In a study whose findings were published in the scientific journal SCIENCE, Israeli researchers describe how the achievement will allow in the future to study the role of time in the activity of the universe
A research team at Ben-Gurion University of the Negev, led by Prof. Ron Pullman, managed to put a single clock in two places at the same time. In an article published in the scientific journal Science (SCIENCE), the team describes how the achievement will allow in the future to investigate the role of time in the activity of the universe. The work can, for example, contribute to understanding the relationship between Einstein's general theory of relativity and quantum theory. The two theories constitute the major revolutions in physics of the 20th century and there are many attempts to unite them or at least understand the connection between them.
The researchers who are members of the Atomic Chip Laboratory (www.bgu.ac.il/atomchip), took an atom and turned it into an atomic clock, similar to the one found in many technological systems today, such as the GPS system. At the same time they passed the atom through a device capable of making it be in two places at the same time. This device, called an interferometer, works according to the principles of quantum theory that allow a body to be in several places at the same time.
According to standard quantum theory, time advances at the same rate everywhere in the universe, while according to Einstein's theory of general relativity, time does not advance at the same rate everywhere because time is affected by the gravitational forces of large masses such as the Earth. The researchers asked, then, what would happen to a clock that is simultaneously in several places where time advances at different rates after it is made to be in only one place again.
The research team showed that in this strange situation new phenomena are obtained that may and in the future will explain how the theory of general relativity plays an important role in the boundary between the quantum world, in which a body is allowed to be in several places at the same time, and the classical world (so called our everyday world where the bodies are large), in which The body must not be in several places at the same time. The research suggests that it is possible that a particle, such as an electron for example, can move from the quantum world to the classical world with the help of general relativity.
Technically, the team used advanced technologies of cooling atoms with the help of lasers, so that atoms enter the quantum realm" where the state that allows the atom to be in several places at the same time can survive for long enough times to carry out the experiment. The atoms are cooled to a temperature of a few nanokelvins, that is, very close to absolute zero (-273 C). The atoms were then exposed to strong magnetic fields and this placed the atoms in two places at the same time. At the same time, the atoms were moved to a state where they can be used as an atomic clock that measures time. This is done by manipulating the internal states of the atom which consist of a variety of energies and angular momentum (the momentum associated with the electron revolving around the nucleus - Angular momentum).
Finally, it is important to clarify that in a more scientific language, instead of saying that some body (a clock in our case) was in several places at the same time, it is customary to say that the body is in a quantum superposition in space. This new language is significant because all attempts to interpret the reality of this situation in everyday language have resulted in contradictions of one kind or another. The strange reality of the quantum world can probably be accurately described only through mathematics. Using words, which are the result of our experience drawn from the classical everyday world, has always failed the user in describing quantum reality. It may be said in a slightly different way that the clock is in a state where it senses what is happening in both places at the same time.
Prof. Pullman's research team included PhD student Yair Margalit, post-doctoral students Dr. Tzipan Zo and Dr. Shimon Makhlof, as well as researchers Dr. Yonatan Yaffe and Dr. Daniel Rorlich.
57 תגובות
It is a planned experiment, or there are already results
I just didn't understand what the results were...
Strong,
You insult the proteins wherever they are 🙂
Thanks for analyzing the article. i learned
Shmulik
I will be surprised if I get an answer from you.
His reactions are simply very entertaining and he spends time for me that otherwise would have been wasted watching the protein filtering process.
Strong,
You will never get an answer. It's just not possible.
It's possible..
How do you search for the truth if you believe that every scientific experiment is falsified by liars? Do you recreate experiments in the kitchen?
I'm glad you're looking for the truth for yourself and asking questions that bother you.
Can you answer a question that bothers me: why do you think that Golem turns into liquid?
You have been asked the same question so many times and you still haven't answered it.
An observer from the side may still think that you are afraid of the truth..
I did not slander you in order to contradict you. I have provided quotes of yours that contradict each other.
