes you a real thorn in the scientific endeavour, is that you refuse to learn. You demand to get answers without studying. Who has heard of a person who asks a scientific question, and when he is told that to understand the subject one needs to study, he treats this answer as something obscene?! I think your most repeated claim against me (besides the fact that I'm your stalker), is that all my answers amount to "go and learn". Leave the fact that it's simply not true, how can you treat the answer of "need to study" as a negative thing?
That's what's anti-scientific about you. This is why every comment you make here must be responded to. Because your attitude is (and this has been explicitly stated several times) that you think all these phenomena can be explained by Newtonian tools. In your opinion, if in physical theory there is a number of dimensions other than 3, then it is mathematics and not physics (in the beginning you said 4, but then you were reminded that in Newtonian physics time cannot be considered as a dimension and this is a result that is only correct in relationships, then you changed your claim to three dimensions of space and a time parameter). I mean, you first decided what reality is, and now you try to force nature to obey your laws. This is the most unscientific thing imaginable. I never claimed you were doing this on purpose. that you want a world without science. I claim that you are frustrated by your inability to understand, that you are too arrogant to accept the fact that you simply do not know and that despite all your home experiments, your level as a scientist falls short of that of most undergraduate students, and therefore you make excuses, and try to convince yourself and others that the problem is with modern physics, and not with you .
Regarding Feynman - if I flipped him, I probably flipped him so well that every bystander who gave his opinion on the piece said exactly what I said, and said you're wrong. Pay attention - is this the first time you ask your friends (and it's important to emphasize here that these people are your friends, not mine - that is, I hope you trust them that they are not trolls who persecute you and want to murder those who disagree with them) to intervene in the discussion, and everyone without exception They tell you I'm right and you're wrong? To the best of my recollection, it is not.
Your reference to miracles in a ridiculous attempt to imply that I claim that anyone who disagrees with me is anti-scientific and blah blah, just shows again how much you don't use your head. I never had any claim against Nissim, even when I disagreed with him. And that's because Nissim never decided that something he didn't understand was wrong. In addition, I will remind you that walking death (again, one of your friends) also told you clearly that it is clear that my criticism of you does not stem from the fact that you disagree with me. But as usual, if you admit that this is the truth, you will have to face reality. And it's big on you. After all, you have to change reality to fit your worldview, right?
Albentezo
That's exactly what you said:
"The discussion here will not be resolved until a person comes to a free forum and voices anti-scientific opinions"
"Everyone will be able to decide for themselves whether Feynman claims that it is impossible to understand quantum mechanics or whether he claims that it is non-intuitive, but despite this, we are absolutely forbidden to conclude that it is wrong. that in one concise line, every claim I've ever heard Israel make on the website"
Can you show the forum where I claimed what you say? Here is what I did say a few hours ago, the ink is not dry yet:
"There is no more correct or accurate science than quantum mechanics, and the predictions it gives are accurate to fractions of a percent in microns of microns. Even a frontal attack like that of EPR failed to collapse it but only strengthened it.
I know, if only quotes and facts. I must have secretly meant that it was written in jest, like Feynman.
Try to make the obvious the same way you made Feynman's no less obvious.
Wookie
You still haven't provided the quote that shows what Feynman said was taken out of context. Can you enlighten me as to what the full context is that if we combine it this clear statement will change?
Miracles
You are the worst of all. You claim that physics is not understood?! How dare you!!! Immediately prepare a tall tree for an anti-scientific subversive like you!
Come on, ski.
By the way, this is how the end of the segment where the words were said:
What I have done so far is to get you into the right mood to listen to me. Otherwise, we have no chance. So now we're off, ready to go!
Israel
I read the context surrounding Feynman's famous theorem. In my understanding, he says exactly the opposite of you: physics is incomprehensible, that is, it does not have a simple intuitive explanation. Try to accept it, because it describes reality.
Anyone think otherwise?
Israel
Like I said, I think you're faking, not lying, so you're just wrong.
The context is where the things are said, in what frame and what other things are said in conjunction with them that indicate the essence of this frame.
You know the part about starting a lecture with a joke? That's about the feel I get from it. All these quotes are in the introduction in a section that reads like one long joke whose purpose is probably to soften the readers and calm them down for the expected difficulties in the future. This is the context.
As in a stand-up show there are sections where the comedian supposedly says things that are not funny and are not jokes, the so-called build-up, the context is still a stand-up show and all these things are said for the point where he gets to the punch and then suddenly it's funny. If you quote the build up without the punch, you won't get a joke. You could argue that the comedian is just a tiresome storyteller, who is not a comedian or simply isn't funny.
Israel,
I didn't say you had an anti-science agenda. An agenda requires awareness and pursuit of a goal - I am not claiming that you want to consume modern science. I claim that what you are doing is the antithesis of science, and moreover - that you are pushing people to do as you do. And of course I've already explained many times why what you're doing is the antithesis of science, and of course you continue to ignore everything I say unless it helps you paint me as a monster who wants to murder anyone who expresses a different opinion than hers.
And for the benefit of everyone who is not Israel Shapira - do yourself a favor, instead of reading the same line that Israel quotes time after time after time - open the book (can be easily found on the Internet) and read all the first pages (about ten pages if I'm not mistaken, which do not require no technical or scientific knowledge). Everyone will be able to decide for themselves whether Feynman claims that it is impossible to understand quantum mechanics or whether he claims that it is not intuitive, but even so we are absolutely forbidden to conclude that it is wrong. That in one succinct line, every claim I've ever heard Israel make on the website - "I don't understand it intuitively and therefore it can't be true".
Miracles
Regarding the connection to Kronker, I did not claim that there was one. I just brought the quote verbatim, is that also wrong?!
Wookie
In my understanding, the context I brought to Feynman's words in QED:
You see, my physics students don't understand it either. That is because I don't understand it. Nobody does.
Not taken out of context. Can you enlighten me what is the full context that if we put it together this clear statement will change?
And what about the other equally clear statements:
"I think I can safely say that nobody understands quantum mechanics"
We have always had a great deal of difficulty understanding the world view that quantum mechanics represents. At least I do, because I'm an old enough man that I haven't gotten to the point that this stuff is obvious to me. Okay, I still get nervous with it... You know how it always is, every new idea, it takes a generation or two until it becomes obvious that there's no real problem. I cannot define the real problem, therefore I suspect there's no real problem, but I'm not sure there's no real problem
From what context were they taken?
Whatever, this is my opinion. You can disagree with her, you can argue with her, but I'm not lying and I'm not "spreading an anti-scientific agenda" Elek.
Countries:
If it seems to you that the State of Israel also fits the data perfectly, remember that the resort town in Sinai is called Nouaiba (Beit Dagosha) and not Nouaiba (Beit Rafoa). And this is exactly the point that differentiates the two countries - the point inside the second.
big bear
Israel
And what I said - you quote a sentence without its context...
Israel
I don't think you told shameless lies, but Shani does think you commit a fallacy when you pick out specific sentences from an entire text and read/present them out of context. I'm sure for example if you quote my words selectively in the comments here you can convince people that I preach hatred of people with purple skin color (or whatever).
Since I'm not Feynman, I don't know what's really going through his mind, nor can I ask him, so I can only guess what he means based on what he said/wrote. The best way to do this is by looking at the totality of his words, and not at specific sentences carefully chosen out of context.
I don't know the context of the quote you brought and that makes it problematic to refer to it especially following what I saw in the quotes taken from QED, which are a good example of how important the context is to understanding and interpreting the Debs.
Furthermore, even if the quote is correct for its time and Feynman meant exactly that when he said it, the quote you brought from 1965 predates the book published in 20 by about 1985 years, and as we know people are able to change their minds over time when they discover new things that they manage to understand things that they didn't understand before. Of course people can also go crazy later in life and start spewing nonsense but that doesn't seem to be the case here. And as I said before, looking at the entirety of what is written in QED, I disagree with elbentzo's point of view.
Regarding your country, I personally do not know of a death valley in the State of Israel, beyond the fact that if you go into small details and extreme nitpicking, it actually does not fit any country (California, for example, lies on the coast of the ocean, not the sea, and Los Angeles is very far from its geographic center (which, by the way Also true about Tel Aviv and Israel)).
Leopold Kroenker "God gave man the natural numbers, all other numbers are the creation of men."
http://gifted.cet.ac.il/ShowItem.aspx?ItemID=191034e5-91de-4967-b1d8-05bc5955e0c0&lang=HEB
The Fifth of Iyar…
Come on, we're going to a big bear.
Israel
And the fifth of May is not a holiday in Israel...
Israel
Kroenker was talking about something specific - not related to God - the concept he was talking about is called finitism. Physics without mathematics certainly exists.... In my opinion 🙂 there are many approaches in the philosophy of mathematics: at one end there is Platonism (one of the most enthusiastic supporters is Gadel, and also Penrose, as far as I understand) and at the other end there are people like Hartry Field who claim that mathematics is not real and that physics can be established without mathematics.
Miracles
If I remember correctly, integration is not the opposite of derivation. Integration means schema. The antiderivative is simply what comes out when we calculate the integral, like Mesin is the antiderivative of miracles regardless of the tax authorities 😀
Mathematics does exist without physics, but physics without mathematics?
And regarding Kronker, to quote then right, isn't it?
Don't be cranky 🙂
What about my country (both to be exact)? What is the difference between California and Israel? Walkie?
Israel
I wrote what I know... you don't have to agree 🙂
I learned, a little while ago, that integration is the opposite of deduction. Calculating area is from the field of geometry, nice, but does not belong to mathematics...
What is the connection between spin, spin, physics and mathematics? Physics exists without mathematics, and mathematics exists without physics. Fortunately, mathematics provides powerful tools to understand physics.
And regarding Kronker, you're doing exactly what Albenzo says over and over again - dressing up on some quote and not considering the context... don't be upset 🙂
Shmulik
I don't know about continuation sentences. Also the continuation in QED to:
You see, my physics students don't understand it either. That is because I don't understand it. Nobody does.
Does not claim that the explanation for this obvious statement is humorous, but only raises humorous issues. How will it be charged? It is said that it is difficult for students to understand Feynman because of his accent. So why wouldn't Feynman himself understand?
Do you think you understand? Can you explain to me how an electron can be here and in Andromeda at the same time? How does he go back in time?
And he does not determine for everyone, but makes a careful statement, based on his experience with students and experts. Bohr also said:
Those who are not shocked when they first come across quantum theory cannot possibly have understood it
Now, does that mean either one of them claims or I claim that quantum mechanics is wrong? God forbid. As far as I know, there is no more correct or accurate science than quantum mechanics, and the predictions it gives are accurate to fractions of a percent in microns. Even a frontal attack like that of EPR failed to collapse it but only strengthened it.
In the so-called conflict that exists between relativity and quantum, my opinion is that the one that may undergo a revision is relativity.
Miracles
What is the history? The notation was coined by Leibniz, wasn't it? When did it change?
