The failures at the particle accelerator in Geneva, the LHC were not caused by the impact of the future

107 תגובות

1. Regarding Bohm and his ideas about hidden variables (as worthy candidates to explain uncertainty and quantum "strangeness"), his book Wholeness and the implicate order is recommended.
   As one of the best explainers of quantum physics in his youth, he later came to the thought that the fact that the quantum theory is based on a wave function and probability, shows ignorance of relevant variables (hidden for the time being).
   As an example, he mentioned the calculations of insurance companies, which can determine in a systematic and well-founded manner, what is the chance that a person of a known gender, age, lifestyle, diet, place of residence, etc. will die in a certain year of his life.
   Quantum physics is able to produce similar probability calculations for particles.
   But to determine exactly when and how a certain person will die, it will be necessary to know many other variables. And this is already much more difficult to do, but it is easy to understand that the use of probabilistic tools is (always) done when there is no knowledge-control over many relevant variables.
   And such - he claims - exist.

2. to give or twenty
   Thanks for the response, but it is incorrect to state that the very knowledge has no mathematical meaning. The phenomenon is explained by the collapse of the super position. And physical happens only when viewing.

3. side note (not serious)

   The claim of the pair of physicists is as old as the Tower of Babel where a supreme being also prevented man from competing with it. only
   that in the present case man pretends to decipher the secrets of nature. The question arises whether the recent rains are the beginning of a flood...

4. Hello Eddie,
   I found a new article, only two days old, in Calcalist - about Aharonov's views on the subject of time. I don't know how much this is what you are looking for. However, Aaronov himself has a website on the Internet, in which his articles are mentioned, in physical fiction. The site can be easily reached through Wikipedia.
   A link to an article in Calcalist by Itai Lahat, who probably interviewed Aharonov for the purpose of writing about the subject of the article here - below:

   http://www.calcalist.co.il/local/articles/0,7340,L-3365730,00.html

5. Higgs:
   As I said in my response to Ehud - it does not surprise me that his name is not mentioned in the publications.
   These companies went some 700 steps beyond Aharonov's speculation.
   The effect of the future on the present due to a mere natural law is not really interesting to them because they wanted to talk about an intelligent being with a will that causes phenomena.

6. By the way Michael:
   Aharonov is the prophet of the wave function from the future to the past. Double according to his opinion, one that goes forward in time and the other the other way around.
   It is interesting that his name is not mentioned in the publications.

7. incidentally:
   Even between the lines of Aharonov there is agreement with my claim that the increase of entropy is not a fundamental law but rather a result of fundamental laws.
   That is why he is debating whether this law proves that time moves and not whether it causes the movement of time.
   That is - as I have already argued - the increase in entropy is a result of the flow of time (and of probabilistic considerations) and not a fundamental law in itself.

8. Eddie:
   I currently don't have any special source on the subject of Aharonov and all I can do is search the internet, but you can do that too, so I'll spare myself the effort.
   Regarding Avshalom Elitzur's book - I have already mentioned it in this discussion and as a principle I have already said that my personal feeling is that indeed time progresses in one direction and does not measure in all dimensions.
   I also pointed out the main reasons I see for this claim.
   I also said that in my opinion, Avshalom Elizur's book has some mistakes, but as a general rule, I think it is a good introduction for those interested in the problem.
   In short - I have nothing to add beyond what I have said - unless something from what I have already said is not clear, in which case I would appreciate it if you would focus on the question.

9. Here is Ada,

   Thanks.
   I read this interview with Yanai before, and my feeling didn't change even when I read it again; Aharonov asks questions, and he formulates some formulations, but the essential principles are not really formulated, except for the level of titles - not to mention detailed arguments. In short - I didn't really understand, and I'm satisfied if others understood who knows what. Even Yanai's questions do not always strive to provide the answer.
   If Aaronov wasn't a very serious physicist - I would think the whole interview is a promo for a cheap marketing move for a popular science book or for a Nobel nomination (if Obama won the Nobel thanks to marketing magic - why don't we try it for others too...).

   What bothers me is the view (perhaps also present in Aharonov), as if time is a given dimension that supposedly exists as a constant objective 'given'. As you obviously claimed, there is reason to doubt this, even if this position has become a kind of 'idea fix' among most scientists. A few (like Avshalom Elitzur, or - before him - Fritz Rorlich in his book 'Paradox to Reality', and a few others) tried to deal with this issue with an open and liberated approach, and raised certain question marks about this position.
   There is no doubt that time is a kind of dimension. But it is possible that it is not a normal dimension, and it is not the 'fourth dimension' that the observed three-dimensional universe flows on its envelope as if the universe had a geometry of 'on a sphere', let's say. In light of the various difficulties that Rorlich, Elitzur and others raise - it is possible that it does have the property of irreversibility, and it is possible that it has the property of special 'creativity', and it is 'developing'.
   Perhaps Aaronov has an interesting theory on the subject. If you have a better source on the issue - I'd love to hear it.

10. Eddie thanks for mentioning my argument above.
    I am attaching a link to an article, in which Zvi Yanai interviewed Aharonov - in the context of time.
    The interview was a long time ago, appeared as a chapter in Zvi Yanai's book, and was recently re-uploaded by YNET.

    http://www.ynet.co.il/articles/0,7340,L-3786378,00.html

11. Michael,
    1. I hear a lot 'about' Aharonov's theory, but I haven't found a source that explains it in detail. If you know of a source as above - please let me know. Thanks.
    2. Returning to Kaan Ada's claim about the clichés of the claim about the reversibility of the arrow of time - Avshalom Elitzur in his book 'Time and Consciousness' provides significant evidence for the claim of irreversibility (pay attention to his discussion of k food). What do you think?

12. sympathetic:
    I was not aware of this interpretation and will not comment on it until I try to understand it a little more.
    Anyway - since my claim was statistical ("there aren't many physicists today..."), I tend to believe it is still true (especially since in the description of Bohm's interpretation on Wikipedia - they talk about "Bohm's interpretation versus the standard interpretation").
    All of this, by the way, as interesting as it is, does not bring God into the picture and again - this is what the two Havrelitzes admit they do.

13. Michael

    I mentioned Bohm's Torah (and not Aaronov) in the context of a law determining the collapse of the wave function. In Bohm's model there are particles guided by what he calls an information wave
    Not local and the particle distribution is determined by the wave function. This interpretation of Bohm's quantum theory
    called the Guiding wave interpretation
    or pilot wave interpretation

14. sympathetic:
    I am aware of Penrose's work and I have even quoted his books The Emperor's New Mind and Shadows of the Mind many times on this site.

