Former Davis graduate student Jen-Wei Su, Passnacht, and colleagues used gravitational mixing to set a limit on the warmth, and consequently the mass, of dark matter. They measured the brightness of seven distant quasars that had been gravitationally cooled to look for changes caused by additional intervening blobs of dark matter and used those results to measure the size of these dark matter lenses.
The image required 800 exposures taken during Hubble's 400 orbits around the Earth. The total exposure time was 11.3 days, between September 24, 2003 and January 16, 2004. Photo: NASA, ESA, and S. Beckwith (STScI) and the HUDF Team
Hot, cold, just the right amount? Physicists at the University of California, Davis, are measuring the temperature of dark matter, the mysterious substance that makes up about a quarter of our universe.
We know very little about the nature of dark matter and scientists have yet to discover a dark matter particle. But we know that the gravity of clumps of dark matter can distort light from distant objects. Chris Fesnacht, a professor of physics at the University of Davis and colleagues are using this distortion, called gravitational entanglement, to learn more about the properties of dark matter.
The standard model of dark matter is that it is "cold," meaning that the particles move slowly compared to the speed of light, Pesnecht said. It is also related to the mass of the dark matter particles. The smaller the mass of the particle, the "hotter" it is and the faster it will move.
The cold (more massive) dark matter model holds up on very large scales, Pesnecht said, but doesn't work so well on the scale of individual galaxies. This led to other models including "hot" dark matter with lighter and faster particles. Observations ruled out "hot" dark matter with particles moving close to the speed of light.
Former Davis graduate student Jen-Wei Su, Passnacht, and colleagues used gravitational mixing to set a limit on the warmth, and consequently the mass, of dark matter. They measured the brightness of seven distant quasars that had been gravitationally cooled to look for changes caused by additional intervening blobs of dark matter and used those results to measure the size of these dark matter lenses.
If the dark matter particles are lighter, warmer and move faster, they won't form structures below a certain size, Pesnecht said.
"Below a certain size, they will just spread," he said.
The results set a lower limit on the mass of a potential dark matter particle but do not rule out cold dark matter, he said. The team's results are a significant improvement over a previous analysis, from 2002, and are similar to results recently obtained by a team from UCLA.
Pesnacht hopes to continue to add objects that have been sanitized to the survey to improve statistical accuracy.
"We need to look at about fifty objects to get a good limit value for how hot dark matter can be," he said.
for the scientific article
to the notice of the researchers
More of the topic in Hayadan:
365 תגובות
Israel
There is no such thing as "wrong questions".
There are wrong answers…
……Beit Hillel, Beit Shamai... Have you tried Beit Govrin?
we
Don't be sure the questions are wrong.
Even the Rebbe said to me: Listen, Israel - you are the Lord our God, one God!
So who measured first?
our Israelis
The solution to your question:
"God".
He measured first.
even before you
He was the first to recognize where to measure and what to measure..
#also an acceptable solution
#Answers that are incorrect
Ptolemy's theory was excellent, and wrong.
Newton's theory of gravity was even better, and just as wrong.
And here we are talking about two theories that deal with clear and visible things - stars, suns, moons.
So what about the multiple worlds theory that deals with unseen worlds, even if it has predictive possibilities?
The invisible electron argument is not acceptable. Small electron, big world. Corona virus is also invisible without proper equipment.
I did not understand what is meant by "the effect of the background radiation system on time is linear". According to the bang theory, it was the bang that created time as well as radiation. The assumption is that everywhere in the universe there is a unique natural time that is expressed in the density of the universe, and if simultaneity is defined according to this time, then simultaneity in entanglement nicely defines what was measured earlier in the case of entangled particles: the one whose time is lower in the number of seconds that have passed since the moment of the big bang.
And since the first chapter of the theory of relativity deals with the definition of simultaneity, perhaps it should be adapted to the definition of simultaneity of the cosmological clock.
Israel
Ptolemy's theory was excellent, precisely because of its predictive ability.
The biblical code is nonsense.
I will ask again - do you think the effect of the background radiation system on time is linear?
Why no predictability? Haven't you heard of the biblical code? Did you know that Bibi would murder in 1996?
Ptolemy's theory also has predictive ability, not to mention Newton's theory.
Effect of speed on what?
A review of the same discussion from 2013 revealed that there is still an undecided issue: Tanin - is the green longer or longer?
Beit Shamai Gorsim: green, because it is long only lengthwise and green both lengthwise and widthwise.
Beit Hillel Makshin: But what if you pass it once lengthwise and repeat the tracks so that you get two lengths?
The required comparison of course is to the question: What is the difference between a rabbit? The answer to which Mania and Bia share is: a rabbit is more. And the crocodile says: tastier than a rabbit. As it is said: Tanin Anin.
Israel
"God" does not explain anything. An explanation without predictability is an explanation for nothing.
Is the effect of the velocity relative to the background radiation linear?
we
Michael's response with the link to his patent:
https://www.hayadan.org.il/ball-state-prez-intelligent-design-not-science-0408135/comment-page-24#comment-448166
I didn't patent something that I'm not sure if it's true or works. If anyone is interested, I would be happy to share some of the details about a device I developed that checks certain things that we have been talking about here in recent years.
Miracles
As I mentioned, the absolute time of the background radiation solves not only the problem of the first index in the interlacing, but also the influence on the past from the future (the Weiler experiment) and other things.
Michael, who was mentioned by us, also brought up the interpretation of the multiple worlds and its mathematical predictions, and I also told him that our interpretation solves everything in an even more elegant way:
Everything will be in his word.
Israel
I agree that there may be a preferred frame of reference for our universe. But, whatever physics you come up with, is equivalent to the physics that you are taking as reference system the landing site of Apollo 11. The equations will be equivalent after a suitable conversion.
This is indeed a solution to the problem you raised, but not the only one. And it is not a solution to other problems. Multiple worlds solves everything... in my understanding
Israel
So I don't understand what the point of the whole story is all the time...
Is this something that was not understood or at least known to someone?
I remember at the time another Michael (known as "Michael") Rothschild who was distinguished for a long life at least as long as Baba Sally's,
Specify here on the site, which owns any patent. And to me, that patent, reminds me of the content of your riddle...
Based on this, it seems to me that you and Michael talked too much and now you come to save the world...
At least you registered a patent on your watch, Israel Musk?
Ahh... Alon Shapira?
Ahhhh sorry, Israel Shapira!
?
(!)
(+)(+)
we
Higgs - his honor is in his place, but he does not pose a problem of absolute simultaneity as we have seen that must exist in interweaving.
Our Israelis
...and what about the Higgs field?
He preceded the background radiation system, didn't he?
"This thing" is also found at every point in our universe wrapped up in Bat Mitzvah parts...
indeed.