And you don't believe in reason and spin? Strong and defensive? What would you do if someone called you a liar, ignorant and stupid for speaking your mind?
Actually you don't have to answer me. I read your comments alone..
And what Kroenker said is that God created the whole, not that this is what is in nature...
I don't honk, but I haven't been cut off either since I'm in the US.
Albanzo / Israel
You descend together to the lowest level. You must be honking like crazy if someone cuts in front of you on the road.
Please, grow up.
Israel
Again, you give the historical explanation. Historically, if I remember correctly, integration was invented to calculate areas. If you look at the operator d/dx then the inverse is
S dx. As I wrote, this is a mnemonic intended to indicate that you multiply by dx. Mathematics provides tools to understand physics, not the other way around. Kroenker said that in nature there are only wholes, and I personally think he is right.
Israel,
The habit is fine, every day a different little thing bothers me.
I did 34 km yesterday and it was hard.
Israel,
Are there any follow-up sentences after the quote? Chutsamza, why does Feynman suddenly determine for everyone what they understand and what they don't?
This is the incomprehensible reality, isn't it?
Shmulik
There is also the simple possibility: when Feynman said "I think I can safely say that nobody understands quantum mechanics" he meant exactly what he said.
This, by the way, is one of his most famous sayings, and the saying through which I got to know him. I was referred to him by my professor at UCLA in a third year quantum mechanics course, when I was trying to get a visual image of a galaxy.
You can argue with it, you can not accept it, you can philosophize about the poet's intention. But it cannot be denied that he said it.
And since I'm the only one who knows what I think and believe, no one will be able to tell me I'm lying when I think he meant her literally. I believe that's what he meant.
What about the leg? We are going to Big Bear for skiing tomorrow, let's hope I don't get too many cramps.
Good night.
Israel,
There seems to be a humoristic tone or one that invites a debate that he has with himself and the readers that hovers above, but it is very difficult for me to judge because of the partial information. I haven't read his books, I don't have the energy to look at all the quotes and my impression comes from skimming here and some lectures/YouTube clips I've seen with him. I also think that the intention is that reality is the one that is difficult to understand and not the quantum mechanics. Relative to reality, quantum mechanics is relatively ""easy"" to understand. It's all formulas 🙂
In one lecture I saw with him, and that was before I knew what he looked like, I saw a lecturer, with a real love for the field, who asked his students to speculate what was possible, as long as it did not contradict known laws of physics. They talked about going back in time with energy and many other things that I have already forgotten (quite a few years have passed since then) but I remember asking myself why I don't have such lecturers.
Wookie
http://en.wikiquote.org/wiki/Quantum_mechanics
Richard Feynman, in The Feynman Lectures on Physics, vol III, p. 18-9 (1965)
"I think I can safely say that nobody understands quantum mechanics"
We have always had a great deal of difficulty understanding the world view that quantum mechanics represents. At least I do, because I'm an old enough man that I haven't gotten to the point that this stuff is obvious to me. Okay, I still get nervous with it... You know how it always is, every new idea, it takes a generation or two until it becomes obvious that there's no real problem. I cannot define the real problem, therefore I suspect there's no real problem, but I'm not sure there's no real problem
Whatever:
Do you think I told shameless lies when I wrote what I believe?
Maya?
Miracles?
providers?
Shmulik?
Israel
The truth is that at the content level, this discussion doesn't really interest me at all. Although from reading Feynman's full words I have to say that I side with elbentzo's opinion about the poet's intention (all this without getting into the tedious philosophical debate of what exactly it is to understand).
Wookie
To clarify the subject of the content, I stand behind every word I said. As far as I understand, Schrödinger said he did not like quantum mechanics, Einstein fought it all his life and Feynman claimed that no one understood it. Not that she doesn't give accurate predictions - that no one understands her. I also brought the exact quotes from the said personalities.
I may be wrong, but we never got to a real discussion about it, just like we never got to a real discussion about weaving. Each of my claims is always met with the response that I am stupid and ignorant and that I should learn more, without specifying a link that answers my very specific findings.
Too bad it's like that. I had a similar situation with Michael with my conceptions of the supposed contradiction that exists between the lengthening of time in relationships and the absolute time of the Big Bang. When we got to the first real discussion after two and a half years, he realized that he was wrong in his understanding of the issue of time extension, and he also admitted it. This does not mean that anyone managed to convince the other in the argument itself.
I am not willing to have any discussion with Albantezo because of his patronizing and condescending attitude always accompanied by rude personal letters. I will only point out that if earlier I thought that I might very well have a mistake regarding the transfer of information between entangled particles, as the discussions here continue, the knowledge that I am not mistaken is getting stronger.
This is my opinion, and I have no problem expressing it. If someone doesn't like it, then either they will hold a substantive discussion on the subject without personal papers, or they will do as they wish.
As anyone can see, I'm not interested in a fight and for my part it can end here. But if someone chooses to attack me personally - me personally, not my opinions - I reserve the right to defend myself.
elbentzo
Shouldn't it be worth treating this debate as a new debate without dragging the past into it?
While I agree that the content is more important than the form, you have to remember that you are talking to people, and they are different and strange creatures, some of whom are hurt by all kinds of words and forms of expression, and that when they are exposed to these words and forms of expression, they tend to shut down and go into some combination of defensiveness and attack, and that in the end you are trying to reach them with the content message in question, and that this cannot be done when they are not open to listening to you.
Perhaps the people in question are not spreading ignorance knowingly because due to their defensiveness they still do not understand that what they are spreading is completely wrong. (I'm not saying that's the case here)
Sometimes there are walls that some people are unable to pass. Sometimes people get stuck behind these walls, and there is no way to help them get past them, no matter how hard we try. So it's true, maybe we should keep trying, and we should definitely prevent them from stabbing more people with them, but it doesn't seem to me that talking in a way that puts them into an attack/defensive/shutdown reaction contributes to achieving any of these goals. Therefore it is not productive.
I think it is possible. But I think your chances are exponentially less when the argument goes on for months and one side refuses to address the other side's claims. Also, I think the content is always always always more important than the form, so the catch on whether I said "taking Feynman literally when he says he doesn't understand quantum mechanics is stupid" or should I have said "taking Feynman literally when he says he doesn't Understanding quantum mechanics is a mistake and voicing it in a public forum is a serious deception", it is irrelevant in relation to the big question - should we give people who knowingly spread ignorance (because their mistakes were made clear to them over many months) a free hand to spread their lack of understanding and their desire to tattoo ideas that are not Clear to them or not intuitive to them?
elbentzo
Do you think that it is not possible to have a discussion and even to argue fiercely without descending into personal lines?
walking dead,
I don't think this separation is correct. I think that when a person writes his opinion in a free forum, he starts a discussion. When he writes an opinion that distorts the words of others (in this case, Schrödinger and Feynman, and scientific ideas in general) he starts a discussion that will contain a conflict (whether conducted in a cleaner way or less), and when he does this for months while stubbornly refusing to even study the arguments against his arguments , he starts a fight.
It is possible to make the difference you are asking for, but I think it is artificial and will not help. The discussion here will not be resolved until a person who comes to a free forum and voices anti-scientific opinions is not able to receive the required criticism.
elbentzo
Let's make a second distinction between starting a discussion that requires responses and starting with personal exchanges.
Now try to recognize that when we talked about who started we talked about the other.
Obviously, it is appropriate and instead of reacting in the first case, but it should not be done while creating the second.
Albanzo, what do you want?
I suggested you stop with personal comments. I promised myself to stop. Don't you want to stop? Do you want us to ask my father to tell you to stop?
Let's leave the personal papers and that's it.
Vendors
Tuana, Shmoana.. I'm usually mildly amused by all this stuff, but it's starting to take too long.
So come on let's close the matter.
"We both undertake not to comment anymore."
Tell me, I ask with abysmal seriousness: do you read what is written to you or not? How many times do you have to explicitly write the words "I am not committing to anything and I will respond as much as I want and when I want" before you understand?
Israel.
Don't respond to Albenzo at all. With agreements and without agreements.
Don't give Albanzo any pretext to attack you. If he lashes out at you because in his opinion *you are not allowed to express opinions that are not acceptable to him* it will be clear who is arguing here.
Just don't contact him about anything.
And for the sake of clarification, I read the penultimate response before I saw Israel's last response, so I thought there was nothing more to say. But if Israel truly believes that coming to a free and open forum and bringing a series of quotes (which, as we have already shown, are selective and some of them partial or inaccurate) is not called "starting", then we probably still have a long way to go.
Albanzo
"Now, as I said five days ago, I don't think there is anything more to say, so I don't plan to continue commenting. Let's see if you can meet the standards you tried to set for me and not respond anymore."
accepted.
We both promise not to comment anymore.
Friend, I ask everyone to leave the beaten topic and not to ask me questions so that I will not be forced to respond even indirectly.
What about my country?
Come on, work. If I remember, it is written: "For six days you shall rest your God, and on the seventh day you shall work."
Today is Saturday.
Or did I not understand correctly this time?
Israel
I didn't forget, I just thought that an analysis of the reaction I analyzed would be more instructive.
I don't turn to Albenzo because I already turned to him and told him what I had to say, and he didn't turn to me back, so there was no dialogue in which there was any reason for me to turn to him again.
I am analyzing the response for you because you asked if I could show you what is problematic in what you wrote or leads to responses that should be thought about and what their results will be (paraphrase).
I already said he started here didn't I? I also said that it doesn't matter who started, I think.
I don't know what you want, I'm not trying to ignite anything, I'm just answering your questions, so you can understand me. For me it can be abandoned at any moment.
I am not a psychologist, I just analyze what happened and what is expected to happen in such situations. It seems to me that the last paragraph in my previous response pretty much sums up the matter.
Of course I didn't start it. Yes, I'm the first to use dirty language. But I didn't start. You started by coming to an open and free forum, where everyone has the right to express their opinions and everyone else has the right to respond, and you expressed your opinions that are a misrepresentation of the science of physics and that pose a real danger of spreading scientific ignorance. Maybe in your head you are righteous, but the reality is that *you* started it. Don't you like it when people who actually understand science expose your ignorance? Do not comment in an open and free forum.
The attempt to move the discussion to the question "who used a vulgar word first" is a direct result of escaping from the question "is it legitimate to comment on a person who criticizes science based on ignorance, is it legitimate to treat him in a hostile manner after he proves over a period of months that he steadfastly refuses to show his ignorance and is not interested in understanding the subject but only attacking scientific ideas that he does not understand", or in other words "how is Israel Shapira different from a convert who criticizes scientific teachings without understanding them and then pretends that he is only asking questions?".
"Sorry if you felt I hit you." You don't even have the minimum honesty to admit that while I let go and stopped responding, you compared me to people who support the murder of those who express opinions they don't like. No, you're apologizing that I "felt" you were bashing me. As if it was something that only happened in my head... Are you unable to take responsibility for the things you say?