    I am also aware of the ideas of Aharonov and Boehm.

    None of this even comes close to the delusion of the two celebrated physicists who attribute to nature, in one form or another, will and design. They themselves said that it was God - an idea that is completely foreign to the approaches of Penrose and Aaronov.

    Also the thought that Teva's law will act every time in a different crooked way and will not repeat the same mistake every time seems strange to me. What - is he trying not to get bored?

    By the way - I would not describe Aharonov's idea as a law describing the collapse of the wave function because this is not about a law but about the fact that just as the whole future already exists - the result of the collapse also already exists and of course it is consistent with the rest of the future.
    The words "cause" or "effect", in my opinion, even if they are used - are not relevant.
    A reason is necessary for something that does not exist and not for something that already exists.

15. Michael

    There are physicists who hold theories in which there is a (deterministic) law determining the collapse of the wave function, see for example: Bohm's theory (the same Bohm from Aaronov Bohm).

    In my opinion, quantum coincidences have nothing to do with the everyday phenomena we witness such as malfunctions in an accelerator, and therefore I do not discuss quantum theory. Although at a glance it seems that the pair of physicists attribute the failures in the accelerator to quantum sources... Aaronov (again also Mahronov Boehm) has theories in which the future influences the past.

    By the way, the one who does connect quantum randomness with consciousness is the famous scientist Sir Roger Penrose, so that he attributes free will to quantum randomness.

    The point I wanted to point out is the relationship between randomness and fate, two accepted human concepts to describe unusual events and in this context the claims against the malfunctions in the Zern accelerator. Personally, I believe that the faults are within the reasonable range in a scientific-engineering project of such magnitude.

16. sympathetic:
    Regarding response 90 - I did not claim otherwise.
    Of course I think that the idea is illusory and that the need to assume the existence of God in order to draw his conclusions is no less illusory, but logically there is no flaw here.
    All in all, I had a little fun with the further development of their idea and hopefully we will find the law that brings people to join Al Qaeda.

17. To the best of my knowledge, today there are not many physicists who claim that there is any law behind a specific result of the collapse of the wave function - other than the law of nature that determines the probability of the different results.
    At least the possibility of the existence of local hidden variables (by which the law of nature can "make a decision") was ruled out by Bell's theorem and the experiments that followed it.

18. Michael
    If the laws of physics are the vision of everything, then there is no room for free will and everything is predetermined (to the extent of quantum uncertainties)
    But the argument about free will is an exhausting and powerless argument. Thus Bria is infinitely wise like Laplace's demon
    You will be able to predict who will join al-Qaeda in advance and who will not, as well as who will write a response to this response and what they will write in it.

    The attempt of the pair of scientists to determine the fate of the accelerator by lottery originates from the assumption that the future is fixed and reality is determined only by the laws of physics.

19. Anonymous The phenomena visible to our eyes on a daily basis do not depend on quantum theory. I challenge you to find a macroscopic phenomenon (other than a detector reading) that originates from the coincidences underlying quantum theory.

    In any case, the point I raised concerned the question of whether events that seem to us to be random are indeed such. A religious person will say that everything is God's will and a zealous physicist will say that everything is determined by the laws of nature at one level or another.

    Indeed you are right, God's will is not a set pattern, the meaning is that things happen as they are supposed to happen according to God's will and randomness comes from us mortals not understanding God's will.

20. It would be very interesting to understand the physical law that recruits people to al-Qaeda.
    It is even possible that the discovery of this law is more important to us than the discovery of the Higgs boson.

21. sympathetic,

    You were wrong twice:

    "God's will" is not "according to a defined pattern", but an excuse for any event that is incomprehensible to the religious person.

    According to the laws of nature, of course there are coincidences - this is at the base of quantum theory, therefore your conclusion as if "a law of nature or a natural phenomenon that prevents its success" is completely wrong

22. One of the interesting philosophical questions in the context of the accelerator is the question of luck versus fate. When a religious person encounters an inexplicable collection of phenomena, he explains them as the will of God, meaning that things happen according to a definite pattern and there are no random events, everything is determined by fate. A follower of the natural sciences will also believe that things are conducted according to the laws of nature and in this sense there is no room for chance, everything is determined according to the laws of nature that determine fate, therefore if an experiment fails several times then there is a law of nature or a natural phenomenon that prevents its success. Is the lack of success in the accelerator experiments bad luck or fate determined by a physical law?

23. Higgs thanks for the reply, and thanks for putting your rivers in such a refreshingly-knowledgeable way. The point of the lack of constants in information theory seemed particularly interesting to me, and I promise to think more about it and keep up to date (and not try to write an answer that was not well thought out).
    I will eagerly listen to the Canadian panel shortly.

    Thank you Ehud for your answer and moving the subject to the question of the meaning of physical sizes, without intelligent beings.

    And actually you both raised enough topics that can be dealt with separately. And it would be nice if it happened here in Hidan.

    You are welcome and all the best.

24. In Yiddish they don't say HERGOT but only GOT

25. Higgs:
    Of the policeman who can read and the policeman who can write - in Yiddish I am the only one who can read.
    My understanding of German allows me to decipher things said in Yiddish but not to synthesize such things.

26. Thanks Michael, that sounds exactly right.
    Does it seem to ring the same in Yiddish?

27. Higgs:
    The original is indeed in German but the English translation is accurate.
    In German it looks like this:
    Raffiniert ist der Herrgott, aber boshaft ist er nicht.

28. Kao Ada

    The point about the broken or whole glass is not about entropy calculation but about entropy as a physical quantity.
    It is clear without calculation that the entropy of a broken glass is greater. Entropy is a thermodynamic physical quantity and is not related to subjective feelings. Whether there is any meaning to fiscal sizes without intelligent beings is another question
    ... Whether the tree that falls in the forest is heard/seen by God who preserves things is already a theological debate.