But the background radiation rest system differs from any other reference system in several ways.
1. It is a natural system that exists throughout the universe. Any other system is artificial or invented, and has no physical manifestations in the entire universe.
2. The physical manifestations of the background radiation system allow more than cosmic simultaneity and absolute time at any point in the universe. If we take a unique property of the background radiation - density, or number of photons per unit volume - it seems that only in this resting system, movement of a body in any direction moves it to a less dense area.
3. As we have seen, this is the only system with which you can measure the speed of movement relative to it at any point in the universe, and therefore also relative to any other body whose speed data is known in advance, by comparing the measured radiation temperature and weighting the two-way Doppler in the direction of movement of the body being measured and in the opposite direction.
4. It is possible to use it to coordinate a simultaneous attack of ships on a distant planet without prior calculation, just by measuring the temperature and converting it into an absolute time using the relevant Friedman formula (to the delight of Eno the stratapist).
We will also add that by adopting the absolute time resulting from the background radiation we can arrive at a physics that does not include puzzling explanations such as influence on the past, grandfather paradoxes, multi-dimensions and parallel worlds and universes.
Not to mention the simple and perfect solution to the original problem we discussed in the first place - the problem of the first measure of interweaving, which, as we have seen, has no solution within the framework of relativity and quantum alone.
Good night.
Israel
"Do you accept that according to relativity a cesium clock moving against background radiation lags behind a radiation clock in the ratio of gamma?"
Yes. But, you can replace "background radiation" with any other reference system.
Not only in theory, but also in experiment.
It will be much easier if you answer my question, the answer to which is half way to the answer to your question.
Israel
I agree with you. Both according to the theory of relativity and according to your theory - we will see changes in the cycle time of pulsars.
What I'm asking is - how is the background radiation different from any other reference system? We have two reference systems A and B. So instead of seeing their relative speed - we will look at the speed of A and B to a third frame of reference C.
This does not mean that C is the cause of the time changes
Did you not read my previous comment?
This does apply in the case of pulsars, and if there is a pulsar in Andromeda and we perceive it in Israel, we will have to consider the lengthening of time relative to it as well.
Otherwise, how would you compare the clock rate in Andromeda relative to you?
Israel
Replace the background radiation with Andromeda - it won't work as well?
Israel
https://www.researchgate.net/publication/260897614_Pulsar_timing_and_the_special_theory_of_relativity
https://academic.oup.com/mnras/article/372/4/1549/1186764
2.5.1 Einstein delay
The space-time coordinates of pulse arrival events are specified in the coordinate frame of the observatory, in which pulse timing anomalies may manifest due to spin and orbital acceleration and variations in gravitational potential. To avoid these effects, pulse arrival events are transformed to the quasi-inertial frame of the SSB. The two frames are related by a relativistic four-dimensional space-time transformation. The spatial part of the event is the displacement of the observatory from the geocenter at the instant of reception, which is altered by a negligible amount due to special and general relativistic length contraction. The effects of relativistic time-dilation, on the other hand, cannot be neglected. TEMPO2 uses the numerical time-dilation results of Irwin & Fukushima (1999), who used the DE405 Solar system ephemeris (Standish 1998) to compute the time-dilation integral:
formula
9
where U⊕ is the gravitational potential at the geocenter due to all Solar system bodies except the Earth, and v⊕ is the velocity of the geocenter relative to the SSB. The first two terms describe, to order 1/c2, the gravitational redshift and special relativistic time-dilation, respectively.
Mmm ..
Let's change the title of the question and leave its wording as it is:
Miracles
Pulsars are accurate clocks, almost like the most accurate atomic clocks.
Why do we not see a change in their rate that results from the effect of our speed relative to the CMB on our clocks?
After all, according to relativity, if we are in motion relative to those exact pulsar clocks, we should see a change in their rate, regardless of the CMB, just because of relativistic effects alone, right?
This is the reasoning for the deviation of the GPS clocks and the meon, their relative movement relative to us, isn't it?
So why does it not catch in the case of Pulsar Bnei Heal watches?
Israel
Pulsars are accurate clocks, almost like the most accurate atomic clocks.
Why do we not see a change in their rate that results from the effect of our speed relative to the CMB on our clocks?
If we do not measure such a difference then there is no time extension, regardless of the background radiation.
Why won't you see Doppler differences if you move against the radiation relative to a stationary meter?
Israel
So why don't we measure such a time difference?
From the doppler measurement you will not see a change in the clock. That is - everyone will measure the same age to the universe.
"Relative to a clock that is far away in space. According to your claim, are we supposed to see cyclical changes in this situation?'
Positive.
"How do you measure temperature relative to the background radiation in motion? You absorb photons in a range of wavelengths that depends on your speed.'
There is no problem calculating the temperature at a certain point as if you were at rest. Just weigh the doppler from both directions. Small on Pentium 4.
But you don't have to.. There is a certain amount of time that has passed since the bang at every point in space, whether we count it or not. If the simultaneity we saw that is required by the interweaving is according to the cosmological clock, the paradox is resolved.
What about my question?
Israel
How do you measure temperature relative to background radiation in motion? You are receiving photons in a range of wavelengths that depends on your speed.
Israel
I am asking relative to a clock that is far away in space. According to your claim, are we supposed to see cyclical changes in this situation?
There are watches like that….
Israel
Did you build a clock that works on radiation?
It's a startup!
?
Waiting, as usual, because of the corona vaccines.
Variable - relative to what? How will you check a change if all the clocks slow down at the same rate as you?
According to relativity, the speed of the clock does change during the year, and you will see this if you finally answer the question I asked (only 17 times):
Do you accept that according to relativity a cesium clock moving against the background radiation lags behind a gamma radiation clock?
Israel
Leave GPS 🙂 I'm talking about one single earth clock. Why does its speed not change during the year?
And the speed of the GPS satellites moving with the earth relative to the radiation does not change to the same extent?
Israel
The speed of the earth relative to the background radiation changes throughout the year.
Waiting and expecting
Waiting, expecting, bottom line:
Do you accept that a cesium clock that moves against the radiation lags in the ratio of gamma relative to a radiation clock?
and also:
Do you accept that according to relativity a cesium clock moving against the background radiation lags behind a gamma radiation clock?
And he answered:
Do you accept that according to relativity a cesium clock moving against the background radiation lags behind a gamma radiation clock?
"According to your claim, we should have seen seasonal changes in their speed."
Why?
Explain, detail, explain!
Israel
Why don't you answer my question? We have distant clocks - according to your claim we should see seasonal changes in their speed.
Is this really too complicated a question??
Definitely slowly.
You are sailing a ship in the sea. You have speed relative to the sea. It is the earth relative to radiation and it has nothing to do with winter, summer or Passover.
