Austrian researchers have developed a revolutionary imaging method based on quantum mechanics * for the first time ever, an image was obtained without the light revealing the image damaging at all the bone depicted in the image
![An innovative quantum imaging method produces images in which the photons never hit the bone - in this case an illustration of a cat. [Courtesy of Patricia Enigl, IQOQI].](https://www.hayadan.org.il/images/content3/2014/08/cat_Praticia_Enigl_IQQQI_web_04-500x375.jpg)
Researchers have developed an entirely new quantum imaging method. For the first time ever, an image was obtained without the light revealing the image damaging at all the object depicted in the image.
Researchers from the University of Vienna have developed a completely new quantum imaging method with the help of which an image is obtained without the light revealing the image damaging at all the bone depicted in the image. In general, in order to obtain an image on an object, it must be illuminated with a beam of light and a camera must be used to sense the light reflected or transmitted through the object. The type of light used to illuminate the object depends on the features we wish to simulate. Unfortunately, in many practical situations the ideal type of light for object illumination is not suitable for the camera available on the commercial market.
The findings of the innovative experiment published in the prestigious scientific journal Nature this week eliminate this inherent limitation. The object (for example, the outline of a cat picture) is illuminated with an undetectable type of light. Moreover, the light that creates the image of the cat with the help of the camera does not reach and harm the bone at all. In order to illustrate this experiment, the scientists used what are called "entangled" pairs of photons. These photon pairs - which resemble twin objects bound together - are created when a laser beam reacts with a nonlinear crystal.
During the experiment, the laser beam illuminates two separate crystals, creating a single pair of twin photons (consisting of one infrared photon and a red "twin" photon) in each of the crystals. The bone is located between the two crystals. The array is constructed so that if a pair of photons is generated inside the first crystal, only the photon in the infrared range passes through the irradiated object. The trajectory then continues and passes through the second crystal where it fully combines with every other photon in the infrared region generated there. As part of this crucial step, it is not possible, in practice, to know which of the two crystals is solely responsible for creating the pair of photons. Moreover, there is now no information contained within the infrared photon as to the object. However, thanks to the quantum affinity between entangled pairs, the information about the object is now contained in the red photons - even though they never "touched" or damaged the object.
The combination of the two separate paths of the red photons (one from the first crystal and one from the second crystal) produces light and dark patterns, illustrating the exact image of the object. Surprisingly, all photons in the infrared range (the only light that illuminated the object) were removed; The image was obtained only by the discovery of the red photons that never hit the bone. Even the camera used in this experiment is "blind" to photons in the infrared range that react with the object. In fact, cameras operating in the very low infrared range do not exist on the commercial market.
The researchers are confident that their new imaging method is a versatile and highly versatile method and can also be used for imaging in the important field of the mid-infrared region. The method could find applications in areas where low light intensity imaging is needed, for example - imaging of biological tissues or medical imaging.
The news about the study
354 תגובות
Miracles
If we agree that we don't need to make any relativistic connection to photons then everything is fine.
I have enough data for a very simple and very imprecise experiment. Hope to edit it in a few hours, before the early New Year's Eve. Let's hope my makeshift antenna works.
Happy new year to everyone.
Israel Shapira
indeed. And that fits what I'm saying. The speed is c, but there's no stopping the direction from changing depending on your speed.
Multiple measurements will correct for errors that are uniformly distributed around the correct value. There are also system errors in GPS that will not reset the connection. If you want to get a position of a static point - set it as "0 0 0" and close interest. What do you care about the value in WGS-84? You can then measure the position of any other point relative to this point.
Miracles
Relativity is built on the assumption that light - photons - always move closer or further away from you at speed C, no matter what your speed is.
If there is a tape measure that measures your height with an accuracy of one centimeter -+ two meters, then a few measurements have no value. But an average of 1000 measurements will give a good result. The wisdom of the masses of the meter runs.
Israel
Place c in the formula as one of the speeds - c always comes out. I'm wrong?
Regarding GPS, if you are at a fixed location, then averaging over time will improve the accuracy of measuring that fixed location. I don't understand what it gives.
Miracles
Regarding "Why does the formula for connecting relative velocities not work for photons?" By relation.
Regarding "with all due respect to the iPad", with a large enough number of tests you can get a statistically very reasonable result.
Israel
Why does the formula for connecting relative velocities not work for photons? I don't think the formula is correct for 0.99999c
and not for c.
Regarding GPS, is it about precision or accuracy? With all due respect to the iPad... I don't think so 🙂
Miracles
Relativistic velocity coupling is only for objects. Photons always move away from you at the same speed, C, no matter what your speed is relative to any object.
In the meantime, I found a GPS software for the iPad that shows a location with an accuracy of cm.
So the permission to speak to a problem member,
And now the submachine gun friend will speak.
Israel
It is not true that speeds do not add up in a relative system. The connection is more complex, and the calculation ensures that the relative speed will never exceed c (I simplify on purpose).
Imagine a shower of electrons that a spaceship is moving perpendicular to. Ha starts from rest and accelerates. Do you think that the direction of arrival of the electrons will always be perpendicular? of course not.
Let's accelerate the electrons too. Will the electrons come again from the perpendicular in the state of relativistic speed?
Miracles
I don't understand why the angle should change.
I'm also not clear about the aberration thing as it is explained in the mirror link:
a useful picture to understand aberration intuitively is to think of the photons as hard balls traveling with a finite velocity. When the spaceship moves, in its own inertial frame the photons get a velocity component added in the opposite direction to the spaceship movement. Therefore the photons seem to come from a direction closer to the forward direction.
It is nice and pleasant and nice in a Newtonian system, but photons do not receive a velocity component in the direction opposite to the direction of the spacecraft's progress, but continue to move relative to it at the same velocity as they would have been if it had been at rest relative to Orion: C.
Does not matter. Jupiter can explode and we will continue to see it, or rather its image, for another 40 minutes. That's why only the image is important for the picture we will get, not Tzedek himself.
And I believe my transparencies sample shows that there will be no change in size, only color.
Good night.
I have an inexhaustible beak in the tail
All my neurotransmitters. were burned Who can supply me with spare parts? I'm at a loss.
A small addition to the Doppler shortening of the length and time, maybe the mass also expands from the Doppler and parallel universes are created due to the Doppler of the movement backwards and forwards in time, therefore it gets a private relativistic interpretation from the point of view of a specific parallel universe, with respect
Two things, one, it seems to me that the length is really shortened in relation to moving backwards and forwards in time many times and you feel the Doppler shortening of the length and time. Second thing, when measuring a distance according to a beam of light, and probably this is also the case with Gipias, it is not possible without statistics and cross-checking to measure a distance smaller than 30 centimeters due to the reaction speed of the processor and the speed of light, with respect
Israel
Call it an aberration - there is still a change in the size of the figure, isn't it? And this happens even without relativity.
I still don't see the error in what I said. The spacecraft sees a signal that was transmitted 40 minutes ago from a distance of 5 light minutes. How will the angle of view not change?
God
I don't have an education either...
Israel Shapira, my recommendation to you is that you save your strength from trying to convince Nissim that he is
A troll who recites articles and studies without the ability to understand them or draw the correct conclusion on his own!
And this is the difference between an educated person and a wise person
Israel
I'm still thinking about your example.
Think that in the spacecraft's axis system it was 5 minutes away, but it received a signal from 40 minutes ago. Therefore he will see that Jupiter is 8 times smaller.
Miracles
I did not understand anything.
There is a relativistic Doppler effect.
The example with the raindrops is an aberration.
If the distance gets shorter, the image gets bigger.
What's the deal with the hour? Any letter will do, won't it?
Well no matter. I'll try one last time to get the example with the slides for review before I send it to Rafi and Garnet:
Project an image onto a screen with an overhead projector, so that the image fills the entire screen. Please note that in the picture you can see every child and pot in a certain place on the screen, no matter how you look at it.
If we put a photographic film on the screen, we will get an image of the mirror with an exact position on the film for each child.
What will happen if we bring the screen closer to the projector?
The image on the screen will appear small and concentrated and parts of the screen will not be lit at all.
In our analogy, the screen is the camera, and zooming the screen is fast motion. Because the photons hit the entire camera lens, even when it's moving fast, it's impossible to have unlit parts of the image. This is contrary to the earlier assumption that as we get closer there will be unlit parts.
parable. No?
Israel
Doppler effect belongs to classical speeds. I gave an example of rain - run forward seeing that the rain is falling diagonally.
I'll explain my understanding again (an understanding that was wrong until the link of Israel-Tov-Mirah-Einim). We both agree that the signal we see, both a ground observer and a spacecraft observer) will show an hour minus 40 minutes. The observer in the spacecraft sees the distance to Jupiter shortened in gamma. Therefore he will see the signal as if it came from a distance greater than phi gamma. Therefore - Tzedek will look smaller.
Israel-tov-mirror-eyes
Aristotle thought that men and women have a different number of teeth... he is not an example of someone who tests his hypotheses 🙂
Appearance
I looked a bit at links from Google, but I didn't see anything unusual.
When you decide to be serious and stop with the puzzles, send a specific link or release.
Good night.
Israel, have you heard of Google?
http://lmgtfy.com/?q=relativity+simulator
Appearance
I admit, as a vessel full of words, that I have no idea what you are talking about. Am I supposed to guess something from what you wrote?
If you have a link to a simulator, shoot. We are always happy to learn something new.
Otherwise explain in simple words and not in codes what you mean.
Thanks.
Israel, can you explain why you don't download a simulator?
Here's the problem: a human asks questions about what justice would look like, and doesn't bother to run a simulation. You are Socrates, I am Aristotle
Miracles
Not sure I understand your question. Is it about the exact time that the spacecraft camera will pick up?
The spacecraft is only 5 light minutes away from Jupiter, but it is 40 minutes away from it, isn't it?
Here is what Prof. Yonatan Granot writes:
Suppose an observer in a spaceship photographs the moon exactly as it passes by the earth and an observer on earth also photographs the moon at the exact same moment (and almost at the exact same position, with identical cameras, so only their speeds are different). Then the spacecraft returns to Earth and the two observers meet and compare their images. There will be three relevant effects in this case, which are related to each other. A. First, because of the aberration of the light (the change in the direction of the light between different systems) the direction to the moon in relation to the direction of the speed of the spacecraft will look different to the observer on the spacecraft (theta angle) compared to the observer on earth (theta angle). B. The distance to the moon in the perpendicular direction (in relation to the direction of the spacecraft's speed) is the same in both systems, therefore the change in the direction to the moon causes a change in the corresponding apparent distance of the moon and the total apparent distance to the moon (D and 'D respectively). The apparent distance can be defined by (R/sin(alpha) where R is the radius of the moon and alpha is the angle seen between the directions from the observer to the center of the moon and to its edge (or its apparent angular radius). Therefore the sine of the angular size at which the moon will appear (which for small angles is very close to the angular size itself) is proportional to one part of the visible distance. The visible distance for the observer in the spacecraft is greater (or smaller, depending on the value of the Doppler factor) than that for the observer on the ground in the Doppler factor (the ratio between the frequency of the light that will be seen from the moon and that seen by the observer on the ground, in our vicinity the moon is located at rest in its system, that is, relative to the Earth), and the angular size of the Moon in the image will be smaller by the same factor. This effect is also a result of the aberration of light. C. The colors of the Moon will appear different because of the Doppler effect.
Since the angular size of the moon as seen from Earth is relatively small (its angular diameter is about half a degree of arc), it will appear round even to the observer in the spacecraft, and even though the observer in the spacecraft will see it in a different direction, he will still see the same part of the surface of the moon as the observer On the ground. In conclusion:
A. The moon will look in a different direction (due to the aberration of the light; this effect will be difficult to see in a standard image, but a sufficiently stretched camera can also record the angle in relation to the direction of the spacecraft's speed).
B. The moon will appear at a different (angular) size (smaller by a Doppler factor) and at a different (apparent) distance (larger by a Doppler factor; this is also a result of the aberration of light).
third. The moon will appear in different colors (due to the Doppler effect).
In short - not longitudinal shortening but Doppler.
Wouldn't it be better if you could find me a GPS that can be connected to an antenna, works with satellites and is accurate in centimeters?
We can straighten out the mess in 5 minutes of experimentation.
Israel
At the moment the signal arrived, the signal had already "traveled" for 40 minutes, but as far as the spacecraft is concerned, the distance to Jupiter is only 5 minutes, light. What detail do you disagree with?
Mirror A mirror hanging on the wall.
Can you explain your words?
You said that Nissim is right and you sent a link that shows the opposite.
You have now brought a simulation that shows that when you fly in front of the lattice the edges expand, which is also clear from Newtonian physics.
Here's the problem:
If with relative speed the length shortens, why don't we see Jupiter bigger as if we used a sacrificial zoom?
Your link shows the opposite.
Do any of the commenters understand what a mirror is?
Miracles
"The signal received by the spacecraft came from a distance times gamma greater" eh? What is longitudinal elongation? Backward logic?
Try checking out my sample slides. On the face of it, she closes the issue flat and smooth, but I may be wrong.
Good show eyes. Rabak, download a simulator - it's free
Israel
I agree they see the same signal. Therefore, the signal received by the spacecraft came from a distance times greater than gamma, and the observer will see a smaller Jupiter...
You can look at it like running in the rain - so the rain will always hit you in the face...
Good responder shows.
But what does it show?
I see that there is no choice but to attach a link to YouTube.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=gTqqD5N3EbM
What is confusing is that there are two different distortions
1. Angular compression - concentration of the entire field of vision in the direction of movement. This deformation does not depend on the distance to the bone. This thing is described in the link in my first message.
2. Distortion - when you are close enough to the object, then the light from its far ends is "older" than the light from its near end. In this short time difference, you managed to get a little closer, which means that its shape will be distorted. This is what you see in the YouTube link. Is this what Nissim meant? Do not know…
In any case, the second phenomenon - you can see it today - for example in observations of galaxies (the far side versus the near side).
Be the head and not the fish
We are back from the Holy Forest Bowl.
Miracles - surely the two photographs from the ground and from the spacecraft will show the same time correctly. What are photons that arrive in the country at a given moment in the country, and it doesn't matter who receives them. It has nothing to do with relationships.
But if it's about relativity, and the matter was different - I assume you mean that the spacecraft will receive time later due to the shortening of the length/lengthening of time - we would receive information that moves faster than light, because we could read a newspaper right before the signal reaches the earth by natural means.
If what appears in Tubmer's link is indeed the reality, then I am also wrong. I claim that if my idea is correct, there is no shortening of length or lengthening of times in inertial systems. This is in contrast to Einstein Hafertch, for whom a meter is not a meter, an hour is not an hour and a kilo is not a kilo.
It seems to me that the example with the slides pretty much illustrates what I am arguing, and I would be happy if you would go through it. It's hard for me to believe that there are contradictions in Proper's relationship, and if I have some simple mistake I should point it out before I get angry with Rafi.
Water blowing
I understand that you yourself are going to be a gefilte fish
Happy New Year Gefiltefish and honey
Happy New Year 🙂
Israel
I looked at the link, and I understand that I'm wrong (I'm still trying to understand where the mistake is - maybe the example I gave you with Tzedek will help me understand?). That means you're wrong too, doesn't it?
Happy New Year and Happy holidays 🙂
Israel
We talked about a spaceship passing the Earth towards Jupiter. I don't see any way that an oval would be formed. Jupiter will appear round, the question is what size (angular). My logic says that the distance is getting shorter but the diameter of Jupiter will not change (perpendicular to the speed) and therefore the angular size will change, and in particular - increase.
Let's think about the meaning of our photograph - we will take a point on the observed circumference of Jupiter. Let's say that this point emits flashes of light that encode the current time. Question - at the moment of the photo, will the terrestrial camera and the space camera show the same time in the flashes they receive? Let's assume that the distance to Jupiter is 40 light minutes, the spaceship flies at gamma 8 and while the spaceship passes us, the time is 0.
what are you saying?
🙂 🙂
They will escape.. :C
You outdid yourself.. :C
Connect the reflections and give up the originals, eh... :C
You made my day… 😀
Big… 😀
Regarding the momentum: according to Maxwell, it goes to the mirror only.
In fact, the formula is P=E/C where P is the momentum of the photon plus a factor of 2.
The sharp-eyed among you can see that if P is defined as MV where M is the mass and V is the velocity, and we square C as V, we get the Einstein formula E=MC^2 from Maxwell's formulas.
Well, the kids should be taken to the music, but I'll tell everyone about your brilliance. 10% of the laughs - for you.
😀
Israel Shapira
A question not related to your example: if you take a mirror and put it at such an angle that in the reflection in the mirror you can see a television receiver; Aim the remote control of your TV receiver so that the electromagnetic signal hits the TV receiver, when you press the button on the remote control, then the signal (in its state as a physical particle) should hit the mirror and change direction towards the TV receiver.
The question: Is there any testimony or proof, even a mathematical proof, any confirmation that a particle (electromagnetic signal) in its virtual state does not travel the shorter path between the (physical) mirror and towards the reflection of the television receiver, in the mirror itself?
Is any momentum transferred both into and out of the mirror? It may be something trivial that I don't understand, so I would appreciate an answer from you.
Tubmer
Thanks for the investment.
I clicked on the link to the movie.
I did not see anything.
I clicked on your name.
I saw the explanation.
what is he saying? Shannisim right?
On the contrary, Sharpy is right.
Look at Figure 2
It is clearly seen that the higher the speed, the smaller the constellation of Orion becomes.
Look at Figure 5, the summary.
The same. It is a bit misleading, because it seems that the image is actually enlarged and at a speed of 0.99C one star is seen enlarged, but in reality it is an image of the universe.
You can clearly see that at a speed of 0.5C the row containing the 3 stars is smaller.
For the avoidance of doubt, read above:
at 0.99c almost all visible radiation from the universe is confined to a region 10 degrees in radius around the direction of travel.
Nissim claims, as I understand it, that at such a speed the only thing visible is a small, concentrated part of the Orion constellation - certainly not the entire universe.
I thought of a simple and practical reverse example to illustrate the point. It is also possible without difficulty to perform an experiment.
Project an image onto a screen with an overhead projector, so that the image fills the entire screen. Please note that in the picture you can see every child and pot in a certain place on the screen, no matter how you look at it.
If we put a photographic film on the screen, we will get an image of the mirror with an exact position on the film for each child.
What will happen if we bring the screen closer to the projector?
The image on the screen will appear small and concentrated and parts of the screen will not be lit at all.
In our analogy, the screen is the camera, and zooming the screen is fast motion. Because the photons hit the entire camera lens, even when it's moving fast, it's impossible to have unlit parts of the image. This is contrary to the earlier assumption that as we get closer there will be unlit parts.
parable. No?
Click on my name
The attached link has pictures based on a simulator and are worth 1000 words. The explanation is not bad either. Summary: Nissim is right.
Bonus: a movie..
http://www.vis.uni-stuttgart.de/fileadmin/vis/Forschung/relativity/movies/saturn_v0.95c.mp4
Israel, if you want to rotate a Gipias antenna at the speed of light, be careful that we don't all get Peish Ai like Nissim said. Sincerely
I don't think Rafi Moore would agree with you.
Here are his words that arrived an hour ago:
If the disk you are talking about is in the Earth's reference frame, the photograph from the spacecraft will show it smaller (not bigger). But that's not all. The longitudinal contraction takes place only along the axis parallel to the direction of the relative velocity and not along the other axes. So in the photograph from the spacecraft the disc will appear as an ellipse. Geometric shapes seen from a moving system are different from what is seen from their rest system. For example, a square will appear from a system moving relative to it as a rectangle, parallelogram, or rhombus, depending on the angle at which it is placed relative to the direction of the relative velocity.
Mio huh? We will look into the matter. Thanks.
Israel
I had a Mio GPS, and it had an external antenna connection.
What I am arguing is that as Jupiter grows larger, the distant stars will also move away from the center of the image. You will get a fisheye image.
And how will the camera distinguish between Jupiter and the star next to it? Why won't he fill the whole picture?
Does not matter. I was now in Paris and I was looking at GPSs. None come with a connection to an external antenna.
Does anyone know such a GPS? Any suggestions on how to connect inside? Is the GPS body the antenna?
Israel
Let's assume that Jupiter is in the center of the picture. We will take one star at a certain angle from Jupiter. Light comes at the speed of light and this speed has two components. A component perpendicular to the line of sight to justice and a parallel component.
Now, let's fly towards Jupiter real quick. The speed of light remains the speed of light. But, the ratio between the components has changed. Therefore, the angle to the star changes.
Miracles
Look at the night sky through the window. Out of the multitude of stars you see, one is Jupiter. It will fill about a millimeter of an image on photographic film that you put behind the window.
The situation is the same even if the window is in motion, because the light rays that hit it are the same rays that hit the window at rest, and the width of the window does not change with relative movement.
It seems to me that I have enough data for a simple and imprecise experiment, but the accuracy is not critical. Quality is allowed over quantity.
As always, you don't have to.
Israel
There is no connection between these maneuvers and GPS. The GPS system does not provide orientation and is also not the source of position and speed in these maneuvers. The GPS is used to update the location of an inertial system built from accelerometers and angular velocity.
And I have no doubt that Zedek will fill the entire picture at a sufficiently high speed. What's the problem with that? The positions of distant stars will also be equally distorted so that you get a transformation of the image from a stationary point. It would be like shooting through a fish-eye lens.
Strange but true? Do they pass the test of logic?
Albanzo's explanation of why no information passes between the entangled particles is strange. where is albanzo
The explanation of relativity is mathematically correct, but it is built on the assumption that the speed of light is always constant. Einstein is the one who mockingly said that everything can be explained through mathematics.
I still haven't received an answer: if we photograph Jupiter from a sufficiently fast spacecraft passing by the surface of the Earth, will it fill the entire image because of its enormous size resulting from the shortening of the length?
Can't you see that optically this is impossible?
There are videos of GPS guided pilots that can be used to perform stunts such as flying through loops. How is this possible with a delay and without maximum accuracy?
Israel
We have no argument about speed. The explanation is strange, then? There are many strange explanations.
A GPS guided weapon moves slowly and in straight lines (everything is relative...). Therefore, good predictions can be made. In addition, there are additional gauges that improve accuracy.
Miracles
I claim that if a spacecraft is moving towards me at speed V then I am moving towards it at speed V-.
I know the explanation of relativity, and it is indeed mathematically consistent. just weird
If the GPS has a big error in the movement, then how is it possible to hit with guided missiles at specific points?
But as mentioned, for the purpose of an experiment the error does not matter at the moment.
Israel
Are you claiming that the spacecraft pilot sees Vega 25 light years away as soon as it crosses Earth?