In addition, I'm starting to get the feeling that defaming you is not a very decent thing, so I'm just asking you questions and unfortunately I'm not getting answers to them.
You still haven't done the homework I gave you either.
Strong
A few more words before ending,
Even if the larva or pupa does not become liquid,
Can an intelligent person argue that this whole process,
which happens not only in the butterfly, but in millions of completely different productions,
could have occurred through small and random mutations
without prior planning ????????
Strong
I have no reason to lie.
I seek the truth for myself,
And I have no interest in proving the truth for others…
When I seek the truth for myself,
I ask questions that bother me.
From the comments here and elsewhere
I am amazed to see that the majority of the majority of human beings
Accept the theories accepted by the scientific establishment
Without considering challenging them. and think that they are holy.
I show that this is not true.
So far I have come across claims like quantum-entanglement
is not limited by distance. Now it turns out that this is not true...
Strong,
I'm used to the phenomenon of people trying to slander me in all sorts of ways
To try to contradict me.
It won't work on me...
As far as I'm concerned, I'm done with Darwin and quantum entanglement,
Unless someone here has new facts and not slander...
Reads = happens
My deepest apologies for the irony in the sentence
It's possible..
You contradict yourself.
You wrote "My goal is to discover the physical truth in which I live"
You wrote that you are "trying to verify "scientific" theories adopted by mathematicians"
Now, less than an hour later, you write "I do not intend to verify any scientific theory...
For me, everything is a lie, unless proven otherwise"
If everyone is lying, how will you prove any proof?
Why, according to you, "everything is a lie"?
Do you know what is called the mental state of a person who believes that everyone is lying to him and hiding the truth from him?
Regarding the article, first it was clear to you that the article proves your imaginary claim.
Now, at the height of naturalness, you move to the belief that "it is clear to me that no scientific institution would dare to publish an article."
which in his opinion may contradict an accepted theory..."
This is what you read when you lie so easily..
This is also what you read when you are lazy to develop literacy skills..
I am convinced that you have many reasons to dislike the scientific establishment, the court system, the psychiatric establishment and perhaps the social services as well.
Even so, walking around with the feeling that everyone is lying and only you see the truth makes the world around you a very cynical and sad place.
Finally, you still haven't answered my question as to why you think the cocoon goes through a liquid phase.
(You still haven't done the homework I gave you either)
Strong
First, I do not intend to verify any scientific theory…
For me, everything is a lie, unless proven otherwise...
Regarding the quoted article:
It is clear to me that no scientific institution would dare to publish an article
which in his opinion may contradict an accepted theory...
The article was published in the distraction of its relevance to the main issue.
The examination of the subject from our point of view,
Is this whole wonderful and complex process,
Could it have evolved in small and continuous random mutations?
In my opinion, the chance is zero from zero...
It had to be a pre-planned process
and pre-coded in a well-defined DNA sequence,
And defined it in advance in the incarnation until the end.
No random would have been able to do that.
It is important to remember that the same rolling process is done in the same way and at the same time
In thousands or millions of live productions, and it is impossible that all of them were made in the same random process....
maybe…,
Following on from Eitan's response... maybe I didn't explain properly before, I meant to say that parts of the larva when it is already inside the cocoon dissolve into liquid, it can be misleading if someone cuts the cocoon at this stage and sees mostly liquids pouring out, but if he examines it carefully he will see that there are Also the parts I mentioned before that are not liquid and from which the butterfly will develop.
It's possible..
I'm convinced you didn't read the article because of the language and length.
The article proves exactly the opposite of what you claim.
In the article, they were able to prove not only that neurons survive the transformation from a caterpillar to a flying insect, but also that complex neural structures in the mushroom bodies (MB) survive the transition intact.
Briefly, the article describes an experiment in which, larvae in several stages before the incarnation stage, were conditioned to associate a certain smell with a negative experience (electric shock).
The conditioning caused the larvae to avoid areas that applied the aforementioned odor due to the negative memory.