    Higgs
    Thanks for the references to the conference! Looks fascinating. By the way, in a flash it turned out to me that there were two Israeli representatives
    At a computer science conference

29. Higgs, sorry but I had to make time for urgent work. This article is high priority.

30. Thanks Michael, but that's how you paste directly from the Hebrew wiki.
    If the quote is correct, was it originally said in German or English? maybe you know

    I tried to convince Avi Blizovsky to translate the physicists' panel summary.
    In my opinion, this is interesting and important to the question of where the physics is headed.
    Here are the links.
    The headline below is from the New Scientist.
    Seven questions that keep physicists up at night

    And I have no idea why the links to scientific sites didn't go without those links then again

31. Thanks Michael, but that's how you paste directly from the Hebrew wiki.
    If the quote is correct, was it originally said in German or English? maybe you know

    I tried to convince Avi Blizovsky to translate the physicists' panel summary.
    In my opinion, this is interesting and important to the question of where the physics is headed.
    Here are the links.
    The headline below is from the New Scientist.
    Seven questions that keep physicists up at night

    http://www.newscientist.com/article/dn18041-seven-questions-that-keep-physicists-up-at-night.html#

    The link to the panel video

    http://www.q2cfestival.com/play.php?lecture_id=7976

32. By the way - a better translation for malicious is "malicious"

33. Higgs:
    The correct translation for Subtle is "refined" or "sophisticated" and not "cunning"

34. Here is Ada:
    There is certainly no problem in detecting the electron. I actually meant that you cannot attach a personal number to a particle of this type.
    The complexity of the quantum world stems precisely from the lack of complexity, the lack of multiplicity of properties.
    Regarding entropy, in my humble opinion this law is ambiguous and mainly stems from a lack of a better interpretation of thermodynamics.
    I pointed to the problem that Hawking and Bekenstein wrestled with. The information problem as it is sometimes called.
    One of the problems stems from the fact that it is very difficult to define what is disorder versus order.
    Because randomness for one may be information for the other. According to what scale and how can a measure of absolute information or order be calibrated. And I don't mean translating information from one type to another. Rather, the information itself, the arrangements within it, are very difficult to attribute to something permanent.
    That is, if you look at all the existing and potential information, it is impossible to point to constants such as the speed of light in relationships.
    Hence the short way to understand the magnitude of the problem of what reality or existence is. Or concretely what is the meaning of the existence of the wave function and what is the meaning of the measurement.
    In this way it is easy to understand that the laws of physics today are far from perfect. We are just at the beginning.
    Regarding time, I certainly agree that causality and time are both involved in the description of the sequence. It is the source of meaning itself.
    Agree with the insight that the universe is intelligent.
    Einstein said "God is cunning, but not evil."
    In my humble opinion the universe is much more sophisticated than we can even imagine.
    By the way, I recommend listening to the panel of first-rate physicists that just ended in Canada.
    It's called: Q2CFESTIVAL
    quantum to cosmos
    Nine physicists answer the seven fundamental questions in today's physics.

35. Here is Ada:
    got it.
    It is clear now why the practical things do not interest you.
    You only wrote here so that people would say amen to your words even if they think they are wrong.
    Know that anyone who is told that he repeats clichés (and this cliché is repeated many times) will feel hurt.
    It's in my head like it's in every human's head.

36. Michael Rothschild:
    To your response number 67:
    The thanks were for the time you took to answer me and for the attention - ignoring the verbal violence, which started with your assertion that my examples are not good. (The grade is unnecessary - you are not my teacher).
    The feeling that there is disdain in my words towards scientists, of all kinds - is rooted in your thinking.

37. Dear Ehud, Thank you for your reply.
    So think for a moment about a universe without people (and aliens), and a wind that blows some abandoned glass that is left and that breaks.
    Who exactly will calculate the entropy?
    It is true what you said about human feeling, but I would add and say that the subjective, personal, human feeling of the past and future depends to a large extent on our speed in space, and the direction of our travel. At the moment, it is related to the totality of our individual movements, for example to walking or flying, to the movements of the earth, to the movements of the sun, to the movements of the galaxy, to the movements of the galaxy cluster (however, I do not know what the combined direction is).
    These are the most common conditions of our lives as human beings. At other speeds, past and future sensations may change, and not only the sensations but also our very being in the past or future.
    It's nice that you mentioned Einstein's letter, and also the information about Yakir Aharonov.
    Thank you.

38. quote from The Seventh Eye:
    Anyone who wanted the truth without hesitation could read on the Hidan website an interview conducted by the website's editor, Avi Blizovsky, with Prof. Barak Kol from the Hebrew University, whose title, in stark contrast to the headlines that appeared in Haaretz and Mako, was clear and decisive: "Failures at the particle accelerator in Geneva, the LHC, were not caused by the effect of the future". In an interview, Prof. Cole stated that Nielsen and Ninomiya's theory is even "more esoteric" than the claim made in the headlines about a year ago, according to which the particle accelerator will cause the creation of a black hole and the destruction of the world."

39. Dear Higgs,
    Thanks for your answers. I will refer to the last two and I will also write something about what you wrote in answer 45.
    In my opinion, it is possible to identify the location of a single electron - even within a collection - but if you focus on its location (example: it is in a coordinate system that will include the information about the point on the Earth, and the time at that location [if you want to add more dimensions - that's fine). Only if you want to measure More parameters regarding it, it cannot be done at the same time. And if you say that the measurement itself changes the result, that is also true.
    Answer to 61.
    I agree with everything you wrote about entropy. Just wondering about the exact meaning you attach to the reversal in the possible direction (or not) of entropy. For example: Will order in the universe begin to grow? Are we sure that such a phenomenon has not yet happened?
    Regarding the laws of physics: engineers and physicists are supposed to know which law to use in a given context. It is convenient for me to quote, for the sake of citation, the rules from Wikipedia. If some of them do not fit another part, there is no point in hiding it. Not all science is one piece, and not all laws of nature are known (in my humble opinion).
    Regarding time: I don't think it's right to associate only traffic laws with it.
    Regarding my approach to science and your response 64: I largely support Einstein's discoveries and opinions. Among his other beliefs (which he also fulfilled): that scientific material can and should be written in simple language.
    The questions you raised about the wave function are interesting and I don't have real answers for them. However, if you accept Spinoza's concept of nature = God = the entire universe = the entire cosmos (as far as I understand it) - there is no need for symbiosis with another essence, because this results (again, in my opinion) in an intelligent universe, with many abilities - some of which are not really familiar to us.
    Thanks again Higgs.

40. In any case - the person you are offending by not reading what I have to say is not me, but someone here.

41. Here is Ada:
    Your words are simply not true.
    At first - even though I saw that you disrespect scientists (even if you claim that you don't), I was shocked and did not address this disrespect, but only answered the factual questions you presented.
    You even thanked me for the things. Are you saying you thanked me for being violent to you?
    Only later - when I noticed that you don't stop using the offensive expressions and you don't try to learn from the things that were explained to you - I told you about what bothered me in the first place.
    And what did I just say? That it's not okay to verbally go down on people who are just as serious as you?
    So you decided it was violence on my part.
    Whatever.
    It reminds me of the guy who was caught by a policeman while he was involved in a fight and found it appropriate to give him the following explanation: "It all started with him paying me back."
    A bit reminiscent of the Goldstone report as well.