For your GPS you need to overcome 2 problems. The first is the effect of the atmosphere on the arrival time of the signal - the solution I know is a receiver that receives two frequencies (L1 and L2). The second is the accuracy in measuring the level change within the signal, and the solution is (P(Y) which exists only in military receivers. And in any case - these corrections take time so you will always have a considerable error with you in motion.
Miracles
The distance is 25 light years for both.
Speed is relative. If the spacecraft is moving towards Vega so that gamma=25, then Vega is also moving towards the spacecraft at the same speed.
Regarding the GPS:
All you need is an accurate GPS that only works with satellites and can be connected to an external antenna. unimportant errors.
Israel
There is no confusion about the watches. Let's say that Vega is 25 light years away and a spaceship passes us at gamma speed = 25. For us, and also for Vega residents, the flight time is 25 years. As far as the spaceship pilot is concerned, the distance is a light year, so only a year will pass for him. This is also the explanation for the twin "paradox". just no?
GPS has 2 fixable problems. One is atmospheric errors, and this can be corrected with differential correction. I do not know of any possibility to correct this error, without using military receivers (receivers of two frequencies, called L1 and L2). The second is the low power that causes the noises. Here the correction is by a scheme of signals. After the scheme you get a lot of information, including time (relative) and position of the satellite. To calculate a position you need 3 or 4 satellites, depending on whether or not you know your altitude.
It is desirable that the satellites are not close to each other, otherwise you get a significant damage to the accuracy.
In addition, there is a problem of accuracy in time measurement by the receiver that arises from the electronics, which is 3 meters, or 30 cm in military receivers.
The point is that your location is not known immediately but only in retrospect. The measurement rate of receivers is something like 5 times per second. That's why there is a big error in speed measurement, about half a km/h.
Miracles
Why an artifact? The two met twins agree that the time on the other twin's clock is higher, don't they? As above in non-accelerated systems. If a spaceship passes over the Earth on the way to Vega, whose time is synchronized with the Earth and the time on the clock of the spaceship and the Earth is the same at the moment of the changeover, then when it reaches Vega, its time will be earlier than that of Vega, and the passengers in the spaceship and the Vegans will agree on that. This is what relativity claims.
The small puzzlement remains as to why time passes slowly in the spaceship and not in Vega, since both move towards each other at the same speed and started at the same time and neither system is preferred. But there is an interesting and twisted explanation for this. Sort of like the explanation of why no information is passed between two coins that always fall on the same side.
If I understood correctly, the GPS receives the signal from the satellite and the time transmitted by the satellite and converts it into a distance by weighting the speed of light. If there is a delay, it must be equal from each received satellite or we will get a mismatch, right? Especially if it's a matter of centimeters.
Besides RTK, do you know GPSs that only work with distant satellites and are still accurate to within centimeters?
And regarding the shortening of the length - do you know a method for measuring the length of a spacecraft moving in front of you at a speed close to that of light? Maybe with a running meter, but fast?
Einstein measured length with clocks. Obviously, if time lengthens, the speed of light is constant and speed is distance divided by time, so if time lengthens, length contracts. But there is no "measurement" here like at the tailor's.
Shmulik
It is clear that the speed of light is the same for any meter and that is what the measurement shows. Einstein claims - time and length change. But this contradicts the assumption that at every point in the universe there is an absolute measurable time - the time that has passed since the bang.
Hence my proposal, that we only measure the speed that our devices are capable of measuring. But she is not the only one, Lorenz had another offer and there are more. Mine just fits with what we know from quanta, and is also experimentally disprovable.
lion
There is a very complex component that decodes the signals. The component provides a serial channel of information (the protocol I know is called nmea 0183). There is a delay in receiving the information, and this delay will, in my understanding, interfere with Israel's experiment.
You can buy a GPS receiver in a store, but it's not what you need. Build a shelter yourself? Successfully…
Nissim and Israel Shapira - why "it's not practical to try to directly receive the signals from the satellites, they are of very low power." It is a fact that your smartphone receives the signals from the satellites even without an external antenna.
Shmulik
How do you understand the interweaving thing?
Miracles,
But Israel continues to resist...
Shmulik
many years ago …. I studied magnetism as a phenomenon resulting from the shortening of the distance between electrons. So you can say that the experiment has already been conducted.
In addition, there is a (relatively) common device called RLG, which is based on determining the speed of light in moving axis systems. GPS shows the effect of gravity and speed.
And so on …
Israel,
Regarding the shortening of length, relativity does what it always does, adds a correction, doesn't it?
Miracles and Israel,
What prevents conducting an experiment that accelerates an electron to a high speed and measuring its movement under the influence of the magnetic field it feels, and comparing the results to the predictions of Maxwell, Colón and the other rabbis?
Israel
That's the time I'll show on your watch. You will see that my time has shortened. That is - it is an artifact of the measurement.
The same goes for length. If each of us sees the other as shorter, then again, this is an artifact of the measurement.
Miracles
The problem is that the experiment needs a source of electromagnetic radiation as far away as possible.
And what does "even time does not really shorten (in systems without acceleration)" mean? According to relativity it shortens and shortens, and this is also what the watch will see.
Shmulik mutters, "What do you mean relatively negligible? If the electron flies (LHC Style), the negligible will become substantial, won't it?”
In the phenomenon you showed, it is a relativistic explanation for magnetic force explained through the shortening of the length.
But for the shortening of the length, very high velocities are needed for it to be noticeable, whereas in the experiment you described, it is enough for the charge to move at a low speed to create a significant force, right?
Or maybe I missed something?
"And if that's the case then the theory of relativity is incorrect and there is no obstacle to information traveling faster than light and nothing protects us from our grandchildren"
so why? If absolute and measurable time exists (the time that has passed since the big bang) then it is impossible to go back in time due to the irreversibility of entropy.
Albanzo's "causality" only holds if the speed of light is indeed the upper limit for information transmission. The fact that it is not like this can be seen in the interweaving and this is what Einstein called out for. However, he also did not notice that (in my opinion) it was only "known information" and I was alarmed by that. (It's okay, I'm not offended by the comparison with Einstein).
And now I have to go to work. You also have to finance all the printing of that nonsense, don't you?
Hopefully soon, with your help, I will conduct a new experiment with GPSs, and this time not a trivial one, but one that can decide one way or the other. The Stockholm of Mazm or the barn of the beautiful.
Israel,
Shall I start from the end? What am I not allowed to ask a layman's question? 🙂
There are many explanations for fields before Einstein, but this explanation comes from his teachings and since it is the best teaching we have now, it is the explanation for the magnetic field. not like that?
What does relatively negligible mean? If the electron flies (LHC Style), the negligible will become substantial, won't it?
Regarding the shortening of the length, you are the one who claims that it does not exist, isn't it? And if so then the theory of relativity is incorrect and there is no obstacle to information traveling faster than light and nothing protects us from our grandchildren
Israel
The nearest sea to me is 8 hours away...
What is the problem with the distance to the satellites? RTK gives you high accuracy - relative to a relatively close ground station.
You can get a stream of data from the received satellites out of a GPS receiver, but this is after a certain time, because the receiver needs several samples before it can decode. It is impractical to try to directly receive the signals from the satellites, they are of very low power.
By the way - the significant relativistic phenomena are not related to the direction - +45 micro gravity, and -7 micro velocity. Always…
And regarding the contraction in length - it is clear that it is not a "real" contraction. The foreshortening is from the point of view of an outside observer. Time doesn't really shorten either (in systems without acceleration).
Mausi 🙂
You are full of useful information as always. Could you possibly explain technically how you can extract a signal from a single satellite out of the 3 or four it receives and display it on an oscilloscope? This is important for the experiment.
Shmulik
The explanation for the presence of the field was already explained before Einstein - Maxwell's ether theory as you can read in the link you provided.
It was precisely on this point that Einstein wrote the original article on relativity, which is why it is appropriately called "On the Electrodynamics of Bodies in Motion".
It is not clear to me how the shortening of the length solves the problem quantitatively. The formula that appears in the article F=Q(E+VxB) 1 shows a great Newtonian force and is relatively negligible. So how does it work out?
Regarding GPSs, I have no control, but according to Nissim, most of the deviation in the time of the atomic clock comes from gravity, which is accelerated movement. In the article that Michael brought a year ago, it is written that there is disagreement about how much each phenomenon contributes, and that some of them offset each other (miracles, I know it depends on the direction of movement).
No, the theory of relativity cannot be "correct" without the shortening of the length. Derech Eretz preceded the Torah and the shortening of length preceded every physical phenomenon in the original relativity essay.
But Newton's theory is not "correct" either, but a special case of the theory of relativity at low speeds. This does not prevent us from learning it and building on complex technologies based on it.
Miracles, I read a bit about the RTK method and it is indeed a problem because I need satellites as far away as possible.
What is this thing with the waves? are you going to the beach Does this have anything to do with weaving or what we are talking about?
Even the second law claimed that everything is composed of waves and compressed waves...
Israel
What can't be explained with waves? It was precisely because of such an attitude that Albert received an Alfred award and you didn't... 🙂
Feel good Israel. Lots of tea with honey, turmeric and artichoke!
Israel
RTK GPS requires a ground station (it's a type of DGPS). That is, the high precision is measured relative to the fixed point...
Israel,
I did not understand. Are you claiming that the fact that there is repulsion and attraction at low speeds proves that the length shortening is not needed to explain the presence of the field?
At low speeds you don't need the theory of relativity, but GPSs will stop functioning if they don't use it. This means that its effect is negligible at low speeds, but the effect is still there.
From what I understand, this is the deep explanation for the existence of the magnetic field. You claim that is not the explanation. What is your alternative explanation?
Sorry if I missed your answer to my question. Can the theory of relativity be correct without the shortening of length (waiting for Moore?)
I was indeed wrong, I was wrong, but my excuses persisted: 40 heat.
If you really can get this pixie for $900 (it's not entirely clear from the video) then that's very good news. As soon as I recover I will contact the two guys in the video.
Shmulik
You write "To me it sounds as if everything was already predetermined and the measurement only revealed it. Einstein thinks he meant hidden variables. Do you agree with him (that this is what Albantezo meant)?”
The first sentence "To me it sounds as if everything was already predetermined and the measurement only revealed it" indicates hidden sentences.
I have a feeling that some of those who talk about information not passing between the particles, do not deeply know Bell's proof or the experiments of Aspect and his successors.
Unfortunately, we never got to the discussion because everyone quits exactly at this point.
Ehud, who claimed that when two coins in different rooms always fall on the same side, it is not a matter of transferring information, said that the reason for this is philosophical.
And to this I wholeheartedly agree. Philosophically, not only does information not pass - it does not exist at all, because what is spin compared to eternity?
Physically, she passes and immediately.
Regarding the moving electric charge - this example always appears as evidence of the shortening of the length.
But the repulsion or attraction of the electric charge also appears at very low speeds of relative movement between the charge and the conductor.
Can anyone calculate what the gamma factor is at a speed of 5 m/s? I'm a bit of a driller.
(It's okay, you can use several pages for zeros after the decimal point).
If you are accurate and not joking
So the tomorrows you are looking at are the prices of the financing (which was successfully completed a year or so ago).
Today the prices are a little different. And there are several models.
Click on my name and touch my sources of information
Israel,
As the commenter below wrote to you, the number you refer to is the money raised for the project. The price for the device is $900.
By the way, you should perhaps consider the topic of "crowdfunding" for your project. You should be interested in sites like Kickstarter and others, you set a goal, write why it's important and people invest. Check the issue.
Honorable Mr. Shmulik, the particle moves many times backwards and forwards in time, therefore you see it as a wave, and you see it both as a wave and as a particle when it stabilizes on a probe, and the movement backwards and forwards in time many times gives it the different dimension, thank you
Israel,
I have no answers, but this is not a question of faith, but of science and facts. No voting here. According to the one who deals in the field as a researcher and publishes articles, it is not a matter of transferring information. He also described the method to use if you want to study a single particle.
Here again is what he wrote for miracles:
"Just knowing that right after you measure your spin, Israel's spin must react in a certain way to the experiments you will do on it is not a transfer of information because from the beginning the information about the state of the two spins was contained in both spins, as I tried to demonstrate in the previous response."
To me it sounds like everything was already predetermined and the measurement only revealed it. Einstein thinks he meant hidden variables. Do you agree with him (that this is what Albantezo meant)?
In addition, I insist on mentioning that the line of defense you take: "Then why did Einstein say..." is an appeal to authority. Rabbi Albert was not familiar with all the discoveries that have taken place since then. As Albantezo said, the quantum mechanics that Einstein knew was proven wrong and replaced by a more consistent theory, so Einstein could have wondered about spooky operations (contrary to Wikipedia's adamantly not citing him). Since then, more great and important rabbis were born who promoted science.
I understand that the answer to my question: can relativity be true without the shortening of length waiting for Moore's law?
By the way, if there is no length shortening, what is the answer to Nissim's question from years ago about a charge moving near a wire and feeling a magnetic force?
From a forum I copy the explanation:
http://dc.fresh.co.il/Science/939.html
"In the theory of relativity there are strange phenomena such as the shortening of length. If we take, for example, an electric charge standing next to a wire in which current is flowing, no electric force will act on it, because the longitudinal density of the positive charge carriers moving to one side of the wire is the same as the longitudinal density of the negative charge carriers moving to the other side, and overall the wire is not electrically charged. Now, when the electric charge standing next to a wire moves by itself, the length of the wire will shorten as the charge moves and as a result of the shortening of the length, the longitudinal charge density (amount of charge per unit length) will no longer be the same between the positive and negative charges. That is, from the point of view of a charge moving relative to the wire and considering the shortening of the length of the theory of relativity, the density of the electric charge will not be zero as in the case the charge is at rest and therefore it will feel an electric force and will be attracted or repelled by the wire. This electric force of attraction is called a magnetic force which acts on a moving charge. That is, the magnetic force is nothing but the effects of the theory of relativity on the electric force. "
Miracles,
But am I right and there is no way to measure a wave directly because any such measurement causes it to collapse into particles?
Regarding duality, I know what cannot be explained through particleism. What cannot be explained through a wave?
From the Kickstarter page: Low cost: $900 for a complete RTK system
I hope that in your relativity calculations you do not make such mistakes..
Thank you, and the price is also worth $166,097.
In the meantime, I have already found one with an accuracy of 2 cm at a tenth of the price.
Israel,
There is a GPS accurate to the centimeter (according to the manufacturers) called piksi. It is developed on kikstart.
Search on Google or here: https://www.kickstarter.com/projects/swiftnav/piksi-the-rtk-gps-receiver
Israel
A wave collapsing into a particle makes no more sense to me than a wave collapsing into two particles. Curved space makes no less sense than another dimension.
I sleep well with everything at night 🙂
Is there anyone who still believes that in weaving object A does not immediately affect object B at any distance?
Why then did Einstein talk about "Spooky Action at a Distance"? Maybe he knew what he was talking about?
Einsteinznievsky and miracles, it is clear that anything can be explained using additional dimensions and parallel universes, especially those where the laws of physics and mathematics are different.
However, this raises a weighty question: if a rabbi meets a dimension curled up on a crowded bus, will the rabbi stand up and vacate his seat or maybe the dimension is the one that curls up behind while standing? It is not clear.
Shmulik, unfortunately for you, and unfortunately for all those who understand who have reached this stage in the discussions - the claim that knowledge does not pass between the interwoven particles - curl up outside and do not continue.
Maybe because Einstein was right when he said that non-locality contradicts relativity, and as Tzvi said at the time (if I remember correctly) the attempt to save relativity from the results of an aspect experiment is extremely narrow.
In the meantime there is a new and very serious star - Rafi Mor (PBUH) - and it seems to me that he is the one who will solve the paradox of the paradox. When I finish the correspondence with him, I will ask him to present the solution here.
It is hard for me to believe that there is a contradiction in Proper's relationship, but in my opinion the solutions she offers are extremely strange.
Shmulik
Something prevents it from collapsing into two distant particles?
einsteinzo,
Local hidden variables will never be as good as quantum mechanics, indeed, but non-local variables are possible except that they contradict the theory of relativity and if it is true, global hidden variables are not possible and if it is true, the shortening of length is also true (Israel, it may be that the theory of relativity is true but without The shortening of the length? I don't think so). I didn't get the impression that Albertanzo was aiming because if he did, he would just send us to read about the hidden variables in the wiki.
Unfortunately, he got into trouble with himself and refuses to make necessary guest appearances, which is a shame.
Miracles,
It's hard not to really address the issue because I lack knowledge: is a wave a mathematical creature or does it have a physical presence? (If I understand correctly, his physical presence is collapsing into particles, right?)
Thanks
Einstein
The only nonsense is to refer to the form of your formulation (which is no more successful than the content), therefore....
Miracles
bullshit. You can also call it "slate".
The information - any information, even unknown information - is something that can be measured. Once you measure and find nothing, then there is no information, no state, and no shoes even if they are quantum.
Shmulik
I think the issue is the word "information". Both particles have something in common. I think it should be called a situation rather than information. Israel called it unknown information. I choose to look at it as another dimension in which the particles are together. Thus, nothing passes through the dimensions we know in zero time. Another way to look at it (which I'm not sure is different) is to remember that before the measurement the particles are a wave, and a wave is spread over the whole space. It also gives a possible explanation for the photon's interference exercise with itself in the famous experiment.
I don't see that it contradicts the theory of relativity. There is no way that I would transfer information to Israel in such a short time...
Israel
Yafim, a member of the kolkhoz, admits that he is disappointed. You took such good care of the cows... why bother with all this complex physics..
In any case, the sum of histories is one thing. Maybe you didn't understand what I wrote.
A part - of the same sum of histories - also visits Andromeda. The question is how that part does it. You charge a long photon. I claim distortion in space. There is more 'evidence' that a warp exists in space than there is evidence for a long photon. That's where I tried to direct you.
But I see that it is very difficult to move you out of your way. Anyway good luck.
Shmolon
"that from the beginning the information about the state of the two spins was contained in both spins" - this is called "hidden variables". And it has been proven that it does not exist.
Israel,
I remember that it is possible to intertwine more than two particles (after all, at the time I brought a link describing a large number of intertwined particles) but because Albantezo wrote "to know if it is intertwined or not, one must perform simultaneous experiments on it and its intertwined partner" I thought there was something interesting here because one photon Tells about the triple entanglement(?) and then there are 2 more photons left to play with and I wondered if there is a qualitative change here relative to the situation where only 2 entwined photons exist beforehand.
Another slight note:
In one of his last posts, Albantezo wrote to Nisim:
"Just knowing that right after you measure your spin, Israel's spin must react in a certain way to the experiments you will do on it is not a transfer of information because from the beginning the information about the state of the two spins was contained in both spins, as I tried to demonstrate in the previous response."
So when you and Nisim agree that information has passed in time zero, it has been hidden by someone researching in the field. Isn't it worth investigating what he meant?
Unfortunately it disappeared (and even after you completed it) but don't you have any other contacts who can answer the challenge and expand on his answer?
It is clear to me that you will immediately jump in and ask the obvious (normal) questions of how the second photon knew, etc., etc., but it seems to me from his answer that the mathematical formalism empties your question of its content (similar to the question of what preceded the big bang and the standard answer is that if time is an emergent phenomenon the question has no meaning )
Israel Shapira
I showed that it cannot depend on the creator of the information, regardless of the intermediary. Otherwise, a contradiction arises. There is no contradiction in the fusion and I don't see where the problem is.
In GPS satellites, the speed introduces an error of 7 microseconds, the gravity an error of 45 microseconds (opposite of the speed - therefore there is a constant difference of 38 microseconds). The Snyak phenomenon depends on the direction (if the satellite is approaching or receding) and is a few hundreds of nanoseconds.
Differential GPS accurate to 10 cm (as far as I know). Good enough for what you want? I know it from the military, but Garmin, Magellan and Trimble are well-known manufacturers. I know the coast guard has transmitters so maybe in your area it will work...
Miracles
Who said that the maximum speed for transferring information depends on the speed of the creator of the information?
I thought you agreed a few days ago that information - spin, polarization - passes from one entangled particle to another at time 0. Has there been a change?
GPS systems are accelerating systems. Do you know the relative contribution to the time deviation from the 3 factors you mentioned?
Do you know where you can get GPS devices that show the location with an accuracy of a centimeter? cost? How many satellites do they use?
Thanks.
Israel
There is a simple explanation for the fact that the maximum speed for transferring information cannot depend on the speed of the information creator. Describe to you 2 spaceships. One spaceship is moving towards you and the other spaceship is moving perpendicularly. Both activate a flash of light at the crossing point. Will the two flashes of light reach you together?
Each GPS satellite has 4 atomic clocks, and there are 30 active satellites today (out of 67 launched). All these clocks (some cesium and some rubidium) are tuned to run about 38 microseconds slower, due to relativistic corrections (velocity, gravity, snak). The watches were produced by different companies. Are you not getting the symptoms mentioned here? It's engineering, not science.
Shmulik
Is it time to disappear?
Not just three, theoretically you can interweave any number of particles you want.
Miracles
Accepts Postulate 1.
Well, postulate 1 has nothing to do with relativity. It is also true for Newton and Galileo.
Accepts Postulate 2.
But I don't think it's a postulate (axiom) but a sentence. The constancy of the speed of light in any frame of reference is a logical and necessary consequence of Maxwell's ether theory in an infinite, homogeneous and isotropic universe.
gets E=MC^2.
This formula is not exactly private relativity. Einstein published it only in 1907, and it can be reached from non-relativistic considerations.
A bit of history: the formula was already published in 1903 by an Italian engineer, Olinto De Pretto, who arrived at it from Maxwell's ether theory. In fact, Alik Jahbi (a professor at Harvard) claims that the theory of relativity is also Maxwell's theory in another dimension.
Olinto Danan's work is similar to the work of an English engineer, Samuel Tolver Preston, who tried to combine ether theory with Lesage's theory of gravitation.
From the ether theory it is possible to show the equivalence of matter and energy.
What I don't get:
the shortening of the length.
The lengthening of times in inertial systems.
The speed of light as an upper limit for the transmission of information.
How can this be proved?
If you get serious, and release some practical information about GPS satellites, you can plan an experiment that will determine unequivocally if there is anything in the idea or if it is just nonsense.
Good night.