Regarding the continuation - I specifically wrote to you (several times, in fact) that I do not intend to sign any contract or agreement with you. I also wrote to you that I intend to continue to respond on the science site to everything that I think is right to respond to - and I will certainly continue to respond to you if you continue to mislead people with mistakes that result from the fact that you do not understand something and refuse to learn it. But it doesn't really surprise me that in your last comment you wrote that we agree not to respond to each other anymore. I'm used to you not reading anything that is written to you.
And the same with regard to "the one who reacts first - kidnapper". You don't listen, so you keep thinking you're preying on someone other than yourself. Understand, until the day you are ready to sit down and study the ideas you "question" (in double and double quotes), the only one who is being kidnapped is you. As long as you have no content, every comment that is written here - whether I write it to put you in the wrong or whether you write it to claim that I am a bad scientist and that I will take care of you and that I keep mouths shut, etc., etc., etc. - hijacks only you.
Now, as I already said five days ago, I don't think there is anything more to say, so I don't plan to continue commenting. Let's see if you can meet the standards you tried to set for me and not respond anymore (and in case it's not clear - and I *know* it's not clear to you - also write a response along the lines of "come on, get over it, you'll probably write another response so you have the last word" this is provocation, just make it clear To everyone what is really behind your claims).
Wookie
You forgot to mention that in a previous comment I also wrote:
"Albentazo, are you sure you want to get involved again?"
And that's after he first rudely attacked me.
I don't understand what motivates you.
Why don't you turn to Albenzo - he is here - and analyze his reactions, the aggressive, offensive, and most importantly for our purposes - the initial ones?
I hope you two aren't claiming he didn't start, are you?
Or maybe your argument is that it doesn't matter who started it? It's nice, like the photons that transfer reverse momentum, there's no reason, there's no twist...
I also don't understand your motivation to keep pouring oil on the fire that has almost gone out. After all, we finished the topic a few days ago, we moved on to mathematics and physics, so why do you keep bringing up the topic again?
You are the psychologist. Try to formulate a fair wording that will be acceptable to everyone, or drop the matter. Aren't you all tired of those fights? Come on let's close the matter and start moving forward with what this blog is supposed to promote: science.
So one, two, three, and from now on - no personal comments! Those who start from now, will take responsibility for the fact that they can also steal back.
Halas!
Israel
Let's analyze for example the response in which you asked for an apology.
"I've been disappearing a bit lately, and I've started to miss the wild attacks of my secret admirer."
You treat him as your secret admirer and accuse him of wild attacks. Don't you see it as a provocation meant to annoy? What is a servant? What reaction is expected from this sentence?
"But before you make fun of yourself one more time in front of all the innocents who believe that you really represent something scientific: there is no doubt that you start with me, right? "
You state that he was/is making fun of himself in the interaction with you, states facts on the ground, even though it is entirely your interpretation of the matter, and thereby tries to present him in a ridiculous light. Does it have a purpose other than to tease? Am I missing something? Can this be seen as anything but teasing?
explicitly says that it does not represent anything scientific. In fact, this is an attempt to delegitimize him. Want to tell me how you would react when someone said you don't actually understand anything in your field? Actually I don't need to, I can see it here, can't I?
"I didn't turn to you, I didn't ask for your advice, I have no interest in your silly nonsense in the guise of scientific authority."
Continuation/repetition of the previous section in its entirety, only this time with the words blasphemy nonsense and acetella instead.
"You are the one who starts, because of the obsession you have with me."
You determine the reason why he responds to your response or in other words, you put words in his mouth or thoughts in his head. Do you like other people telling you what you think? I don't know how it is with you, but if I do it at home, I'm a kidnapper (on the same level as if I was in an American TV series, I would sleep on the couch).
You claim he is obsessed with you. for what? What would you think when someone called you obsessed with them? How would you react?
"Just remember that you know how a war starts, not how it ends."
Subtext: Come, we'll see you if you're not afraid. What exactly is this if not a challenge?
"Want to apologize and finish here?"
Don't ask for an apology with a question mark. If there is something that you think deserves an apology, you will demand a specific and to the point apology. That way, the other person will know exactly what bothered you in his response, and he will have a chance to know how to avoid anything if he is interested in continuing a substantive and respectful discussion with you (although he will also have the knowledge of what bothers you in order to continue to bother you, but then it is obvious that you have no point in talking to a person such a).
Do you understand why this comment cannot be viewed as an apology? Do you understand that this is an invitation to a debate based on slander and personal insults? don't you see it
"Is your problem that I chose to respond firmly to aggression? I believe this is the right way to deal with bullies."
Do you realize that when you say that, you've already decided for yourself that Albenzo is a thug? Have you considered the option that he might not actually be a bully? The fact that you determined it prevents you from looking at his claims objectively? That you close off other response options that might be more productive, just because your belief that you need to respond to something in some way determines how you respond?
Respond how you respond, but don't be surprised when your comments lead to the most expected responses that can come as a response to them, and don't be surprised when you find yourself in a fight when you're not looking for a fight, when you write comments that ask for a fight (all of this is of course also true for Albanzo and every commenter Other).
Albanzo
Sorry if you felt I offended you. Note that I also stopped, but the topic was raised again and not by me. I really wanted to tell Wookie to drop the subject, because it's not fair to you.
So now everything is clear, I hope: we no longer react to each other, directly or indirectly. If you want to change status - sign the document I brought.
Whoever reacts first - kidnapper.
Is it possible to go back to physics, math, geography and biology?
Miracles
It's not just history. The integration cannot work without the dx. Remember that when it is not infinitesimal, it is delta X which is a side in a rectangle.
A rectangle that is missing a side has no area, therefore the integral is always equal to 0.
What about my country puzzle? In the definition of the riddle it is said:
"In the riddle before you, features are described that are all common to one and only country in the world. You must read the riddle in its entirety, and guess which country it is. If it seems to you that the set of features can fit more than one country, check the data again. You will argue that there is a point where the countries differ from each other, and only for one country do the data fit in full."
True, the data is also suitable for the state of California:
Water carrier: California Aqueduct.
The Great Sea: The Pacific Ocean.
Climate: defined in California as "Mediterranean".
Desert of Moab: Desert of Moab.
Dead Sea: Salton Sea.
Volcanic Fracture: San Andreas.
Peninsula: Baja California.
Nueva: Nueva Rosario.
Neighbor to the north: Oregon.
Lake: Lake Tahoe.
Volcanic Plateau: Sierra Nevada.
The Big Volume: Los Angeles.
Coastal road: Pacific Coast Highway.
Bay City: San Francisco.
Carmel: the town of Carmel.
48: California was purchased from Mexico in 1848, after the US-Mexico war that ended that year.
49: Gold rush, beginning of mass immigration to California.
Immigrants: from all over the world, mainly from Mexico.
Thursday May: Cinco de Mayo, a major national holiday in Mexico and California.
But why not Israel? What is the point that unequivocally differentiates between the 2 countries?
1. I was not hanged by the branches of any tree. I referred to his words, but all my claims are reasoned and explained.
2. As usual, everything that doesn't agree with your opinions is simply pushed out. You can refer to Walking Death's suggestion that we not talk, but to refer to the fact that he - as a neutral observer from the side - tells you in black and white that I am clearly not "attacking you because you express a different opinion", it will no longer serve your interests...
3. Not signing anything with you. I don't owe you anything. As long as you continue to publish ignorance and promote the attitude that says "I don't understand it so it's not true", I will continue to respond and do my best so that no reader who is really interested in science falls into your web of ignorance. Just because you are frustrated by your inability to understand physics made after the 17th century does not mean that the rest of the public should be misled.
4. "Open Jura, we will open you tenfold". come on. It's hysterical to me that you're still running some kind of fantasy where you score any points or hurt me somehow. You're just embarrassing yourself. First of all, because with all the nightmare wishes, every curse of "scientist", every time you call me a calf, etc., you are only making more fun of yourself and making it clear to every reader that there is no content behind your claims. that they really and truly stem from ignorance and that under no circumstances will you be able to defend them. And second, because you're just not as funny or sharp as you think. Even your insults suffer from a 10th grade glass ceiling. In fact, every time you "open XNUMXx", you only reinforce my point.
5. Oh, the hypocrisy. Say, isn't it okay for you to write the sentence "If you don't respond to me, or respond only to the point without going into any personal aspects, there will be no problems" knowing full well that a period of five days has now passed in which I did not respond at all, and you continued to write comments about me here, Me, they accuse me, and even compare me to people who support murder to silence? Don't you see that every sentence you write just makes you look a little more pathetic?
Israel
You're right about the poles 🙂 Of course, given the fact that at least close to the South Pole - I don't think any penguin would have lived... 26- in the summer and there's nothing to eat there...
Regarding dx, historically you may be right, but my explanation is much simpler, and I think it is more correct.
Wookie
I still don't understand what's wrong with what I wrote. Is your problem that I chose to respond firmly to aggression? I believe this is the right way to handle bullies.
Albanzo
Wookie, the tree from whose branches you are hanging, wrote:
"Perhaps you will recognize that you simply have what is called irreconcilable personalities, and it is better that you either don't talk at all or that you at least succeed or try to control yourself and avoid teasing, teasing and swearing (and perhaps also in general descending into personal lines)".
I suggest that we both fulfill the first part of his proposal and not respond to each other at all. If you would still like to respond to what I said, please refer to what I offered you 4 months ago:
https://www.hayadan.org.il/take-a-photo-of-schrodingers-cat-0108149/comment-page-5/#comment-558808
"That's why I suggest that all of us here commit to sticking to matters only and completely avoid personal papers.
personal example:
I, Israel Shapira, hereby undertake not to intentionally harm the respondents personally, but as a response to a personal injury to me intended by a respondent. If I offended by mistake, and the commenter called me to order, I will apologize and will not repeat my mistake.
And that's why I came to the undersigned:
Israel Shapira
———————————–
What about you? Do you want to come to the undersigned?"
As long as you don't sign, I have no interest in messing with you. If you don't respond to me, or if you respond only to the point without going into any personal aspects, there will be no problems.
Open Jura, we will open tenfold for you.
Safkan
Both poles have ice all year round….
Israel,
Your obsession with the mantra "he started it", "he is chasing me", "I am attacked and martyred" only emphasizes the fact that you have nothing to say to the claims. It seems that you don't read walking death's comments just like you don't read mine: he tried to explain to you (and even wrote explicitly) that there is a deeper issue than who contacted whom first. You insist on claiming that I am persecuting you and that my reactions are only due to the fact that you express a different opinion than mine. walking death tried to explain to you as a neutral observer from the side (and neutral is in the extreme case, considering that you had a relationship before I started visiting the scientist) that this is simply not true.