42. Michael Rothschild: Since you are the only one using verbal violence against me here, from the first moment, I have no need for your attitude, your approach, and your answers. I also have no interest in addressing your factual answers.
    All the best.

43. Here is Ada

    Regarding the whole and the broken glass, it is not a matter of human interpretation. You can calculate the entropy in both situations and be convinced that the broken glass has a higher entropy. Regarding the human feeling it is about
    Our tendency to separate the feeling of "here and now" from past and future when it comes to a subjective feeling.

    By the way, also in private relationships there is a symmetry to time reversal in this theory time is the fourth coordinate and all "times: past present future" live together in it. We know the story about Albert Einstein who, after the death of his best friend Michele Basso, wrote to his (Besso's) children, "Michele made me leave this strange world a little early, it's not important, for us dedicated physicists the difference between past, present and future is an illusion..."

    It is also interesting to note that Likir Aharonov, who was mentioned as a candidate for the Nobel Prize, has a theory in which the future influences the past...

44. Here is Ada:
    If you are curious and interested in the philosophy of science.
    I assume you were dealing with the meaning of the wave function and the measurement problem.
    This matter is still unclear to this day. It is rooted in the question of the existence of objective reality as defined by Kant and others. That is, does reality exist objectively in itself, regardless of any awareness.
    Or that its existence depends on awareness. Einstein, for example, advocated objective reality. He claimed, for example, that the moon exists even if no one observes it. But when you look at the quantum theory and especially the subject of the wave function, this question arises acutely. That is, what is the intrinsic meaning of the existence of the wave function and does the measurement create existence. Maybe reality is a symbiosis with some kind of awareness. And perhaps it has no relation at all to awareness or to any self-existence and originates in some invisible field.
    These and other questions are very interesting and still unanswered.
    Maybe you have comments on the subject.

45. Here is Ada:
    Indeed, knowledge of mathematics and computers does not necessarily give knowledge of the philosophy of science.
    Lucky, therefore, that I also have knowledge of the philosophy of science (and a few other things).
    In any case - as you allow yourself to talk about the scientists disparagingly, you will have to accept the fact that this will lead to a disparaging attitude towards you.
    It's not a matter of education - it's the physical law of action and reaction.
    Similarly - if you want me not to educate you - the least you have to do is not try to educate me.

46. The Honorable Michael Rothschild,
    Please stop educating.
    Knowledge of mathematics and computers does not give you information in the philosophy of science.
    I have information in this area.
    I am far from underestimating science and its representatives.

47. Here is Ada:
    Indeed, the concept of entropy is very broad and somewhat nebulous and is not a particularly clear concept, not even to senior physicists.
    Look at the entropy of black holes that were dealt with by Einstein and Hawking and others.
    The problem is that black holes may apparently swallow the entire entropy stock of the universe and thus reverse its direction, which is against the second law of thermodynamics.
    And to your reference to the legality of the laws if I understood your intention.
    In truth, these laws were written by humans for humans. They represent a certain interpretation that allows it to be actively applied for certain physical fields in certain ranges.
    There is no stopping someone from reviving and presenting an interpretation that will include the previous one, that is, explain everything that she already explained but will be completely different. And the reason they will use it is because it will be more useful for predicting processes than its predecessor.
    It is also not impossible to accept theories that do not have any practical prediction but only a better explanation.
    Like for example the various string theories. They are beautiful thanks to the broad symmetries they present, but no one expects to find direct use for them in the near future. It is true that new and sophisticated fields of mathematics have been developed especially for the strings. And some of these methods have certain uses such as how to empty the water in a washing machine faster. This is no joke because problems of turbulence in liquids are among the most complicated for mathematical analysis.
    And finally to the matter of the article we are in which actually concerns the interpretations of the so-called wave function.
    It is worth noting that here too it is something very broad, very imaginary, in fact a calculation tool. And due to the different areas it may cover, there is a somewhat extreme tendency to apply its properties to all kinds of esoteric phenomena.

48. Here is Ada:
    I responded this way because you show disdain for people who actually bothered to study the topics you are asking about and without any basis you accuse them of clichés.
    The fact that you don't find it appropriate to refer to the relevant things is part of the same problem.
    If you want to be treated with respect by others, you must show such treatment yourself.

49. Michael Nachbadi - Your comment number 52 is particularly violent.
    I don't understand why you are insulting.
    When you answer in this way - there is no point in referring to your factual answers.
    All the best.

50. The scientists are becoming insane by the day... there is no limit to what the human mind is capable of inventing... different nonsense every time...

51. It is as if nature cannot exist in a sequence of 123 but in 32 where the 1 is missing or in the form of 311 where the 2 is missing, as if there is some kind of disruption that does not allow the beginning of a logical sequence and because of that disruption our nature was created... or not.

52. The same "law of nature" that the two "astronauts" are talking about is called God, who will be read in the Bible, everything is explained there...

53. Beautiful, "science at its best"... the two geniuses managed to develop a model of the "god of physics" who wants to prevent experiments in the present to thwart their future results. Heaven for every failed scientist who doesn't want to or is able to prove his follies through a laboratory experiment... Avi Blizovsky is indeed right in noting that a strange smell wafts from there, isn't it a Nafis smell, by chance? And in excess quantities
    Itzik Sibush

54. Good - in the article they used the word "fundamental" and not "basic" but the meaning is, of course, the same thing.

55. And in relation to your definition of what physical laws are, in your opinion neither Kepler's laws are physical laws nor the laws of thermodynamics and gas theory (which can be deduced from statistical mechanics) are not physical laws.
    This is simply a misuse of the term "physical law".
    The collection of physical laws consists of the basic laws and the laws that can be deduced from them.
    That's why they also bothered to talk about the basic laws of physics - to differentiate them from the other laws of physics.

56. Here is Ada:
    You should just take other people more seriously - especially if they are scientists - and stop pumping up the cliché that they speak in clichés.
    Everyone thinks no less than you and no less better than you.