And here's the link:
http://phys.org/news/2014-09-charm-nist-detectors-reveal-entangled.html
Albantezo (if still here), Israel, Nissim
A link to an experiment conducted which created an intertwined trio
At the end of the link it says:
To demonstrate the quality and value of the triplets, researchers tested local realism—finding evidence that, as quantum theory predicts, entangled particles do not have specific values before being measured.* Researchers also measured one of each of a succession of triplets to show they could herald or announce the presence of the remaining entangled pairs. An on-demand system like this would be useful in quantum repeaters, which could extend the range of quantum communications systems, or sharing of secret data encryption keys.
Does the fact that it's a threesome make a difference (apart from the fact that a threesome is always more fun)?
Israel
What do you get from special relativity? Let's see what we do agree on.
Displaced girlfriend.. Heat.. Tuesday.. Poker..
Einstein
How does the electron visit Andromeda? Ask Feynman. That's what he said. QED. "The Sum of Histories" Elek.
Regarding influence on the past, see the Weiler experiment (possible with Gali). It is based on the assumption that the photon moves only at the speed of light. Remove this assumption and everything works out: no going back in time, no quantum eraser, no splitting universes, no water.
Miracles
Aha? according to which clock? And how is it related?
The next time you enter the cockpit, look at the view (possible in the car too). You will be able to see very clear outlines, you can even draw them on the inside of the glass at the size they appear.
If you fly fast, you should get a different picture: everything is closer and bigger, isn't it? Therefore you will not be able to draw the same contours on the glass.
The problem is that there is no difference between moving or resting glass in terms of the light rays that hit it. That's why we should get the same image at rest or in motion, right?
Come on, let's hope I don't make any mistakes today, I'm a little dizzy. What did Sergio Constanza say, what takes, Cara or Paul?
Israel
Too many matrices today... I meant 160 milliseconds of course.
Israel
Do you agree that the spacecraft that passes the earth at gamma 8 will reach the moon in 4 milli?
Israel
How does the electron visit Andromeda?
After all, I wrote you, perhaps, the solution is not in photon but in space-time. In my opinion, a kind of fold in space-time that allows a particle to move in 0 time from point to point.
The same goes for weaving.
Regarding influence on the past - maybe I understand it differently than you. That's why I don't understand what you mean. I would appreciate it if you could explain.
I agreed with you about the distant stars and angles.
The matter does not warrant a debate. This is an experiment that can be performed: photographing a large celestial body from a fast satellite and comparing the diameter in the image to the diameter from a stationary camera. This will prove whether the length shortening, which has no experimental evidence, exists.
Israel
The photographs are identical in terms of the obscurations of distant stars. The spacecraft sees the moon bigger, I told you - like a fish-eye lens.
einstanzo
Feynman says:
"Each electron by itself travels in all possible ways at the same time: in a nice and straight way... suddenly changes its direction, makes the long way to the Andromeda galaxy, where it turns back and returns to the background" Brian Green, "The Elegant Universe" p. 122.
Can you explain how the electron manages to visit Andromeda on the short path from the source to the background if it does not move faster than light?
Do you accept that my long photon solves strange quantum scenarios, for example influencing the past?
Do you accept that in entanglement the spin or polarization information passes from one entangled particle to another in 0 time?
Miracles
If you accepted that the two photographs, from the earth and from the spacecraft, must be the same for technical optical reasons, then how is it that the image from the spacecraft shows the planet to be larger?
Israel
I tried to understand why you age the child...
Why do you insist that the distance to the planet shortens and the distance to the stars does not? What is wrong with what I wrote to you?
The Galilee is a nice experiment, but I don't think it's relevant. If you want to bring the cylinder closer, you need to reduce the size of the embossments by the same amount.
Israel
No. For such a universe you presented - I have no idea.
"So what's so illogical about my long futon" - everything makes sense of course. The problem is that there is no such thing.
The idea that a photon travels at all speeds is nice but unrealistic.
Consider the fact that the photon cannot move faster than itself. Maybe it can help you look for the solution in the right place.
Miracles
I just did the experiment. I took a small tube (well, this one from the side of the toilet paper...) and looked at the bumps on the bathroom wall. From a distance you see about 20. As you get closer, the number decreases, until finally you only see the center of the embankment opposite.
The point is that if I were fast enough and moving close to the speed of light, then at the point where I saw 20 bulges I would still see the same 20.
As Mazam says - just an experiment.
Put Tomer on the fire? The fire is dangerous. Tomiko will burn her.
Israel
Yes - the photo should be the same. And that's what I'm saying.
We will take 2 stars that touch on both sides of the moon. The angles between them are about half a degree, right? (Same for the sun, roughly). Let's say gamma is 10 so the moon should show at an angle of about 5 degrees. But - our 2 stars will also be seen at an angle of about 5 degrees, due to the reduction of the distance.
Basically, my claim is that speed distorts the angle of view of objects regardless of the distance to them. It is similar to a fish-eye lens. What am I doing wrong?
Miracles
Just teeth? I would replace half of the systems. It seems to me that the engineers of the evolution are the same engineers who worked on Mir and Buran's projects..
Regarding the optics, of course you are right (not about engineers), but my point is a little different. To see it, take a 20 cm tube of tsol and look through it at a distant building. You will see that you can see more buildings on the edge.
If you get close to it, at some point it will fill your entire field of vision and you won't be able to see the other buildings. It's because you're closer.
If you use such a tube then this is also what will happen if you look at the planet from earlier if you get closer to it. At a certain point in the approach, it will fill the entire field of vision, and you will not be able to see stars in the margins. Not even in photography.
If the length shortening was real, the same thing would have happened to the earlier spaceship. But the matter is different when a spaceship passes over the earth. The image - the electromagnetic signals that make up the light - is there in exactly the same place as the lens on earth. Therefore, the photo must be the same, and if you see the stars in a photo from Earth, you will also see them in a photo from the spacecraft.
No?
Israel
And regarding the teeth, you're kidding - a mechanism as screwed up as the teeth can only be the idea of an intelligent planner (not very smart...)
A small curiosity, I once had the same tooth extracted twice and I had a hook
Israel
Put the child to sleep? When are you supposed to put it on the fire?
Regarding the spacecraft - even the distant stars are 10 times closer, so I don't see the problem. A star that launched to a planet will still launch to a planet.
This surgical displacement is ineal. The fact that evolution managed to grow a mechanism as ineffective as the teeth is only proof that there is no evolution.
Einstein, there is no doubt that it is desirable to be precise in the exact sciences, just as it is desirable to rest in the humanities. So if you have any idea about a universe that expands as you get to its edge, whip it.
Miracles
The optical contradiction is this:
Let's say you are taking a picture from Earth of a planet the size of the sun and in the position of the sun (not the sun itself, because you won't see stars behind it unless you come at night).
Behind the planet you will see more stars in the picture. Their light reaches your camera lens, whether you use a 10x zoom or not.
On the other hand, if you take the same photo from a tenth of the distance, the light of those stars will not reach the lens because they will be hidden by the planets.
If the shortening of the length was real, then a spacecraft passing by the surface of the earth on its way to the planet when the gamma factor is equal to 10 and photographing the planet should have shown a 10 times closer image of the planet due to the shortening of the length, and therefore also a 10 times larger radius to the planet. But in this case the planet will cover those distant stars and their light will not reach the lens.
But it is impossible that he will not arrive, because the spacecraft passes over the surface of the earth and their light reaches the same lens on the surface of the earth at the moment the spacecraft suits. Since the longitudinal shortening is only in the direction of movement, the diameter of the two lenses, in the land and on the spacecraft, is the same. Therefore it also reaches the lens of the spacecraft camera.
With zoom we enlarge a certain part of the image in the receiving lens. But in the case before us, the light from the stars will not arrive at all.
If it is not clear with a factor of 10, you can think of a much greater proximity, say a planet the size of the sun is XNUMX kilometer from us. It is clear that we see nothing but her, neither stars nor zebras.
But let's take a moment to land and see where we got.
I hope that at this point we all understand that in entanglement information passes between the particles in zero time for any required distance. If someone doesn't accept it, they should take a look at the link attached to my name or explain.
But if we got it, doesn't it require that there is a mechanism that transmits the same information in time 0 or at infinite speed?
So what is so absurd about my long photon, which agrees with everything we know from quantum mechanics but does not require parallel universes or an influence on the past?
And of course, if relativity claims that information cannot travel faster than light, then relativity is wrong.
The point is that this is not what relativity says, and only "known information" is forbidden by relativity to pass quickly from the light in order not to harm "causality".
If someone claims otherwise, let them explain.
And now the child needs to be put to sleep.
Israel
What law in optics does this contradict? Does the same law necessarily apply at relativistic speeds?
Israel
The complexity of calculating the sunrise time depends on two things. The first of course is the desired level of accuracy and the second is how far ahead you want to know. Acceptable models need to know date, location, altitude and even atmospheric data.
The guy in the sky complicated the matter by the fact that the earth suffers from precession, notation and a daily slowing down of the rate of rotation, not to mention that the orbit around the sun is only approximately elliptical, and perhaps we even have to take into account the fact that the sun loses its weight...
And if you want a serious challenge, we will calculate where the magnetic north will be in 10 years...
Israel
My intention was not "that there is a difference". Rather, the perspective I presented is more accurate. In my opinion, in exact sciences you should be as precise as possible.
Not only the speed of light, but also the equations that did not change even with Einstein.
I don't know how to calculate the time of sunrise, is it also from a complicated and delicate model containing about 200 equations?
According to him, Maxwell did not know that he would get the speed of light. He built a hydrodynamic model of the ether like the air, and when he inserted Newton's equation to derive the speed of sound in air but replaced the pressure and compression constants with the electric and magnetic constants, to his surprise he got the speed that Piezo calculated for light.
Probably a coincidence, like with the sunrises.
But just to be sure, I'm running to count the projections to multiply in the walls and put the neighbors inside. What worked for Mr. Nachshon (you guessed right) will work for me too.
This week, David Israel brings a blow in a tutu!
A bit of reality... running now for surgical removal. So if I don't get out of it, your winnings.
Bye.
Messiaen Rothschild The speed of light stabilizes at what light will hit in the future, even if the earth moves
Israel,
I'm just asking.
Can you explain in simple Hebrew why it is so important/interesting/surprising that Maxwell derived velocity from the ether model?
After all, incorrect models still explain certain things. After all, you can calculate the movement of the sun and the time of sunrise even if you believe that it revolves around the earth, right?
S. I once even saw how people stand up to write mother instead of mother in a parallel world, how can I explain to you where you come from? ? ?
Socrates
Why do you ignore the "do not feed the troll" sign?
It could suffocate any Bamba bag.
Water blowing
You are the father and mother of the rascals. Go back to your cage and don't you dare show your nose. Even a skunk has lost his patience with your nonsense. Meow, meow, meow.
A few things because everyone here is talking to themselves, 1. The space of the universe is made of nothing and therefore its size is both infinite and empty, but the particles vibrate in space and can vibrate in infinite directions that have infinite dimensions, and can move in relation to themselves without end. 2. I didn't understand how the last scenes disconnect from the effect of gravity, but I didn't listen that much, sorry. 3. Particles if they move backwards and forwards in time can theoretically be once at speed A and once at speed B. Have a good day and good night, happy new year
Every common stretched rubber band is simultaneously at X and Y speed. In fact, at all speeds between 0 and the speed of the arrow.
Thanks. As we agreed, just an experiment.
Israel, everything you wrote is not relevant to the question of how one body can be at the same time at speed X and Y?
What is the difference between this strange idea that is unknown from any observation in Newtonian space and the statement that a body can be both a particle and a wave at the same time? As far as I understand, you are going against the accepted interpretation, but you are not giving a simpler interpretation, but an equally strange one.
I think that Ockham's razor has no sanctity and there may be a situation where a complex and complicated explanation is the right one, so I agree with you that "Khalas Philsaf. It is clear that no one will be convinced by logical arguments without experimental backing". In any case, congratulations on the efforts and the boldness of thinking, good luck!
Member of the Kolkhoz Einsteinzoniewicz
So what is the difference between your universe and an infinite universe?
Zvi and Brian Green say he probably isn't.
Israel
I disagree with you. The universe is finite and has limits.
The point is that the border moves away from the focus. And as we get closer to him, he will continue to move away. That is, we will never be able to reach the limit and hence the universe seems infinite to us.
That's my opinion at least.
I don't know a simple explanation. I just believe that mine is simpler and follows directly from Maxwell's theory for an open and infinite system.
We didn't talk about Maxwell, but let's not forget that he was able to derive the speed of light from the constants of electricity and magnetism and this from a hydrodynamic model of the ether. So what, did he just succeed like that? What is he, Mr. Nachshon of the tracker who used to guess the toto results by counting the bumps, multiplying the walls and adding the neighbors?
And his equations? True, he only reproduces Gauss and Ampere. But every electric and magnetic model was built on a hydrodynamic model. That's why the electricity "flows".
Take the example of the earth, which only reacts to a narrow arc of projectiles from infinity that hit it, or the example of the ballistic pendulum, which only reacts to projectiles below a certain speed, the isotopes of uranium 235, which only react to slow neutrons, or the fast neutrinos that penetrate thousands of suns without leaving a mark.
This phenomenon of a narrow range of speeds where there is a reaction between bodies is natural and common.
Combine the Maxwell model with particles that only react below a certain speed, open it to an infinite universe which is the most natural thing to me, lower the speed limit for these particles, since every particle is at rest, so why would a certain speed be preferred in an infinite, homogeneous and isotropic universe?
What did you get? the active site model. Waves in such a model will advance at all speeds, but we will only be able to measure those that respond to our devices below a certain speed.
What else did we get? Gravitation according to Lesage, but without the friction problem pointed out by Feynman.
What more? Inertia according to Mach's principle.
At the time I suggested to Michael to build a computer model of the idea to prove that I was an idiot, but I think I pissed him off because I called him an Ashkenazi and proved him wrong:
https://www.hayadan.org.il/ball-state-prez-intelligent-design-not-science-0408135/comment-page-26/#comment-448720
But Hals is a philosopher. It is clear that no one will be convinced by logical arguments without experimental backing. Besides this is just one idea, there could be more.
Finally - a question. If you manage to answer it, you will be the first, because it was presented to many and good people, last time to Prof. Granot a month ago, but remained unanswered:
If the shortening of the longitude were real, then a spacecraft passing by the surface of the Earth and photographing the moon, would see in the photograph a large diameter as the ratio of the gamma factor of the moon from the same photograph from ESA, and this is because of the shortening of the longitude. (The length shortening is only in the direction of movement, not in the vertical direction).
It can be easily shown that such a phenomenon would contradict the basic laws of optics.
So how does it work out?
Now you have me confused. Are you claiming that every photon moves at all speeds at the same time? Each photon is analogous to the entire rubber band and not to one point on it?
If this is your explanation, it is no simpler than the interpretations of quantum mechanics, and if so, then what advantage does it have? And how does he explain the experimental results better?
I thought you were trying to explain the problematic nature of quantum mechanics in a Newtonian model where there are photons that each move at a different speed and we only see those at speed C.
will not work. Every single photon, however tiny and tiny, moves at all speeds.
The alternative is parallel universes, particles that are on both ends of the universe at the same time, influence on the past, communication through the seventh dimension, and kilometer-long trains that are compressed to a millimeter without the passengers' knowledge.
I will only point out that if you had written the last sentence (which is by the way the common discourse in mainstream science today) only 150 years ago, you would have sounded like one of the respondents in this article, whose name is an acronym for hydrogen carbolic oxide.
Did I say Copenhagen?! Stockholm of course (this cynicism will kill us all).
Regarding the experiment I proposed, the point is a photon launcher that sends them singly and not in bundles like a car headlight. Ideal if there is a facility that can send one photon. Maybe something like this disk of yours?? So, according to your model, the stationary sensor would not see the photon fired from the moving device, correct?
Vendors
It's nice that you read, but why not the whole thing? Here is from just two days ago:
"There is no problem stopping entangled particles. Even photons puzzlingly (Einstein scorn condensation). Once intertwined - always intertwined."
R... from time to time
The experiment you proposed takes place all the time: every moving car that turns on its headlights is a source of photons in motion and our eye is an excellent receptor. If a car isn't fast enough, the sun and stars move pretty fast relative to us. Because motion is relative, your 1 and 2 are the same.
The results are negative, and rightly so. If we do perceive only the part that moves relative to us at the speed of light, and it moves at all speeds, then the speed of the source or receiver will not change.
At the time I proposed to check if there are changes in the reception times of signals from distant pulsars if they are measured in different places on the earth, and this is because of the different tangential speed of the earth's surface resulting from the speed of the earth's rotation around its axis.
It turns out that it does happen, as it says in the link that Michael brought at the time.
Does this idea contradict what we know from QED? on the contrary. According to Feynman:
"Each electron by itself travels in all possible ways at the same time: in a nice and straight way... suddenly changes its direction, makes the long way to the Andromeda galaxy, where it turns back and returns to the background" Brian Green, "The Elegant Universe" p. 122.
So if an electron - or any other quantum object such as a photon - is enough to visit Andromeda during its short trip from the source to the detector - it must be moving at a great many speeds, and surely faster than light, right?
There is an unequivocal experiment, and if all the others are exhausted I will carry it out, no matter how much it costs.
You can observe distant supernovae from different points on Earth. Because of their huge distance and their relatively short production time, then we will get completely different images at the same moment.
Such an experiment, if carried out and failed, would be a slam dunk for the theory, and then I could retire in peace to my real hobby: collecting ancient Neolithic pottery.
In my experiment we sent a green laser beam through a rapidly rotating disc with very thin slits. A calculation showed that from the moment the light enters through one of the slits until it is interrupted by the rotation, only 150,000th of a second passes. That is why the light advances only 2 km before it is "caught" in the slow tail.
At a distance of 4 km we placed a telescope and watched the horn. If cutting off the slow part would collapse the fast part of the photon, then at a certain rotation speed we would stop seeing the beam. This did not happen, although above 12,000 rpm there was a decline in the power of the horn.
It is not as simple as it seems - it is not easy to aim and hit a telescope with a laser beam from 4 km. The rotation speeds are also pretty crazy, and one of the disks was simply cut into 2 parts due to the centrifugal force and almost hit us. But what is not done for the sake of science?
I wish you success in your academic career. A girl is working hard on her PhD in Pennsylvania, so we hardly see her.
What is there in Copenhagen? Tivoli?
Israel Miracles …
Hmmm... photons slower than the speed of light don't exist?!!!
Wait a moment with the braiding and trimming. and inequality Bell
It seems to me that you should go over your high school physics a bit...
The meaning of the index of refraction (learned in high school) is the ratio between the speed of light and the speed of the photon in the medium.
It happens all the time…
The speed of light in glass is lower than the speed of light in a vacuum.
Now you can go back to GUT
Israel,
Good luck! It's a bit big for me at this busy and busy time (publishing grants and my own puzzles) to get right into the thick of it and it's a shame I can't help. But I promise to come to Copenhagen if the day comes.
In any case, can you briefly and simply describe the experiment? And what is meant by cutting? And keep updating.
An idea that occurs to me on the subject, which I am not clear on how technically it can be carried out, is based on the fact that I read that in the experiment the slits emitted individual photons (and then they showed that even they undergo interference).
The experiment:
1) Take two photon sources that emit single photons. One source is stationary and the other is in motion.
2) Take two receptors one stationary and one moving.
3) Hagar
4) If you are correct, the moving sensor will only see the photon fired from the moving launcher and the stationary sensor will only see the photon fired from the stationary launcher.
5) If you are wrong both sensors will see both photons, no matter what their source is.
What do you think?
A short note about the size of dimensions, even if our dimension is one step, if there is something that statistically appears in it, our dimension seems to be wider and larger than his, thank you
I think there was some German group that managed to slow down light, I don't know what it has to do with it
I was moderated.
time
But how will you see the slow part of the photon if it only reacts to objects moving relative to it at speed C?
Not slow photons, the same photon moves at all speeds, from 0 to infinity. Like our rubber band.
delusional? What about parallel universes, an influence on the past and interlaced electrons communicating a billion light years away through empty space via the seventh dimension apparently?
Such a rubbery photon solves the horror scenarios posed by the mechanics of the quats. What is more serious?
A few updates since you left that I think are related to the topic:
A few months ago I presented here and in other blogs the "twin paradox" - an apparent paradox within proper relativity concerning the shortening of length (for which there is no experimental evidence).
I received several suggestions for a solution, including from professors and relationship experts. No proposal was similar, and most of them were contradictory.
The only solution consistent with relativity was brought by Prof. Jonathan Granot from the Open University. Over a month ago I raised reservations about his solution, including specific questions that indicate a contradiction in the solution.
Yesterday I received an answer, but it ignores the specific questions. If you are interested, you can follow the correspondence at the link:
http://forum.openu.ac.il/opus/bin/en.jsp?enZone=Forum126655&segind=1
Under "The Twin Paradox Paradox" and "Is the Proton a Standing Wave?".
The last experiment I conducted in the desert a few weeks ago came to test exactly the point you raised - is it possible to "collapse" the "long photon" by cutting off its slow part. I call it a "trivial experiment" because it only comes to test simple possibilities - in this case a simple cutting of a laser beam and not a specific speed - before I approach more complex experiments. If there is demand, I would be happy to detail the course of the experiment.
The experiment was not successful in this respect that the laser beam we used did not cut off its head when we cut off its tail, but it was not supposed to cut off either. That is why the experiment is called trivial. He just comes to narrow down options.
Einsteinzowitz
My opinion is that almost all the hocus pocus of relativity and quantum can be explained using Newtonian and Maxwellian physics.
This does not mean that the explanation is correct, most likely not. For this, discussions and experiments are held.
Bonus: if the theory is correct, it also yields a solution to the question of the origin of gravity and inertia.
Israel,
How do you say, Nu Schwain. Suppose we understood faster than the speed of light = transparent.
1) But why don't you see photons slower than the speed of light?
2) What is the analogy in photons to the escape velocity? The fact that you have shown that it is possible for projectiles to be transparent as far as the Earth is concerned (and as I said I am short of judging if what you say is true, but I guess you have checked yourself) still does not prove anything about photons. What do you think is the escape velocity analog factor that makes them transparent?
Water blowing
Thanks.
I did not understand anything.
Israel
Light (photon) moves at speed C.
The distance of one light year is the distance traveled by an electromagnetic signal (a photon moving in space) in the time of a year.
That is, a distance of a billion light years - the light has to travel in a time of a billion years.
In other words: if light takes a billion years to travel a distance of a billion light years, then no immediate effect is possible.
But, the effect is immediate.
Considering the fact that light does not travel in a vacuum (when it travels a distance of a billion light years)
Without losing the momentum, and also the immediate effect...
I would say, there is some distortion of space-time here. A kind of loop hole.
Isn't that how things are, don't you think?