After their embodiment and hatching, it was shown that the conditioning was maintained and that the flying insects also avoided areas that presented the smell.
Insects that did not go through such conditioning or that went through an electric shock without a link to the smell, did not show aversion to the smell before or after they hatched from the cocoon.
The researchers also proved that the conditioning was preserved in neural patterns (memory) and not by a possible mechanism of preserving the odor molecules during embodiment. They did this by washing some of the conditioned pupae (to lower the possibility of retaining the odor molecules) and showed that the insects that hatched from them still showed aversion to the odor.
This article comes as a complete anti-thesis to your belief about liquid phase.
Here is a link to the article:
http://journals.plos.org/plosone/article?id=10.1371/journal.pone.0001736
I will finish with two questions:
1. Why do you think that golem turns into liquid?
2. With what tools do you plan to verify "scientific" theories as you define them?
And finally: homework: define the term "apoptosis"
It's possible..
But when you think about it, maybe not.
rival
It is a cocoon that turns into a liquid.
If parts of the larva also become liquid,
This further aggravates the fact that out of these liquids
There is no way that the roll will randomly continue perfectly...
By the way, I attached the link above.
For some reason, no one mentioned that this fact fails Darwin...
Israel Shapira
Because of the fact that there are also judges in the courts who
You accept bribes, you don't have to close the courts...
I am attaching the link here, regarding the transformation of the larva into a liquid.
By the way, I expect the original article to be replaced (if it hasn't already been replaced)
Under the influence of vested interests...
http://journals.plos.org/plosone/article?id=10.1371/journal.pone.0001736
may be…
I went through the scientific article that Nissim brought here and other related articles, I admit that I was not familiar with the subject before, but after checking it became clear to me that this subject is well known and appears in all textbooks on biology, no one tries to hide it... Contrary to what you say, not all the larva turns into a liquid, Many parts of his body do dissolve (like the tail formed in a human embryo dissolves before birth) but still remain central parts ("imaginal discs") that form the basis for the development of the butterfly, the discs are not liquid.
As much as you like to rant.
You may be right.
Maybe it's really all a combination.
But why only weaving? Did anyone really see the moon landing with their own eyes?
Or an atomic bomb, what nonsense, a substance that can be contained in a Nescafe box destroys a city.. Come on..
And between us, has anyone here actually seen the northern lights? What practicalities..
(Ah, Ofer brought some photographs, but he is part of the fraudulent establishment..).
They are all cheaters, thieves and liars. Of course this comment won't go through either because there is no such thing as the internet..
Moved?
Strong
1- Brought here by Nissim, a link about a week ago that proves this.
The link analyzes the matter from a different point of view, when it ignores the mine...
Certainly they would not have published it if they knew what the conclusions were...
2- I try to verify "scientific" theories adopted by mathematicians.
I have several more "based" theories in this category. They will be brought in due time...
It's possible..
1. Why do you think that golem turns into liquid?
2. How do you think you will achieve your goal of "discovering the physical truth in which I live"?
incidentally
Is there a slim chance that a scientific journal will write that Darwin's theory has been disproved,
Because it turns out that the cocoon turns into a liquid before it turns into a butterfly
And is it not possible for a liquid to turn into a butterfly through random mutations?
Only if such an article is published, will I be able to believe in the scientific establishment again...
Israel Shapira
Is the experiment from 13 years ago conducted by a team at the University of Vienna
Tested and confirmed in an acceptable scientific way?
In the world there are thousands of universities with thousands of "teams" that are funded by the public
and who "play" in experiments with the aim of becoming famous. Who to believe?
Beiteim You refuted the claims of the existence of unlimited quantum entanglement at a distance...
Strong,
My goal is to discover the physical truth in which I live.
The fact that the scientific establishment continues to adhere to an unfounded theory
For example, Darwin's theory poses the question
How far does the "hypocrisy" of scientists go.
It seems to me that I am an exception in a supervised view that does not take for granted
Everything that "scientists" claim to be true...