The ship is surrounded by a boat in circles. The boat has a speed relative to the sea and also an additional speed relative to the ship. The boat is the satellite, and the question is whether the additional speed of the boat causes the clocks to slow down relative to the ship.
Capish?
Let's say that the rushing twin from the paradox carries with it not only the cesium clock but also a radiation clock. Gamma 10.
Do you accept that he would see the radiation clock spinning 10 times faster than the cesium clock?
And do you accept that his brother who remains on the space station will not see a difference in the rate of the clocks?
So what is the difference between the twins? They are identical twins, aren't they?
This is the point.
The speed of the earth relative to the earth is 0. This is obviously slow.
You are sailing a ship in the sea. You have speed relative to the sea. It is the earth relative to radiation and it has nothing to do with winter, summer or Passover.
The ship is surrounded by a boat in circles. The boat has a speed relative to the sea and also an additional speed relative to the ship. The boat is the satellite, and the question is whether the additional speed of the boat causes the clocks to slow down relative to the ship.
Capish?
Let's say that the rushing twin from the paradox carries with it not only the cesium clock but also a radiation clock. Gamma 10.
Do you accept that he would see the radiation clock spinning 10 times faster than the cesium clock?
And do you accept that his brother who remains on the space station will not see a difference in the rate of the clocks?
So what is the difference between the twins? They are identical twins, aren't they?
This is the point.
Israel
I can't figure it out so let's take it even slower.
1 - Does the speed of a watch depend on the speed of the movement relative to the background radiation?
2 - Does the speed of the earth relative to the speed of the earth change?
3 - Does it follow that we should see changes in the speed of stationary clocks?
Thanks!
Yes you were wrong, my assumption is not wrong.
Because first of all this is not an assumption but an idea for solving a problem that cannot be solved in any other way.
Second, it is not wrong because the claims you raised do not refer to what I said.
Israel
Was I wrong or not?
You confuse concepts.
There is the speed of the earth relative to the background radiation - between 400 and 800 km/second.
We are not dealing with this one because it works on the clocks in Israel and satellites to the same extent.
I'm talking about the tangential speed of the satellites around the earth, which is a separate component, and which could possibly cause the time to lengthen.
Don't forget that we tried all the possibilities to match the scene to relativity and the only way is multiple worlds, which I don't see how they can solve the problem of who measured first even if worlds seem to exist. I would appreciate it if you could explain, and also where exactly they are hiding. The world is not a grain of sand, it has some volume.
Israel
If the speed of the clock is relative to the background radiation and the speed of the Earth changes, then the speed of clocks on the Earth should change.
The speed of the clocks does not change.
Therefore, your assumption is wrong.
Where is my mistake?
So what?
What we are trying to find out is whether the slowing down of time in GPS clocks can be caused by their movement relative to the background radiation. It doesn't seem to me that winter or summer are related, nor is the speed of the earth relative to radiation, because the satellites move together with it.
Israel
Our speed relative to the CMB is constantly changing.
And also the speed of the satellites.
wave
If you have synchronized clocks in Israel and on Mars, and one experimenter knocks on the pole in Israel at time 0 according to his clock, then the theoretical smallest time in which the experimenter in Mars will hear the knock is 200 seconds according to his clock.
Miracles
How are summer and winter related to the relative speed of the earth relative to the background radiation? And more than that, how are the movement of GPS satellites related to summer and winter radiation?
Don't forget also that the satellites rotate and change their direction in relation to the radiation all the time, so how?
wave
Israel answered you. The tip of the rod on Mars will move only after 10 minutes.
Israel
If the slowdown was relative to the background radiation then we would see changes in the clocks between summer and winter.
We see no such changes.
I will rephrase the question
theoretical question,
Let's assume a completely rigid rod made of any material with a length between the Earth and Mars
The rod end on the Earth side will be designated A, the far rod end B on Mars.
At both ends of the pole are astronauts.
It is agreed between them that if astronaut A moves the rod only 1 cm towards Mars,
On the opposite side, astronaut B as a reaction moves the rod immediately back towards the earth only 1 cm
So the rod returns to the starting position
the experimental
Zero time, the rod is in the starting position
On side A, an astronaut pushes the rod only 1 cm towards Mars, within a second.
On side B, an astronaut pushes the rod only 1 cm back towards the Earth, within a second.
(Let's say the distance from Mars to Earth is 60 million km, it takes ~200 seconds to travel the distance)
A total of 2 seconds pass from the beginning of the experiment to the end
Is it possible? yes/no, why?
Mars----------------the earth-a starting situation
Mars ם—————Rod———————————-m Earth - 1 cm direction of Mars
Mars ם——————–rod——————————–m Earth - 1 cm back
wave
It is possible, but the question is not defined well enough.
1. How does party B know that party A has moved the bar? The minimum time it takes for a signal to move from one side to the other is 10 years.
2. The fact that the rod is rigid does not really matter for the issue of information transmission.
theoretical question,
Let's assume a pole as a bush completely 10 light years long,
The near end will be designated A, the far end B.
At both ends are humans.
End A is moved one centimeter forward.
From the opposite side B as a reaction moves the bar immediately back one centimeter, ie to the starting position
Is it possible? yes/no, why?
Why an error? The question is what is the source of the slowdown, relativity or motion against the background radiation.
I am quite convinced that a spaceship orbiting the earth will see the clocks in the earth moving faster than its own. The fact that each sees the other's clocks moving more slowly refers to systems. The agile twin paradoxically has no doubt that the time on the distant planet he reached before turning around shows a higher time than his own, and that each station he passed along the way showed a higher and higher time, while they saw his time moving slower.
Israel
I haven't found a specific link, but I know that the spacecraft has an ACES system on it which is an incredibly accurate atomic clock.
This system is coordinated with national clocks.
So - either they are hiding the fact that the special theory of relativity is wrong, or they are lovable... Or they see the slowdown in both directions.
Their resolution is 10 to the power of minus 15 seconds. Do you really think they won't notice an error of 40 micros a day???
They see our clocks as slower…. The 7 micros are symmetrical
Link?
Good night.
Israel
They see our clocks as slower…. The 7 micros are symmetrical. I don't know if anyone has measured it, but I'm pretty sure they did check the matter at the ISS - where the phenomenon is more pronounced.
Gravity causes a spin of about 55 microns, which is not symmetrical.
And there is another phenomenon (Sniak) - but it affects less than Micro.
By the way - there are GPS receivers in the ISS spacecraft, and they take into account the time changes due to SR in a different way.
Since when - Nah
From a wiki about interweaving:
whenever the first particle is measured to be spin up on some axis, the other, when measured on the same axis, is always found to be spin down.
we find that the result of the measurement of the second particle will match (in a complementary sense) the result of the measurement of the first particle, in that they will be opposite in their values.