A sequel you like - linked back in time, statistically linked and linked in parallel and different dimensions than three, with respect
In short, space is made of nothing, it can have infinite dimensions - both less than one and more than three. The particle that is connected to the particle itself and that is why it is an entangle vibrates in space and creates a new dimension, it vibrates back and forth in time and in other dimensions, that is why it appears to us as a wave. And because it is connected to itself, it transmits information if one side of it is affected, and it can be faster than the speed of light because there is no matter in space and it is linked back in time, it is a bit inaccurate to say that it is faster than light because the particles of light also know how to behave like that. Sincerely
Comrad Einsteinzo
Bone reacts immediately, without time.
how is it happening Like my little dog as my heart. Give him a bone, even the second party will stand up, he will react immediately.
My dog is a bone. every bone
A member of the Yisrael party
If an interwoven object collapses into two points, and between them are separated a billion and a half light years of space-time, at what speed will the other object react? And how can they be one 'entity'? What the hell is going on there? 🙂
Projectile 11 will transfer the most momentum, followed by 10..9.. to 1.
But what is surprising is that the 12-20 bullets will not transfer any momentum. Reason: their speed is higher than the escape speed from the country, 11.2 km/s.
In fact, if 1000 projectiles hit Israel with a speed difference between every two followers of 1 km/s, then no more than 23 of them will transfer momentum (some of them backwards).
And it doesn't matter what the speed of the earth is in any reference system. Always some of the bullets - most of them in fact - will be "transparent" for him in any reference system.
And so if this question was asked only 150 years ago when there was no speed limit, C, then if an infinite number of projectiles would hit the country at speeds ranging from minus infinity to infinity, then whatever the speed of the country relative to the sun, for example, it would only be affected by projectiles whose speed relative to it is less from the escape velocity. If an additional speed of 1000 km/s was suddenly added to him in some direction, then all projectiles at speeds that previously affected him would become transparent to him, and other projectiles that were previously transparent would begin to transfer momentum. As far as the country is concerned, the situation remains as before.
A bit like with our rubber band, isn't it?
And now Israel is going to bed.
(Somewhat influenced by her article about the Russian Buran space shuttle).
How do you say in Russian a spaceship with many faults?
Wise Mir.
Israel,
I don't know enough to answer you. My logic says none of them. They will all "fall" to the center of the earth with their own gravity and momentum and then go symmetrically against gravity to the opposite pole so that any energy gained/lost by one of the parties will be returned symmetrically (if we ignore friction and heat).
What's the deal with the rubber band?
I actually liked the rubber band example and I am still bothered by your assumption that is given in such a trivial way "suppose we only see points at one and the same speed".
For example, they came and said that visible light is just a special case of electromagnetic waves at specific wavelengths to which the eye is sensitive. However, there are other wavelengths that the eye does not see. Very quickly devices were invented that can "sense" these wavelengths.
So again, why according to your idea, it is not possible to "sense" fast or slow photons? Is there a theoretical prevention for this?
You really haven't been here long.
Two years ago, the universe was finite. Not any more. Not only in terms of dimensions, but also in terms of mass. This is what Zvi says and also Brian Green.
But let's settle on puzzle 1. It directly relates to your question about speed vs. singularity:
Which projectile will leave the least mark in the form of momentum on the earth?
And which one is the most?
Newtonian physics only.
there is
riddles Oh it's trivial. I will answer after you answer me: how was life created? Who was the first replicating molecule? What does the first cell look like? Where are the memories stored? What is the brain process that made you wear a green shirt and not a red one in the morning and what the hell is QscR doing?
MZM
For you - riddles.
1. You drill a tunnel through the DC from pole to pole.
20 projectiles arrive at the tunnel opening one hour apart. Speed of the first - km/s. The second - 2 km/year. The third - 3, the fourth - 4.... so on until the 20th bullet whose speed is 20 km/s.
Which projectile will leave the least mark in the form of momentum on the earth?
And which one is the most?
2. What is the size of the universe? final? infinite? If final what is after the end? wall?
3. When did time begin? 13.7 billion years ago? If so, what came first?
In other words, according to your model, what is so "sacred" about speed Vs and why do we only see PL moving at that speed and not the slower or faster points?
Israel,
You just have to explain why we only see the VS speed. What is our "evidential" barrier?
Why is it that if I send a laser beam to a sensor standing in front of me, it will always reach it at VS and not at any of the other speeds, no less and no more.
In fact, according to your theory, as soon as the laser was turned on, the sensor should have reported. But no, all sensors and it doesn't matter what type report VS speed (the speed of light in our case). All current measurements and geodesy are based on this. It is clear that distance measurement by laser is extremely accurate and it is easy to prove this by comparing it to other methods. It is also clear that all laser-based measurements are based on the fact that the laser speed is one and is Vs.
Miracles
indeed. And this is also what Ehud says if I remember correctly.
On the other hand, Ehud is quite shocked by the interpretation of a quantum object spread in space, and holds that only the wave function is the spread and its square is the probability of finding the object. This is the accepted mathematical interpretation.
A bit like the cats of Maim and Sherudi who walk around a large hall but we don't know where they are, only the probability of finding them at a certain point.
And how do you find a cat? We do pssss... pssss... but for quantum cats we do psssss... Pesssi….
Israel
If a quantum object collapses to a point in measurement, then can't it be that an entangled object collapses to two points?
Indeed, the rubber band will move at all speeds from 0 to V.
Let's say that V is very high, and that we are only able to observe objects moving below the velocity VS, which is much smaller than V.
When we shoot the arrow for a long distance we only see the points on the rubber moving away from us at a speed smaller than VS. The last point we see is PL moving away from us at speed VS. We do not see the arrow itself.
If we fly along the rubber band at speed VT in the direction of the arrow, points that previously had relative speed to us now will be inferior, and the other points in the rubber band will move at a lower speed. On the other hand, points beyond the PL that we didn't see before will suddenly be revealed. The last point we will see now will be PN and its velocity relative to the tree is VS+VT. However, relative to Illinois, it moves away at VS speed.
In fact, we will find that no matter what speed we fly, taking a video of the rubber band in the direction of the tree's movement will show us the same thing: there will always be a point on the rubber band below us that has a speed of 0 relative to us, a point moving away from us at speed VS and points in between that move at all speeds between 0 and VS.
If the arrow moves at infinite speed, we are left with a rubber band that moves away from us at all speeds from 0 to infinity, in which we can measure only one maximum speed of departure: VS. We will never reach the arrow, and as we move along it we will see it move away from us at the same speed: VM.
Not that it's related, God forbid, but a similar idea led the young Einstein to relativity: he tried to chase a beam of light in his imagination and catch it, and discovered that no matter how fast he advanced, the beam would always move away from him at the speed of light. Like the rainbow that always stays the same distance from us and it is impossible to reach it, stand under it or pass it.
And what will happen to the rubber band that we hold with our fingers and release both ends? The rubber band that used to be everywhere visible to us, collapses all at once into one singular point: the fingers.
I once heard that this is what also happens to a quantum object: before the measurement, it is spread with a certain probability everywhere because of the uncertainty principle. The measurement, the intervention, collapses it at once to the place of measurement.
And at what speed will signals advance in rubber? It depends on its acoustic modulus, but at a much higher speed than the observed speed of the common river rubber.
Working.
Israel,
1) I'm not Shmulik, who is Shmulik?
2) I upgraded Charles in Nahal Sorek
3) Ketonic interweaving, if you want about bacteria and evolution I have something to say, a little.
4) Regarding the riddle, even though I left Charles I will try:
A. The end of the rubber bound to pressure will have velocity V, the end of the rubber bound to wood will have velocity 0, everything else in a gradient between these?
B. Communication inside the rubber? If it's electromagnetic signals, the speed of light (well not empty but close, no?)
third. It's tricky, I even tried a bit with a rubber band. The problem is to release at exactly the same second on both ends, otherwise it will fly to the side that has not yet been released, I guess if it is possible to release together then the answer is in the center.
The problem is that all my answers are trivial and in my memory there is a catch here. So what's the catch?
Come on, Shoin. Even 2 out of 3 is something.
The fifth mother is Tamar, Yehuda's daughter-in-law, who, after killing poor Onan and Aar, tried to kill her as well.
And this comes to prove to all those who claim the virtue of our people, that in the beginning we are all the same people... the descendants of a black widow whom no one wanted, our revered king is the product of incest between a father and his daughter-in-law, his grandmother was a convert, and the blood of the son of evil flows in our veins from the father's side as well (Yaakov son of Rebekah, sister of Laban) and also from the hated mother's side (Leah, daughter of Laban).
So is it any wonder the whole world hates us?
Anyway, welcome. It is impossible to say that nothing has changed - ghosts will become Einsteins.
Everything is normal with me, calm. My son is already Khatiyar, 9 years old, although he believes he is still Gorgoron. The experiments are progressing slowly but surely. The main problem is the lack of instructional books that explain how to exceed the speed of light in leisure time. Anyone have an idea? Actually what does it matter.
But as I've always said it's great fun to perform them. There was a very successful experiment in terms of execution a few weeks ago, less so in terms of results.
Yuval lives in New Jersey and devotes his energy to priests' books and to the struggle for the release of Roman Zdorov. I spoke to him a week ago, and I'm sure he'd be happy if you contacted him.
If you'd like to share, we'd love to know what happens to you.
What else has changed? As mentioned, not much. Those who claim multiple universes continue to claim (but not prove). Those in favor of influencing the past from the present continue to support (but do not demonstrate).
I, who claim that there is no such thing as the shortening of length or the lengthening of time in inertial systems, performs trivial experiments and answers everyone with unanswered questions, a.k.a. the twin paradox. I also try to show that the "long photon", the one that moves at all speeds, solves most of the problems presented by quantum mechanics and relativity.
A good example is the link you provided. If I remember correctly, Shmulik already brought it a year ago as a demonstration of the influence on the past. If you read the link to the end, you will see that apart from the interweaving of photon 1 with 4 that has not yet been born (see cradle in the diagram), it is also about the measurement of photon 4 affecting the quantum state of 1 in the past.
It's hard for me to be impressed with 1 and 4 interlacing, since it's done with 2 and 3 acting as intermediaries, so what's the big deal?
And regarding the claim that measuring 4 affects 1 even though 1 inflated his soul before 4 was born, go over the time chart. It embodies the assumption that photons travel only at the speed of light, as I showed the vanishing Shmulik.
You.. are you sure you're not actually Shmulik? The writing style, the areas of interest and knowledge are similar. Shmuel B. Maybe?
Finally - a riddle:
You tie one side of a long rubber band to a tree on the bank of the Charles River and the other side to a compression fastener. You shoot the arrow at a tree standing on the other bank.
If the speed of the arrow is V, how fast is the rubber band moving? At what speed does communication move inside the rubber? If we grab the stretched rubber band at some point between the trees and release it from the trees, at what point will the entire rubber band "collapse"?
Successfully.
Atonement for M. Rothschild whose name still cannot be said without obstruction. I actually miss his roofs (no sarcasm)
Israel,
1) Plasmid?
2) Do not know
3) Bernadotte
4) Does Moab, CA satisfy you?
Miracles
If you accept my words, you are going down a slippery slope.. The two mainstreamers who quit at this very point in the discussion did not accept my words: Albanzo who claimed that no information passes between two intertwined particles, and this is because of an argument that sounds a bit like hidden variables (gloves, duplicated letters).
The second is Ehud who claimed that if two coins in different rooms always fall on the same side and they are not synchronized in advance, no information has yet passed between them. The reasoning: quantum philosophy. Copenhagen Elek interpretation.
But as always it's just possible that Israel the idiot just didn't read/listen/understand. But there is no one to ask.
To us mere mortals, it seems that if Einstein talked about "Spooky Action at a Distance" he might have known what he was talking about.
No problem stopping entangled particles. Even photons puzzlingly (Einstein scorn condensation). Once intertwined - always intertwined.
from the pollution
Anyone can come and claim to be anyone. Today there are many pretenders who break out in front of their masters, and it is impossible to believe anyone.
Arafat says he is dead, does anyone believe him?
Muhammad Deef claims he is alive, does that mean he is alive?
(They say that after the bombing in Gaza, he only had one ear left and that too - deaf..)
So if you claim that you are R.H. the mythological, prove it by answering the following questions:
1. What is the name of the circular DNA molecule that is injected into the E. coli bacterium to demonstrate an evolutionary leap?
2. Who is the fifth mother?
3. Who was the officer who won the battle, where hundreds of his enemies were, and they in return summoned him to be their king?
R.H
Did you get out of the army, Paor? 🙂 (Don't be offended. Meaning: "Welcome back" in the language of the Zobor).
Regarding your comparison between me and gushing water - it is out of place. And you know it. So it's a shame you start your return visit with nonsense. 🙂
As for M.R. he probably gave up on us after we brought up the section on him.
And Israel Keshisha - like Israel Keshisha - still holds the same position. But to his credit, the experiments are progressing and if everything goes well, we will hear interesting insights from him that may one way or another at least advance our discussions on the site in a "fruitful" (scientifically) direction.
Israel Shapira,
What a deza woo !!
The man returns after years to visit the science site and what does he discover? that nothing has changed...
Once upon a time there was R. India will rise and today there is the Omniscient Miracle who reacts to every news.
Once upon a time there was a ghost who talked nonsense today there is gushing water.
And only the elderly Israel continues to passionately claim that light moves at all possible speeds and admires Maxwell who predicted its speed in a vacuum and still quarrels with others who claim that he does not read their responses.
The only one that is missing, I think, is Yuval Zakor Latov.
How are you, buddy? Did you end up doing the same experiment? Probably not, I didn't see the name Shapira in the message from Stockholm 🙁
And what about the hills of California? And my children? From your messages I understand that you left Vegas fame in favor of Miron's table, I hope they are not aware of your reputation there at the table.
"What does it matter" that was once in that incarnation R.H
Einstein
I got you
What are you all doing to poor Futon? You pretty much got him out of all the holes. Leave him alone, otherwise he will strike you with a final blow with gamma rays.
Miracles
“Einsteinzo
You wrote "..there is a particle that interacts with a photon and causes it to move faster than light." It does not correspond to what we agreed on - that the information passes immediately." - The information in quantum entanglement - if information does exist - should move faster than light.
My sentence you quoted is not really related to the discussion. What I wrote was intended for Israel to remind him that I too came to the same conclusion as he did. And it is that there is some medium on which particles move despite the popular opinion that there is no medium.
To the one who wrote on my behalf, I had the dubious honor of meeting myself at the rehearsals, but unfortunately I met duplicates of other people after the rehearsals who were also of a different gender, it's really not the most fun, but there is some humor in it
In addition, I started ovulating
I was told that my water was stale and muddy. How do you clean them? I want to be fresh as snow
Israel
I get what you're saying. But, as long as the particles are moving, it is impossible to talk about simultaneity. If we stop two intertwined electrons - does the phenomenon still happen?
Einstein
You wrote "..there is a particle that interacts with a photon and causes it to move faster than light." This does not correspond to what we agreed on - that the information passes immediately.
And the feedback is things like de ze woo, forces that work in returning time and other dimensions, for the health of the Hapsburg
Look, Honorable Habsburg, I don't think you should think about mercy in the context that you do experiments and get feedback from them, even if the feedback is not exactly what you expected
Israel Shapira
I understand that you regard blowing water with the measure of mercy. From your words I conclude that he will grow up. which the believer
Canaanite,
Please don't tell our water to go clean.
water
Whenever the universe splits it's best to enter the dimension just to be safe. But don't forget to come back in time for dinner, the cat is waiting.
Water blowing
If you look in the mirror you will see your own antimatter. If you collide with the anti-matter, a destructive conflict will be created, you will ionize and come to a redemptive point
Honorable Mr. Israel, first of all, it is beautiful that 7 contradicts 6, then 3 and 4 because of the different dimension and the multiplicity of worlds. It is possible and again possible to send information, but statistical information, I repeat it many times and to each his own, and four because the universes are divided, distance is important and also probably an effect of distance.
Miracles
I have no explanation for the paradox, nor did I really try to explain the paradox in this discussion. Neither is Israel. All in all, we described the paradox to Albentazo and asked him for an explanation of the paradox.
The paradox is: that there is cooperation between object A and object B - at the same time that there is no connection between object A and object B. How can it be?
Ok, let's try to see what we have agreed on so far:
1. Information, spin or polarization state, passes from one entangled particle to another.
2. This information is not known to us surveyors before the measurement, and yet it passed.
3. We cannot send known information (game results) via interleaving.
4. There is no relevant limit to the distance at which interweaving works.
5. Interweaving works in 0 time.
6. There is no mechanism in physics known to us, the respondents in this article, that explains how the interweaving works.
7. The explanations we have found so far for entanglement and other results predicted by quantum mechanics are taken from exotic and speculative physics - multiple universes, multiple dimensions, influence of the present on the past, a single particle at both ends of the universe, etc.
8. Einstein claimed in the EPR paper in 1935 that entanglement contradicts relativity, even though all the relevant data were known even then.
agree? Want to add? Want to expand? Want to get wet? (water).
Einstein
Apparently I failed to understand your explanation of the paradox. I would appreciate it if you could explain again.
explain?
And what exactly are Israel and myself doing?
Besides: what to explain? Be concrete. Because as far as I know, we already explained. You simply did not agree with the explanations.
Einstein
Again - instead of slurring your mouth - maybe you could explain?
Miracles
You are not the first to think of a fifth dimension. You didn't think about a tenth dimension either. But you (don't want to say "the fool") are the first to claim that "in the fifth dimension the distance is still 0".
The link you attached does not describe what you claim.
Are you "happy to learn"? So why don't you study? So you won't be happy?
You try to teach others what you don't know. This behavior of yours is ridiculous.
Einstein
It turns out that I'm not the first to think of the stupid idea of a fifth dimension - read: http://arxiv.org/ftp/quant-ph/papers/0307/0307117.pdf
Because I don't think you will read - here is the opening -
Motivated by the apparent lack of a workable hypothesis we developed a model to describe
phenomena such as entanglement and the EPR-paradox.
In the model we propose the existence of extra hidden dimensions. Through these dimensions
it will be possible for particles, which originate from one source, to remain connected. This
connection results in an instantaneous reaction of one particle when the other particle is
manipulated. We imagine entanglement in such a model. The results of the experiments which
have been performed on this item do not contradict the existence of the extra
dimension(s).
In addition, the model opens the possibility to unify the theory of quantum mechanics,
gravitation and the general theory of relativity.
Einstein
Do you have another explanation for the phenomenon? I would love to learn. As I emphasize again and again, I do not understand the subject.
Miracles
"In the fifth dimension the distance is still 0" - in the fifth dimension? Is that where you fell on us?
You really don't seem to understand the material.
And you are here only to glorify your lack of education in public and confuse everyone's brains... Maybe you will retire while you are still at your "peak"?
It's more complicated than that, the particles can be intertwined in space as well as time!
http://arxiv.org/pdf/1209.4191v1.pdf
Israel
Bell's assistant was also called Watson... And in general, Sherlock is the invention of someone who believed in ghosts
I can get what you're saying.
It was Sherlock.
Let's stay in 4 dimensions and one universe for now.
A brief logical examination shows, I believe, that the polarization or spin information passes instantaneously between the entangled particles. This was also Einstein's claim.
Israel Shapira
Wow, right... Bell called Watson, or something, didn't he?
A million light years sounds great. In the fifth dimension the distance is still 0. Does this contradict something?
Be that as it may, the distance is great. What is a million light years between me and you?
And now the cardinal question: at what speed does the weaving work?
And today is Tuesday when the priests used to say in the Temple: today there is poker at Miron's. We will discuss later.
And on the subject of Mary and the lamb, wasn't it Edison and the phonograph? (Not pornography, water!).
Israel
As far as I understand, there is no dependence on distance. It may be that at great distances this is no longer true, due to various spatial distortions.
Good, so now we'll haggle over the distance...
Is there a maximum distance for the interlacing operation?
Hint: Bell's theorem is mathematical and not related to experiments.
Israel
I agree with you.
At this point all that is needed is to agree that if the spin is always reversed and there are no hidden variables, then information passes from room to room in the house. Is that so much to ask?
Israel
I understand what you are saying and I have to think to myself about the meaning of Bell's second sentence (the first was Mary had a little lamb...). We know that a particle can be viewed as a wave. Therefore, I see no problem in looking at two particles as components of the same wave. I don't pretend to understand, I'm just saying that it can be looked at as something strange, but there is no contradiction here.
one after one.
First we will agree that information passes from room to room, then we will find out to what distance and at what speed.
Israel
I thought the whole thing was that the distance is relatively large. If the rooms are close then there is nothing interesting here.
Miracles
Why don't you have a way to let me know before 1000? What if the rooms are next to each other, what's the problem with shouting "fell on a tree!"
But it seems to me that I must be missing something trivial. It seems so simple and self-evident to me, that I can't understand what is to be understood here at all.
On the other hand, I can't understand the problem with Shardy's cat either. After all, when we open the box we will not only know if he is alive or dead, but if he is dead, and our sense of smell is developed enough, we will also know when exactly he died. So where exactly is the problem?
It's a shame that Albenzo retired. I would like to ask him some technical questions, for example how radioactive atoms can be interwoven and how it is that the collapse of the wave function does not consume energy.
Israel
Your experiment is acceptable. But the fact that I know at 0900 what you will only know at 1000 does not mean that information has been passed. I know based on my experiment, not based on something that happened to you. I have no way of letting you know before 1000, so it has no meaning.
The theory of relativity does not rule out motion above the speed of light, it only rules out acceleration from a speed lower than the speed of light to a speed higher than the speed of light.
In addition, there is no limit to space itself moving above the speed of light, and perhaps, as I said, there is another dimension that connects the particles?
Not that I remember much, but I do remember that the speed of a bunch can be faster than the speed of light. Maybe that's part of the point?
Miracles
I asked about cherry tomatoes and not about tomatoes and on that occasion what is the price of a gourmet meal at a luxury restaurant in Tashkent?
Let's do a thought experiment:
We will synchronize clocks between the two rooms where the intertwined particles are located.
At 080000 we will measure in room A. 100000 in room B.
The surveyors in room A know at 090000 the situation in both rooms. The surveyors in room B do not.
Does this mean that the state of the particle in chamber B is no longer determined? After all, the surveyors there do not know its condition.
My answer is yes, the situation is determined whether we know it or not. As Einstein said "I don't believe the moon doesn't exist if I don't look at it" but the "Copenhagen interpretation" is different, as Ehud claims (to my understanding).