But go on, go on. Keep telling yourself that I'm a troll, that I'm stalking you, that I agree with people who support murder because of a drawing in the newspaper. That I'm a bad physicist even though you've never read anything I've written (between us, if you tried you probably wouldn't be able to pass the abstract). that I come to the site just to argue, despite what many commenters will tell you (including Nissim, Shmulik, walking death, Maya, Kamila, Yossi Simon, and many more who are not regular commenters, so I don't remember their names, with whom I often have substantive and interesting conversations). Keep telling yourself that I'm the devil, and that way you won't have to deal with what I've been trying to explain to you for six months: that your criticisms of modern physics, most of them all, stem from ignorance, and instead of learning and burning the ignorance, you choose to shamelessly claim that "to understand one must learn" this Not a legitimate answer to the question, and any answer you don't understand and can't imagine is not physical.
It's enough that in the whole period you're commenting here, there was one person who read your comment and didn't know how to check it in depth, but simply believed you, and that's the most obscene thing and the most contrary to science (and not only to the scientific effort, but to many values that modern western society enacts on a core board) that can be done. This is a deliberate spread of ignorance. You can call it curiosity and skepticism but it is without a doubt the complete opposite. If you were curious, you would study the topics you are talking about (instead of commenting for at least six months on an interwoven topic without knowing what the definition of information is in information theory, for example) and if you were a skeptic, you would doubt your criticism as well, and when you received answers, then at least you would check them. Therefore it is also clear to any sane person that your naivete is a joke: every time you write the unfounded criticisms (literally, because all your questions have answers that can be learned if only you were not scared to death of opening a book) you attack the scientific effort. Your complacency, "I just ask questions and then elbentzo jumps up and attacks me" is no different from anything that can be written by a convert who comes to the site, writes a criticism that evolution is a lie, and then gets scolded by all the commenters here.
Israel
In the first reactions nothing, Albanzo started the descent into personal streaks here (I thought I already said that). It's about the reactions later.
The criticism is also directed at Albanzo (although it can equally be directed at anyone who behaves this way, including me). Sorry if this was interpreted differently.
Wookie
So that I can improve my ways in the future, could you show me what I wrote "I should perhaps think about what the result of my reaction will be"?
As I wrote regarding the apology request, "I did this in previous articles to no avail."
Between us, I find it a little strange that you direct your criticism specifically to me, the clearly attacked party. Have you thought about what this means about you?
Well, California also fits the puzzle data! I didn't notice 😀 But why not Israel?
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Climate_of_California
Israel
I claim that commenters who don't want to degenerate into personal insults and act like children should think about what they write in response to people who hurt them in some response.
Everyone is allowed to type and send whatever comes back to them. Maybe he should think about what the result of his reaction will be.
You can't claim you apologized when it was done in a taunting teasing and challenging response. Look at your entire response as a whole and not at one sentence from it that matches your claim.
I was talking about his second response to you, not the response he wrote to Nisim.
Open your eyes, what bothers Albanzo is not that you express a different opinion than his.
It is true that when Albanzo chooses to respond to your words, he will do so in a matter-of-fact manner without words that are out of place, and I hope that in the future when he chooses to do so he will indeed do so, but the fact that he responds to your words does not mean that he pursues you or is obsessed with you.
Like that part where you meet someone, you beat each other to death and then you're best friends all of a sudden.
Israel.
I was wrong and you are probably right about the North Pole (I didn't check your solution but mine is probably wrong).
I will explain the source of my mistake. For some reason I thought that the geographical point "the North Pole" was a point above land. If it was above land, large animals could not live there because of the cold and lack of vegetation (large animals need food). Following your "solution" I checked carefully and it turns out that the North Pole is above a marine area. If it is above a marine area, marine animals may live there (seals or something like that) and then marine animals can be used as food for the polar bears.
From now on I will know that the North Pole is above the sea.
Ok, let's start with the answers:
1. I meant that integration is essentially an assembly of rectangles, whose total area sum is the area under the function curve. The area of each rectangle is the product of the value of the function (in the example I gave X^2) by the infinitesimal dx. As dx sweeps to 0, the rectangles get smaller and smaller, and their number increases accordingly, so that they strive more and more for the exact area under the curve, until they finally reach it exactly.
Therefore without the dx the rectangle has no area. It has a height but no base, so the integration cannot work.
2. The ratio between the total length of the river and the length as the crow flies from the beginning of the river to its end is on a rough average Π (doesn't this relate to a linear integral of the river?).
http://theriverwhisperer.blogspot.com/2013/08/for-math-freaks-among-us-using-to.html
3. Regarding the hunter, the known answer is that he started at the North Pole and therefore hunted a polar bear.
But even if we take a circular line of latitude a little north of the South Pole that is 1 km in circumference, and the hunter starts a km north of that line, he will return to his starting point. As above with lines of latitude whose circumference is 2/1, 3/1, 4/XNUMX... km.
Therefore the trick will also work in the vicinity of the South Pole, and the animal it will hunt is a penguin.
Hence answer #5 is correct.
Speaking of geography, here's another puzzle:
Know your country.
what is the country
In the puzzle before you, features are described that are all common to one and only country in the world. You must read the riddle in its entirety, and guess which country it is. If it seems to you that the set of features can fit more than one country, check the data again. You will argue that there is a point where the countries differ from each other, and only for one country do the data fit in full.
which country -
Has a Middle Eastern climate, sunny, fertile in the northern half and desert in the south?
A national water carrier conveys the waters of the north to the south?
lies on the western border of the continent and borders the 33rd latitude?
Stretching from north to south along the shore of the Great Sea in the west?
On its eastern border - the Dead Sea. In the east - the desert of Moab, the valley of death and the great volcanic fissure (whose initials are: SA) that stretches from north to south?
Its northern neighbor (whose name ends in "on") is known as the land of cedars, water and mountains.
At its northeastern border is a freshwater lake, and to the east of it is a high volcanic plateau.
To the southwest of the country, a large peninsula with the resort town of Nuaiba_____ (Beit Rafoya).
In the center of the country, by the sea, lies the largest volume in the country, and from there the coastal road leads north, to the large and beautiful bay city near Carmel.
which country-
Received its independence in 48, after the great war of that year.
From 49, a large migration to it began and within a few years its population tripled.
Most of its residents are immigrants and the children of immigrants, which for many years was the desire of non-Galim immigrants, who tried to qualify for it by an illegal route and called it the "Promised Land" and many of whom found themselves in displaced persons camps.
In which country is one of the main national holidays on Thursday in May?
Israel
It was clear to me that no 1 is the answer... otherwise you wouldn't have asked. If not 1, then I have no idea what is.
Israel
7
miracles, doubts,
negative.
What about the ratio between the total length of the river and the length as the crow flies from the beginning of the river to its end?
Israel
I remember the main points of your riddle from third grade, a children's magazine (probably the science fun section).
As for the super life that will be hunted? This is an unnecessary addition of yours, therefore the color is not certain, also it is not certain that there are animals there except for microbes and viruses, a very hostile environment assumes that the hunter does not eat microbes.
Israel
We'll go for 1
In the meantime, until my expectant mother is reduced to one third, here is a geography puzzle:
A hunter gets up in the morning, walks a kilometer south, a kilometer east, a kilometer north and finds himself at his starting point. Here is a typical animal side for that geographical area.
What is the color of the animal?
1. White.
2. Black.
3. Black and white.
4. Answers 1 and 2 are possible.
5. Answers 1 and 3 are possible.
6. Answers 2 and 3 are possible.
7. No answer is possible.
I'm going to sleep, so to work girlfriend, to work.
Maya
In the eighth sentence:
Subject = Who is it about?
Subject = What are we told about him?
http://he.wikibooks.org/wiki/%D7%9C%D7%A9%D7%95%D7%9F/%D7%AA%D7%97%D7%91%D7%99%D7%A8_%D7%95%D7%A9%D7%97%D7%91%D7%95%D7%A8/_%D7%9E%D7%A6%D7%99%D7%90%D7%AA_%D7%A0%D7%95%D7%A9%D7%90_%D7%95%D7%A0%D7%A9%D7%95%D7%90_%D7%91%D7%90%D7%A8%D7%91%D7%A2%D7%94_%D7%A1%D7%95%D7%92%D7%99_%D7%9E%D7%A9%D7%A4%D7%98%D7%99%D7%9D
But I agree with those who claim that grammar and language do not justify a matriculation exam, and that in any case, grammar and especially the score are forgotten 5 minutes after the exam.
Is there still a matriculation exam in geography?
It was just an associative link
Israel
Sorry, since the nineties and I don't remember how mature in the language, I no longer know what subject and object are (or object or whatever)
two things:
One: the article does not show the faces of the people experiencing orgasm. Something about maintaining their privacy (the devil knows why, they posted these photos on the internet and that's how the photos were found).
Years: The point of the article was that people's faces are not enough for an outsider to be able to determine what the feeling is that the person is experiencing. The point of the article was that body language is necessary. In the case of Israel's link, the people are shown in full and therefore the body language is also present and it is possible to understand what the feeling is being transmitted. Therefore the article is not relevant (sorry Vookie).
Israel, it seems to me that you confused between subject and object.
Wookie
You are confusing the subject and the object.
here
http://www.sciencemag.org/content/338/6111/1225.full
https://sciencebeyondtheabstract.wordpress.com/2012/12/24/your-orgasm-face-probably-looks-just-like-your-getting-your-nipple-pierced-face/
Israel
I want to link you now an article about the faces of tennis players when they win and the faces of people when they have an orgasm, but I don't remember where it is.
http://news.walla.co.il/item/2820536
Look at the pictures.
What are the faces of those who rage with rage when someone dares to disagree with them and therefore they see it as an attack on them.
Waiting (for whom who for whom?).
Wookie, I didn't understand.
Are you claiming that some of the commenters here are allowed to say whatever comes to their mind, including teasing and making fun of other commenters, while other commenters should consider, consider, and respond in a balanced way?
Because this is what is implied by your words "now you are in a situation where you can worsen the situation or neutralize it".
If this is indeed the case, please make a list of who is allowed to say what is on his mind and who is not.
"If you had chosen, for example, to ask for an apology for the personal attack instead, would things have looked the same? Is it worth trying this way first?"
I have done this in previous articles to no avail. If you ask, I'll show you where. Also in this article I wrote to him: "Do you want to apologize and end here?" Even before the deterioration.
"Something tells me it wouldn't have mattered. Why? Because in his second response to you, he was almost completely businesslike"
Here is the opening of the second response:
"Well, miracles... haven't you figured it out yet? Israel is not interested in giving up Newton because he manages to understand him. His only motive is to run over studies he doesn't understand, so he doesn't have to face reality. As long as he leaves science at the secondary level he can think of himself as a skeptic, someone who thinks outside the box. If he sits down and learns the things, he will have to admit that his "skepticism" is no different from that of a 5-year-old child who repeats the question "Why? Why? Why?" And thinks he's smart..."
Indeed, a completely relevant response. "His only motive is to run over studies he doesn't understand, so he doesn't have to face reality."