It is true that I have a problem... my problem is that I am not able to be blind...
waiting
It's possible..
Your understanding of science (and of reality) is as follows:
-If I don't understand it, it didn't happen.
-If it wasn't done in my kitchen in front of my eyes, it didn't happen.
-If I don't know the scientists who performed the experiment, it didn't happen.
-Scientists are lying to me, and everything they claim happened, didn't happen.
In the past you would have entered here as a skeptic.
Your attitude is not skepticism but a sign of a paranoid disorder.
Your approach does not allow any event, experiment or phenomenon to be considered as proof.
There is no point in referring you to links and experiments because you simply claim that this is not proof in your eyes.
There is no point in proving you a liar because for you, whoever claims that you are a liar is lying.
There is no point in asking you questions because you don't bother to answer them.
It is not clear to me why you enter this site except to reinforce the belief that there is a conspiracy against you.
I'm guessing you'll end up blocking again and it will be proof to you that the establishment is trying to silence you because you're too real.
You may,
This is your life, you prefer to stay in the dark, so enjoy it. It's true that things are anonymous to you, but you make no effort to free yourself from the lack of knowledge, since you wouldn't be able to perform a simple search that would demonstrate to you how well the subject has been researched, but with unimaginable arrogance you claim speculations, dubious and conspiracy theories.
Say, do you know how much money it costs to perform such an experiment? Do you know that weaving experiments are performed all the time? If you just decide to stop being lazy and do a little research yourself, you can see how much weaving is being restored all over the world.
Do the following search
http://arxiv.org/find/all/1/all:+AND+Quantum+entanglement/0/1/0/all/0/1
See how many results you get.
Public funds? Have you heard of a little organization called NASA?
http://www.jpl.nasa.gov/news/news.php?feature=4384
Have you heard of Lockheed Martin? Here, they spend money on weaving:
http://www.wired.com/2008/05/lockheeds-spook/
http://www.dwavesys.com/press-releases/latest-research-validates-quantum-entanglement-d-wave-systems
This will probably be my last response to you. You don't answer questions and it's a shame to waste your time if you don't answer the three questions I asked earlier.
And another experiment.. (12 years ago)
http://physicsworld.com/cws/article/news/2003/jun/30/entanglement-bridges-the-danube
There are at least 80 more…
Shmulik
I can understand your frustration…
The given link describes the claims of a Japanese group (anonymous for me)
who claimed to have conducted an experiment... Is this what a basic scientific theory is based on?
If the scientific establishment claims that quantum entanglement is a fact and not just a theory
It would be appropriate for this institution to devote a small part of the public budgets
that here they are, to try, test and verify the theory, and not rely on it
About a dubious experiment (at least from my point of view) conducted by Man-Dhua...
Shmulik,
This issue is quite serious for science and the scientific community
And it shouldn't remain in the realm of speculation...
Why not CIQ?
(CRYING IN QUITELY)
Israel,
hen house!
You may,
I originally wrote this comment instead of hello right. Attach again:
I curse the moment I got into this "smart" argument with you. It is impossible to get answers from you to the most direct and simple questions, as usual.
I will try again:
Entanglement was raised (if I'm not mistaken) by Schrödinger as a result of his understanding of the "respectable theory" called quantum mechanics. Then there were EPR and Bohr and Bell and more and more and finally also empirical experiments that proved that interweaving is an existing fact.
Below is an article that also links at the end to a scientific article that shows an interweaving for a distance of 300 km:
http://www.technologyreview.com/view/520886/japanese-telco-smashes-entanglement-distance-record/
1. Do you accept the fact that the motivation for the above experiment arose because the "respectable theory" predicted that this is how nature behaves and it should be tested?
2. Do you accept the fact that there was a connection to the above-mentioned distance?
3. Do you accept the fact that for 300 km, what was tested is completely consistent with quantum mechanics?
Very easy to answer my questions. Let's see how you will rattle off an unrelated, unclear and evasive answer
An entanglement experiment with the entangled particles 300 km apart:
http://www.technologyreview.com/view/520886/japanese-telco-smashes-entanglement-distance-record/
From the article:
Each entangled photon then passes into a roll of optical fiber 150 kilometers long. The team then tested the photon pairs that emerged to check that they were still entangled, which indeed they were.