Israel
And this is exactly my question - is there a way for me to find out on the other side that a measurement was indeed made on the first side? I understand not, therefore what passed between them is not "information". Maybe there is another dimension where the two photons are at a distance of 0? What is contradictory?
Miracles
It is said that according to you a intertwined pair is one entity. Still, before the measurement each side of the entity is in a state of superposition of several states.
Since it is possible for us to measure one side according to our will and thus cause it to be in a certain state, and the other side only responds to the measurement on the first side, it is implied that the information goes to the other side.
However, we do not know what state it was in - "unknown information" Elek.
And even though the information got through, we can't send known information through entanglement, including the spin or polarization state we just discovered.
Israel
Yes, I know it has been proven that there are no hidden variables... this is a possible consequence of Bell's Theorem. And you're right that what I wrote is indeed wrong because, but it's still an answer to your question about flipping a coin.
I still think the solution is "simple" that an intertwined couple is a single entity. I'll probably have to keep reading and learning...
Miracles
What you say is called "hidden variables" - like Albanzo's gloves, or the duplicated letters. You saw one, you know what the other is. The situation was predetermined, the measurement only revealed it. Einstein's argument.
But in quanta there is no such thing as hidden variables, and only the measurement determines the situation.
If you want, we'll schematically go through an aspect experiment so you can see why it doesn't hold.
The Wizard
A kilo of tomatoes in Hong Kong costs $22. You tried to catch me, huh?
Israel
Let's take 1000 pairs of coins and twist them so that one of the pair always falls on a tree and the other is flat. From each pair a random selection is made between them. For you, the coins fall randomly...
Or I don't understand what you are saying.
Miracles
Mister know all what is the face value of cherry tomatoes on the hong kong viral market?
water
a few words!
And every word - Malmilian!
A few words, when you move a particle in a field or lattice you rely on its sabsov and therefore can check which sabsov it has, but because the sabsov is a collection of sabsovs in parallel worlds you affect a part. Influences because every action has a reaction, but because it is in parallel worlds you influence statistically. And again because it is in superposition and parallel worlds, you can go up and down in the dimensions of space statistically because the particle is not in three dimensions of space and again it is statistically possible to move and influence because there is a connection between the dimensions of space both in time and forward in time and backward in time. In short words like causality and time travel take on a different meaning that you are in other dimensions and they may be practical, practical like a reference document and practical like reviving people to the next world, with respect
Einstein
All the experiments that have been done have shown that light moves at only one speed - that of light exactly. It is impossible to reach the speed of light and it is impossible to exceed it. As you get closer to the light, it will move away from you at the same speed C.
But if you look at a rainbow on an overcast day, you will see that it is also at a certain and fixed distance from you, and it is also impossible to reach it by standing under it or passing it. Whenever you get close to her, she will move away from you.
In fact, the rainbow is everywhere. You only see certain reflections at a certain distance.
My opinion is that light travels at all speeds. We can only measure the certain speed that our senses and devices allow us - C.
Entanglement and non-locality are not the most puzzling thing from the prediction of quantum mechanics - multiple universes and influence on the past are much more serious in my opinion.
All these oddities can be resolved if we assume that the same photon is moving at many speeds, perhaps all of them.
Miracles.
I asked you to propose a mechanism, as sophisticated as it may be, that would allow obtaining identical results when measuring 1000 coins in different rooms.
You can use any equipment you want - detectors, computers, pipes, tractors, everything - except radios.
You will succeed - Stockholm.
You will not succeed - Harlem.
The world is waiting with eager anticipation.
Israel / Einstein
"It doesn't make sense" - I mean it doesn't correspond to common sense. Like the world is round. Like changing genders.
I agree that the situation is more complex (probably more complex than flipping a coin). A photon has no vertical or horizontal polarization, but its polarization is determined by the measurement (depending on the angle of the polarizer). But, I still think the solution is that the pair of photons are in a sense one entity. I don't think it makes any less sense than that a particle can appear as a wave and vice versa...
Israel
I don't claim that.
In fact, I wrote my opinion here a few years ago in which I argued that there is a particle that interacts with a photon and causes it to move faster than light. As of today, this idea is more elaborate and I definitely think that there is "here" some kind of medium, hidden, on which the bunch of waves that we know moves.
Einstein
Look at:
http://en.wikisource.org/wiki/On_Physical_Lines_of_Force
This is Maxwell's site model.
Look at equation 136.
From this hydrodynamic model of currents and eddies, Maxwell was able to derive the speed of light from the constants of electricity and magnetism.
Do you think he succeeded by chance? That Maxwell's equations are correct but the way he arrived at those equations - the ether model - is wrong?
Israel
I honestly don't understand how it works. But we will wait patiently. Anyway sounds interesting. Let us know when there are results.
Miracles
You're not right.
You miss the fact that in any attempt the poles will be opposite.
It is not possible for the polarizations to be sometimes compatible and sometimes opposite.
Miracles
"It doesn't make sense (in terms of human logic)"
So what logic should we use - chimpanzee?
"But there is no contradiction here to the laws we know."
True, but why did Einstein claim that there was a contradiction?
"You won't be surprised at all, and you won't know that I made a measurement."
But after we compare the results of the measurements of 1000 entangled photons and they seem to be the same, and after we realize that Bell's theorem and the Aspect experiment rule out early coordination of the polarizations, I will not only be surprised - I will be amazed.
and you don't?
If not, can you explain how we got the same polarization in photons 1000 times or a million times, if they were not coordinated beforehand and no information passed between them?
Israel
I don't agree at all. Your example is not good (in my opinion) because the experiment you describe is too far from being practical.
The situation is, mine has a photon and you have a photon (they are in a twisted pair). I check its polarization, find that it is vertical, so it is "determined" that your photon is horizontally polarized. You won't be surprised at all, and you won't know that I took a measurement. I don't think my measurement affected your measurement result. We have no way of knowing if you had measured it yourself, the result would have been different.
True, after we compare results, we will see the match, but I don't understand where the problem is here. Again - it doesn't make sense (in terms of human logic), but there is no contradiction here to the laws we know.
Einstein
"The case where information does pass between particles requires the addition of one more side to physics. Like, for example, a medium on which the information moves."
And this is indeed the purpose of the experiments.
send a signal with information through the same medium.
Faster than light of course.
Israel
The truth is that it is not clear what the purpose of the experiment is. At least it's not clear to me. Rather than throwing my speculations about the experiment into the air, I think it would be wiser if you wrote down the purpose of your experiment here.
Regarding your answer to miracles: I think you are right that there cannot be a bone in two different places. But the case where information does pass between particle to particle requires the addition of one more side to physics. Like for example a medium on which the information moves. And this is already quite a big step for a simple person. Therefore, the step requires comprehensive and strict tests.
I didn't say I could pass information - I said it passes.
I can't force a tree - but I can force the coin to choose a state, a tree or a flag, from a previous state of a flag superposition.
And if according to you the same coin exists in 2 places, then the same coin is spinning in the air in front of 2 different viewers. As soon as one of them drops the coin on his side - and it is possible to choose in advance which of the two will do so - he has determined the side on which the coin will fall on the other side as well before the amazed eyes of the other spectator.
So how does this happen if no information has been passed?
In any case, of the two hoposcopos - the same coin that is in two places at the same time or information that passes instantly from coin to coin - I prefer the second option.
Israel
No - I don't think information has been passed. I think there is actually one coin in two places.
If you were to force the coin to "stick" on one side then that is something else. The situation here is not like that. You cannot transmit information through such a mechanism.
Einstein
equipment:
generator.
electric engine.
Speed changer for an electric motor.
A disc with a diameter of 20 cm with 18 grooves on the circumference that are 0.5 mm wide.
Telescopic sight.
Green laser 0.2W.
2 telescopes.
Concave mirror.
walkie talkies.
Glasses for protection from laser light.
Amplifies starlight.
Regarding the purpose of the experiment - what, it's not clear?
Israel
wait? we will wait waiting.
What devices are you using in the experiment?
And if you can briefly describe (again) the purpose of the experiment.
Miracles
If left in the right context, then:
The spin state is also information. And it is also a physical entity. Both thought is information and this information also has a representation in the physical world. Higgs boson is also information. As soon as there is any noise between two electrons, then that noise is "information".
When no information passes between two interwoven particles, but nevertheless there is an interaction between them - this is a paradox.
Miracles, cow cow.
In the coins sample do you get the one that has passed information? We will ignore for now the question of whether this is what happens in reality. Let's assume the description is as I presented it.
I do not claim that this contradicts relativity. Einstein is the one who claimed, in the EPR paper.
Israel
The coin example is not an example that I need to explain, because it does not describe reality (in my understanding). I understand that in the case of entangled elementary particles, the pair of particles is by definition a "single" particle that is in 2 places at the same time. I don't understand how this can be and it's very illogical - but that doesn't mean it's not true. I also don't think it contradicts relativity.
Miracles
You have the right to call it whatever you want, but if no information has been passed, how is it that in the example of the coins they always fall on the same side if no information has been passed and the state of the coin is determined only when it falls?
?
??
??!?
Israel
If not, then what passed in 0 time should not be called information in my understanding.
The explanation of the idea can be long and tedious, and most likely it is wrong.
You must be reasonably familiar with:
Mach's inertial model.
Maxwell's site model.
Lesage's gravitation model.
Quantum mechanics and quantum entanglement.
Ballistic pendulum principle.
The principle of re-feeding in electricity.
and more things.
Isn't it better to wait for the experiments to be completed? They are making progress, slowly but surely.
Israel
What idea did you think of?
(Albandi.. Elek.. 🙂 shoot me: $12)
Water blowing
Want to perform on the cat?
Mr. Israel and Mr. Nissim or the honor of the children who write in their names, given statistically
No
Israel
Is there a way to know by looking at particle B that a measurement was made on particle A?
Greetings from Yuval.
I am not aware of an explanation for the interweaving mechanism. I have an idea, based on the experiments in the desert.
I think Albenzo took a break. But since his example with the gloves also catches on with shoes, we may soon hear from Albandi.
no instant,
Apparently he finds no interest in communicating with you in the same way that a biologist finds no interest in communicating with a laboratory mouse (don't be offended, but that's about the distance on the bar of understanding between a layman of your kind and a professional of his kind).
So what are you saying? Q- If information passes between particle A and particle B in zero time, then it must act through some intermediary?
Are you claiming that there is no real vacuum? That is, the particles move in a kind of "ether"? In a soup of Higgs bosons that somehow transfer information between particles?
By the way, you may know where, and more interestingly - why, those two types who argued with you passionately disappeared? I posed a question to one of them, as he kept claiming he knew, but I didn't get an answer from him. Apparently he (Albantezo is his name, I think) doesn't know.
Einstein
"If so, then, is the expected information (in chocolate with crackers) already contained within the 'patient'?"
This was also Einstein's argument in the EPR article - the information was already in the particle, the measurement only revealed it as "hidden variables" Elek.
The alternative, as Einstein claimed, is that the expected information must pass immediately between the particles and violate the principle of locality as I brought up earlier in the link:
Einstein, Podolsky and Rosen asked how can the second particle "know" to have precisely defined momentum but uncertain position? Since this implies that one particle is communicating with the other instantaneously across space, ie, faster than light, this is the "paradox".
The problem is that according to the uncertainty principle - the fundamental principle of quantum mechanics - the particle does not have a defined state before the measurement
And it is in the superposition of all the states, like our coin before the fall is in the superposition of a tree and pelt, and only the fall - the measurement - forces it to choose a unique state.
This was Einstein's argument, and it remained valid until Bell proved that it was quantum mechanics that was correct and reality was non-local.
Therefore, we are left only with the amazing and unimaginable possibility that reality is non-local, that is, that the quantum state passes from one entangled particle to another - or to a million particles - in zero time and at any distance.
Unless someone who claims otherwise will be able to explain why it is not so.
For a simple proof of Bell's theorem, you can follow the link attached to my name. of which:
We see how Bell was able to ask questions about reality - by assuming that a local reality underlies this two-photon experiment. And we see how nature actually gave Bell an answer to his question. "No" she said, "reality is not local. I don't work like that."
Miracles
"They do not affect each other, and no one knows that they are in opposite states."
No one knows from Zimmerat? We said that after flipping the coins we compare the results, didn't we?
It is said that the results recorded in room A are: toss 1 - tree. Throw 2 - wood. 3 – Peli. 4 – wood. 5 – Peli…. Like this until the 1000th roll.
So when we take the notebook in which we recorded the results, we will move with it to room B and compare the results to the toss book in room B. It seems that the results in it are the same.
How did information not get through?
Can you suggest a mechanism as sophisticated as it may be that would produce the results of such an experiment without communication and transfer of information between the rooms? Provided, of course, that there are no "hidden variables", meaning that the state of the coins does not match in advance, but is determined only when the coin is tossed.
The world holds its breath. Especially in Stockholm.
water
You are confusing Bell's sentence with junk comments.
First of all Shabbat Shalom, then you talk a lot but for example unlike the famous Bell experiment, a few things I hope I will be brief. 1. To Israel, you should try to speak in terms of not information inside a closed and unknown box, but whether the following information is stabilized on space because, you know, there are several parallel universes or superposition. 2. A few words about Bell, again one side is influenced by the other side and the emphasis is that it changes the results, meaning that there was not a given situation before but there was a continuous influence. Then 3. You should try to understand that there are no microscopic things at their foundation, there are things that we lack knowledge about and we can do statistics on them and if the knowledge or information comes from the future or parallel locations or from other dimensions - may it be healthy, and if we go back to the example if a particle is entangled then there is a part of it itself On the other hand, through a backward and forward connection in time, and that is why it is in another dimension and its duplication (the superposition) gives a kind of relation of a double universe and an informational connection backward and forward in time, to health and appetite
Israel
Have a nice Saturday....
A friend a friend, wait a minute, I'm flying to a Shabbat reception at Esti's. We will discuss later.
I'm missing one signature.
Water, want to follow the signatory?
Albentezo
How does the particle on the other side know that the particle on the first side is set as X? After all, they are in a vacuum. There is no noise around them. What causes the particle on the other side to have an opposite value, and how does this process work?
Israel
Will there always be a 100 percent match between the expected result and the observed result in the second and third and subsequent experiments as well?
If so, then, is the expected information (in chocolate with crackers) already contained within the 'patient'?
It is strange. How could this inanimate object even know that it should be this way or another..?!
It's as if the two neurons "communicate" with each other... simply magical...
Israel
Free seal.
I understand what Albenzo is saying (very pretentious of me, I know) and think like him. There is a connection between the 2 events, but there is no transfer of information. That is, "connection and transfer of information between the currencies" is not one thing, but two things. There is contact, but no information transfer. The coins are intertwined, therefore - either their state is not determined or their state is determined and they are opposite to each other. They do not affect each other, and no one knows that they are in opposite states.
There is no logical contradiction here, and probably no contradiction of the theory of relativity.
OK. straight to the point.
I claim that if two different coins in two different rooms always fall on the same side, then there are 3 possible existences:
1. Coincidences.
2. Early coordination (hidden variables).
3. Connection and transfer of information between the currencies, including the possibility of a wave function that links them and transfers the information between them.
Israel,
Obviously there is a difference between a situation where there is no connection between the result of tossing the two coins and the situation where the result is always the same. The relationship between the results is measured by the correlation function, and as I explained in the previous response - the correlation tells us how much common information there is between the two subsystems (whereas a full correlation means that they contain the same information).
In the previous response I clearly referred to this difference. But the difference does not mean that in one of the cases there is a transfer of information, or that a different set of rules is needed to describe the cases. After all, there is also a difference between a body at rest and an accelerating body, but they do not obey other physical laws. Although an experiment performed on a body at rest will give different results than the same experiment on an accelerating body, there is no need to write different equations to describe the physics of each body separately.
I don't understand what you are trying to do. And regarding the stock market, I did not understand at all what you are asking if I "accept" or not. The very existence of the information in the stock market? If so, then as I explained in the previous response, information can be defined independently of the viewer and we can definitely talk about the information contained in all stock values, options, etc. in the stock market.
It seems to me that it is better for you to start by explaining what you want to say instead of trying to move forward in small steps towards an unclear point (perhaps clear to you, I am not clear about what you want). Then I will also be able to answer with more certainty questions like "Is there a difference between currencies with correlation and currencies without correlation?", since - as I explained - in some ways there is a difference (different results will be obtained in the experiments) and in some ways there is no difference (the same set of laws in information theory describes the both modes).
The debate on existence will take place. Historically, such discussions are known to last at least a month.
We are currently in 1800, Newtonian physics only.
The stock market in New York is locked on a certain day at a certain level of rates, and it doesn't matter what any of us know or not. "Objective reality" Elek, which does not depend on the viewer.
getting?
And in the example of the intertwined coins: we will ignore for the moment the question of whether or not information passes between them. Do you accept that there is a fundamental difference between situation A in which coins in two separate rooms fall on a tree or tile at random, and a situation in which they always fall on the same side?
Israel,
Regarding your definition, two comments.
1. What you wrote is not a definition but an example. It may sound petty, but I am convinced that if we sit down for five minutes, you, me and Nissim will be able to find at least a few examples on which we disagree. But it is less relevant because…
2. In my opinion, these definitions are unnecessary and have a great potential to interfere. The distinction between known and unknown information depends on the viewer. In information theory (quantum or non-quantum, it doesn't matter), information contained in a system is defined solely by the amount of letters (or variables, or whatabar) needed to describe it in a complete way. This definition does not require observers at all and was true even when the universe was in its infancy. The question of whether I as a viewer "know" something or not, can be easily expressed through an investigation of information transfer processes - is the information contained in some system accessible to me for processing - can I transfer it to a display device, for example.
If we adopt a formalism that defines information intrinsically and treat the "knowing" of the information as information transfer processes, we will never have to distinguish between "known" or "unknown" information. We won't need different sets of rules (can a twisted pair transmit information? According to you, different answers depending on the type of information we're talking about, known or unknown), we won't have to wrestle with the question "Known to whom?" that bothered Nissim a few posts ago, etc.
I have to go now and probably won't respond again tonight. Hopefully tomorrow I will have some free time and I can respond if the discussion still takes place.
Please Araf, Israel has peace agreements with Egypt and Jordan, not non-war agreements (even though it seems that way more..).
What do you think of my definition of the difference between known and unknown information (note that we are not talking about quanta at the moment): The coin fell on a tree in a box. This is an objective figure that does not depend on the viewer, and constitutes information.
If the box is open and I see the coin - the information is known.
Whether it is closed - unknown.
As I've already said twice, I don't want to fight - I'm only interested in talking about physics and mathematics. I also hope that the very fact that I interrupted the original fight and have since returned to respond in a completely matter-of-fact manner is evidence that I have no desire or intention to fight with anyone on the site, and that includes you. The phrase "peace" is a bit funny in this context, but apparently it is catchy (what is peace if not the absence of war?).
Come on, Albanzo, close the deal. Do you want peace yes or no? 1 or 0?
Israel,
I expressed my intention to stay my business. I don't intend to get into fights with you, but I also don't intend to sign contracts and agreements with you. And to put it mildly, your insinuation that I had a "tantrum" because you "dared to express an opinion different from mine" is in itself a passive-aggressive attack, not to mention a somewhat delusional representation of reality.
If you don't see fit to comment on the matter at all, no one would even dream of forcing you to do something you don't want to do.
Miracles,
There is also a correlation in your example and the two copies of the e-mail contain the same information, in my opinion it is simply more cumbersome than the example of two prints of the same letter (and this is because it is possible to get confused by the fact that by reading the e-mail you discover something about Israel and it discovers something about you, and think that says that information passed between you, when in fact the email contains information about you and Israel in the list of authors).
Regarding your question, you used the word "superposition". Did you mean weaving? Maybe I didn't understand you. If you did mean interweaving, then in order for you and Israel to know that your photons are interwoven, you must perform an experiment on both of them at the same time that will include a classic connection between you. So it can be said that information passed between the particles. If you sit at home and hold a photon and you don't know the nature of its connection to Israel's photon, you will not be able to disclose any information about Israel's photon, but they will communicate between you in a classic way.
Perhaps what confuses you is the very collapse of the Hegel wave. I mean, it seems that as soon as you perform an experiment on your photon, Israel's one changes its wavelength. But here there is a place to remember that the Hegel wave itself is not a measurable quantity. There is no problem in principle with a particle changing its wavelength suddenly as long as it does not lead to any experiment that breaks causality, and an entangled pair can never break causality for the reasons mentioned above. Just knowing that immediately after you measure your spin, Israel's spin must react in a certain way to the experiments you will do on it is not a transfer of information because from the beginning the information about the state of the two spins was contained in both spins, as I tried to demonstrate in the previous response.
Miracles
We have not yet reached the issue of the length of time that the measurement lasts. Do you accept that in the particular case I described - that is, with coins that have no prior coordination and their fall is completely random - information was passed between the coins?
I hope that even if you didn't, you get that this is a completely different situation than the normal situation where the percentage of matches is 50%.
elbentzo
I'm glad you responded again and hope we can start a new page.
But I won't be able to hold a discussion with you if I am subject to personal attacks, tantrums and disdain if I dare to express an opinion different from yours.
That's why I suggest that all of us here commit ourselves to stick to matters only and completely avoid personal papers.
personal example:
I, Israel Shapira, hereby undertake not to intentionally harm the respondents personally, but as a response to a personal injury to me intended by a respondent. If I offended by mistake, and the commenter called me to order, I will apologize and will not repeat my mistake.
And that's why I came to the undersigned:
Israel Shapira
———————————–
what about you? Want to come to the signing?
Miracles? Want to complain to the undersigned?
Photon's cat? Want to come on the cat?
elbentzo
Is it different from what I say? I'm trying to see if I understand correctly. I gave an example of you sending me and Israel an email. According to the CC I know that Israel received the same email - this does not mean that information passed between us. In the same way you could send us a pair of entangled photons and we would get opposite polarizations.
What I don't understand is the fact that if I check my photon then Israel's photon will start behaving differently. That is, it is possible to distinguish between a photon in superposition and a photon that is not in a superposition state. Am I talking nonsense?
Clarification for the previous post:
I wrote "to know if he is intertwined or not, you need to perform simultaneous experiments on him and his intertwined partner, who are connected with the help of classical communication.". Of course, the intention is that the experiment includes classical communication, not that the interweaving is classical.
I know I said I wouldn't come back to comment here or read comments, but when I saw on the main page that the discussion was continuing I didn't resist the temptation and came back. As last time, I will respond matter-of-factly without any personal reference.
First, I would like to thank Victor for continuing to faithfully represent most of the things I tried to say. Victor, if you studied Quantum 2 with Kosher in Tel Aviv, then it is possible that we know each other (at least inside the corridors of the faculty).