But in the bottom line, I accept your words: "My suggestion was that you recognize that your personalities simply cannot communicate with each other without deteriorating and leaving each other alone."
From now on I solemnly pledge to leave Albanzo alone. I have no problem doing that because that's what I've always done. The question is whether the other side will do the same. On the other hand, if expressing an opinion that differs from the opinion of others is an injury to feelings and a reason for war, then I will probably have to continue dealing forever with Israel's oppressors.
A bit of history - Yuval Chaikin (whoever remembers) hated me passionately and attacked me with great rage at every opportunity. Links upon request.
For years I have been in weekly personal contact with Yuval and we exchange opinions and impressions on a regular basis.
Miracles
Nice, but that's not what I meant.
The reason for adding the dx is geometric.
What is the rough average ratio between the total length of a river and the distance between two distant points in the river?
Israel
If f=dg/dx then dg=f*dx and therefore g = Sf*dx
Years have passed………
safkan
There is no point in bashing anyone no matter what, because it is simply not relevant to any discussion.
But we sometimes do this, sometimes without even noticing, and sometimes we see a movement toward us where it doesn't exist at all.
Sending it back just so it doesn't turn out "profitable" is pointless and it just creates a feedback loop. Then, the person who is being attacked will demand to be attacked back because the attack back on him was much more successful than his attack and so on. There is no place here for childish pursuit of justice. It's just not productive.
You can't always leave people who talk nonsense. There are people here who repeat things that are clearly not true time and time again, and what to do, their errors (or lies) must be treated objectively every time. You can't just leave them because these things have consequences. The human instinct after all is to follow what the majority says when it comes to things he doesn't understand.
So while it's also permissible to spew nonsense without getting involved, you shouldn't expect not to get factual corrections for wrong claims.
Israel
Let's take a moment to look at Albanzo's first response here. The first three paragraphs in it are factual comments about the quotes you presented (although it can be said without using the word stupidity, but it was not a personal attack). The part after that is definitely a personal attack and not out of place.
First of all, the question arises as to whether it would have made any difference at all if the second part of the response did not exist. Would it not have again degenerated into a personal exchange. Something tells me it wouldn't have mattered. Why? Because in his second response to you he was almost entirely businesslike.
Now you are in a position where you can make the situation worse or neutralize it. What do you choose to do? To tease and challenge, probably in the name of justice (yes?). From there the way down was very short (within 4 reactions Nissim already held the tube).
Aren't there other options through which justice can be achieved and the ego quieted?
If you had chosen, for example, to ask for an apology for the personal attack instead, would things have looked the same? Is it worth trying this way first?
By the way, it seems to me that it wouldn't have mattered because the problem is that both of you drag egos almost automatically into the matter-of-fact reference and weave things together in an inextricable way. And then it doesn't take long until the content disappears and only the personal insults remain. So my suggestion was that you recognize that your personalities simply cannot communicate with each other without deteriorating and leaving each other alone. At least when you get to a situation where the argument between you has nothing to do with the content about which it started or other substantive content in its place.
You say you're not looking to pick a fight with anyone and never intentionally start to hurt someone. But I don't think there is any such commenter here.
It's nice to say - "If someone starts with me, I warned him and he doesn't stop, then he will catch back tenfold" - but why is it good? Why isn't this a complete waste of time and energy?
A trivia puzzle for the calculus forum:
Newton was as vindictive as he was a good scientist. Some claim that his persecution of Leibniz is what led to his suicide.
The calculus notations we use are Leibniz's, not Newton's.
So here is the puzzle:
Why do we add the suffix dx to the integral?
For example: we know that the integral of X^2dx is X^3/3, but why add the dx to it at the end? Why not simply write the integral of X^2?
Nisim, have you seen the movie about Newton Doss? It turns out that his alchemy experiments were actually not so far removed from reality.
Vendors
My opinion is yours.
Miracles
same as above.
It seems to me that this is the right moment to stop all these fights. It does not respect the site, and certainly not any of the commenters on the site.
walking dead
In my opinion, comments in the forum should not be directed towards another commenter even if he is wrong, even if he insists on repeating the mistake and even if there are sediments from the past towards him. It is allowed to respond in a sarcastic way only to a sarcastic response (so that the first one who started a sarcastic response does not come out "profitable" from the sarcastic response).
Reaching out for the purpose of correcting the world towards a commenter (for example, "the commenter is spreading Crank theory" and therefore the world of science needs to be saved by reaching out to it) - I don't see it at all. You can remind him once or twice that he is talking "nonsense", if it doesn't help, leave him to his own devices.
There were other times when Albenzo tried to argue while showing a lack of tact. I don't want to go into details.
I had the same claim against Michael Rothschild who rudely attacked Yehuda Sabdarmish on the grounds of tikkun olam (Yehuda Sabdarmish is known to have puzzling claims regarding astrophysics).
as I said. This forum is not a judicial arena where it is forbidden to open your mouth and say only solid scientific claims. That's what professional magazines are for. In the forum it is also allowed to spew nonsense without being hijacked.
Wookie
"I'm not sure it's true that in all the confrontations between you and Albanzo, without exception, he's the one who attacks first, what's more, your interpretation of what counts as an attack is not necessarily the same as what he or others interpret as an attack."
I never started with Albanzo, for the simple reason that I never approached him first, except perhaps for the first article in which he responded and I still didn't know who I was dealing with and dared to ask a polite question. If I'm wrong, show me where. In this article I certainly did not turn to him, but he was the one who attacked me first. If you've noticed, I don't tend to get into confrontations at all, and even in the short confrontation that was between us, I apologized after I realized that you didn't attack me with malicious intent.
I don't think like you that "your interpretation of what is considered an attack is not necessarily the same as what he or others interpret as an attack". Certainly not on a site where people comment freely. Someone may think that if my opinion differs from his, I am attacking him. This is the logic that leads to what we see in large parts of the world. I don't believe in appeasing thugs either. The reason Germany and Japan became peace-loving democracies is, in my opinion, the mortal blow they suffered in World War II, which took away their desire to fight.
Yehuda's example is a good one, because Yehuda, a kind man like him, has been writing on the website for years and expresses his opinion that differs from the opinion of many, including me. So what? Anyone excited? Anyone excited about water? Want to write? Let him write! May he be healthy. If anyone wants to respond to him, let him respond. Whoever doesn't, let him browse.
In my case, what seems to jump out is that I supposedly "spread anti-scientific propaganda" end of quote. This is far from the truth. I do not claim to understand everything in physics, on the contrary. Certain things do not add up to my understanding, so I ask questions, but never make a firm position. There are those who try to deal with the questions, some who browse, and there are those who get angry. I learned a lot and understood a lot from the discussions here, and I also believe that I helped some of the commenters understand certain things.
Do I believe that I understand better than the experts in the field? Of course not. But I'm not ready to accept everything from the mouth of the hero as such, especially because in some cases the answers I receive from the experts contradict each other, as in the case of the "paradox of the twins".
Am I doing this just to annoy? God forbid. I invest a lot of time and money in experiments that, if they fail, it will actually make me happy because it will show that the alternative I believe exists to postulate 2 is wrong. A week ago I conducted an experiment that I gave exactly 1% chance of success, and if it failed it would close the basta for me. The experiment was successful, which leaves me with only the option of much more complex and expensive experiments, which I am also aware will almost certainly lead to nothing in the end, but I have to try.
This is the main reason for the flood of questions and discussions here and on other blogs. The design of the experiments. Nissim helped me a lot with his advice about the GPSs, and the discussions also help to get a picture of what might be happening there, in the kingdom of photons.
Bottom line, I'm not looking for a fight with anyone and I never set out to hurt anyone. But if someone starts with me, I warned him and he doesn't stop, then he will be snatched back tenfold.
Israel
Obviously, this is not wisdom, but when you don't do it from the inside, what is the alternative? Would you rather I get into the fight and then try to stop it? And if you're making parallels with Israel and Hamas, how many times does Israel ally before it enters Hamas?
With all due respect to the sense of justice, sometimes everyone is right and sometimes no one is right, and sometimes you have to know how to overcome the sense of justice and instead do something that will yield something better instead of trying to feed the sense of justice with pita that will satisfy its hunger.
Even the law won't always win you over just because you were attacked first and you're just reacting. If someone blows in your ear and in response you shoot him in the face with whatever the Hebrew word for shotgun is, the law will not exactly acquit you of guilt.
I remember only three people with whom he managed to fight in a debate (you, Yehuda and R. who is not Rafi but who could be Sherfi is an abbreviation of his name), so every other debate in which he was involved is one that Albanzo managed to hold without a fight. So it seems to me that you are exaggerating in this statement.
I'm not sure it's true that in all the confrontations between you and Albanzo, without exception, he is the one who attacks first, what's more, your interpretation of what counts as an attack is not necessarily the same as what he or others interpret as an attack. Saying we won't fight and adding teasing/teasing in the same response is not exactly not being aggressive or trying to avoid conflict. I also have no desire to delve into it because it doesn't matter at all who started it. It matters that it continues and it's better for everyone that it stops.
If you both really enjoy it (and it doesn't seem like it) you can always continue, but it doesn't really contribute anything here so maybe it's better to do it by email.
safkan
This argument started with sediments from the past before it even started, which is probably why Albanzo reacted the way he did. To Israel and you it seems like a playful reaction with no bad intention, but to Albenzo, with the sediments from the past, it might seem like a reaction that attacks science in general and him specifically as part of being a scientist. But it's not really relevant and it doesn't really matter who started it, and who did what to whom after it started. That's why I didn't want to get into it at all, because what matters to me is that it stops (and that's totally my goal).
The question for you could be whether in a comment forum it is allowed to make a mistake without encountering spiteful and insulting comments, and you are welcome to find an answer to it, but for me it is not really important. I have no problem with people arguing to the death as long as there is content in the debate, but when it becomes just a personal quarrel without any accompanying content, or the content is a cycle of the same things without any change, it becomes unnecessary.
All right Albanzo, have the last word, then pee and sleep.
Israel,
You wrote a lot of words, but very little content. Everything you said is in fact: "Here is the only paragraph I am willing to refer to, and everything written after it does not count as far as I am concerned." This is the definition of a partial quote. Besides, you keep accusing me of stupidity and scientific incompetence. OK. You see, neither of us is going to change the other's mind. You won't change anything for me, because I am committed to reality: in reality I have a position at one of the most prestigious universities in the world, I write, publish and innovate, therefore none of your criticism of my scientific ability or my intelligence will ever change for me. You will never change your mind because you are committed to fantasy: you so need to believe you are not stupid that you are deathly afraid of the most innocent act of opening a book. Looking at reality with your eyes will collapse you and therefore you remain north in a world that is full of dreams, a world where the answer "to understand this you have to study" is an obscene answer, and that anything that cannot be explained using Newtonian physics (the highest level you have managed to reach in your many years) is not physics.