This probability distribution is in general different from what it would be without measurement of the first particle. This may certainly be perceived as surprising in the case of spatially separated entangled particles.
So there is a first particle and there is a second..
So why do they see our clocks as slower?
they are not. Our clocks are fast compared to them.
I don't control how much we move and how many satellites. What's more, most of the time extension in GPS clocks comes from the radial acceleration, not from the inertial movement relative to the earth.
Israel
So why do they see our clocks as slower?
We are also moving relative to the CMB. Why would satellites behave differently?
Of course c is constant in all reference systems, who claims otherwise?
But the GPS satellites move against the radiation as well as from ions, so maybe the lengthening of the measured times is because of this, as we saw that this assumption solves the problem of who measured first in the interweaving?
Israel
So the speed of light is c in any frame of reference?
The GPS figure is about 7 microseconds per day.
No way?
What I need from you is how much the time extension affects the gps system. (The inertial consideration, not due to the acceleration).
Israel
Are you claiming that the speed of light depends on the frame of reference? That is - at our speed relative to the background radiation?
Mathematics is nothing.. Square it up, subtract 1, take the inverse and take the root. Then compare the difference between the two speeds you brought, and that's before we even considered the direction..
And who even talks about a site?
Israel
I will simplify even more - the speed of the earth is 30 km per second - 1 divided by 10,000 of the speed of light.
MM experiment is a billion times more sensitive than that.
So why didn't we find the "site"?
I did not understand.
The gamma factor is the inverse of the root of the speed divided by the speed of light, all squared.
In the speed differences you brought, you get a clear fraction of the percentage, so where does the 1:200 come from?
Not to mention that the background radiation has a direction towards the Leo constellation, so where is it weighted?
Israel
Leave numbers…. 🙂
The difference between summer and winter in our speed is 60 km per second. This is a significant speed compared to the speed of light - 1 in 5000. That is, less than 4 digits. The accuracy in our experiments is much better than that.
Israel
The speed of the sun relative to the CMB is 600 km per second.
The speed of the Earth's revolution - 30 km per second.
Factor "for you" 10…..
An electron is a bit small, and the world is big..
but leave What is the story with summer and winter and the ratio of 1:200?
Israel
Do you think that Putin changes his behavior because he was looked at?
We have never seen an electron. bothering you?
It doesn't make sense to me that a neutron decays randomly. He suddenly feels like it???
But I don't think that is exactly the reason. I don't think so, not to you, not to anyone.
No one sees multiple worlds. Everyone sees the same one world. It doesn't sound right to me either. It sounds more metaphysics than physics. The argument of "that everything will be in His word" sounds much more acceptable.
But - Israel does not argue with facts. Bring one picture of another world, a parallel universe, an authentic newspaper headline about the victory of the Nazis in the World War, and Israel flows.
You... you keep photos like in a drawer, right? Do you have a recorded speech of Hitler in occupied Moscow I believe? Do you have an ID where you are a woman at all of course?
Israel
The Lorentz transformation is not an explanation of the phenomenon, but an adaptation of a formula to measurements.
If this formula was correct and depended on the CMB reference system then we should have seen a change between summer and winter. The speed of the Earth relative to the CMB varies quite a bit compared to the measuring devices that exist today. The ratio is about 1 in 200, and modern mm experiments are accurate to 1 in 10,000,000,000,000 and even much, much more than that!
What's wrong with multiple worlds? And don't answer "I don't think so" ... only our Judah is allowed to use this argument 🙂
Gamma is part of Lorentz transformations. It existed before relativity, as above E=mc^2.
Your eyes see, that Zira does not get along with relationships. Einstein also says so.
If the alternative is multiple worlds, I think my solution is better..
Israel
If you don't accept relativity, then what is gamma?
waiting
Here is why the bickering is irrelevant to me. After all, its purpose is to show that it is impossible to determine who is the one who measured first, and according to relativity there is no time "in systems where the events are spacelike and therefore the concept of "order" has no meaning.
But for correlation to exist in the interweaving there must be a first measurer and a second measurer as we have seen. So either there is no meaning to the order and then there is no correlation, or there is a meaning to the order and then there is no correlation.
Do you see another option?
Here is a possible solution as I see it.
So far we have talked about two clocks, clock A and clock B, and two mainstream theories, relativity and quantum.
I see no possibility of solving the problem I raised using only these two theories, and so far no one has suggested a possible solution. According to the editor of PHYSICS FORUM, the physics forum among the largest in the world, if not the largest:
Nobody knows the answer. At least one QM interpretation, retrocausality, allows later measurements to affect earlier ones. Nobody has found a way to experimentally test one QM interpretation vs. another, so far as anyone knows retrocausality is still a possibility, at least in principle. I know you would like there to be a definitive answer, but as has already been pointed out several times, this is one of those cases where we don't have one at our current state of knowledge.
In short, no one knows.
We will now integrate another mainstream theory, the big bang theory, and the absolute time that derives from it, the cosmological clock.
After all, according to the bang theory, at any point in the universe at any given moment there is an absolute time that can also be measured by measuring the temperature of the cosmic background radiation and converting it into time in seconds by using the relevant Friedman formula.
If the simultaneity in the interweaving occurs according to the cosmological clock, then in a small room all the vanity experiments conducted so far do not require a different interpretation than what has been given to them so far, because they were conducted in an environment where the Newtonian/Einsteinian time is the same because the clocks at both ends of the experiment are synchronized and show the same time. The time of the cosmological clock is also the same at both ends of the experiment so there is no problem.
On the other hand, in the experiment we described, a spaceship passes over the Earth at time 0 with both gamma 10, reaching the planet at a distance of 10 light hours when the time in the spaceship is 1 and on the planet is 10.
However, the earth and the planet are almost relatively inferior to the background radiation, the spacecraft is not. When it reaches the planet, the universe has cooled down a bit and 10 hours have passed in it while in the spaceship only one hour has passed in its cesium clock, but 10 in the radiation clock.
Therefore, in the first minutes according to the spacecraft's clock after the suit near the earth (which measures as stated in time 4 hours according to the earth's time) the spacecraft will still be the first to measure. But at a certain point (at a distance of 4 light hours from the earth) the formations reverse, and since in the spacecraft about 24 minutes have passed in the season at this point, then in every measurement in the spacecraft after 24 minutes of the spacecraft clock, the measurement in the spacecraft will be the second when the earth measures time 4 times the season.
And as we have seen, when the spaceship arrives at the planet 10 light hours away from Earth, approximately 10 hours have passed in the cosmological clock and only one hour in the cesium clock in the spaceship. Therefore, the measurement in Israel preceded the measurement in the spacecraft, which solves the paradox I mentioned.