Regarding the information that passes or does not pass in coin flips. Suppose we tossed a coin 100 times in and out of the room and got 100 times the same result. We will separate into two cases:
1. There is no real correlation between the currencies and it is a simple coincidence. The chance is of course very low, but it is possible that it is a coincidence and if we continue to cast another 1000 times it seems that the expectation does stabilize at half. We will agree (I hope) that in this case no information passed between the currencies.
2. In the event that there is a correlation between the currencies, which means that even at infinity we will get some match between the two (let's assume for the purpose that it is a full correlation of 100%), no information passed between them either. I will explain why.
Full correlation means that the two currencies share the same probability function. Therefore, from the beginning all the information regarding each of the currencies separately is found in both currencies. The first coin should not signal to the second "Hey, I got Pali, make sure you also get the same result". Let's take a very simple example for a full Korzlia: I write a letter and print it in two copies. If Nissim reads the first, he knows with absolute certainty what is written in the second, and this is not because information passed between the copies, but because they contained the same information from the beginning. In the language of information theory, the correlation translates into a quantity called mutual information between the subsystems (in this case between the two currencies).
To see that this is true (or actually, to get an intuition that it is true. The proof is actually done within the framework of information theory and does not go into hard-core mathematics here), we will understand what an entangled state is.
An entangled state is *exactly* a non-spherical state - that is, a state of two spins that can be described as a well-defined state in quantum mechanics only as a pair, and for each of them individually there is no consistent description. That is, all the information about the situation is contained in both and it is not about two subsystems talking to each other, but one system described by a single vector in the Hilbert space (readers will forgive me for the technical expression).
To understand what happens to each spin separately, you need to move to the customer formalism from information theory and talk about density operators. That is, instead of describing the quantum state of a single particle, we talk about a matrix that describes the probability that it will be in different states given that we are not looking at its entangled pair. It is quite clear intuitively (and there is also an orderly mathematical proof) that when talking about the density matrix of only one particle, it is not possible to subtract information about the other particle from it. That is, a person who holds a single spin intertwined with one spin, but does not know the overall state of the pair (but only the density matrix of its spin) will never be able to know what the state of the other spin is for sure. In other words, if I now pick up an electron from the floor and start experimenting on it, I won't be able to tell if I picked up an entangled or a free electron. To know if it is intertwined or not, you have to perform simultaneous experiments on it and its intertwined partner, which are linked with the help of classical communication. That is, in order to use a pair to transfer information between the two particles, one must use classical communication (in a way that is completely consistent with other considerations brought up in previous posts).
Israel
I know there is a match only after I checked. This test takes time. I agree that there is a coupling here between situations that happens in 0 time. But the news about it is not immediate.
Miracles
Hope we have closed the issue of "unknown information" - the condition of the coin that fell on a tree inside the closed box is information. If I'm inside - it's known. Outside - no.
Now, you say:
"Definitely - we both know that a tree. But no information passed between us."
Let's say I'm outside and you're inside (there is air conditioning).
Everyone flips their coin 1000 times. Then the results of the tosses are compared. Do you accept that the percentage of matches will be of the order of 50%? This is the natural situation, because there is no connection between the currencies and no information passes between them.
But what will you say if you find out in retrospect that the percentage of matches is 100? Every time the coin inside fell on a tree, so did the outside. Same with Peli.
Won't you say that information was transferred between the coins?
If that's what you mean, explain.
twins.
Miracles my ascetic friend, your mistake is that you forcefully influence the currency and change and give a little more push to one side. And if we use the analogy to a particle, you throw the coin backwards and forwards in time many times so that you push one side many times more, something that due to the repetition also affects the subsequent falls, in a statistical and partial way because the coin stabilizes itself after repeating in time. Sincerely
Israel
Absolutely - we both know that a tree. But no information passed between us.
To illustrate - Albenzo writes us both an email, which says "Hello my friend - the number is 7". We both see that the other received the same email. Has information passed between us at a speed faster than the speed of light? Has any information passed between us at all?
I think not.
Can Schrödinger's cat be tamed and if so in what season? Schrödinger's cat will be able to meet her and then quantum puppies will be born.
Something about Israel's one and two: Ahad Einstein was right in saying that quantum theory is lacking, lacking because it uses statistics to compensate for missing knowledge.
And regarding the speed of light, if you probably limit yourself to a single world out of the multiple worlds, you probably have a limit to the speed of light, but this is not the case and there exist parallel universes or in super-positional fine formulation angles.
Sincerely
Viktor Harshu, and I'm not hurt at all, obviously you mean well.
Thank you for the attention to detail. But note that I did not disagree on the issue of multiple polarizations. Regarding the transfer of information through entanglement, I asked for a reference to a link or an explanation, because the article itself is about the transfer of information - an image - using entangled photons only. Since Albantezo wrote that it is definitely possible to transmit information with the help of entangled particles (use them as a quantum "bit" for communication), but did not mention that at the same time standard communication is also needed, I pressed in the direction of a specific example because it is implied from the article that this does happen and I wanted to understand how. If you noticed, I also wrote: "As a matter of fact, the mechanism through which the cat image goes in the article is not detailed enough, but it seems to me that it requires more than mere interweaving."
On the subject of EPR, it is difficult for me to agree. As I mentioned, in my opinion, Einstein was wrong - and twice, as I wrote:
1. When he claimed that the quantum theory is incorrect ("incomplete" Elek) because which uncertainty principle is true, then the spin information goes from one electron to another at time 0 and violates the principle of locality.
2. What is worse, that such an instant transfer contradicts relativity (so it is written in the wiki).
In my opinion, there is no need for the formalism of quantum field theory to understand that there is no contradiction, and Niels Bohr also said this in his response article to Einstein that year (ask Shmulik, he will direct you to Bohr's response article).
Einstein believed in hidden variables and not in superposition. We had to wait for Stuart Bell and his inequality theorem and aspect experiments to prove that Bohr was right and Einstein was wrong.
But his first mistake is reasonable and logical. Non-locality is a difficult thing to grasp even nowadays, and certainly in 1935. Bohr also did not believe in non-locality.
The second mistake is a little more difficult to understand, because non-locality does not contradict relativity. But we are getting a little stricter with Einstein: only in Wikipedia it is written that Einstein claimed that the passage of information faster than light in entanglement contradicts relativity as written in the link I provided:
Einstein, Podolsky and Rosen asked how can the second particle "know" to have precisely defined momentum but uncertain position? Since this implies that one particle is communicating with the other instantaneously across space, ie, faster than light, this is the "paradox".
In fact, in the EPR article itself, this claim does not appear, but only that interweaving contradicts the principle of locality (secondly, thanks to Shmulik who researched the original article with key words).
And I always maintain that if the old fox had lived, he would have come out of the thicket and found a new and brilliant argument to hit his rival and good friend, Niels Bohr.
In any case, Derech Eretz preceded the Torah, even if it is the Torah of relativity.
Ultra barge. It's already night here, let's go to sleep.
Hello Israel Shapira
First of all it seems to me that I hurt you and I'm sorry I didn't mean to and I hate to fight. What I'm saying is that Albenzato told you "wrong" three times. First, you said that a photon is in the super physics of all polarizations and this is not true in the entanglement state as he explained. Second, you said that it is impossible to transmit information in interlacing, and that was before you corrected it and said that you intend to transmit information in interlacing only, and after that he agreed with you that as soon as you combine interlacing + classical, then it is possible to transmit information in interlacing, as in the protocol in Wikipedia. The third is in Einstein's paradox that you said there are no problems with relations with non-localities and he said that this is only true if you know quantum field theory, which Einstein did not know.
In the first and third I know he is right because I was taught in a physics degree if proofs. In the second I understand less but I read the protocol and I think he is right in any case he just told you "wrong" before you corrected that you are talking about only Shazira and then he agrees with you and says that it is possible to transfer information but not only with Shazira but also with Kelsey in combination.
It's good that they showed it to you in a picture that you know what to argue about
tears of happiness..
If the coin fell on a tree inside the box and you are inside and I am outside, then you know and I don't. You also don't know what my coin fell on.
And here's the magic: if the coins are intertwined, then if one fell on a tree, so did the other. (With electrons it's the other way around: if one has the spin state up, the other has it down).
Therefore, contrary to the previous description, each of us can know what the situation is with the other if he knows the situation with himself.
It also works with conjoined twins: if one is born male, so is the other.
What about our twins? still fish?
Israel
My job is to wipe your tears...
So, information is actually a state. It's OK.
Knowing is more complex. Suppose there are 2 coins, one in the box and one outside. Let's say I'm in the box and you're outside. The question is asked…… is the information known, or not?
Miracles
It's pretty simple. Think about non-wet water or non-blowing owls.
Before the fall the coin in the superposition of a tree and a field. It was said to have fallen into a tree. This is information.
Known information: the coin fell on a tree inside the open box and I can see it. I pick up the phone to Nisim and tell him: tree.
Unknown information: the coin fell on a tree inside the closed box and I can't see it. I pick up the phone to Nisim and he tells me: Please.
Capish?
Except that your job is to solve the paradoxes of the paradoxes of relativity.
Israel
I don't intend to get into an argument, but I don't understand the concept of "unknown information" either. I think it's an oxymoron...
Well, now Victor please tell me where exactly my mistake is. It's possible that I'm wrong, but I'm not obligated to accept your words as you don't have to accept mine.
Let's keep an open mind.
Victor
Chronicle from the thread:
Israel Shapira
What I meant is something else: is it possible to convey known information through interweaving alone?
Thanks.
elbentzo
Israel,
I don't know what you mean by "known information" and "unknown information". In my opinion, you are making arbitrary divisions here, which are not well defined.
elbentzo
Israel,
As can be seen from my last response, when I wrote it I could not understand what you were saying or what was bothering you. I still think your terminology is wrong (ie your division into "known" and "unknown" information is artificial and wrong,
Israel Shapira
elbentzo
Information in the classical sense can consist of combinations of 1 or 0, yes or no, as it says in the link you provided:
Bits are units of information, and are commonly represented using zero or one, true or false.
elbentzo
Israel,
I explained what you wrote relatively in detail in my response. In addition, you continue to use terms that you invented (as far as I know, I have been dealing with quantum information for several years and I have never heard of a difference between "known information" and "unknown information") that have no justification and in my opinion are a large part of what hinders your understanding of the subject
Israel Shapira
I may be wrong.
Can you point to a way in which known information can be transferred - for example the number 7 - from Alice to Bob using only interlacing?
elbentzo
You are wrong.
1. You don't seem to be reading what I write and that is very frustrating. First, you keep using terms that you made up and that I don't know what they mean, and that most likely aren't well defined.
..
..
4. Your biggest mistake is that nothing has changed since 1935. It's a shame you think so.
..
..
6. I apologize for the tone, and I have no intention of belittling or hurting you, but I'm afraid I have to interrupt our discussion. First, as I wrote, I feel that you are not listening to what I am saying and mostly using the discussion as a platform to flatten your claims.
Israel Shapira
No problems, you may interrupt. I'm already used to those interrupting discussions with me.
I defined for you what is known information: 7. More precisely: Germany beat Brazil 7:1. Can you convey this known information to Andromeda fans using just interweaving? Because there is no difficulty in doing this with radio or ion mail spacecraft.
..
..
Thanks for the free course recommendations. Since I have nowhere stated my education on the subject, I assume you learned about it through teleportation, or simply telepathy.
elbentzo
Wowwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwww. You're not even trying to read what I'm writing, are you? Here, if quotes on a silver platter is what you need, then this is what you'll get:
..
..
And if you're used to being interrupted, I recommend you stop and ask yourself why it happens to you so frequently that you've gotten used to it.
Israel Shapira
Let's start with your words:
"And if you're used to having discussions with you interrupted, I recommend you stop and ask yourself why it happens to you so frequently that you've gotten used to it."
From my subjective experience, most of those who interrupted discussions with me, simply find out that they are wrong and the ego prevents them from admitting it.
Not you, of course. you are different And here you are going to prove it, accept it with a committee that will finally answer a simple answer to the simple question I have asked so many times:
Can you transmit the results of the semi-final match between Germany and Brazil using only interlacing to the Andromeda galaxy or the next room? Just that.
elbentzo
There is no hurt ego! I have already written many times, since my first comments, that it is not possible in a system that only has entangled particles! In every response, I repeated and told you - it is impossible. impossible. It can not be. You just don't listen. As long as you don't understand information (or special relativity, or quantum mechanics), that can be forgiven. But the arrogance, my God!
You're just sealed.
I'll just clarify - the reason I wrote the previous comment is so you don't have an excuse. That you cannot create an imaginary scenario in your head in which you "defeated" the doctor of physics. It's sad that I had to write the answer 5 times before you took it in, but I did it simply to verify you against reality (obviously you created a scenario where I need "a little thought" to come to the conclusion that you are right, and then admit it despite the "wounded ego", even though in reality This is what I claimed from the beginning).
The truth is, I don't think you deserve an answer. Shame there are people like you on the scientist site. Ignorance can be forgiven, and ignorance can be corrected through learning. A man who insists on his ignorance and claims that everyone but him is stupid, and that the reason they don't want to argue with him is because he's always right (even though he clearly doesn't understand anything about the subject of the debate - and come on, you can talk about Los Angeles all you want, you know you don't get the point, do you?) – this person is not only stupid but the antithesis of a scientist.
Israel Shapira
Some notes:
1. This is not the site of the scientist - it is the site of science.
2. If I'm opaque then you're s… well never mind.
..
..
If you want to talk about the matter itself - quantum entanglement, relativity, any scientific topic - I am ready.
On the other hand, if your whole intention is to show off your education and date to show off - then have a good day.
elbentzo
As usual, you don't read what is written to you. Or maybe you just don't understand.
..
..
On the other hand, there is infinite arrogance in assuming that people stop discussions with you frequently because you are always right... or the person in front of you has to put up with the "wounded ego" and admit that you are right, even though you didn't listen to a single word that came out of his mouth....
And here and now, ad infinitum.
And now you tell me: who uses a mild and apologetic tone, who speaks dismissively and arrogantly like a teacher to a struggling student and goes first to a personal attack?
The one who understands will understand (even Haim).
Hello Israel Shapira,
It seems to me that you do not understand my opinion. I say when Albenzato told you "you are wrong" your head closed and you didn't learn things he said. The one who didn't understand that you agree is you because you can see in your posts that he is trying to explain to you that he agrees but you keep provoking him with your question all the time. And even now you say inflated ego but don't understand that he told you you are wrong because you said a mistake and this is what I am telling you too. Because he told you it wasn't nice and told you "wrong" your head closed and you didn't listen to his words.
What I want to tell you is don't insult and don't say ego, listen to a person because even if he told you "wrong" and spoke badly, he tried to explain things to you that were correct.
And I also don't want you to think that I agree with his speech or statements, but if you read again, you will see that from the beginning he is trying to explain to you that you agree on information about the scene and where your mistake is in relativity and teleportation. But I'm against fights and I don't support fights and I don't intervene, so don't be offended by me and think that I'm justifying his behavior.
Have a good night everyone and keep up the good writing
Victor
No problem
Waiting, as always.
For those who write in my name, there is really a strong experience of doing experiments and then seeing the future, but not afraid, humor
The doctors told me that I was going to lose my sanity and would no longer be able to comment on the science website. Does anyone have a solution for this?
Einstein
getting angry? I am? The funny laugh laughed. Did you mean slightly amused?
After 3 years in the know it takes a lot more than an inflated ego to piss me off. Don't forget that I'm a graduate of Michael (to whose credit one should attribute a delightful writing style and a rather rollicking yikes sense of humor).
Maybe in time Albantezo will come to his senses after his horror show and return to the family of enlightened nations. God willing, we have excellent scientists here who are also kind and polite, according to Zvi.
Ehud and I disagree on exactly this point, which can be called the Copenhagen Inertia. Ehud claims that if 2 coins in different rooms both land 1000 times on the same side, this is not a transfer of information. He also does not accept the distinction between "known information" and unknown, which is true that this is my terminology, although if I remember correctly Michael also used similar terms.
Known information: Germany beat Brazil 7:1.
Unknown information: the electron spin before the measurement.
The state of spin or polarization, which is information, is instantly transferred from one entangled particle to another. But it is not possible to send the results of the game through it. By gloves and socks.
Regarding the experiment - he came to test a trivial issue, namely whether the collapse of the wave function of the "long photon" at one point causes it to disappear at another point.
For this, we recreated the Peaseau experiment to measure the speed of light with a certain change: we placed the measuring device (telescope) at a much greater distance than the calculated distance that it must travel if its dimming at the starting point does cause it to disappear later.
We were able to see the laser beam even from a distance of 4 km, although the calculation showed that after 2 km it should disappear. Negative results - not really disappointing because as mentioned it only comes to disqualify the trivial feasibility.
On the other hand, something happened there that is a little difficult for me to explain. When we increased the gear rotation speed above 12,000 rpm, there was a decrease in beam brightness. Probably just a technical detail possibly related to the length of the green wave we used, but to close the matter for good I am planning another series of experiments and this time at a greater distance and a greater rotation speed.
But it was a cool experiment.
I haven't talked to Yuval in a long time, but now that you mentioned it to me I will call him soon.
I have no "knowledge" about time or distance, and I tend to accept what is taught until proven otherwise. Unfortunately, in my opinion, the many questions I raised were never properly answered, and the best example is the "paradox of the twins" that was answered by several physics professors, but each one gave a different and contradictory answer.
Prof. Genot's solution - the solution that appears in the Bell Paradox - also leads in my opinion to a contradiction, as you may see in response to miracles.
True, I have my own explanation for what time is and why it "expands" in acceleration but not in inertial motion. This explanation also sheds light on the increase of entropy with time, the same problem with which Poincaré baffled poor Boltzmann. But it's a bit complicated for this post.
Victor
My opinion is that Albantezo also realized quite quickly that we were saying almost the same thing, but the sad past experience taught me that people coming from a place of ego must always use expressions like "you are wrong" "you are ignorant" "you are talking" listen to me, I know, I will say Go, I I I I…
I I..
And so only in exceptional cases that the person is really a real light, or particularly entertaining, I will waste time on those with inflated egos.
The ideas he has, all the best, but they will deviate, about the same as your ideas
I forgot the link http://www.google.com/patents/US20060071122 humor
I just came across a testimony of a person who underwent teleportation, a bit of humor but when moving parallel locations I also felt teleportation. And regarding Einstein, if I feel like this, does it save you anything?
Hello Israel Shapira.
My name is Victor and until now I have not interfered in your conversation both because I do not fully understand everything you and Albenzato talked about and also because there was a lot of anger and I did not want to interfere in the fight.
I wanted you to know that I do not support Albenzato and that he spoke to you badly in my opinion and went beyond good taste. But now that he's gone and there won't be any more fights here, I want to say that I think he was more right than you gave him and I'll explain why.
On the subject of interweaving passing information, you basically said the same thing, only that what you call 'known information passing' he calls it 'not passing information'. If you take his comments and replace 'not passing information' with 'passing known information' you will see that he says the same as you. I think he also recognized it and tried to explain to you that you agree on this issue. He disagreed with you on other things such as whether or not information passes through classical + interlacing and the subject of relativity's locality.
I don't quite understand the first topic, but I read a protocol he sent and it seems reasonable, but I don't really understand. Regarding the second issue, I'm actually sure he's right, because even when I was doing my bachelor's degree in physics, the advanced quantum lecturer told us exactly the same thing, and he was a genius, a kosher professor from Tel Aviv University. He also proved to us on the board.
In other words when I was doing a physics degree there were a lot of teachers who are shit people but they are very smart and it is worth listening to learn from them. So don't be moved by his bad speech, but you also need to know when to listen because it seems that he really understands what he is saying and at least some of the things I know for sure that he is right and at least he was trying to explain things to us that we didn't quite understand. Besides that you were also a bit aggressive and interrogated him all the time, you kept repeating the question and that can make people lose patience.
Sorry for mistakes in Hebrew
Victor
Warm water
You claim to have experience in returning time. Can you please give me back the time I wasted reading your comment?
Albanzo
you wrote:
"...you measured the right spin and saw that it is +, you will know that the left spin is -. But this is information you already had - just like in the example with the gloves (even before you started the experiment, you knew that if one of the gloves is left-handed, then the other is right-handed)."
- But how does the glove "know" that it is right-handed?
Do you understand?
It is true that the second glove is right-handed. You know that. But how does the glove "know"?
When you know that the right spin is + then you know for sure that the left spin is -. (as you wrote).
You will know because you measured the right spin and it was +.
After you check the left spin you will find that it is -.
I mean, you knew he would be a minus and he really was a minus.
But how does the left spin know it is -?
For him (the photon) is still in superposition until you measure it.
What are you actually saying? That the very thought of the (left) spin determined its value?
After all, something there had to pass between them, didn't it?
Israel
Too bad you'll get upset. If I were you, I would ask Mahud, if he is reading this, to please contribute his learned opinion in the field of physics regarding the discussion and the topic of the article.
And about your experiment: please share with us in detail.
And another little half-physical, half-philosophical question (as you like) that I've been pondering lately:
Do you think time is relative? That is, is it "flexible" like space?
By the way, how is the Arkman? Say hello to him and let him come visit us 🙂
Dear Nissim, you are missing the truth, which is also a form of information
Yair
It is possible to use the word information, regardless of having consciousness. Take 2 points a light year apart. This means in total that an event at one point cannot affect an event at the other point in less than a year.
Am I missing something?
elbentzo
I'll be back late.
Thank you for your comment, your answer #1 refers to an accepted linguistic concept of information, which links all information to consciousness. Your answer #2 deals with the mathematical theory of communication of Shannon and his successors. This theory, which immediately after its publication became an information theory, has a problem that it deals with the physical systems that carry information and not with the information itself. That is, a physical system such as a word, let's say "no" carries information about a person with consciousness, but is not the information itself, and evidence for this claim is that this word can be replaced by thousands of other words in all languages. What I was trying to understand with your help, does the physical use of the word information attribute information to physical entities devoid of consciousness? In one of your answers to Israel before the Big Bang, you attributed the negation of a speed above the speed of light of the transfer of information to our perception of the coordination systems. Do you think that the use of the word information in physics is the same as the use in general language? Are physical entities considered in the science of physics by themselves to be information?
Miracles
waiting
Let's hope it's because of the English and not because I'm back on the blacklist..
Miracles
The bottom line - here is the (my) concluding response that has been left unanswered for a month:
Thanks as always for the response.
I will start from the end - from the closing sentence in your response:
"The distance between them increases by the rate gamma*beta^2*L from its initial value L/gamma to its final value L*gamma".