After you were bored, you made me laugh again. You constantly repeat your images of war, and in every response you declare yourself like a grandiose winner ("Come on... we'll immediately send you to this response to remind you.."). I'm really starting to believe that in your humble mind you think you're "winning". That you are offending me somehow, or that you are less pathetic to everyone who reads these comments. The many insults you throw at me don't bother me at all. You are welcome to continue. And at the content level - well, well... maybe when you pass the XNUMXth grade we can start talking.
Now I see that in your fantasy I am also a troll who just came to the site to fight. Maybe ask your friends - Nissim, Shmulik, walking death, and many more commenters here on the site. Ask them if when we talk then I fight and curse them or if I try to help and share my experience. Or might you be afraid to do so, because it might burst the fantasy bubble you've created for yourself where you're innocent and I'm an evil sadist?
Like I said from the beginning, I have no interest in you. A bit of pity, but even that passes as you continue to make a fuss (be careful not to have a seizure. I don't want to open the Times one day and see an article about an elderly Israeli who had a stroke while attaching a GPS to an iguana). The reason I am responding to you is because it bothers me to see you spreading your lack of understanding and ignorance, and putting innocent and curious people at risk of infection. But it seems to me that the danger has passed. It's hard for me to imagine someone who will read your opinions here on the website and not understand how pathetic you are.
walking dead
At least in the last debate between Israel and Albenzo - Israel is right about the quarrels. Albanzo is rude and initiated this fight. I don't know what happened in previous fights between them.
The question is not who is right in their quarrels (that is, is physics rigorous, i.e. an orderly Mishna without internal contradictions), or that Alessandro is right (Israel allegedly brings internal contradictions in physics that are not contradictions but a lack of sufficient understanding of Israel). The question is whether to be bitter in a forum where the commenters are not supposed to be under strict judgment as if they had written an article for a newspaper. In a comment forum it is allowed to make mistakes without encountering spiteful and insulting comments.
Wookie how are you? Is the winter breakdown over?
It is not wise to stand aside and say "stop fighting". This is what Israel is told every time when it enters Hamas after they shoot at it first, isn't it?
The sense of natural justice and also the law makes a clear distinction between an aggressor and a defender. The first is guilty, to the gallows or to prison. The second is eligible, free.
In all the confrontations between me and Albanzo without exception he is the one who attacks first. And not just with me, with everyone. Find me one discussion that he holds without a fight. This time it was already completely excessive. I responded with a kind and nostalgic response to Newton's article, and he immediately got into me personally. I have offered him several times to stop, but he is ready. I explained to him that you know how a war starts, but not how it ends. Even now he can stop whenever he wants, but I have no intention of sitting quietly and kidnapping. I guess no one does.
And for those who want to dig a bit into Feynman's spoken text and see and decide for themselves
https://books.google.com/books?id=Uv-uxB0sRKEC&printsec=frontcover&dq=QED:+The+Strange+Theory+of+Light+and+Matter&hl=en&sa=X&ei=X9q0VOqVEovuoAS35oDYDQ&ved=0CCYQ6AEwAA#v=onepage&q&f=false
(Page 10, although I think it's worth reading more than that)
Israel and elbentzo
Maybe you will recognize that you simply have what is called irreconcilable personalities, and it is better that you either don't talk at all or that you at least succeed or try to control yourself and avoid teasing, teasing and swearing (and maybe also in general getting down to personal lines).
Israel, you should try to remember that when you write something in a way that for you is clearly ironic it doesn't always pass or be interpreted that way from the second past of all the electronics that are on the way, and that in writing it is much more difficult to understand tones and intonations than face to face and audio. Your writing style does not spare all kinds of statements that are very clear to you but can be understood in other ways and are often interpreted in a completely different way by others (perhaps it is some kind of cultural gap, a matter of generations or language) and elbentzo is not the first person and probably not the last with whom this has happened /happen to you (this is perhaps the worst case). When you notice that the other party didn't understand you, maybe you should explain the misunderstanding instead of playing games, and hope that suddenly somehow they will understand you properly after all.
I don't want to get into who is more right and who is more wrong (even though I have an opinion) but at this point it is already clear to both of you that each was already wrong on several points. As long as there is no attempt between you to understand what the disagreement is between you, and/or an intention to reach a solution to this conflict, there is no point in continuing this fruitless bickering. It just became a waste of your time.
I think it's safe to say that most other readers and commenters much prefer all of your other responses to these.
That's it, it's not really in my nature to try to stop internet fights but somehow here it's really out of place. Although not the pipe of miracles, I do not have a garden at this moment in my life.
What happened Albanzo, did you enter the tilt?
You have nothing of substance to say, so you go back to your old obsession, Israel?
And I'm not flattered that you spend so much time on who I am, what I am, and what I do. After all, most of your comments on the site are dedicated to me. Go ahead, it's very flattering. I don't intend to do the same for you because you are as interesting to me as the skin of garlic. It seems to me that you are just a stupid person.. just like you are a stupid scientist..
So here we put you in a corner. Beauty.
Claim: Israel, the shameless liar, lied when he distorted Feynman's words. From your words:
"1. You quoted Feynman about not being able to understand quantum mechanics. You were given evidence that this quote was said in a humorous tone and detail was given to the context of the quote, in which Feynman details exactly what will make the subject difficult to understand. All the reasons are humorous, technical, or related to the fact that quantum mechanics is not intuitive. None of them even remotely imply that there is a problem in understanding quantum mechanics as a mathematical model that provides super-accurate predictions."
I brought you Feynman's words simply:
What I am going to tell you about is what we teach our physics students in the third or fourth year of graduate school - and you think I'm going to explain it to you so you can understand it? No, you're not going to be able to understand it. Why, then, am I going to bother you with all this? Why are you going to sit here all this time, when you won't be able to understand what I am going to say? It is my task to convince you not to turn away because you don't
You see, my physics students don't understand it either. That is because I don't understand it. Nobody does
It is true that after that he also mentions his accent, his tie and other trifles. But the main statement is exactly what I claimed he said:
You see, my physics students don't understand it either. That is because I don't understand it. Nobody does.
Just as I claimed.
Now let's say you didn't understand. OK, you also don't understand the difference between "information can be sent" and "information has passed". But it has been explained to you several times that this is what he said. So where is the shameless lie?
Or let's say you understood. So who here lies shamelessly?
So either you have no sense, or you have no integrity. Apparently both.
That was the purpose of the whole discussion here. put you in front of reality. You are the one who starts with personal insults, you are the one who does not understand what it is about, and you are the one who lies shamelessly.
As far as I'm concerned, we can end here. I have had many discussions on the site, most of them with nice and kind people. you are a beast Next, when you treat me or any other victim who is unlucky enough to fall victim to your frustration and your awful nature, we will immediately send you to this comment to remind you of who and what you really are: a violent fool and a liar.
Pee and sleep, snooze.
And again we're back to the fact that I don't know physics...
Israel Shapira, just have mercy on you. A poor old man. It would be really sad if you weren't just such a terrible person, if you didn't deserve to wallow in your own stupidity. Because any person who refuses to open a book and learn what he is talking about deserves to remain ignorant. Continue to rationalize that there is no need for you to open a book, there is no need for you to learn things because you can do without, no need, no need. The main thing is not to look yourself in the eye and say "Israel Shapira does not understand anything about the issues he is talking about. He has a high school knowledge of physics and is trying his best to force nature to behave in a way that aligns with his limited intellect. Anyone who says otherwise is not a scientist and does not know physics and is uncultured and a liar."
You are not a scientist. At most a man of ego.
You wrote that I took Feynman's words out of context. that when he wrote that quantum mechanics is impossible to understand, he meant it in jest, like he makes fun of his New York accent or the fact that he doesn't wear a tie.
I brought you a quote that shows that this is not the case, that he meant it seriously, although you probably didn't understand it like you don't understand many things. That was supposed to be the end of the verse. A true scientist would tell himself that he should admit his mistake and apologize. Not Albantezo, the ego man. You keep twisting and sweating to prove you're right, but it won't help, the facts are stronger than you.
I have no problem with you staying if you didn't make every discussion personal and a fight. I don't need to read the books you brought, because I already showed you the book with which I studied quanta and relativity. By the way, how about you go read a little in the Bible, there is a lot of proof that basically everything will be in His Word, isn't it? This is roughly what you do in your evasions from any substantive discussion, which always end with "go study". from whom? from you? You are not a physicist. At most a sponge who repeats like a parrot what he heard and is incapable of any independent thought.
Good night, scientist. Greetings to Napoleon and Socrates in the adjacent beds.
Yes. Maybe continue with Feynman's quote a few more lines? Because in the following lines it says exactly what I said. I mean, you are trying to prove that my claims that your quote is partial and does not correctly reflect what Feynman says by the fact that you... give only part of the quote. So it's been a very long time since the last time I tried to explain something to you, I already forgot that you don't understand the first time nor the second time. Let's try a third time: in the following lines, Feynman explains why quantum mechanics is not understood. From his explanation it is clear that he is joking. He also lists the reasons and it is clear that they are not reasons that make quantum mechanics incomprehensible, but just something that is difficult to accept because it is not intuitive.
Regarding the second quote, did you really mean to say that nature is only absurd relative to common sense, but in the end a rigorous treatment of the formalism of quantum mechanics is validated and therefore we must accept that it describes reality? Ok, if you say that by this you mean that quantum mechanics, even though it is not intuitive to you, is correct (within the limits of science), then I will admit that I misunderstood you.
In the third quote, all you did was repeat the same quote. It doesn't change anything. The quote is closed. Schrödinger doesn't even say what he's talking about (it was added by someone anonymous who wrote that he said it about "quantum mechanics") or why. If you research a little more instead of doing quote mining then you will find that Schrödinger only accepted the probabilistic interpretation. He had no problem with quantum mechanics and for that reason your quote is cheating.
Regarding the fourth quote - then like the second. Let me first thank you wholeheartedly that whether Einstein liked or disliked is of no consequence because he had a very strong tendency to develop affection or hatred for ideas and many times in his life changed his mind by 180 degrees, and thank you for the fact that Einstein dared a lot and therefore also made many more mistakes than the average physicist, and as a result Hence citing his dislike of a particular idea is meaningless. If that's what you meant - come and say it in Rish Gali.
Israel, what is left to say? That your reference to me as a "scientist" in quotation marks is ridiculous? What to do, the fact that you fail in trying to understand science or make some kind of scientific impact and you're just an old man who spins a GPS on a rotor because he can't do anything more meaningful, does that mean I'm also a "scientist" in quotation marks? Sorry, my dear. I am not a "scientist", I am a scientist. scientist. Doctor. researcher. True. It may hurt you, but it's the truth.
In the meantime we have already seen that I know physics and you don't, know math and you don't, understand reading comprehension and you don't. Want to add English to the list? with fun Happily.