Out of the box
for your information,
You advocate more fossilized opinions than the opinions of "scientists".
Do you claim that every letter written in the Bible is true?
If so, I will prove to you that there is a lot of "untruth" written there.
If you don't claim that everything is true, then why are you caught in the description of creation
What is written in the book of Genesis, and claims that the world has existed for less than 6000 years?
A few short notes:
0) The question asked in the study is, in my humble opinion, very interesting and very important.
1) In my opinion, there is some deception when calling superposition "being in different places at the same time".
2) It is not clear how they created noticeable gravitational changes between the "arms" of the interferometer.
3) The part of the results of the experiment is completely ambiguous, I did not understand anything from what was written. Is the aerfool intentional?
4) Micho: Your response seems vague and far-fetched. It is impossible to understand what you want and why.
Shmulik
The distance between the theory and the proven is great.
Emphasize: you are not looking "for me" but for the "science" you represent.
Do you "think" they did experiments at a distance of kilometers?
Science does not exist according to your imagination…
.
As I wrote, I assume that what is written is correct.
Since the consequences of interweaving for the tiny distance tested,
Limited to this distance, I am ready to accept what is said as fact.
I do not go into the depth described in the article, with the aim of contradicting.
Hence to accept the "scientific" claims
that it is possible to interweave over a distance of kilometers and even more...
You may,
First of all, do you see that there are studies that prove that there is an interweaving? Was it so hard to search for yourself?
Secondly, try to answer a question once:
Do you agree that entanglement does exist as an empirical fact, for the distance at which it is measured? It seems to me that they demonstrated a chain at a distance of tens of kilometers and I'm not going to look for this article for you.
Possibly
It's not so bad what conclusion they reach.
See a little the process to which the scientific theories flow..
Quantum theory is just beginning to prove that what is written about Jacob our father. "And he struck the place" the beginning of the parashat and verse XNUMX came out "from a teacher whose way has jumped"
Don't worry step by step they come closer to the conclusion that Moses is true and his teachings are true
Shmulik
Assuming everything written there is true,
What is the "physical" claim based on that interweaving is not limited by distance?
You may,
Now I know you're either a liar or lazy and both.
Is it really difficult to search for scientific articles published in peer-reviewed journals?
Have you heard of Nature magazine?
http://www.nature.com/srep/2013/130529/srep01914/full/srep01914.html
Strong
The difference is simple and clear
Physics deals with proven reality.
Mathematics deals with hypotheses based on formulas.
Physics can use mathematics to come up with new ideas
But mathematical formulas are no substitute for physics.
If it were not "scientific" definitions but this distinction would be
It has existed for hundreds of years, and has faded only recently...
It's possible..
Two questions if you may:
1. What, in your understanding, is the difference between mathematics and physics?
2. What evidence!!?
Okay, but what happened after they united the atoms??
The continuation is missing here.
Shmuel
Nonsense ?
I searched and did not find...
There is no longer any faith in those who call themselves scientists...
(Remember, "scientists" still adhere to Darwin's theory,
despite the evidence of the butterfly reincarnations)
You may,
Just google for empirical evidence of interweaving, that's all I'm asking.
After you search and find, "quantum entanglement" will become quantum entanglement.
Why is it so hard to do a fact check before writing nonsense?
Shmulik
That mathematics gave ideas for theories,
Still not saying that mathematics is physics...
More than half of the accepted physical theories today
Relying on the "prediction" of mathematical formulas...
As long as these mathematical theories are not actually proven
They are only speculations...
Today's physics is losing much of its prestige
Because of the adoption of mathematical theories which…
Take "Wormhole" for example.
I am amazed by the number of programs on the "scientific" television channels
who base this theory "as a fact"...