I'm trying to understand what the physical effect of the length shortening is.
To me, he is extremely strange. Two spaceships whose distance between them is 10 light years, which increases in a fraction of a second according to their clocks to 100 light years, and returns to 10 in another fraction of a second according to their clocks when they stop a few meters away from their starting point.
This leads to questions that I am unable to answer:
1. It is said that after the escaping spaceship there is a planet 5 light years away. When the spaceships accelerate towards the same planet, the distance between each spaceship and that planet shortens by a factor of 10, as a proportion of the gamma factor.
At the end of the acceleration, the distance between the chasing spacecraft and that planet is reduced from 15 to 1.5 light years, while according to the previous analysis, the distance between it and the fleeing spacecraft increased to 100 light years.
It therefore follows that at the end of the acceleration the fleeing spacecraft is much further away from the pursuer than the planet.
But how can this be? The escaping spacecraft started from a point between the chaser and the planet, and also ended at a point between the chaser and the planet. If at a certain point it was further away from the pursuer than the planet, it had to pass the planet on the way - and even photograph it if necessary. this is not happening.
So how does it work out?
2. The point I brought up before - if the shortening of the length was real, then a spacecraft passing over the Earth and taking a picture of a ring with a diameter as large as the diameter of the moon, would show in the photograph a large diameter as the ratio of the gamma factor of the moon from the same photograph from ESA, and this is because of the shortening of the length.
It can be easily shown that such a phenomenon would contradict the basic laws of optics.
3. Any body that passes over the Earth on its way to Mars, is closer than the Earth at the moment it passes to Mars, while the distance of Mars from the Earth and the body is the same, and equal to the distance of Mars from the Earth, not the distance of the body from Mars.
So what is the shortening of the length? Is she real? On the website titled:
What is the experimental basis of Special Relativity?
Write:
At this time there are no direct tests of length contraction
And also in the article on Bell's Paradox from Wikipedia, Petkov and Franklin claim:
length contraction has no "physical reality", but is merely the result of a Lorentz transformation, ie a rotation in four-dimensional space
So what then is the physical effect of the length shortening?
Thanks,
Israel.
Israel
I missed his response...
Dear Mr. Albanzo, if we use your wording within the framework of uncertainty, it is possible to influence one side and the same on the other side. And the polite Mr. Socrates, in returning time because you may enter into great variation (variety) and try to arrange things like life and death, justice and health in your priority order, what's more, you encounter other factors that are involved who are not interested in your personal financial gain, but rather "get away", it is possible that these things will work out "up". Sincerely
Tafdal Albantazo, the tone is acceptable to me. Have a good day.
Miracles What do you think of Prof. Granot's response to the paradox of the paradox (if you have read it)? It does not seem that the solution presented in the Bell Paradox is the solution to the problem.
And in case it wasn't clear - this was the last word, as you called it. You can agree, you can not, you can understand, you can not, you can respond objectively, respond irrelevantly or ignore. I will not answer nor will I read the comments later.
Good luck to everyone.
Socrates
Why feed the troll? Ignore him.
Israel,
I'm tired of arguing. I will not answer your words - you have your opinion about me and I have mine about you. What's more, because I'm a physicist and because of my love for the field, I'll give a matter-of-fact answer to the claims you presented without referring to any personal element at all.
1. In the formalism of quantum mechanics that existed in 1935, non-locality certainly seems to contradict special relativity. Of course, this was due to the fact that this formalism, as it turned out later, was wrong. An example of how non-local effects violate the principle of causality - add the simplest non-local term to the Hamiltonian of a system
H = ….+integral(dx f(x)) z
For some function f (please ignore the z that is there just to tidy up the expression), where x is a coordinate in space. Therefore, a small change in f(x) at the point x=0 for example (for example by changing a charge in space), will immediately result in a change in the Hamiltonian of all the particles in the whole space and as a result a change in their energy. I already explained in a previous response why this contradicts causality, namely because there is always a system in which the energy of the particle changed and only then did the charge change appear.
The solution to this type of problem arose from the fact that in field theory causality is expressed in the exchange ratio between any two measurable operators at different times, and it can be proved (even quite easily) that under this definition of causality even (certain) non-local effects cannot break causality. Therefore, non-local theories that preserve causality are possible. These works were done mainly in the 50s and 60s of the 20th century, and before them it was certainly reasonable to argue that non-local quantum mechanics is not consistent with special relativity.
2. A simple calculation of the amount of information found in each intertwined spin (not in a pair together, but in each separately) shows that nothing can be learned from it about the other spin, unless you knew the information in advance. For example, if you started from a state where you know the twisted pair is in a state
<+|<-| + <-|<+|
Then you measured the right spin and saw that it is +, you will know that the left spin is -. But this is information that you already had - just like in the example with the gloves (even before you started the experiment, you knew that if one of the gloves is left-handed, then the other is right-handed). Conversely, if you start with two interlaced bits without knowing explicitly what the superposition describes them, no measurement you make of one will ever tell you anything about the other. No information passes between them, unless they are combined with a classic bit and then it is certainly possible to transfer information between them as appears in the teleportation protocol for example. The reason for this is that the transfer of information with only two intertwined bits could be carried out at an arbitrary speed and therefore would break causality, but when you combine the transfer of information with a classic bit, then a barrier to the speed of information transfer is naturally created (because of the classic bit) and there is no longer a chance to break causality.
Water blowing
If they gave a Nobel Prize to stupidity you would be the first to receive it. You should keep being stupid, the Nobel Prize is worth 1.5 million dollars. You will be able to finance your continued stay in Aberbanel
If they gave a Nobel Prize to stupidity, you would be the first to win it
Albentezo
Once again we slide into the realms of the imagination? Even the reality of the last 24 hours you have to reinvent to fit your claims?
1. You write:
"You were wrong in many other claims, such as that it is impossible to transfer information by interweaving at all, or that nothing has changed since 1935 in quantum"
Here's the source:
"After all, nothing fundamental has been renewed since 1935 - the formalism of quantum field theory does not change the fact that non-locality does not contradict relativity".
If it were possible to have any kind of discussion with you, the obligatory question would be: What essential thing about the subject in question has changed since 1935? After all, even according to the knowledge then, when Einstein published the EPR paper, non-locality did not contradict relativity. So why, according to the quote from Wikipedia that I brought, did he claim that he did?
2. "Israel, just to illustrate your misery - a quote from one of the first comments I wrote.
"As you said yourself and I agreed in the last post, two photons entwined alone do not transmit information between them as long as they are not combined in a larger system."
You keep claiming that I don't read your comments.
Can you show me exactly where I said "two photons entwined alone do not transmit information between them as long as they are not combined in a larger system".
According to the thread what I wrote is:
"Israel Shapira
elbentzo
thanks for the reply.
I believe that information between intertwined particles passes - the spin of the electron or the polarization of the photon."
You can disagree with what I said, but don't make up things I didn't say to suit your purpose.
Did it occur to you that you might have some kind of disorder that causes you to distort facts and write what is convenient for you? Is this the right way for someone who claims to be a scientist? And that combined with the typist's Tourette's syndrome that makes you lash out at those who disagree with your views makes you a pathetic nuisance at best and a real troll at worst?
I was hoping you would get off me and climb on a new victim, but you refuse to let go. So come have the last word, show everyone who's the greatest, then go back to Mama'la.
Spin is determined, but because there is movement backwards and forwards in time many times, the spin on one side is determined in a kind of parallel world in part of the superposition, and therefore again, because the particle is related to the particle itself only in superposition (entanglement) and it is possible that you get the stabilization of the particle itself on the other hand only back in time (But from the part of his movements backwards and forwards in time) You again and emphasize that you are chattering information passes and only the particle itself is required because it is duplicated and it is possible to do statistics on the result and get broad information. With respect, even though I'm getting tired of repeating the same sentences over and over, even though I have experience in repeating time.
Asaf
I will give you a simple example that you might illustrate, if I understood your question correctly. It's an experiment in quantum theory that you can do at home...
Take 2 polarized lenses, let's say 2 pairs of polaroid glasses. Look through one of the lenses on an LCD screen, and rotate the lens until you no longer see the image on the monitor. You can use a computer monitor or phone.
There is a polarizer on the screen that only transmits photons with vertical polarization (BHC) and your lens transmits photons with horizontal polarization, so you don't see an image.
Now, insert the second lens between the screen and the first lens, and rotate it until you can see the screen again through the 2 lenses.
How It Works? What did the central lens do to the photons that are now passing through the first lens?
The explanation is related to your question…
Asaf,
It is not clear to me what is meant by "setting a spin" or "reading using classical information". I understand that you mean that you started with a entangled pair (that is, each of A and B separately having an undefined spin), measured A and discovered, for example, a spin up. Am I not understanding correctly?
I do not understand where the information is transferred. If the spins were entangled to begin with and then you made a measurement on A (determining it to be spin up, for example), then you do now know what B's spin is, but you already knew it before when you made the entangled state. Just like you knew from the beginning that there was one left and one right sock, and as soon as you checked and saw that the right one was in your pocket, you knew that the left one was at home - but it did not transfer information between the socks.
It is not possible to do the 4 processings on one copy. You can make one, and then if you do further processing you will get something completely different. This is explained in detail in the link I put in the protocol on Wikipedia.
elbentzo,
You missed the fact that I'm setting the spin of A. Let's say I choose to set a spin of 1 on A and then read B with classical information and find that it's 1. That is, I've only transferred information with one entangled pair.
I also asked if it is possible to perform the 4 processing options on the received photon and get all the possible answers or if once I performed one processing the information is destroyed and it is no longer possible to perform the other processings. Do you know the answer?
Israel, just to illustrate your misery - a quote from one of the first comments I wrote.
"As you said yourself and I agreed in the last post, two photons entwined alone do not transmit information between them as long as they are not combined in a larger system."
collect,
A system of only 2 spins A and B intertwined is not teleportation. If you measure one and also know exactly the overall condition of both, then you will also know what the condition of the other is. But this is not a transfer of information like in the example with the gloves - the information was already in your hand before.
It is not that there are in principle only 4 modes of processing. In the teleportation technique we know and use and which has been tested in laboratories, to complete the process the receiving party needs to perform one of 4 processing options, and the only way for him to know which is the correct one is through classic communication between him and the sender. This is why teleportation that breaks causality cannot be done.
Israel,
you are pathetic I told you that you were wrong when you made mistakes and explained why you were wrong. You still fail to differentiate between the claims "it is impossible to transmit information through interlacing" and "it is possible to transmit information through interlacing only". If you bothered to read the things I wrote, you would see that when you combine a classic bit with an interlacing, the information that is transferred at the end is *not* the information that went through the classic bit. That is, weaving conveys information, just not in every situation you want.
I don't start from the starting point that the truth was given to me from above and all your superlatives. I just (unlike you) know the stuff. I studied him. I wrote articles about him. I know how to back up all my claims with mathematical proofs. That's why I have self-confidence, and it's clear to me that you're talking nonsense that stems from ignorance. I am often wrong and admit my mistakes when I talk about new things in the field I am researching. All scientific work is conducted as a conversation and if I didn't know how to make mistakes and admit it, I wouldn't be a physicist. But what to do in this case we are talking about A B and I am not wrong. You are wrong, and by the way (by the way, I *never* said that you are wrong in claiming that information cannot be transmitted through entanglement alone. You were wrong in many other claims, such as that it is impossible to transmit information through entanglement at all, or that nothing has changed since 1935 in quantum, or there is no reason to think that you transferred Information faster than light is paradoxical and many more good ones...).
Good luck later. I know that your deep understanding, your curiosity, your openness and your ability to learn from others will advance you to the forefront of science and that in the coming years we will all hear about you and the tremendous advancement you have brought to the human race.
elbentzo,
I didn't quite understand your answer. In my experiment I meant that A and B are intertwined and the sender causes A to have, for example, an upward spin (regardless of its previous state) wouldn't this cause B to have the same spin? Assuming that I transfer additional classical information about the state of the system to the receiving side, why is it not possible to transfer information only with the help of interlacing AB without C?
Another question if in teleportation there are only 4 processing options on the receiving side? Is it possible to perform the 4 processings for each particle you receive? If so, it is statistically possible to increase the information wave without the classical communication.
elbentzo
I did not write that I am always right, what I wrote is:
"From my subjective experience, most of those who interrupted discussions with me, simply find out that they are wrong and the ego prevents them from admitting it."
And this is due to your offer to reflect on my actions so that I understand why people interrupt discussions with me, as you threatened to do.
You understood from that that I think I am always right. your right My opinion is that on the point I raised, namely that it is not possible to transmit known information through interweaving alone, and this despite the fact that unknown information does pass, I am indeed correct.
But as I wrote, I may be wrong.
On the other hand, your initial claim in communication with me was:
"elbentzo
Israel,
You are wrong. It is certainly possible to transmit information with the help of entangled particles (use them as a quantum "bit" for communication) and there is not only a lot of theoretical work on this, but also experimental proofs such as the one presented in the article. The only limitation is that the transfer of information cannot break causality, i.e. exceed the speed of light."
Not a word about standard means such as electromagnetic communication that must accompany the interweaving.
But it's a waste of time for both of us. You are absolutely convinced that all your words are absolutely true because the truth has been given to you from above and you are infallible. I find what seem to me to be mistakes in your words, but it is possible that I am wrong and you are right. That's why we're having a discussion. But what is the point of debating with someone whose point of departure is that he is always right and the others are wrong? You say the same thing about me, but count how many times you say here to me and to everyone "you're wrong", and then when it turns out that there was no mistake - and you yourself said that my claim about passing on information only that is only a scene is correct - the blood and urine come to your head and cloud your thinking.
And since I have no desire for ego battles, and it seems to me that this is what I will get if I continue talking to you, let's see both of us as liberated.
Shmulik
Unfortunately, the only series I can see tonight is the series (teasing) I got earlier in poker.
Unfortunately Nir got a full ace with me, and took the hand and pot.
You can find the correspondence with Granot at:
http://forum.openu.ac.il/opus/bin/en.jsp?enZone=Forum126655&segind=1
This time it seems to me that the answer to the question will be extremely difficult, if at all possible. I have no idea how to approach it. I am truly beginning to doubt the whole issue of the shortening of the length in the relationship, and this time regardless of the supposed contradiction with the bang theory.
Hello Assaf,
I think you are making a bit of a mess, but there is a basis of truth in your words.
I think you are confusing two cases: a case where there are two entangled particles A and B, and a case of teleportation where there are two entangled particles A and B and they are used to transfer information about a third particle C. You used the word teleportation but you were talking about a system that has Only two particles are intertwined.
In system A and B alone no information passes (as I have already written 5 times, despite Israel's somewhat delusional claims). In fact, the information about the state of the system is found separately in each of the spins and a person who only owns one of them would not know at all that he owns an intertwined spin unless the owner of the other spin tells him about it. But, assuming that they know that they have entangled spins (call it classical and they know exactly what the common state of the system is) then measuring one of the spins gives all the information about the other spin as well. It's easy to see this in the formalism of information theory, which we didn't go into at all in the stupid debate that took place because it's on a non-trivial mathematical level and I didn't think it was right to complicate the discussion.
I once heard an analogy (not perfect but very nice) for this system - let's say you leave the house and take one glove out of a pair. You shove it in your pocket without looking to see if you took the right or the left. After you left the house and arrived at the district you want, you take out the glove and see that it is on the left. Therefore, you know for sure that there is a right glove in the house, but no information has passed between the gloves. I emphasize that this analogy is not perfect because it is deterministic (the uncertainty of "not looking at which glove I took" is different from the uncertainty of "I don't know what state the particle is in" because one of them has a definite state and I haven't checked what it is and the other has no definite self-state).
In the case of teleportation, the information that passes is about the third spin C. The classic information that passes is a message that tells the party receiving the teleportation which of 4 processing options it must choose to complete the process.
I think what you were talking about is the question, “Suppose you and I have two entangled spins, how can we discover the correlations between them? That is, how do we know which of the entangled spin states we have?" (for spin 1/2 there are 4 interlaced ground states). The answer to this is that a separate measurement on each of the spins cannot tell us what the correlation is between them, but if we pass a classical signal between the two endpoints we can know what state we are holding (=restore the information). This information can be parametrized angularly.
It's simply unbelievable the nonsense you speak, they give you an example of an image being transmitted and you chatter - it is not possible to transfer information and chattering is not fast. And something to the spin collection that is affected on one side by a lattice gives a partial effect on the other side again because it is some of the times it passes and some of the spring is parallel universes it passed through and therefore when it stabilizes on the other side there is again a statistical effect on the results again and again and again and again it is faster than speed c and this is information that is even needed Make statistics on her, have a good day in my life
elbentzo,
I read the discussion here and it's a shame you get upset, although I don't have an education in physics, but I once heard a simple analogy that might explain, correct me if I'm wrong:
In quantum teleportation let's assume that the photon has two spin properties up or down and an angle. After the interweaving let's say we set A with spin up. When you read B you get a reading of spin up but at the original angular offset of A so it is not possible to really know what the direction of the spin is. Only after the original angle of A is sent in a classical way is it possible to understand whether the reading of B represents spin in an up or down direction.
post Scriptum. I did not understand where in the experiment there is classical information traffic for decoding the image.
elbentzo,
It's a shame it has come to this, Israel is actually one of the best.
Come on Israel, what about which series?
As usual, you don't read what is written to you. Or maybe you just don't understand.
I wrote (several times), that it is impossible to transmit information in a system that has *only* interlaced particles, does not mean that it is impossible to transmit information through them in a system that also combines, for example, classical bits, and I even gave you an example of how to do this. Besides, all five times I said that *it is impossible to transmit information in a system with only entangled particles* were completely explicit. I also wrote to you explicitly that *it is not possible to restore the transfer of information by classical means only*, as in the case of teleportation (but because I am not surprised that, despite having written this, in your last post you make this claim).
The people who think that my claims that: 1) it is possible to transmit information with the help of interlacing, 2) to do this the interlaced particles need to be combined in a larger system with classical bits and therefore it is not possible to transmit information *only* with the help of interlacing, are contradictory claims, they are people who have not tried or not managed to read and understand what I wrote. So don't blame me for your failures.
I only mentioned my name in the last post after many posts. You can call "arrogance" when I told you that you are wrong and that you don't understand, etc., but that's really not the case. What to do when a man comes to you and talks nonsense, what do you say to him - "You are right"? You wrote a lot of mistakes, which, although I'm guessing that some denial mechanism has been activated in your head and you are convinced that everything you said is true, they are documented in the posts and they were exposed as mistakes and explained. I thought to Tommy on the website of people interested in science, if someone makes a mistake and doesn't understand something, then he wants to be corrected and explained to him about his mistake - but it turns out that you just want your ego stroked. There is no arrogance in saying that I'm right and you're wrong - especially given the fact that I'm a researcher in the field and over the years I study it and discover new things about it (and I'm not saying this to claim that my certificates make me right or to brag about them, but only to claim that a person who deals with something for years develops a certain expertise and is in a position where he can identify mistakes in others). I will emphasize again that this is not bragging because every time I said you were wrong I explained why and how - while you only repeated as a mantra a question that I explicitly answered in every post I published, and you showed a lack of knowledge in principle (which, as I said before, is not something to be ashamed of - to know you have to learn) .
On the other hand, there is infinite arrogance in assuming that people stop discussions with you frequently because you are always right... or the person in front of you has to put up with the "wounded ego" and admit that you are right, even though you didn't listen to a single word that came out of his mouth....
Regarding my anonymity - this is a personal choice and has nothing to do with our discussion. Precisely because I am a physicist and the things discussed are my profession and not just a hobby, I choose not to reveal my personal details. Because I am not interested (and it has happened to me in the past) to suddenly receive e-mails and inquiries to my personal email or to receive unwanted guests in my university office because I disclosed personal details in the forums, and people wanted to have a face-to-face conversation with me.
I have no interest in talking to you about physics. First of all, I have no interest in talking to you about anything because you have proven unequivocally that it is impossible to have a conversation with you (conversation = both parties listen to each other and respond matter-of-factly to the other's claims, while you systematically ignored and continue to ignore the things I said and only use me as a stage for your barbarian arguments ). Second, even if we talk - it won't be about physics. I know that in your mind your claims have real value and you raise important points, etc., but the reality is (and all the "I studied in Los Angeles!" or "You're arrogant!" claims won't help you) that you don't understand at all what you're talking about, and as which we have seen in the last day - a conversation with you is actually a private lesson in basic things in the field. No thanks.
Shmulik
Israel never attacks first.
But whoever attacks Israel, should not make claims that they destroyed half of Gaza.
And it actually does matter who started it, and it's not me.
The subject of the article is photography using entangled photons. I'm a little surprised, because as far as I know, it is not possible to convey information through interweaving, and that was the question I raised.
Besides that everything is fine, the experiments were amazing in terms of execution, less in terms of results, but if only the trivial experiments.
I asked Prof. Granot a question for which I have not received an answer for a month now. It's a shame that Albenzo is so full of himself, it would be nice if he could try to answer.
Tuesday - Poker.
Israel,
From what was written here by Albentazo, the difference stems from the word "only". Only with interlaced, no but interlaced with a classic beat combination, yes. As for why we need it, it is not clear that this is a good question: curiosity and scientific feasibility are scraping, and alternatively, in the style of "don't worry, the scientist told the British Prime Minister, you can tax it in the future", you can think about encryption and immunity from espionage and later, someone will already find a way to do it Of money.
If you didn't go down the path of bickering, it would be possible to get answers. If only it were the spirit, which still wanders the corridors of knowledge and changes names...
What does Chumza sound like?
Some notes:
1. This is not the site of the scientist - it is the site of science.
2. If I'm opaque then you're s… well never mind.
3. You write:
"There is no hurt ego! I have already written many, many times, since my first comments, that it is not possible in a system that only has entangled particles!”
How many comments did you write before:
"elbentzo
Israel,
You are wrong. It is certainly possible to transmit information with the help of entangled particles (use them as a quantum "bit" for communication) and there is not only a lot of theoretical work on this, but also experimental proofs such as the one presented in the article. The only limitation is that the transfer of information cannot break causality, i.e. exceed the speed of light."
Many people will interpret these responses as contradicting each other. Because if we need additional means - electromagnets for example - to transmit the information, then why do we even need the interweaving? It's possible without her, isn't it?
This is the first time you have clearly written what I have been claiming all the time: it is impossible to send known information - the results of a football game for example - using only interweaving. This is despite the fact that information passes between the interwoven particles (you wrote that it doesn't. I read your comments, it doesn't seem to me that you read them yourself).
Let's continue.