57. Higgs, thank you too.

    What you say about entropy is a detour of the subject, and an expression that the concept was invented before quantum mechanics was developed. If I understood you correctly, you said that thermodynamics and the quantum world do not actually meet.
    As far as I know, the concept of entropy is broader. See Wikipedia:
    http://he.wikipedia.org/wiki/%D7%94%D7%97%D7%95%D7%A7_%D7%94%D7%A9%D7%A0%D7%99_%D7%A9%D7%9C_%D7%94%D7%AA%D7%A8%D7%9E%D7%95%D7%93%D7%99%D7%A0%D7%9E%D7%99%D7%A7%D7%94

    And all of this can be found on the Wikipedia site entitled: Physical Laws.
    If the set of laws detailed there are not basic laws - they are not real laws.

58. Ehud and Michael thank you both.

    Ehud: Regarding section 2 - I think you described a physical phenomenon and its human interpretation (a whole glass preceded a broken glass).

    Michael Rothschild: I have already managed to forget the brevity of the history of time. I would love to look at Elitzur's book, even though I think I listened to the lectures themselves in the Galach in my time.

    According to what I remember from the "Thoughts" seminar - in the lectures on time, 6 arrows of time were described.

    There is no problem with an explanation that will put my mind at ease, Michael. Science is not child's play, when there are contradictions there is nothing to hide.
    When using clichés, you need to periodically refresh your sense of criticism - and check.
    And of course it is allowed to have differences of opinion between what is considered a contradiction and what is not.

59. Here is Ada:
    I think the answers given to you were good and exhaustive and your follow-up questions are not really clear.
    It's hard to explain everything on one foot but many of the arrows of time stem from each other.
    For example - the psychological arrow probably derives from the thermodynamic arrow and the thermodynamic arrow apparently derives from the fact that at the basic level time has a direction.
    I didn't say that physics has a problem with statistics.
    I only said that since the thermodynamic arrow can be deduced from other - more basic - arrows, it is not a basic law of physics but a conclusion from the basic laws.
    As I said - the page here will be shortened, in all likelihood, for an explanation that will put your mind at ease, therefore I suggest that you start studying the subject more deeply, for example by reading Avshalom Elitzur's book - "Time and Consciousness" published by the Broadcasting University.
    Personally, there are several points where I disagree with what is written in it, but it is a very good book to get the overall picture.
    Of course, Hawking's "Abbreviation of the History of Time" can also contribute to understanding, but I think Elizur's book is more suitable.

60. Witness

    1. Most of the phenomena we witness without the help of complex measuring devices could be explained using classical physics: Newton's and Maxwell's equations (wave equations are not statistical!). Thermodynamics must be added to the equations of motion and we have obtained an almost complete description of the world revealed to our senses. Special relativity is also invariant to reversing the direction of time. The basic problem is to explain the origin of the arrow of time or in other words the asymmetry in the direction of time in this world.

    There are indeed different half-times: the cosmic arrow of time, meaning the direction of the universe's development, the psychological arrow of time, our feelings and human sorting into the past and future, and the quantum arrow of time, the collapse of the wave function in measurement, and there are attempts to connect them, but I am leaving those out of the discussion now.

    2. The human feeling is not the problem but the difference between a whole glass and a broken glass on the floor. It is clear to us regardless of our feelings what came before what. We will leave the psychological arrow of time out of the story.

    3. The classical laws are described 1: mechanics, electricity and thermodynamics.
    4. The problem is to accept the law of entropy from microscopic considerations that you equate with inertia in the direction of time. It can be assumed that the law of entropy is a basic macroscopic law without a microscopic foundation, but this would not be sufficient.
    5. The decay of a single atom originates from the interaction with a field called a macroscopic number of particles.
    Only through the concept of the field can we talk about decay. The decaying atom gives part of its energy to a field that emits a photon or an electron, so it is essentially a multi-particle system.
    6. I am not referring to the psychological time pressure, which also has its origin as a problem in itself, but am currently only discussing physics

61. Thank you very much Ehud - for everything. Below is my question:
    1. I have no problem with the brevity in the physicists' speech. I have a problem if it is only about: Newton's equations of motion, Maxwell's equations, and wave equations (which are statistical, aren't they?). In any case, this is only a part of contemporary physics, and an old cliché requires reconsideration, and the indication of the cases in which it is not valid. (even if there are disagreements about the meaning of things).
    2. The human feeling about the directionality of time is a result of human existence, which has not yet experienced prolonged rapid time travel. If feelings don't argue but they don't really prove anything (except language versus any laws). (See also section 6).
    3. What are the classic laws (again)?
    4. Is the law of entropy a statistical law? This is definitely an interesting interpretation, in my opinion.
    5. I mentioned the half-life time of atoms. This is true both for individuals and for a large group. On the other hand, this is not true for all the atoms in the cluster, and it refers to the age of their existence. You are talking about real movement in time (back and forth?) as far as I understand, of a single particle, and asymmetry in a macroscopic aggregate.
    6. And on this occasion: since a person is a macroscopic accumulation of particles (and more?) - no wonder, if you are right, that the direction of his personal journey in time - both emotional and existential - is one-way, and his direction is forward and not backward.

62. Witness

    Regarding quantum theory Michael is right and so is Higgs
    Quantum theory ie the Schrödinger equation is reversible in time, the irreversibility or probability is obtained only with the collapse of the wave function ie the measurement.

63. Here is Ada:
    Entropy is only relevant in the complex thermal world above the quantum level.
    In the quantum world that has creatures like the ones you mentioned, the thermodynamic laws do not hold.
    In the world of quantum particles it is not possible to differentiate between the different directions just as it is not possible to identify a single electron or other particle that will have a special identity within a collection.

64. Thank you Michael Rothschild. Despite your guidance, doubts remain.
    1. Physics has no problems with statistical laws - as far as I know, all quantum mechanics was founded on statistics.
    2. If you do not accept the law of entropy as a basic law, I would appreciate it if you would indicate what you do consider to be basic laws.
    3. If a new atom is formed, a new half-life will be calculated for it - not the one relevant to the atoms from which it was formed. Correct me if I'm wrong.
    4. The matter of the irreversibility of time is related to astrophysics as well: the expansion of the universe starting from the "big bang" until the expected big collapse. Will there be a reversal in the direction of the arrow of time in the direction "return"? This is a matter of conjecture only.
    5. The kaons (if indeed they exist) support my approach, apparently.