This solution is inconsistent with relativity, but can explain certain things that relativity predicts.
Israel
I'm afraid that the quibbling is very relevant...
But let's go - let's assume we've reached a paradox (I'm not saying there isn't a paradox, the discussion is about the solution).
What is your solution? And how is it better than "mine"?
Except that arguing about whose eyes is irrelevant. For there to be a correlation in the interweaving there must be a first and a second. If for some reason the measurer at 4 o'clock according to his time became the first, then in the system of the measurer at 2 o'clock according to his time the same measurement was made at a time of 40 hours and at a distance of 40 light hours from him, so that the same previous argument holds even here only more strongly..
In the relevant system, the land of Mars, the shooting in the land of the past.
If there is an asteroid in the middle between the two planets and the shot is aimed at it, the ball from Earth will hit first. The same goes for shooting a laser rifle.
Israel
Let's start with the fact that the shooting on Earth does not precede the shooting on Mars by any reference system. For a fast spacecraft coming from Jupiter, the shot at Mars was a first.
The Earth and Mars are also spacelike, but if we synchronize clocks between them, then there is no problem defining an order of events between them. If a gun in Israel fired at 0800, then it was one minute ahead of a gun in Mars that fired at 0801.
And the link I provided ends with the words of the moderator:
Nobody knows the answer. At least one QM interpretation, retrocausality, allows later measurements to affect earlier ones. Nobody has found a way to experimentally test one QM interpretation vs. another, so far as anyone knows retrocausality is still a possibility, at least in principle. I know you would like there to be a definitive answer, but as has already been pointed out several times, this is one of those cases where we don't have one at our current state of knowledge.
In short, no one knows.
Before approaching the solution that exists in my opinion, we will present the paradox.
As we agreed, in order for correlation to exist in the interweaving, there must be a first and second measurer. Otherwise each side can get a random state because it is the first, and there will be no correlation.
We also agreed that when gamma is equal to 10, then up to a time of 10 minutes on the first clock it will still remain the first and influential if the second one measures in time 4 hours according to the second clock. In order for the situation to reverse and the second to become the first, there must be a certain point where the situation reverses. Logic says that in Galilean and Einsteinian Newtonian systems there is no reason to have such a point because of the symmetry. (Why? Where?).
Therefore the first remains first, otherwise there is no correlation.
The first and second are said to sum between them so that they will both measure the same angle, so the spins will always be opposite when compared between them. The point of change is the land that is at rest relative to the other that remains in Israel.
When the first reaches the planet that is 10 light hours away from the second in the second system, the time on his watch is 1. On the planet, the time is 10 hours, and he is informed that the second has already measured 6 hours ago at time 4 on the clocks of the country and the planet, and the result of the measurement has already been broadcast on the radio and will reach the planet in 4 hours.
The first decides to measure by 180 degrees difference. Since his measurement is initial, it can have any result and therefore has a 50% probability of being in the same state as the other, while quantum says the correlation should be 100%.
This is the paradox.
Not to mention that the measurement of the second at 4 o'clock according to its time is affected by the measurement of the first at time 2 according to its time, which will only occur in the future at a distance of 20 light hours from the country at a time of 20 hours according to the country's time and the second.
Israel
Your link says what I said - the events are spacelike and therefore the concept of "order" has no meaning
Israel
What's the solution?
Right. That's why the title of the discussion we had at physics forum was:
An apparent contradiction when combining entanglement with relativity.
Source https://www.physicsforums.com/threads/entanglement-relativity.976564/
You reach a paradox (we haven't reached it yet) when you combine interweaving and relativity.
Want to know what the solution could be, or shall we introduce the paradox first?
Israel
That's a good question. But, special relativity claims that order is in the eye of the beholder. Einstein's clock synchronization exercise demonstrates this.
If each precedes the other - then how will there be a correlation in the interweaving? After all, each particle is measured first and can assume any state without being affected by the other..
Miracles
does not accept In different reference systems, the order is not always defined. If two spaceships pass at high speed, and each measures after one hour, then each will show that it is ahead of the other.
Claim: If we consider Galilean Newtonian and Einsteinian considerations only then under the conditions we described, first time - always first.
Reason: apart from the considerations of symmetry, if particle A was first all the time and the distance in the first 10 minutes according to his clock, then if the roles suddenly changed and particle B was to be the first, then there must be a certain point at a certain distance in the system of particle B where the roles change. What is this point, and why?
We must remember that there must be a particle measured first and a particle measured second for there to be a correlation between the particles. Even a difference of a trillion trillionth of a second is too big because the collapse is instantaneous. Otherwise, a situation will arise where each particle will be the first and can get any state without being influenced by the second, therefore there will be no correlation.
There is another consideration. When the particles pass each other at time 0 on both clocks, it is said that there is another clock between them that also shows 0 at the moment of the switch and that both clocks are moving away from it at exactly the same speed.
We see that no matter at what distance and at what speed the particles move away from that middle clock, a transmission from particle A at 2 o'clock according to particle A's clock, will reach the intermediate clock before the transmission from particle B at 4 o'clock according to particle B's clock. Always.
Therefore, in the systems we described, first time - always first. symmetry.
getting?
Israel
agreed upon.
We have already concluded that if an astronaut on Mars returns a multiple of a large number that was transmitted to him within 15 minutes of the transmission, then relativity fails, and this without defining information.
So why get involved in blown definitions if we both understand what it is?
Let's continue.
7. If particle A is in motion relative to particle B at a gamma speed of 10 and they both passed each other at time 0 on both clocks, then if A is measured at 10 minutes according to his clock he can still be considered the first unaffected by the second, and if he transmitted the The results of its measurement on the radio, we will be able to know the result of B's measurement even before its measurement in time 4 hours according to B's clock.
agreed upon?
Israel
Agreed - but it is worth noting that Einstein was wrong. Experience shows that as long as a paradox cannot be reached, "impact" is not limited to the speed of light. Influence is not information (in general - information is a loaded concept and it is necessary to explain what is meant).
Let's go over the material and see what we agree on.
1. In entanglement, if you know the measurement state of a particle, its measurement method and the measurement method of the second particle, you also know in advance the measurement result of the second particle.
A simple example is Tina, which was discussed in the APR article. If two identical bodies repel each other then if you know the momentum of the first you also know the momentum of the second. Even if one of them has a certain direction in relation to a coordinate system, you still know the other's, the same for spin. Newtonian physics.
If you measure two such repulsive bodies at a certain angle or polarization, you will get a result that also depends on the angle or polarization. If, for example, 2 coins repel each other at an angle of 30 degrees from the x-axis, then if they hit surfaces at different angles, the measurement result, wood or straw, will also be adjusted to the angle of the surface. Still the final measurement result will be unique, wood or pallet.