And as usual, you end with "go home", "get together" and the like. But we all know why. Including you, right? You want to get rid of me because you want to shut my mouth. And gagging is, as you know, the ultimate proof that you're just afraid of what I have to say. This is also why you hate me so much, and that my every response brings out such strong emotional responses from you. Because you know I'm right. You know you don't understand anything. You know you live in illusions. You know you're trying to drag more people with you so you don't live alone in a world of people who really want to understand but just can't.
At first you made me laugh, but you've become boring. I have no real interest in corresponding with you. As I have stated many times before, the only thing I care about is that you don't drag any more innocent people into the depths of your ignorance. But I think every bystander already got the picture. God knows that all the regular commenters have already explicitly made it clear to you that it is clear that you simply do not understand what you are talking about, and instead of learning, you try to force reality to behave according to the laws that you do understand (or think you understand). Or maybe you repressed it?
Good luck later.
Oh, wait, one last thing: have you unlocked Sakurai yet? Can you look in the mirror, straight in the eyes of Israel Shapira, and tell him what his level of knowledge is compared to the knowledge of a bachelor's degree student? How far is he from the standard of a BSc graduate?
A rascal remains a rascal...
"1. You quoted Feynman about not being able to understand quantum mechanics. You were given evidence that this quote was said in a humorous tone and detail was given to the context of the quote, in which Feynman details exactly what will make the subject difficult to understand. All the reasons are humorous, technical, or related to the fact that quantum mechanics is not intuitive. None of them even remotely imply that there is a problem in understanding quantum mechanics as a mathematical model that provides super-accurate predictions."
Here is what Feynman wrote in the introduction to QED, page 9:
What I am going to tell you about is what we teach our physics students in the third or fourth year of graduate school - and you think I'm going to explain it to you so you can understand it? No, you're not going to be able to understand it. Why, then, am I going to bother you with all this? Why are you going to sit here all this time, when you won't be able to understand what I am going to say? It is my task to convince you not to turn away because you don't understand it. You see, my physics students don't understand it either. That is because I don't understand it. Nobody does.
Could anything be clearer than that? Or maybe the "man of science" understands something that even Feynman himself didn't know he was writing?
"2. You brought a quote from Feynman regarding the absurdity of nature. It's a partial quote, and the full quote clearly shows that the absurdity he's talking about is only in relation to common sense, that is, our everyday logic and intuition."
So what? Has anyone claimed something different? Or maybe the "scientist" understands something about what I meant like he "understands" Feynman?
"3. You brought in a quote from Schrödinger saying he doesn't like something, but the quote is vague and doesn't say what you were trying to say. Schrödinger's problems with quantum mechanics were philosophical problems with the implications of probabilistic mechanics, and as a physical theory he supported it (and evidently, worked on it and promoted it)."
Here is the quote I brought:
"I don't like it, and I'm sorry I ever had anything to do with it.
(Erwin Schrodinger talking about Quantum Physics)"
Does the "scientist" have problems with understanding English? Isn't it stated in the quote that he didn't like quantum mechanics? Because this is what appears in his biography, p.a.
I said exactly what I meant. I didn't say he didn't accept her, but rather that he didn't like her, or by extension her statistical interpretation. The "man of science" examines heart and kidneys, probably "knows" what Schrödinger really meant, just as he "understands" what Feynman meant when he said explicit things.
So there you go, 3 Pipen claims. Goes to the fourth:
"4. You said on behalf of Einstein that he despised the ugly quantum mechanics (you did not give a direct quote). This is true and I have no factual claim to this statement, but in my opinion it is extremely dishonest to omit the fact that Einstein was a genius and brilliant type, but emotional and reckless. More than once he published a result or an idea, or published something condemning someone else's result or idea, and a week later he would publish an apology and a correction. Therefore, turning to authority is a big mistake, and turning to an emotional authority that changes its mind and is not afraid to make mistakes (and then correct them, if it can) is an even bigger mistake. Einstein's scientific works are hard to argue with. With what he liked or didn't like, very easy."
Well, even for the "scientist" it is difficult to argue with such an obvious fact that any quick roll of einstein hated quantum physics will provide endless evidence for it. But the "man of science" who must always be right, continues "it is extremely dishonest to omit the fact that Einstein was a genius and brilliant type, but emotional and reckless", as if anyone had ever claimed anything different.
In short, "scientist", you failed to bring even one piece of evidence that I am a "shameless liar". On the contrary. You just proved what a hopeless prattle you are. Your other constant claims against me, that I "spread stupidity and anti-scientific propaganda that converts would not be ashamed of" that "my skepticism is nothing more than the whining of a small child, who refuses to accept what he does not understand" are also based on the same embarrassing logic of a learned calf He didn't read, or doesn't understand, what I'm saying.
go home snooze Here you managed to turn another discussion that could have been nice about Newton into another fight, and that's because of your inflated ego.
Israel,
As usual, you didn't answer anything. You can handle it so you run away. And as usual, you don't read what they write to you (or maybe you just can't understand). But for the difficulties of absorption and the slowness of understanding, we will repeat again the reasons why your quotes are inaccurate, incomplete, or simply not completely honest:
1. You quoted Feynman about not understanding quantum mechanics. You were given evidence that this quote was said in a humorous tone and detail was given to the context of the quote, in which Feynman details exactly what will make the subject difficult to understand. All the reasons are humorous, technical, or related to the fact that quantum mechanics is not intuitive. None of them even remotely imply that there is a problem with understanding quantum mechanics as a mathematical model that provides super-accurate predictions.
2. You brought a quote from Feynman regarding the absurdity of nature. It's a partial quote, and the full quote clearly shows that the absurdity he's talking about is only relative to common sense, that is, our everyday logic and intuition.
3. You brought in a quote from Schrödinger that says he doesn't like something, but the quote is vague and doesn't say what you were trying to say. Schrödinger's problems with quantum mechanics were philosophical problems with the implications of probabilistic mechanics, and as a physical theory he supported (and evidently worked with and promoted) it.
4. You said on behalf of Einstein that he despised the ugly quantum mechanics (you did not give a direct quote). This is true and I have no factual claim to this statement, but in my opinion it is extremely dishonest to omit the fact that Einstein was a genius and brilliant type, but emotional and reckless. More than once he published a result or an idea, or published something condemning someone else's result or idea, and a week later he would publish an apology and a correction. Therefore, turning to authority is a big mistake, and turning to an emotional authority that changes its mind and is not afraid to make mistakes (and then correct them, if it can) is an even bigger mistake. Einstein's scientific works are hard to argue with. With what he liked or did not like, very easy.
Isstra Belginah
Istra in the garden
Miracles
Don't be a kindergartener, see who starts.
Should I bring the pipe from the garden and separate you?
What can I tell you Albanzo, you are taking advantage of the liberality of the site that doesn't block a troll like you who just turns every discussion into a fight and discussion.
All the quotes I gave are accurate and were not taken out of context. But since you claim to be a scientist who believes in facts and truth, come and show me and the forum what of what I said is not accurate and take it out of context. This will also be your chance to prove to all of us what a shameless liar I am as you always claim.
You can start with this article, or any other article you choose. You can also recruit for your help any commenter you choose. Come on, it's all chained. We are all expecting and waiting for you, man of science.
Maybe we'll find out which one of us is really the shameless liar.
Israel, you are simply hysterical. Also in the hysterical sense, you just lose control in an embarrassing way, and also in the sense that I haven't laughed like that in years.
So where do we start? Invalidating own imperfection invalidates. You accuse me of not saying anything. So let's see - you brought three quotes, all three are either inaccurate, or partial, or taken out of context. I explained what is problematic in the interpretation of each of the three, including bringing sources where necessary. Let's see, on the other hand, what you had to say: "If you are a physics lecturer, it only indicates the sad state of affairs", "the ridiculous arrogance of you and your kind", "violent and uncivilized human savages", "waste the taxpayers' money", "inflate for themselves the ego", "putz", "book", learned calf", and more. Already three comments and still not one word with content. But this is always the case with you, because you lack content. How can you expect something to have content if nothing ever goes in?
Oh, so I'm a bad physicist? Well, after carefully reading all my posts, it makes sense for you to make such a determination. Oh, a second. Have you never read my publication? What is? Have you never read *any* modern scientific publication by anyone? So you are really in a position to judge who is good and who is not! And by the way, I am not a physics lecturer in Israel. At the moment I am not a lecturer at all, I am a researcher. And not in Israel. Precisely at a small university on the east coast, you know - one of the best of the ivy league. But what does it matter, you decided that I was a bad physicist who contributed nothing to understanding, so what does it matter what happens in reality... and just so you know that the universities in Israel have excellent physics departments. Not that you will know the difference between a good class and a bad one. Rabak, you won't know the difference between a good student and a bad student in ninth grade science.
Israel, shut your mouth and don't forget to breathe. You lose control. You are entering a spiral. Savage? Uncultured? Come on... and all this because I'm not willing to be silent when you mislead people, spread nonsense and anti-scientific propaganda that converts wouldn't be ashamed of? Did I waste tax money? You are already really holding on hard... First, I didn't waste tax money because I did my doctorate funded by a private scholarship. Second, even if I received a scholarship from an Israeli institution, it would not be a waste of tax money since I pay taxes. In a moment you will say that if I drive on a road in Israel then I am wasting tax money because the road was paved with their help. Honestly, I wouldn't be surprised if this is your next argument, it has all the qualities you like: irrelevant, stupid, and trying to hurt me and my credibility at all costs.
Am I trying to inflate my ego? After all, your entire crusade against science is solely so that you can preserve for yourself a worldview in which you are an intelligent and curious person, a skeptic who thinks about things while the herd simply accepts them. Deep down you know the truth. There is no healthy skepticism here, no criticism. There is only ignorance here, and a disgruntled old man who would like to understand science but simply cannot. You know that, and that's why you're deathly afraid of studying. That's why it never matters what they tell you or why, you won't open a book and learn information theory. You won't open Sakurai and compare your understanding of quantum mechanics to that expected of an undergraduate. If you do these things, you will have to admit that by objective measures you are simply talking about things you do not understand, and your skepticism is nothing more than the whining of a small child, who refuses to accept what he does not understand.
Meanwhile, of the two of us, I'm the only one who gets into business discussions. Since I started reading here on the website, about half a year ago, you have not uttered a single substantive word.
But now I'm on national leave, and it's morning here, and I have to go to one of our worst universities to work. You know, to study physics.
In short, you are starting again. And as usual you have nothing relevant to say.
Have you ever thought about going to a workshop for the treatment of uncontrollable rage? Maybe you should take an example from Matavil opening from Maltama.
If you are a physics lecturer, this only indicates the dismal situation in the universities in Israel, and the reason for their low ranking in the world.
For Rosh Hashanah, Beiti and her fiance visited us, two charming doctoral students who are engaged in research at one of the excellent universities of the ivy league. What a difference between their modesty and the ridiculous arrogance of you and your ilk, violent and uncivilized human savages who feel that if they wasted the taxpayer's money and acquired an education at his expense it gives them the right to lash out at others to inflate their egos.