65. Michael, the examples that Ada brought are good and demonstrate the problems well. The chance that an atom that disintegrates will come back and become an excited atom is smaller than that all the gas molecules will suddenly be found in the corner of the room while I write. The probability of this is so small that for the entire duration of the existence of the universe it is unlikely that an event from nowhere occurred.
    The examples you gave are not relevant to the problem that is: the classical equations of motion are invariant to time reversal while
    that in our (classical) everyday life we ​​experience the directionality of time as a basic phenomenon.

    Witness
    The problem is that physicists tend to abbreviate their claims by assuming they are understood or tend to misquote them.
    The basic claim or the cliché as you call it is "that the basic equations of physics are invariant
    to reverse in time" that is, if we reverse the sign of time t to -t in Newton's equation of motion, we will see the same as above regarding Maxwell's equations and the wave equation (which derives from them). If the classical equations are invariant to oil reversal why do we experience the direction of time as one of the most fundamental experiences.

    The examples you gave express macroscopic laws of physics, therefore the claim regarding inorientity to reverse the sign of time is not valid for them these are statistical laws, not fundamental laws of motion. The problem then is why a single particle has time reversal and a collection of (macroscopic) particles does not have such symmetry.

66. Here is Ada:
    The examples you gave are not good because the law of entropy growth is apparently not a basic physical law but a statistical result based on the progress of time and the duration of the existence of an atom. to the process in which particles that an atom tends to disintegrate into will collide and form a new atom - and that's exactly how the atom was formed in the first place).
    However, the subject as a whole is subject to controversy in the scientific community and the supporters of the irreversible directionality of time are usually based on the following two claims:
    1. The collapse of the wave function is not reversible in time (symmetric time supporters say, at least in part, that this is not true, and another part of them says that the wave function does not collapse at all)
    2. There are particles (called kaons) that express asymmetry in their transitions between particle and antiparticle and therefore indicate asymmetry in time
    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/CP_violation#Experimental_status

67. A question for those in the know: why do you keep repeating the cliché:
    "We know that the fundamental laws of physics do not differentiate between the future and the past."
    1. The law of entropy differentiates between the past and the future (disorder increases, and order decreases).
    2. The duration of the existence of atoms (half-life, the statistical one) certainly distinguishes between the past and the future. Thanks to this diagnosis, it is possible to measure geological times, for example.

    And if it's a cliché, on which thoughts and theories about movement in time are based. Maybe you need to rethink?
    The image for the backwards projected film is at least 30 years old and is just an image.

    And what is the conclusion? let others conclude.

68. To GILLIAN
    We are not talking about Prof. Rakah, these are Prof. Barak Kol from the Prof. Rakah Institute for the Study of Theoretical Physics.
    Fr Rakah himself, unfortunately, died prematurely, at the age of 56 in 1965.

69. Of all the teachers of my education.
    I accept your argument and thanks for the explanations.

70. to me':
    Look, the "knowledge" thing you talked about is quite delicate.
    In the end, the phenomena in question are phenomena that can be shown mathematically to be the ones that should be accepted (what came before what is not currently relevant).
    I don't know any mathematical expression for "knowledge" or "consciousness".
    If you want to say that you know that the electron passed through the left slot, the mathematical expression for this is simply to write its wave function as left-handed, and then the math will show you that you will get what is obtained from one slot, because experimentally such a constraint is simply closing the other slot, if you try to define a component that checks if The electron moved to the right, mathematically you will have to add an expression to describe it (for example by moving through a different medium - which adds a phase) and he will take care of changing the result to what you get.
    If you want to define "knowledge" that does not depend on the system, you probably won't succeed.
    Any additional information you would like to know beyond the basic experiment, will be provided by changing the system and therefore changing the result.
    I used the two cracks experiment by the way, because it is familiar and relatively easy to understand.

    Regarding the intuitions I talked about before, apparently no one is born with it, and the education we receive does not help. The quantum theory of the model is not very intuitive by nature, and a new phenomenon of it will surprise anyone, but if, for example, about a year ago there was an article here that presented a new phenomenon in which they discovered that a particle that "goes over the edge of the cliff" can sometimes also go back "like in cartoons", then it is not A really surprising phenomenon if you are already familiar with the tunneling phenomenon, and scattering from a potential barrier, then the "new" phenomenon should not surprise you, because it is exactly the same one, just with different conditions.

    One of Einstein's problems was the conflict or incompatibility of quantum theory with relativity, the problem still exists, and physics is not quite complete yet.
    The example of the cat may have been intended to reveal a flaw, but it ends up making it possible to give everyone one of the more strange and difficult ideas to understand, or rather to say difficult to accept the Torah.
    But in the end, the behavior observed in the experiments also indicates that electron after electron is fired, at the end of the experiment we get that each electron gets confused, and since there was no one else around, all that remains is to determine that it is struggling with itself and all that remains is to conclude that the electron does indeed pass through both slots at the same time , even if it is very strange.

    Regarding the disdain for strange theories, I tend to believe and hope that the world has already learned not to disdain for nothing, and there is still a difference between a theory of multiple universes, or a theory of 11 dimensions, which arise from mathematical calculations, and a theory that seems to me and perhaps arises from strange philosophers such as these two company wrote.

71. Without philosophizing too much and getting into technical terms..
    Since all of our physics is based on assumptions anyway, most scientists in the world are not smart enough to fully understand the intricacies of quantum mechanics anyway. So go find out if there is anything in what these two scientists have claimed or not. As for me...I personally believe in the theory that says that the universe protects itself from such paradoxes from the beginning so I don't believe that something from the future affects the past because if it did something would not have been created in the past that would lead to something in the future...so fine I philosophized a bit but the point is clear...how strange it is a sequence The faults that have a name. It probably has nothing to do with something from the future.

72. to give (or twenty)
    Thanks for the response indeed you are right and the paradox is resolved but not according to the principle of equivalence but because of the change of direction of the spaceship.
    By the way, your reaction in general even earlier was acceptable to me because, unlike Baruch, it was logical and not just dismissive. And the refinements of your thoughts and those of Shash are interesting and indeed sound logical and quite lead to the conclusion that something is flawed in the above theory.
    I don't know of people who have intuitions about going back to the past, etc. and among us no one would have received the ability even theoretically if Einstein hadn't proven it. And that's what I was aiming for. Your disqualification was with a logical argument, whereas most of the responses on the other sites are based on intuitions only.
    And for that I don't understand how it is possible today after the strange theories (according to our feelings) to disparage different theories like that just because it sounds improbable. No one has disproved the parallel universes and no one has disproved the living and dead cat at the same time (or am I wrong?) and it's not like just theories that broke earlier theories.
    It is a fact that even the great Einstein refused to accept quantum theory as it is (even though he was from his ancestors) because it contradicted classical physics. (And maybe this is not an example because he did of course accept the theory of relativity since it did not break anything in classical physics).