You write:
"If you don't understand information (or private relativity, or quantum mechanics), that can be forgiven. But the arrogance, my God!”
Go to the comments. See who always brags about their degrees and education, who is condescending ("You keep using terms you invented", "What is preventing you from understanding the subject" "Your biggest mistake") and who is the first to go into personal and non-business lines. Everything is chained.
Then we can all argue who should be confronted with reality - me who appears by my full name, or you who hides behind a nickname and allows yourself to be attacked by someone who dares to ask you questions to which your answers are vague at best.
If you want to talk about the matter itself - quantum entanglement, relativity, any scientific topic - I am ready.
On the other hand, if your whole intention is to show off your education and date to show off - then have a good day.
It seems to me that the person who writes in your name is also writing nonsense, take some pictures and quickly replace them with a picture of Brazil seven, it's time wasted, and if the teleportation is long enough, you will be able to pass the speed of light in transferring information, and if you can ask for something from me who writes in my name sometimes, try to work on jokes And no curses because in the end I will catch you all by the tail, worse than the answer of computer programs. Sincerely
I'll just clarify - the reason I wrote the previous comment is so you don't have an excuse. That you cannot create an imaginary scenario in your head in which you "defeated" the doctor of physics. It's sad that I had to write the answer 5 times before you took it in, but I did it simply to verify you against reality (obviously you created a scenario where I need "a little thought" to come to the conclusion that you are right, and then admit it despite the "wounded ego", even though in reality This is what I claimed from the beginning).
The truth is, I don't think you deserve an answer. Shame there are people like you on the scientist site. Ignorance can be forgiven, and ignorance can be corrected through learning. A man who insists on his ignorance and claims that everyone but him is stupid, and that the reason they don't want to argue with him is because he's always right (even though he clearly doesn't understand anything about the subject of the debate - and come on, you can talk about Los Angeles all you want, you know you don't get the point, do you?) – this person is not only stupid but the antithesis of a scientist.
Good luck later,
There is no hurt ego! I have already written many times, since my first comments, that it is not possible in a system that only has entangled particles! In every response, I repeated and told you - it is impossible. impossible. It can not be. You just don't listen. As long as you don't understand information (or special relativity, or quantum mechanics), that can be forgiven. But the arrogance, my God!
You're just sealed.
Let's start with your words:
"And if you're used to having discussions with you interrupted, I recommend you stop and ask yourself why it happens to you so frequently that you've gotten used to it."
From my subjective experience, most of those who interrupted discussions with me, simply find out that they are wrong and the ego prevents them from admitting it.
Not you, of course. you are different And here you are going to prove it, accept it with a committee that will finally answer a simple answer to the simple question I have asked so many times:
Can you transmit the results of the semi-final match between Germany and Brazil using only interlacing to the Andromeda galaxy or the next room? Just that.
No: "I already told you", no "two entangled photons alone do not transmit information between them as long as they are not combined in a larger system (classical bits, unitary transformations, etc.)", no "communication based on entangled bits alone is not possible for the reasons I mentioned in the post previous. The gist of the matter is that when I perform a measurement on one of the interleaved bits and get a result, I cannot tell if this result was due to the collapse of the Hegel phonon, or if it was dictated by the remote interleaved bit. But in combination with a classic bit, it is definitely possible to transfer information" etc.
Just an answer to what I asked.
Here is an example: using a simple phone say: Germany beat Brazil 7:1. By coding: beer 7, samba 1.
It is also possible to send a message using runners in brown and fast letters.
On the other hand, if after some thought you come to the conclusion that the information in question cannot in any way be conveyed through interweaving alone, I expect you to say so explicitly, despite the bruised ego.
I pledge to do the same.
As Rabbi Daniel Sanderson said in tractate containers:
Gib mi de money and enough with the regret, you have no money so go home.
And now I also have to go to work (I'm in Los Angeles, where I also studied the material in question).
Wowwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwww. You're not even trying to read what I'm writing, are you? Here, if quotes on a silver platter is what you need, then this is what you'll get:
1. In my previous response it is explicitly written: "...through an isolated system of interwoven degrees of freedom no information can be transmitted at all...".
2. In the previous response: "It is not possible to transfer information in a very specific situation where I have one photon and you have one photon and they are intertwined and there are no additional elements in the system."
3. In the previous response: "Two photons intertwined alone do not transfer information between them as long as they are not combined in a larger system (classical bits, unitary transformations, etc.)".
4. In the previous response: "Communication based on interlaced bits only is not possible for reasons I mentioned in a previous post. The gist of the matter is that when I perform a measurement on one of the interleaved bits and get a result, I cannot tell if this result was due to the collapse of the Hegel phonon, or if it was dictated by the remote interleaved bit. But in combination with a classic beat, it is definitely possible to transmit information."
This? I have answered the question black and white enough times, or do you feel the need to ask it again?
And as for your education, well I really have no idea what it is, but I'd make an educated guess that you haven't learned about quantum information since you clearly don't understand the subject at all. It is not something to be ashamed of, each of us has areas in which he understands and areas in which he does not. If I am wrong and yes you studied information theory - please correct me and tell me where and how you studied. On that occasion, explain to me how it is possible that someone who has studied a certain subject does not know the most basic things about it such as how information is transmitted or what quantum entanglement is (in the context of information), why there is an apparent paradox in transmitting information faster than the speed of light or how it is resolved.
And if you're used to being interrupted, I recommend you stop and ask yourself why it happens to you so frequently that you've gotten used to it.
No problems, you may interrupt. I'm already used to those interrupting discussions with me.
I defined for you what is known information: 7. More precisely: Germany beat Brazil 7:1. Can you convey this known information to Andromeda fans using just interweaving? Because there is no difficulty in doing this with radio or ion mail spacecraft.
Dumb drums are less effective in space.
You keep saying "I already told you so" but don't show where you said it (I may have missed it). Here is my question once again:
Can you transmit the results of the semi-final match between Germany and Brazil via interlacing to the Andromeda galaxy or a room next door? Just that.
Thanks for the free course recommendations. Since I have nowhere stated my education on the subject, I assume you learned about it through teleportation, or simply telepathy.
You are wrong.
1. You don't seem to be reading what I write and that is very frustrating. First, you keep using terms that you made up and that I don't know what they mean, and that most likely aren't well defined. Secondly, I have already written several times that through an isolated system of intertwined degrees of freedom it is not possible to transmit information at all (and it doesn't matter what you call it - known, unknown, Moshe, Danny).
2. The entwined particles do not transfer information between them at all. And also as part of a larger system, in which information can definitely be transferred (as I demonstrated to you in previous posts), it cannot be done faster than the speed of light because there are limitations on our ability to read the information. I have already written this to you several times. If it really interests you, read about the topic instead of repeating the question over and over again.
3. According to the special theory of relativity, information cannot be transmitted faster than the speed of light. This is because two events that are space-like separated can always change their order of occurrence through a simple coordinate transition. So if information can be transmitted faster than the speed of light, you can send me a message that says "Jump!" Then I will jump. But in a different coordinate system it will look as if I jumped before you sent me the message that told me what to do, and this is a contradiction to the principle of causality (causality, which I have already talked about).
4. Your biggest mistake is that nothing has changed since 1935. It's a shame you think so. During the twentieth century, quantum mechanics as designed by Bohr, Heisenberg, Pauli, Dirac, etc. was found to be incorrect and inconsistent with the theory of relativity, and it was replaced by a more general theory called "quantum field theory". Within this theory it is possible to prove that correlations that are space-like separated do not necessarily break causality.
5. We definitely understand relativity better than Einstein. What do you think tens of thousands of physicists have done in the last hundred years? Sit on your ass? God forbid to underestimate Einstein, who is my personal hero and, in my humble opinion, the most brilliant physicist who ever lived. But Einstein died 60 years ago and stopped being active in physics long before that, and since then there have been many, many studies and many, many brilliant people who have discovered many, many things that Einstein did not know.
6. I apologize for the tone, and I have no intention of belittling or hurting you, but I'm afraid I have to interrupt our discussion. First, as I wrote, I feel that you are not listening to what I am saying and mostly using the discussion as a platform to flatten your claims. Second, although I tried to help and give a physicist's perspective to the people who asked questions here and tried to better understand the article, I have no intention of giving physics lectures here. That's why there are universities that are open to everyone (and if you don't want a certificate, you can attend any course for free and not pay a penny).
Water, is there a situation where you flow to another article? Just, our brother, stay. You entertain and moisten the dry discussions here a little.
Just try not to get wet like the cats.
Israel, it may not be clear to you, but if you want to transmit spin and you affect it with a polarizer, then the polarizer affects the spin of the particle back and because part of the movement backwards and forwards in time many times was affected, meaning part of the superposition, you will get a statistical effect on the other side, faster than the speed of light and information that can be doubled. Sincerely
Israel you have a picture, if it's a dog - six, if it's a cat - seven and a mouse what number should you ask those who write in the name of nonsense. With respect and try not to ramble because it's faster than ... and because the information is statistical the picture is a bit blurry
I may be wrong.
Can you point to a way in which known information can be transferred - for example the number 7 - from Alice to Bob using only interlacing?
The wiki says:
Einstein, Podolsky and Rosen asked how can the second particle "know" to have precisely defined momentum but uncertain position? Since this implies that one particle is communicating with the other instantaneously across space, ie, faster than light, this is the "paradox".
But this is exactly what happens: the intertwined particles communicate with each other in zero time and transmit information. And yet there is no paradox here.
So why did Einstein write that there is a paradox? Why, according to Wiki's claim, does the transfer of spin information faster than light contradict Albert Einstein's relativity?
After all, nothing essential has been renewed since 1935 - the formalism of quantum field theory does not change the fact that non-locality does not contradict relativity.
Do we understand relativity better than Einstein?
Israel,
I explained what you wrote relatively in detail in my response. In addition, you continue to use the terms you invented (as far as I know, I have been dealing with quantum information for several years and I have never heard of a difference between "known information" and "unknown information") that have no justification and in my opinion are a large part of what hinders your understanding of the subject. Apart from that, I showed you clearly how it is possible to transfer the state of any photon with the help of two interlaced bits, if only two classical bits are added to them (which is not possible with the classical bits only). So your repeated claim that information cannot be transferred is simply wrong. It is not possible to transfer information in a very specific situation where I have one photon and you have one photon and they are intertwined and there are no additional elements in the system. The distance from this and "it is impossible to transfer information" is infinite.
When Einstein wrote the paper we did not yet have the formalism of quantum field theory that shows how quantization and special relativity can be combined in a consistent way. It is very easy to read a wiki article today and say, "What? Didn't Einstein know?", but for discovering things yourself and knowing how to explain them - this is already something that has been awarded for several Nobel prizes.
elbentzo
Information in the classical sense can consist of combinations of 1 or 0, yes or no, as it says in the link you provided:
Bits are units of information, and are commonly represented using zero or one, true or false.
From this point of view the up or down spin state of an electron or the polarization state of the photon is information, and this is what passes from one quantum object to another in entanglement. Therefore, in interlacing, information passes between the interlaced particles.
Does this mean that we are able to convey known information through interweaving? No. We cannot transfer the polarization state of a photon that we know from Ellis to Bob using entangled photons, even though the polarization state switches between them.
If we could send known information via teleportation, we could dispense with the electromagnetic means and save the middle man, right?
My opinion is that Einstein was wrong in the EPR paper - and twice:
1. When he claimed that the quantum theory is incorrect ("incomplete" Elek) because which uncertainty principle is true, then the spin information goes from one electron to another at time 0 and violates the principle of locality.
2. What is worse, that such an instant transfer contradicts relativity (so it is written in the wiki).
What, he doesn't know that non-locality does not necessarily contradict relativity? Einstein?
As a matter of fact, the mechanism by which the picture of the cat goes through the article is not detailed enough, but it seems to me that it requires more than mere interweaving.
Israel,
As can be seen from my last response, when I wrote it I could not understand what you were saying or what was bothering you. I still think your terminology is wrong (that is, your division into "known" and "unknown" information is artificial and wrong, because there are not two different types of information in nature as far as we know), but I think I managed to understand what was bothering you. Correct me if I'm wrong.
As you said yourself and I agreed in the last post, two photons entangled alone do not transfer information between them unless they are combined in a larger system (classical bits, unitary transformations, etc.). If I understand correctly, it would seem to you that the infrared photon transmits information to the red photon by its mere entanglement, which is in contradiction to what we just wrote. But that is not the case. As we saw in the teleportation example, when combining classical bits, the entwined photons can definitely transmit information, and the classical bit does not need to transmit the information itself. In the example of teleportation, all the information passed in the classical bits was which unitary transformation among 4 options should be performed to complete the teleportation process - it did not contain any information about the launched state.
Here, too, there is classical communication. After all, the red photons have to be measured to see the picture. The measurement is performed after the infrared photons are launched on the imaged object. That is, the very act of making the measurements by the experimenter in the correct order is the transfer of classical information between the photons.
Israel,
I don't know what you mean by "known information" and "unknown information". In my opinion, you are making arbitrary divisions here, which are not well defined. Also, in teleportation a classic bit is used (actually, 2) but they do not transfer the information in relation to the state that is transferred in teleportation. That is, even though the process uses a classic bit, the information itself (or at least part of it) passes between the interleaved bits. Without the interleaved bits, the information cannot be transmitted. This is not a matter of "scanning" as you described - it seems that you are relying on heuristic means that do not convey reality correctly. The link I attached to the previous comment has the mathematical formalism that explains how the information passes through the interleaved bits.
Communication based on interleaved bits only is not possible for reasons I mentioned in a previous post. The gist of the matter is that when I perform a measurement on one of the interleaved bits and get a result, I cannot tell if this result was due to the collapse of the Hegel phonon, or if it was dictated by the remote interleaved bit. But in combination with a classic bit, information can definitely be transferred.
Like I said, I'm not really interested or able to do a course in information theory here. All the information can be found in relevant books and articles.
water
Schrödinger's cat is not smarter than you - it is much smarter than you.
His mustache is just smarter than you.
elbentzo
As far as I understand, the use of quantum teleportation is to transfer objects between 2 points and is performed by scanning the transferred object and deleting it so as not to violate the principle of uncertainty. But teleportation requires a conventional link to transfer information as it says in the link you referred to:
Teleportation also requires a classical information link to be established, as two classical bits must be transmitted to accompany each qubit.
What I meant is something else: is it possible to convey known information through interweaving alone?
Thanks.
Shalom Israel,
As I said, these are not trivial things that can be explained or understood in the blink of an eye without studying. The main and most famous example is of an effect called "quantum teleportation" in which, with the help of two intertwined bits, all the information contained in a third quantum state is transferred from place A to place B. Attached is a link to an explanation on Wikipedia. If you are really interested, you should study the field of quantum information theory.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Quantum_teleportation#Formal_presentation
They tell me that Schrödinger's cat is smarter than me. Who can explain to me why?
I will blow out and maybe I will let go
elbentzo
Do you know a link that shows how to convey known information through interweaving? Or maybe you can explain yourself?
Thanks.
water
What is needed is to exhale, inhale, hold for a few seconds and release.
And parts of a beat can be invented if it is in a kind of parallel world, Yom Tov and in honor of blowing water
You need to understand that even fractions of a bit or a statistical bit is information and can be used with multiplication or statistics
Shalom Yair,
I will try to explain, but I will warn in advance that these are rather abstract ideas and that their precise definition should be done within the framework of a proper mathematical treatment, which obviously cannot be conveyed here.
1. Intuitively, information transfer can be seen in interactions. For example, if I hold an electron in my hand and I see that it moves slightly to the right, I understand that it is in an electric field and I even know the direction and magnitude of the field. Therefore, the field (or the distribution of charges in space) conveyed some information to me. This definition is completely unacceptable from a scientific point of view and is intended only for the needs of intuition, but I think for the purpose of our discussion it provides a good understanding - it is clear that if an image was received in the red photons, then some information passed to them from the infra-red photons since we can now characterize the object itself We took pictures.
2. The correct way to define information in physics is with the help of information theory, which is a field of research in mathematics. You can think of some "message" and ask how much information it contains. The intuition for the answer to this question is drawn from the question "how many bits (or letters) are needed to describe it?". For example, an infinite series of completely random numbers with no pattern (0.3159754161324968…. and so on) requires an infinite number of letters to describe. In contrast, an infinite series of numbers like 0.333333333 and so on, does not really require an infinite number of letters.
There are several ways to quantitatively define "information" found in the system. The most popular way in physics is through a quantity called "von Neumann entropy" which tells about the degree of randomness in the message. As soon as the mathematical size is clearly and precisely defined, it can be seen that it is indeed related to many things that intuitively tell us how much information there is in the system (for example, the number of eigenvalues different from 0 in the density matrix describing the situation, the number of pure bits that can be distilled from it, etc.) .
As I said at the beginning, an accurate and correct description requires intermediate+ knowledge in mathematics. Hope I answered at least partially.
Yair
In my understanding - as soon as you know how to distinguish between 2 situations, then it can be called information. This is also true of course for (so-called) continuous information such as frequency.
elbentzo
Thanks for the serious answer, could you take a few more moments to explain what physics in general and quantum calls information?
You are saying that information cannot be transmitted and you are saying that it is not possible faster than the speed of light and you are saying that it is not possible to transmit information. Look at the picture and you will see Bamba. Respectfully blowing water
Israel,
You are wrong. It is certainly possible to transmit information with the help of entangled particles (use them as a quantum "bit" for communication) and there is not only a lot of theoretical work on this, but also experimental proofs such as the one presented in the article. The only limitation is that the transfer of information cannot break causality, i.e. exceed the speed of light.
elbentzo
thanks for the reply.
I believe that information between entangled particles passes - the spin of the electron or the polarization of the photon. But this is information that is not known before the measurement and was determined only when it was performed, therefore it is not possible to transmit any known information through interleaving at any speed, even basic information of state 1 or 0.
What is not clear to me is how information can be transferred between the interwoven particles in the experiment described in the article, and a picture of a cat is undoubtedly information, isn't it?
to Israel and to Yair,
First, it is important to understand that there is no convention that says there is no shared information between two entangled particles. What has been theoretically proven is that entangled particles cannot be used to transmit information faster than the speed of light. No one claims that the particles do not react to each other (even at an arbitrary speed), but if you consider the time and the way it takes to make a measurement that shows that information has passed, you see that there is no breaking of causality.
Regarding the information shared by entangled photons, then it is theoretically possible to transmit any information characteristic of a single photon state. It's a bit difficult to understand the subject without understanding its mathematical structure, but the idea is to look at one photon in state A (where the word "state" describes all the information that can be measured about the photon: polarization, momentum, TN, etc.) or in state A' . At the same time you look at a second photon in state B or state B'. If we look at the quantum state as a whole
A * B + A' * B' x
(the x can be ignored, it's there just to make the expression readable), so a measurement of one photon will completely dictate the state of the other photon. I didn't really go into the definition of interweaving or the deep meaning here, but the idea here is that it is possible to build such a superposition that a measurement on one particle affects the other particle, and it is possible to characterize the entire quantum state of the second particle with the help of this measurement.
Note that to build such a state it is not possible to define the state of any of the photons alone! That is, there must be a superposition of different states between the photons. Therefore, by definition, it is not a photon that is a superposition of all polarizations (the so-called unpolarized photon): entangled photons are special states and not just generic states of single photons. What can be done, for example, is to take as A from the previous example an unpolarized state (that is, A itself is a superposition of all polarizations) and as A' any other state (for example, a specific polarization, or a sum of all polarizations except one, etc.), And as B and B' any two situations you feel like. It will indeed be an entangled state, but you will not necessarily be able to say that the first photon is in a "superposition of all polarizations" - in fact, without talking about the second photon you cannot say at all what state it is in.
Hope that was clear…
Yair Different entanglements have different degrees of entropy.
It turns out that information passes between entangled photons contrary to convention (?)
"Furthermore, there is now no information within the infrared photon as to the object. However, thanks to the quantum affinity between entangled pairs, the information about the object is now included in the red photons - even though they never "touched" or damaged the object."
But what information other than polarization can pass between the entangled photons? And how is it even possible to transmit information through interlacing if before hitting the photographed object (cat, mouse, please) the photon is in a superposition of all polarizations, and only the collapse of the wave function into a random state is the one that determines the measured polarization?
Shi, but if the cat was chilled then the light actually saved him from death. In any case, there is not enough information in the photons to know if it was a cat with a cold or not.
The main problem is that the cat has already become thirsty and no one wants to provide him with water for fear that it will cause him to collapse and kill him.
Still we will not know if the cat is alive or dead. Because an infrared light was projected on him which killed him
That's why it doesn't help about Schrödinger
It reminds me of a hologram
Peace,
The explanation of miracles is accurate. What you see is not a "shadow" or a surface not damaged by photons as Roy said, but the object on which the light was projected. The interesting part is that the image is obtained not from the same photons that hit the bone, but from other photons that never even came close to it.
This is more than just an interesting experiment. First, it's a pretty amazing demonstration of quantum entanglement. Second, as explained in the article, it has practical uses that make it possible to build a camera that works in a certain frequency range and receive imaging in another frequency range. It sounds to me that there will be a lot of use for this technology if and when it becomes available outside of dedicated optics laboratories.
Regarding what Assaf said, I am not clear on the meaning of the expression "to photograph something without shining a light on it". What you may be referring to is the field of weak measurements - a measurement that allows us to discover information about the object but the interaction is such that it does not (or hardly) changes it. Even in weak measurements there is an interaction, so it is impossible to call them "photography without illumination", but from your response it seems that you are aiming for photography (or measurement) that does not affect the object and in this field weak measurements fall. In any case, that's really not what the article was talking about, but that doesn't mean that what they did isn't valuable.
Nissim, I am with Roy. Maybe the photons that reached the camera didn't hit the cat, but other photons did, which means that in order to take a photo of the cat, you have to shine a light on it and therefore have an effect on the object. If there is a way to photograph the cat without lighting it at all it will be a real breakthrough for now it's just a nice experiment.
Roy
In my understanding - this is not what is described in the article. What is described is as follows (to my understanding): describe to you a pair of entangled photons (ie - at the moment of measuring the polarization of one photon, the other photon will "receive" the opposite polarization). Now - one photon from the pair hits the object and the other photon produces the figure. This has nothing to do with the shadow the object produces.
The story is a little more complicated than that - because the photons can be of different wavelengths, and that's what's interesting here. You can shoot with infrared light and see the image with a normal camera. Because the photons do not return from the object to the figure, and the object has no way of knowing that it is really being photographed.
So basically as you understand from the article....you don't see the cat..but only its "shadow"...in this case the area that the photons don't hit....good nice