(For example the Discovery channel numbered 47 in Hot).
Interweaving has not been proven empirically over and over again.
There is no Google, no Bing, no Yahoo to prevent anyone from writing nonsense about the non-existence of respectable "theories" as a result of which we enjoy computers that allow us to write about the non-existence of...
Maybe ..
A black hole was "invented" as a result of a mathematical calculation. Years after that we found black holes.
Not good?
And of course add the "string theory" as well...
I get the impression that "physical" theories are respected
Like "quantum entanglement" and like "wormhole"
They are not real physical theories but speculations of mathematicians...
are they right?
(If this is true, then woe betide the physicists...)
from whom
Not clear what you are saying. First of all, the principle of superposition is indeed derived from mathematics. All it says is that a linear combination of vectors in Hilbert space is a vector in Hilbert space, meaning that the space is closed. That is, mathematics definitely requires that superposition situations be possible.
It is not clear what is meant by "solidifying into a state as a result of the interaction". If you mean what is commonly called the von Hegel collapse, then you are simply wrong experimentally. If we don't introduce a mechanism that results in the fact that after measuring a certain EI of an operator, the situation is described by its eigenvector (let's assume for a moment that it is a non-degenerate operator), then the mathematical formalism simply does not fit with reality. Now, if you want to introduce this mechanism manually or if there is some more complex model in which it is obtained naturally, that is another story. But at the end of the day, physics must describe reality, so if your claim is that in functional analysis you don't encounter a collapse mechanism, then fine. Functional analysis is not physics.
Finally, I really don't see the connection to extra dimensions. The need for additional dimensions does not arise "because the symmetry of the subatomic particles is too similar to the cuts of Li clusters". Particles will have continuous symmetries (described in principle by Lee bundles) whether in four, two, or a thousand dimensions. The matter of the dimensions and the calibration groups is much more subtle and is related to the way of coupling in each dimension of such and other calibration theories. For example, in string theory it is also possible to write two-dimensional models that describe calibration theories (and even such critical theories. The problem is that they will not be asymptotically flat). And in any case, it has nothing to do with the collapse of Pon Hegel.
Michaud: So how would you explain Bell's inequality? There is something deeper here than more dimensions or hidden variables. Bell's inequality was tempered by experiments.
For those who are not physicists: there is a deep interest in quantum theory here that even Einstein, one of the fathers of the Torah, did not like. It is about the possibility of a particle being in two states (locations, spins, polarizations, etc.) at the same time. Only during measurement does the particle "decide" which state to be in, randomly. Can two particles be linked in their states so that if we measure one it will randomly decide which state to be in, then if we measure the second particle, its state will be forced according to the state of the first particle, even though there is no physical connection between the particles.
I tried to explain half of quantum mechanics in four sentences, sorry in advance if it's not clear.
Jesus
Is it possible to understand from your words that the matter of "quantum entanglement"
Is it a math game that has not been proven in practice?
Yes, what about the results of the experiment? What happened to the time after the (sealed) clock returned?
I don't see a breakdown of the test results here...
It sounds like puns and not science…
https://he.wikipedia.org/wiki/%D7%A9%D7%A2%D7%95%D7%9F_%D7%90%D7%98%D7%95%D7%9E%D7%99
When I started studying physics I was really fascinated by quantum theory.
After I finished studying, I think that the only correct thing is mathematics, the whole interpretation of the calculations is fundamentally incorrect. The theory of superposition is not derived from mathematics and it is possible to manage very well without solidifying into a situation as a result of interaction. All that needs to be understood is that there are more dimensions to space-time (even so, everyone ends up coming to this conclusion because the symmetry of the subatomic particles is too similar to the intersections of Li clusters)
Perhaps you can explain how an atom can be used as a watch without emitting radiation? After all, in an atomic clock what is measured is the frequency of the emitted radiation. So if the radiation is emitted from an atom in a state of superposition between two places in space, then during the emission the superposition will collapse into one state in one place.