    In any case, it's a shame that you don't have the strength because I would be happy to receive your response (and learn a little...).

    Thanks

73. Not that I defend the raw idea myself - yes? But Prof. Rekha's presumption is even more delusional than the original claim.

74. Yes, that's why I said you're fine, because it seems to me that your thinking is correct.
    I'm not sure that your example is really correct, but the thought seems quite correct to me.
    This is probably why the article mentioned in the article elicits laughter and jokes from those who hear about it.

    Apart from that, as I answered before (according to now the name was XNUMX, I'm sorry for the many names, but that's how it is.)
    The idea that a physical law will try to prevent something from happening, which is an acceptable idea, but the idea that it will do it by creating various strange faults of the type in question and not related to anything is already ridiculous.

    And if I already mentioned Y,
    So I can't find a response to everything that was written, but at least to section 2 I will respond:
    A. The twin paradox is solved. Friend write the whole solution here, just read a bit about general relativity and the equivalence principle (if I'm not mistaken), it solves it.
    B. Many theories broke everything that was known before them, this is no reason not to understand them. or not to get an intuition about them. You can also get an intuition for the theory of private intuition, it's not the end at all, in my opinion many people (not relative to the number of people in the world, relative to let's say 2) have good intuitions about the change in time.

75. Okay, you're right, I worded it deterministically, but what I meant I think applies here as well

    Let's say there are certain conditions that can cause something to happen or not happen, so it either happens or it doesn't happen, what doesn't work for me here is the intermediate situation where when the thing is supposed to happen then there is something that prevents it, because then it's just saying that it doesn't happen at all should happen

    Let's exaggerate that I throw an apple then either it is supposed to fall or not, there is no situation in which it is supposed to fall but the conditions for it to fall will never be realized, such a situation only exists in human thought but it is a form of absurdity

    Again I am not closed on this at all

76. Eyal is right, I also thought about it after I responded but I've already passed the point of no return 🙂

77. Shhh:
    In general you are fine.
    The only change in what you said is that the quantum theory is not deterministic.
    There is no "conditions->happens" mode. In a simplistic way it works on "conditions->chance", there is a chance that something will happen. And then sometimes it happens, when if you do it an infinite number of times you will see that it will happen exactly as many times as chance predicted. On less than infinite trials you will simply approach the chance result.

78. A. Ben-Ner your questions are interesting but they do not answer the question, how can a certain law of nature exist but cannot be realized under any conditions, is the existence of such a law not just a derivative of a mathematical calculation that is necessarily wrong?
    Maybe I don't understand, but if we have something that is supposed to happen when certain conditions are met, then when these conditions are met it will inevitably happen, nature does not have a consciousness that senses the approaching of the conditions for something to happen and then prevents it, but simply what is not supposed to happen never happens , in no possible time or universe.
    At least that's how I understand it, but I could be wrong 

79. At the same time, gentlemen, the claim that time,
    Yes, time does affect the results of the experiment. For example, what do you think of the following sentence: "The past affects the result of the experiment" or "The past affects the present". Seemingly a casual, self-evident sentence. is that so ?
    Something here is thought provoking though. It turns out that the axis of time is not symmetrical like the axes of space. In the axes of space there are many physical and mathematical functions that maintain symmetry with respect to some "middle" point. Is it also possible to find a "middle" point on the timeline in relation to which there is a symmetry of the past and the future.
    Are there other timelines besides "past" and "future"?
    Are the "past" and the "future" on the same time dimension or are they two independent time dimensions? And if there is a dependency between "past" and "future" is it a symmetric or asymmetric dependency?

80. Shhh:
    Indeed, one can say "non-temporal", meaning they do not belong to the concept of time, are not temporary, independent of the concept of time, etc.

81. Ron:

    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Schrödinger's_cat

82. The expression of a black guy is that the time in which please is much slower
    This is also the classic reason that it does not reflect light
    So anyone who thinks that the black hole will disintegrate immediately is wrong
    In relation to us he will remain forever
    Most of the black holes in the universe were created by intelligent beings like us who carried out the same experiment and their world collapsed under the laws of physics.
    And it is true that there is a mechanism on top that prevents the experiment
    This mechanism called the Tower of Babel was established in the future by aliens
    to prevent this type of situation.

83. to = on

84. I didn't quite understand. The laws of nature are supposed to be timeless, if the Higgs boson cannot be created, it cannot be created under any conditions, and if it can be created under certain conditions, then as soon as these conditions are present, it is necessary for it to be created. How can there be a law of nature that cannot be realized?

85. What courage is needed to publish such an article!!
    But in the physicist community anything is possible
    I have a deadline in Physics 3 on Wednesday
    I didn't really invest in the course
    I didn't have time 🙁
    Everything I know I learned here on the site
    Good luck to me
    Last course for this cursed degree
    polytechnic

86. Hello, can someone perhaps elaborate more on "Schrödinger's cat"?
    Thanks

87. When they try to do an experiment that fails like this 1000 times then we will talk.
    Maybe we'll try to discover the Higgs boson in the brain of some terrorist and you know what will happen lol

88. To Baruch:
    1. Schrödinger's cat was indeed his attempt to prove that something is flawed in the quantum theory, because actually if we accept the fact that from a physical point of view the electron is indeed in two places at the same time, then the electron simultaneously both hit the Geiger counter and still hasn't. Until that moment when we open the box and at the knowledge level (yes! at the knowledge level only) we will cause the super position to collapse and cause the electron to settle in a certain place and then - either it hit the counter or it didn't. It was not an image, it was an attempt to say that the theory claims ridiculous things. But, and this is the important thing, no one has yet solved the riddle and in terms of quantum theory indeed, the cat can be alive and dead at the same time. (and not just as a parable).

    2. According to what you write, I am happy to see that there is finally a person who understands the meaning of different times for different people not only on a mathematical theoretical level, but it also sounds reasonable and understandable to him. Just wondering why the world was so excited by the idea. All in all, this was another interesting theory, which didn't break anything that made sense until then. Nice. Maybe D.A. will solve the twins paradox for me, because you probably come from another world where this business is simple and understandable.