2. According to quantum mechanics, a particle does not have a distinct property before the measurement and only the measurement determines the property of the particle and as a result also that of the other.
Therefore, like a spinning coin that is in a superposition of wood and fruit together and only the measurement forces it to choose one particular state, so also a particle is in a superposition of different quantum states and the measurement forces it to choose only one state.
3. Einstein did not believe that this was an acceptable possibility because it requires non-locality - the measurement of one particle immediately affects the measurement of the other, which is contrary to the special theory of relativity which forbids an effect faster than the speed of light.
4. Bell's inequality theorems and experiments such as the Aspect experiment empirically proved that quantum mechanics was right and Einstein was wrong.
5. Aspect experiment shows 2 things - 1. The particle cannot have a state before the measurement, otherwise its measurement state would be determined only by the measurement conditions on one side and not depend on the other side, therefore we would not get a correlation in the interweaving. 2. The effect of the measurement is immediate.
6. According to the above we can conclude that if the clocks at both ends of the experiment in a small room are synchronized and particle A is measured at 2 hours and particle B at 4 hours, then at time 1 none of the particles had a unique state, at 3 we know the state of particle A ', and if we know the angles at which the 2 particles were measured, we also know 100% what the measurement result of particle B will be, one hour before its measurement.
This does not require that particle B already has a state at 3, it is possible that only the wave function shared by both particles collapsed into a unique state when we measured A at 2, and when we measured particle B at 4, it got the state dictated by the wave function.
We can conclude that the measurement of particle A can produce a random measurement result (spin up or down for example) and does not depend on the measurement result of B, but the measurement result of particle B depends on the measurement result of A and the measurement angles.
Agreed so far?
Israel
To me the idea that every possible world exists makes much more sense than the idea of randomness.
It is also more logical than distinguishing between a quantum world and the "big" world, and certainly more logical than the idea that our consciousness affects the outcome of experiments.
Israel
I will be happy to hear.
I actually definitely see a very logical solution, which does not include multiple worlds, parallel universes, convoluted dimensions and convoluted explanations.
Israel
I agree with you that there is probably no solution without multiple worlds.
indeed..
But which assumption is wrong? Do you see any error in the arguments?
Could there be a solution that does not include multiple worlds?
indeed..
Israel
Yes.
Just note that if our assumption creates a contradiction then the assumption is probably wrong (or another assumption of course).
Come just for the purpose of the discussion, let's assume that if we were both in the same room, then the world probably didn't split..
We can also attach a small bomb to the mechanism that will explode if the measurement is up. Do you mean by split that in this world we live and in the next world we die?
The truth - sounds reasonable. We will confirm..
But for now let's assume the world didn't split. Do you accept that the first measurement is random and also determines the result of the second measurement but not the other way around?
Israel
But with, as I suggested before, the world splits in every measurement. I'm not sure this solves any problem...
And also accept that the first measured electron determines the second state and not the other way around?
The possibility that everyone is measured first in their system leads to the following contradiction: if everyone is first then they can have one of two states (up or down) and then there is only a 50% probability that they will be spin synchronized. In practice, the measurements show 100% agreement with the theory.
Israel
Yes, accepting
Definitely changes, brings the electron from a state of superposition of up and down to a unique state: either only up or only down.
getting?
Israel
I agree that the measurement changes something in the values.
It could be that each measurement divides the world - the order is not important. In every created world there is a correlation between measurements on the same axis.
We are currently in a stationary system.
In such a system, the particle cannot have a defined state before the measurement, and this is for logical reasons only. The gauge does not have to be intertwined with the particle, it can be any gauge including a machine.
getting?
Israel
"So my shot preceded yours by 70 minutes" - yes, but only in the reference system of the clocks. For a traffic observer the order can change.
The same goes for measuring the particles - in the rest system, you are right.
According to Einstein, clocks can be synchronized at any distance as long as they are at rest relative to each other.
So if two clocks seem to be synchronized a light year apart and I shoot a gun at 04.10 near the first and you at 05.20 near the second, then my shot was 70 minutes ahead of yours.
getting?
Now if we measured our particles at the same times, the first measurement preceded the second by 70 minutes and is the one that had an effect, not the second.
getting?
Israel
It is impossible to define an order between space-like events.
Synchronization between two systems is done, according to Einstein, by pulses of light, right? The thing is that this pulse defines a reference system, and only in it are the clocks synchronized.
As long as event A cannot affect event B, or vice versa - the concept "which event came first" has no meaning.
The wave function collapses in zero time, not a fraction of a second.
This is the only possibility for the particles to be synchronized. If the process had any length of time - a millionth of a second for example - then a situation could have arisen in which "everyone measured first" and therefore could receive any state because it was the first, and there was no correlation between the particles.
Therefore your spaceships argument is irrelevant.
What is meant by "there is no concept of simultaneity at great distances at all." And "long distance" depends on speed? You can synchronize clocks at any distance and achieve simultaneity, see Einstein "Defining Simultaneity".
Shall we move forward?
Israel
You don't need to be precise when measuring if the distance is large. A gamma of 10 hour 1 in one spacecraft is equivalent to 10 hour in the other spacecraft.
And vice versa…
There is no concept of simultaneity at great distances at all. And "great distance" depends on speed.
or opisate..
Miracles
Even at low speed there is no problem in your example.
If, of course, you only manage to perform the measurement in both spacecraft at the exact moment, and the accuracy should be 100%, not 99.99999999999999999...
Do you know such a measuring device?
But what happens if one spaceship left an hour before the other, there is now doubt that its measurement was made before the second and can be considered the primary at any distance?
Israel
Think about the following experiment. Two spaceships leave the Earth in opposite directions, at high speed. After a time we produce pairs of entangled photons, so that one photon moves towards the first spacecraft and the other photon moves towards the second spacecraft.
We measure vertical polarization in each spacecraft. Every spaceship is a "first", right?
I do not see a problem here.
we
Measurement breaks the entanglement between the particles. If you measured on the vertical axis then another measurement on the horizontal axis will not show a match
Israel
There is no debate about the fact that if we measure the spin of particle A in a certain axis then we immediately know the value of the same figure for particle B.
There is also no debate on the point that this adjustment can be used, for encryption for example.
We, before going to sleep.
I believe that quanta are not needed at all to understand the problem I am presenting. It is basically logical.
A few days ago I presented a completely classic puzzle involving only classic objects: coins, dice, watches.
The problem is that there is no classic solution to the problem. The only solution is quantum.