You didn't understand what I wrote, as always. You can't understand irony because you're an idiot. beech. A learned calf. All you can always say is "go study" because you know very well that if you enter into a substantive discussion, it will become clear to you and everyone else that the time and money you wasted added nothing and a half to understanding the matter.
So as always, overlap.
LOL.
Israel, last time we got to pointless insults. I had the maturity to apologize, you stay on your own. If you consider it that I "humiliated myself", you are only testifying about yourself.
I have no obsession with you. It just hurts me to see a man who tries hard to control his ignorance. I mostly feel sorry for you, but not enough to let you flat-out lie on a website that aims to promote science.
To the best of my recollection, the last time the one who came out humiliated was not me. The one who came out humiliated is the one who asked to add to our discussion the commenters Nissim, Shmulik, and to the best of my memory walking death. The one who came out humiliated is the one who each and every one of the commenters who joined the discussion, including some anonymous ones who commented specifically for this purpose, made it clear to him that he is talking nonsense and that he is simply projecting his lack of understanding on physics. That is, he does not understand something and therefore claims that it is a mistake.
I know, I know. It hurts you that the forum here is free. That when you lie or just write horribly stupid things, people have the ability to expose your arrogance and stupidity. What to do... I am allowed to respond as much as I want, whether it suits you or not. And unlike you, I never claimed that I don't respond to your words sometimes (note that I didn't contact you, because I don't want to talk to you. You are a poor person and I have nothing to gain from talking to you). I just said that your claim that I am stalking you and that you are a poor victim of my harassment is false. And my claim is of course supported by the evidence that more than once you turned to me and asked me to explain something to you (always of course with the malicious intent of finding a contradiction or a problem in the explanation and never out of a genuine desire to learn).
But as usual, I have already written two comments and still 0 content. I wonder why…? Tell me, have you learned what information is yet? Did you learn the sentences I referred you to? Have you opened Sakroi and checked whether your knowledge of quantum mechanics approaches the level required of a bachelor's degree student? It's okay, don't answer. As I wrote, I have no interest in your words. I read comments here on the site from time to time, and when I see false, demagogic or simply stupid comments, I will expose them as such. Beyond that - you can be rude.
Albentezo
Lately I've been disappearing a bit, and I've started to miss the wild attacks of my secret admirer.
But before you make fun of yourself one more time in front of all the innocents who believe that you really represent something scientific: there is no doubt that you start with me, right? I didn't turn to you, I didn't ask for your advice, I have no interest in your silly nonsense in the guise of scientific authority.
You are the one who starts, because of the obsession you have with me.
Just remember that you know how a war starts, not how it ends.
Want to apologize and end here?
Israel,
Maybe give a quote that shows Schrödinger thought quantum mechanics was wrong? I did not say that your quote is inaccurate - I said that it is cherry picking that tries to create a false representation. Perhaps you will provide an explicit quote in which Schrödinger says that the quantum theory is wrong? Why bring a vague quote from which it is not clear what exactly the criticism is about and what it is based on? Why don't you remember the several thousand Schrödinger quotes that support quantum mechanics, which (unlike your quote) are also scientifically based - that is, studies he carried out within the framework of formalism? No, it will not serve your purpose - to dress the ignorance of Israel Shapira in the beautiful clothes of a skeptic and scientist.
Oh, so Feynman is serious in the quote you gave? He's also serious in that paragraph when he talks about how one of the reasons quantum mechanics is hard to understand is because he has a heavy New York accent? Or when he talks about the fact that he doesn't wear a tie so the students have nothing to stare at in class? Yes, you're right, the height of seriousness. For the benefit of those who do not have access to the book, here are the four reasons Feynman lists why readers of the book are not going to understand quantum mechanics:
1. Because of his heavy New York accent.
2. Because physicists use words from everyday life in non-everyday meanings (like "work", "action", etc.).
3. Because it describes how nature works and not why it works that way.
4. Because when he tells the audience what he has to say, they just won't *believe* it. They will not like his words because they are not intuitive to them and they do not connect with them and therefore they cannot accept them. A black screen covers their eyes and they stop listening. Sound familiar to anyone?
Let's end with a quote. In fact, let's end with the quote that Israel Shapira brought, but this time we won't distort it in order to make it seem as if Feynman is also on the side of anti-science that Israel Shapira uses in order not to feel stupid. Let's quote precisely:
"The theory of quantum electrodynamics describes nature as absurd from the point of view of common sense. And it fully agrees with experiment. So I hope you can accept Nature as She is - absurd".
Meaning, quantum mechanics is absurd when compared to common sense, i.e. - the little voice in our head that tells us how things should behave. The voice that bases its assertions on every experience of our senses in all the years of our lives - an experience that is entirely Newtonian because we have never developed a non-Newtonian intuition, unless we have studied non-Newtonian physics. But despite the description of nature that seems inconsistent with our intuition, this description is accurate when tested in the laboratory.
Elbentzo
How can you explain that until this moment many scientists are working on discovering the "foundation stones" of
The energy / matter, at the same time all the discoveries, equations, laws and explanation of natural phenomena
Engaged in describing the behavior of nature and finding the characteristics of nature, because without the foundation stones
We will never know why and we will always continue to discover only characterizations?
If we take 3 virtual cornerstones (positive, negative and neutral - not in the electrical sense, but
yes there is repulsion and attraction) not necessarily smaller than an electron but with high permeability
And a speed several orders of magnitude higher than the speed of light, which can be combined
Certain and different forms of movement to represent movement / energy and other characteristics
of the 30 elements of the atom found so far.
Do you think it will be possible with those 3 elementary particles to explain the characteristics of nature
As science explains them without the foundation stones today?
Why
I actually believe I understood the quote well.
Do you think that Einstein who hated quantum theory, Schrödinger whom I quoted exactly, or Feynman who in the opening of his book QED claims that no one understands quantum mechanics (not jokingly as Albantazo Arkman says) do not understand quantum mechanics?
But there is a difference between understanding and accepting and loving. And to quote Feynman, nature is absurd.
That's why I got nostalgic when I read the article about cute Newton and saw the movie. aren't you?
A bit of history: the truth lost to the right way in 77.
Israel, your response raises concerns that you may not have understood the quote at all.
The quote says that it doesn't matter what Plato says or Aristotle says or Newton says or Einstein says. What matters is the truth. Your response (and I'm simplifying): oh really? But it says this and it says this and it says this...
Some people will disagree with the quote and say that common sense, beauty and simplicity are more important (I have no idea if you are one of them). It is even possible that Einstein, mercifully, was one of them.
To such people I say, it's a shame to argue about taste and smell, but there is only one truth.
By the way, remember the days when in elementary school we learned that pi is 22 sevenths? What was wrong with us? Why did it have to be complicated?
I studied electrical engineering in the distant past. I remember being shocked when I learned that the most useful number in electricity is the root of minus one, and it is further denoted j...
Albantezo, are you sure you want to get involved again?
Well, miracles... haven't you figured it out yet? Israel is not interested in giving up Newton because he manages to understand him. His only motive is to run over studies he doesn't understand, so he doesn't have to face reality. As long as he leaves science at the secondary level he can think of himself as a skeptic, someone who thinks outside the box. If he sits down and learns the things, he will have to admit that his "skepticism" is no different from that of a 5-year-old child who repeats the question "Why? Why? Why?" And thinks he's smart...
There was once a discerning anonymous commenter here who asked him how he differentiates between physics and mathematics. His answer, paraphrased (and Israel forgives me that I don't intend to go through 1000 or so comments and find the exact quote, even though I know that without an exact quote you will accuse me of curiosity/diversion, etc.), was that everything physical can, in his opinion, be understood with Newtonian tools. In addition, he expanded and said that if the solution has three dimensions then it is physical, and if another number - then it is only mathematics.
This, to me, was Israel Shapira's breakthrough point - if it's not something I can imagine, then it's not physics. Maximum mathematical trick. Woe to us if the scientific development of the modern world depended on the cognitive abilities of Israel Shapira.
Einstein is perhaps the physicist who made the most mistakes in history. All his writings are displayed at the Hebrew University, you can go and see - he would publish an article almost every week, and usually a week later he would publish an apology and a withdrawal, meaning the cancellation of his words due to mistakes. This does not diminish his genius or his talent or his contribution, but it certainly means that to sanctify his words is a stupid act, nothing less and nothing more.
Feynman said that quantum mechanics cannot be understood in jest. Feynman was in the mill and half of his quotes are tongue in cheek. He hinted at the complexity of the quantum Torah in the extreme statement that "no one understands it". To take his words literally is an act of stupidity.
Schrödinger never claimed the incorrectness of the quantum theory. His problem was only with the philosophical implications of probabilistic theory. Of course, quantum mechanics has interpretations that are not probabilistic, and in any case - his claims were based on philosophy and not physics. Therefore, using them to contradict quantum mechanics - you guessed it, stupidity.
But what to do. When you can't understand the science, all that's left is to collect partial quotes from people's *opinions* that are in no way supported by physical reality (i.e., the antithesis of science), and try to convince yourself and some others that the reason you don't understand it is because it Not true. God forbid to refer to the fact that we have 100 years of predictions and experiments that agree to accuracy levels of up to 17 digits after the decimal point, that we have discovered countless physical phenomena as a result of a theoretical prediction, or that the ideas are applied on a day-to-day level to a technology that *works*.
You can lead the horse to the trough, but you can't make him drink. Just like you can present the facts to Israel Shapira, but you can't force him to study them and the relevant science before he decides that everything he doesn't understand is a mistake...
Israel
If anything, let's go back to Copernicus' model... simple circles. Why get involved with ellipses, whose circumference cannot be calculated at all? Why did this Newton complicate everything???
Nice why, razor sharp diagnosis.
Now tell that to Einstein who despised the "ugly" quantum mechanics, to Feynman who claimed it was impossible to understand, or to Schrödinger who said:
I don't like it, and I'm sorry I ever had anything to do with it.
(Erwin Schrodinger talking about Quantum Physics)
Newton would turn over in his grave reading the sentence "Why do we even need all this modern physics, what was wrong with us with Galileo Newton and Maxwell"
"Plato is my friend, Aristotle is my friend, but my greatest friend of all is the truth"
Isaac Newton, in the essay "Some Philosophical Questions"
Oh, Newton, Newton, where have you gone, where, where are the times when logic and common sense were the cornerstone of physics.
Why do we even need all this modern physics, what was wrong with us with Galileo Newton and Maxwell.
Remember the days when a wave was a wave, a particle was a particle, and electrons circled around the nucleus like ducklings around a mother goose? Remember the elderly Galileo throwing weights from the Tower of Pisa? Newton stirring the bowl of the alchemists? The runner with the metal marbles? Edison and the lamp? The Wright brothers who built an airplane in a bicycle repair shop before all the bustling industries of the early 20th century?
What fun it was to read the article and watch the movie.