    3. I have no idea where you got the idea that you "scatter light", what is that light? What are your sources for this? But in quantum theory your very knowledge has a real effect on the electron. In Planck's well-known experiment, the electron "behaved" as a particle even if it was "watched" after it had already hit the wall, so it was clear that there was no impact on its way to the wall. Moreover, if you scatter light - again, you have solved a difficult problem and you should put your proofs in writing. Einstein, as we know, was not satisfied with quantum theory, which he considered one of his ancestors because it broke classical physics. One of the things that he broke is the ability of an electron to influence another electron from a distance even without a physical connection between them (cause and spinner) and about this he said: "God does not play with the cube..." Even if you claim that you are scattering light and therefore you are influencing the electron that you are observing, you will still have to Explain how it is that the other electron is affected at that exact moment without you having observed it.

    4. No, I wasn't trying to say that their theory sounds reasonable and logical. I was just trying to say that after the last hundred years with the strange discoveries that have been made we should be a little more careful before we decide that other people's theory is ridiculous. Try to think how all the topics we discussed in our responses would have been received by the scientists in the 19th century.

89. An interesting and thought-provoking experiment. No matter what the experiment finds or doesn't find, it will surely teach us a lot of new things about the structure of the universe.

    Good luck this time.

90. This pair of scientists will be nominated for the "Ig(s) Nobel", immediately after the particle is discovered.

91. stupidity. In order to fail an experiment, there should be no failures.
    You can just get bad results.

92. Apparently the "Determinator" (yes yes-that one from the future!!!..) is looking for Mr. The elusive Higgs…

    And you thought it was just a movie!... I bet with the knowledgeable writers that the upcoming experiment will also fail!!!

    Goodbye after the battle trial failure....n. B.: And maybe our actions in the present affect the past!…

93. The claim regarding the effect of the future on the present is a short term claim and is valid until the accelerator starts operating. Once the accelerator starts working properly, this claim will fall by the wayside, whether the Higgs boson is discovered or not.
    If it is discovered - it is clear that the claim falls and if it is not discovered, but the accelerator will work properly, the question will arise, why does nature not spoil the accelerator this time?

94. They probably didn't realize that all they had to do to discover the hiding boson was to visit this site.
    Much cheaper.

95. Links
    The New York Times
    http://www.nytimes.com/2009/10/13/science/space/13lhc.html?_r=2&em=&pagewanted=all

    DISCOVER
    http://blogs.discovermagazine.com/cosmicvariance/2009/10/14/spooky-signals-from-the-future-telling-us-to-cancel-the-lhc/
    The joint article by N.N.
    http://arxiv.org/PS_cache/arxiv/pdf/0910/0910.0359v3.pdf

96. Nielsen and Ninomiya have been dealing for several years with the subject of the possible consequences of the wave function on the results of a collection of histories in actual reality. For them Schrödinger's cat takes on a real interpretation. In their opinion, every collection of events is subject to one degree or another to the results of the strange interpretation of the wave function. As we know, to get a real calculation for the quantum world it is necessary to summarize all the possible histories of the interaction between quantum particles. Also those histories that will never come to expression. In contrast to such a calculation in the real world where only results are taken into account where the energy sum at each point is the lowest, in the quantum world a cloud of imaginary history summaries is created around the real ones.
    As we know that the wave function actually shows complex numbers. For Nelsen and Ninomiya, the imaginary part of these results is actually reflected in the choice of cards that create the chain of events of actual reality.
    According to this approach, there is a possibility of influence from those imaginary events in the future historical chain on those in the past. As it happens, for example, between two intertwined particles that influence each other in space. That is, there is a strange effect between two points in time as if from the future to the past.
    They actually turn the events of the accelerator's construction into a part quantum card game in which the drawn cards, i.e. the determining events, will always come out in such a way as to limit the accelerator's power in such a way that it is not possible to discover the elusive Higgs boson which refuses to be discovered under any circumstances. In their opinion, the impossibility of its discovery is a physical law of nature. It remains only to wait and see how this card game ends.

97. 10
    Increase the screen resolution sounds like you are working at 640x480

98. Father, Google's preview hides parts of the text in the article, both in full window and in partial window mode, the only way to read everything is to highlight the text and copy to Word.

99. I thought these physicists were going to show us a theory showing that the accelerator would not be able to detect the Higgs Boson!
    But if it is built on sensation and feeling then what are they than any other layman with "feelings"?
    If some rabbi comes and says it will not be revealed, because God is in the Higgs or the window through which he can be seen, etc...

100. Don't know about the accelerator, but the physicists who wrote this paper were influenced by the fact that in the future they had to be published and therefore they had to write the paper.
     And the one who understands will understand
     .

101. to me':
     A black cat alive and dead at the same time is definitely a joke, I assume you are referring to "Schrödinger's cat" but I think you missed the point - Schrödinger's cat is a thought experiment, an image of what happens at the quantum (subatomic) level of matter, no one claims that a cat can really be alive and dead at the same time.

     My time and yours can definitely be different depending on our relative speed and if there is a joke here I don't understand it, just note that the reference here is to speeds close to the speed of light and not to the speeds we are used to from day to day life.

     No, you do not influence the electron with the invention of the news, I have the impression that you did not understand the principle of uncertainty - you influence the electron by observing it because in the observation you "scatter" light on the electron which causes a change in its state, but it is important not to confuse observation with consciousness (which is really A common mistake that the followers of the "New Age" are eager to spread) - the electron does not care about your consciousness and is not affected by it.

     blessed.

102. to me'
     Physics usually has a little more ways.. in which we will say "slippery", to "sabotage" physical experiments than the malfunctions or the lack of funding of these experiments. I guess she doesn't drop things on physicists so that their leg hurts and they won't be able to think of a breakthrough.

103. There is a mistake in the article, the media mess around LHC and the malfunction happened last year, not in 2007.

104. For some reason it seems to me that this whole living cat thing is dead
     stems from a misunderstanding of the complete system.

105. For Ariel:
     Does a black cat live and die at the same time sound like a joke to you?
     And that my time and your time can be different at different speeds sounds like a joke to you?
     And that you influence an electron through knowledge alone?
     It seems to me that a long time ago we should have stopped looking down on what doesn't make sense(!)...

106. How fortunate that the particle accelerator was not built in Israel.
     Immediately after the malfunctions, they would (literally) stand up to the scientists with disdain and say "Only in Israel, the neighboring country, could this happen...".
     It turns out that even in bureaucratic and orderly Europe things can get complicated.

107. If it hadn't appeared on the "Hidan" website and the reaction was so serious, I would suspect that they are greedy for attention at the expense of the scientific community (community or community?).

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