Ditto in the case we are discussing. You can replace interwoven particles with coins and the same problem will still remain: if an object acquires a state only at the moment of measurement (a spinning coin for example that is in the superposition of a tree and pelt until the measurement and has a unique and distinct state after it) then in order for two systems that include coins to be synchronized in the final states of the coins and still answer On the conditions of the riddle, then there must be a first measurer and a second measurer, no matter what the distance between them is.
However, according to relativity if there is a sufficient spatial separation between the objects (light years) then it is impossible to talk about first and second and anyone is allowed to say that their time was earlier. But if so, then each party may accept a situation that does not depend on the other party (it is the first) and therefore there will be no correlation between the parties.
Therefore the very existence of the interweaving requires some absolute time.
From the article I brought at the time, A Quantum Threat to Special Relativity:
https://www.hayadan.org.il/quantic-threat-on-einstein-theory-060912
"It seems that the type of non-locality encountered in quantum mechanics requires absolute simultaneity, which poses a real and deadly threat to special relativity.
And that's the trouble.'
What I'm doing here is to show in detail what the problem is, and if we get to that, what I think the solution is (a pretty amazing solution, by the way).
Good night.
I meant that there is some correlation or connection between the quanta.
After all, there is no such thing as a real vacuum or something that 'hangs' in the air/vacuum regardless of anything.
Between all the matter and energy in our universe there is some connection. Correlation between one quantum and another.
Miracles
Why won't there be a result in Oki?
Horizontally also splits into two and that's how four options are created. No?
Israel
In my opinion, the problem is with the Copenhagen interpretation and the fact that Einstein generally thought differently from that interpretation and from what is known today.
Look, there are two claims (without or with connection to Einstein and that interpretation):
One claims that the photon is a time-moving wave in space.
The second claims that the electron is an 'object'/'matter', or a disturbance in a magnetic field that can only be determined by its location or when it appears.
I suggest that we connect this 'energy' into one block.
That is, the maximum speed of light is the upper limit or maximum of the dose of that energy.
And the mass or energy of the electron will be the min quotient for that energy.
In other words, an electron and a photon are one energy. But we call an electron in motion in space and time as a photon.
Suppose,
Something like that.
what are you saying?
Probably something like "how does the fourth know before the first"... ?? Well, in any case, don't leave us in suspense..
There may be multiple worlds, parallel universes, warped dimensions and alternative realities.
Maybe men are from Mars and women are from Venus.
But in the middle there is the country, and we are only dealing with it at the moment. our world.
And in our world as far as I know, it doesn't matter who measured. Wouldn't it seem a bit strange to you if an entangled meter would always get results correlated with the second particle and ordinary, mortal people would get different results?
The measurer is not tied, and the way in which the tie was achieved is also irrelevant.
If we have two fully entangled particles and one of them is measured, we can always know the state of the other regardless of how the entanglement was achieved and who or what measured the other side.
If this is agreed, we can move forward to presenting the problem. I think it is already quite clear.
Israel / us
No, not all particles are intertwined. This measurement is basically the weaving.
What is not clear to me is this - is this interweaving complete? If we measured one particle from an intertwined pair in the vertical axis then we divided the universe in two. But, if we now measure in the horizontal axis, we will get that there is no interweaving between the pair of particles. It doesn't make sense to me...
I'm reading a book now and hope to find the answer there 🙂
Israel
It makes a lot of sense what Nissim said. But it makes sense if the same meter is in another universe. In our universe all the particles are intertwined and therefore this is not possible.
not like that?
Nissim, where did you get that?
Israel
According to my understanding yes. A measurer that is not intertwined with us or the particles can get any result.
What is meant by different results? I measured electron A and got spin up in vertical polarization. Is there any situation where someone who measures the entangled B electron will also get spin up in vertical polarization?
Israel
not exactly. The correlation always exists. "Measurement" is an interweaving of the pair of particles with the measurer. A second meter, which is not intertwined with the particle pair or the first meter, can get different results.
Assertion: In order for a correlation to exist in the entanglement between 2 particles, there must exist a situation of a first measurer and a second measurer.
Reason: since the particles do not have a defined state before the measurement of one of them (hour 1 in our example), if there was no first and second then there would be no situation in which one of the particles is affected by the other, and each particle could randomly receive a defined state after its measurement, which is not synchronized with the other but can It is equally likely to accept the opposite situation as well.
getting?
Israel.
Yes, I think you are right.
Ok. Now we have seen that if the first moves at gamma speed 10, and they pass each other at time 0 on both their clocks, then if the first measures a time of 10 minutes according to his clock, nothing fundamental has changed: he can still have different distinct states, while the second measured at time 4 Hours according to his watch, forced to accept the situation dictated by the measurement of the first, but not the other way around. getting?
Israel
getting…
This site is annoying…
Ok, let's go back to our little room and see what we agree on.
1. At 1 the two particles do not have a distinct state.
2. At 2 o'clock the first is measured. The result of the measurement is broadcast on the radio.
3. At 3 o'clock we know the state of the first and also the second, an hour before its measurement.
4. At 4 o'clock the second is measured. The measurement will always confirm what we already knew at 3 o'clock.
getting?
Israel
“after” ==> by…
Israel
We have never even watched an electron…
"The particle does not have a distinct state"... true, it is in a superposition of many states, and if it is intertwined with another particle - many pairs of states.
And if the particle is measured according to another measurer, to which we are not intertwined, then that whole system has no distinct state. Schrödinger's cat is an example of this.
Observations..
When and where has anyone observed another world, a parallel universe, or a warped dimension?
Let's go back to our world.. Do you accept that in one world a particle cannot have a definite state before the measurement and this is to explain the results of an aspect experiment? And that there must be an immediate effect from one side of the experiment on the other side?
Israel
No - all this to fit the theory to all observations.
Deutsch said that the goal in physics is to minimize the number of assumptions and not the number of entities.
Israel
Why save?
The speed of light is one expression and the universes are another expression...
Why complicate things if things are simple?
The limit to the speed of light is part of the expression of the photon in our universe.
And all this, multiple and diverging worlds, perpendicular and parallel universes, tiny and cramped dimensions, to save the speed of light as an upper limit for communication?
Israel
The difference is the ability to predict, explain and adapt to observations.
Multiple worlds have a solid mathematical basis - it's not just a statement that "the world splits in measurement".
To say that the wave function "collapses" when you look at it makes no more sense.
Please wait, the world looks exactly as it did before the measurement.
So you claim he split? Eno's explanation is no less logical.
Everything will be in his word.
Israel
No. I claim that the world splits apart at the moment of measurement. Even if you measure and don't look at the result, there was still a split.
So you claim that the situation discovered in the first measurement - up or down - would have been discovered in any case in the measurement, and not the opposite situation?
Israel
No - the particle does not get a state. The measurement result shows the situations you described.
I mean - as far as the meter 4 is concerned, I agree with you.
They tried
Multiple worlds sounds like the most logical and ugliest solution to me.
too much energy…
But what, as the energy is created, it is also 'offset' (relatively) - so that the order is preserved...
It's simply about quantities that we humans still don't know how to deal with. There is nothing to compare them to... what shall we compare? To other universes? After all, it is not clear whether at least one more universe exists...
Israel
The particle is in superposition until it is measured.
What is measurement?
This measurement is, above all, the interaction between the measurer and the measured. When the surveyor is a human being.
But if the meter is an electromagnetic detector? When then will the wave function of the measured particle collapse?
It will collapse under the time function that the surveyor will determine in advance. Note that the measurer at the end (the one who predetermines) is always a human being.
That is, there is always an interaction between a human being and the rest of the universe and only in this way does a collapsing wave function exist.
Like in math: 2 always comes after 1.
But there are combinations and there are permutations and there are situations where 2 can be first...
You can do a 'first' step and have the first particle determine the value of the second particle.
But, your step also had previous steps and they were also influenced by factors other than you.
(React gently.
It's not that I 'know' and don't want to tell you...
I try to be brief and simply explain my opinion)
Good Day.
Sorry, Israel does not speak Chinese.
again:
We are in the same room, do you accept that in the room before the measurement the first particle (time 2) can have two states (up or down) and the second (time 4) is forced to accept what is dictated to it by the first?
And that it doesn't happen the other way around - the first doesn't receive dictation from the second?
Israel
Hebrew is a difficult language...
The "worlds" are not in different places. "Location" has no meaning here.
Think radio waves. Where you are there is a very large number of stations, and an even greater number of AM radiation - such as light, heat, radar waves, microwave leaks, cosmic radiation, radioactive radiation, wi-fi, cellular...
You have a receiver that you can tune to a certain frequency - but this is a one-time operation. This is the meaning of measurement.
This is a very partial analogy...
Maybe you are in two worlds. I'm not in two worlds, I'm not even in two worlds.. 🙂
What two worlds? We are in the same room, do you accept that in the room before the measurement the first particle (2) can have two states (up or down) and the second (4) is forced to accept what is dictated to it by the first?
And that it doesn't happen the other way around - the first doesn't receive dictation from the second?
Israel
The distinct value is the meaning of interweaving. Before ringing - the particle in superposition. The measurement intertwines the tester and the pair of particles.
Suppose there is a pair of entangled particles and I perform a measurement. At this time the world splits in two. In one world - I see that the particle I measured spins up, and vice versa in the other world.
You are now in two worlds. In the first world you will get a down spin, and in the second an up spin.
But you wrote:
"Your assumption that the measurement results in receiving a value creates a contradiction. The conclusion is that this assumption is wrong.
-Hyo Everett, 1957".
On the other hand, you accept that before the measurement the first particle had no significant value and after it it did.
So what are you saying? Does it have a distinct value before measurement or not? and after?
Israel
"1. The particles intertwined at the ends of the experiment do not have a final state before the measurement of the first and the first can randomly assume one of two possible states?"
agree.
"2. Is the synchronization between the particles instantaneous?"
not exactly. The particles are synchronized all the time. The measurement selects a certain pair of values.
"3. The measurement of the second is affected by the measurement of the first but not the other way around?"
In the same reference system yes. Not necessarily in different reference systems. Simultaneity is not defined in different reference systems.
I did not understand. Here's the question one more time.
You still haven't been convinced by the coins and dice example that:
1. The particles entwined at the ends of the experiment do not have a final state before the measurement of the first and can the first randomly assume one of two possible states?
2. Is the synchronization between the particles instantaneous?
3. The measurement of the second is affected by the measurement of the first but not vice versa?
Israel
Measurement causes an interweaving between the measurer and the measured. What is measured is the pair of entangled particles.
From the point of view of the measurer - the particles are in superposition until measurement.
we
What's wrong with multiple worlds?
Israel
The measurement of the former results in a split. I guess the split is immediate.
Anu, this is for you too..
Ok. So you still haven't been convinced by the coins and dice example that:
1. The particles entwined at the ends of the experiment do not have a final state before the measurement of the first and can the first randomly assume one of two possible states?
2. Is the synchronization between the particles instantaneous?
3. The measurement of the second is affected by the measurement of the first but not vice versa?
Israel
Definitely
Israel
It doesn't matter when you measure the particle, either
where do you measure it
At the moment of measurement, you will always know half of the answer (the location or the time).
It is subject to all systems - large and small
MWI?
Miracles?
Did we give free rein to the imagination?
Have we started making up terms?
Entered the Shuang?
God bless you
What's going on?
After all, you're right, by and large...
Let's sync:
There are two actions here: one is the measurement that created the interweaving. She is not the one we are dealing with.
The second operation is the measurement of the entangled particles that are far from each other. That's all we're dealing with.
accepted?
Israel
When we created a pair of intertwined particles - only they are intertwined. When we measure one of them, we "flow" to both.
I emphasize that this is my understanding of MWI, but I agree with my understanding…
I hope that when you say at the moment of "measurement" you mean the measurement made at the far ends, not the measurement that created the weave, right?
Israel
Both particles "receive" their values at the moment of "measurement".
There are many worlds. Interweaving is a "connection" between two worlds.
Israel
God is the one who performed, first, the 'measurement'.
And from there everything is deterministic... and democratic... and...?
"The spin of a particle does not have a single value defined before measurement - it has all possible values. Entwined particles have corresponding values.
"Measurement" is an interweaving of the measurer with the particles, and the meaning is a choice of one of the possible values.'
OK. So if the first particle does not have a single value before the measurement then it can have one of the two states "up" or "down" agree?
The second particle does not have this option, it is forced to accept a certain value determined by the measurement of the first, agree?
Therefore there cannot be a situation where each of them measured first, because then we would get a situation where there must not be a match between them, accept?
Israel
The spin of a particle does not have a single value defined before measurement - it has all possible values. Entwined particles have corresponding values.
"Measurement" is the interweaving of the measurer with the particles, and the meaning is the choice of one of the possible values.
Israel
We were. That doesn't mean the idea is wrong.
More and more physicists accept the idea - DeWitt, Deutsch and Carroll for example.
As long as it explains better than any other theory, why reject it?
Haven't we been before?
If the particle had a defined value before the measurement - then how would you solve the riddle of coins and cubes?
Not to mention that the mainstream claims there is no value..
Israel
Your assumption that the measurement results in receiving a value creates a contradiction. The conclusion is that this assumption is wrong.
-Hyo Everett, 1957
"1. The first measured at 2 o'clock according to his watch.
2. For the second, the time is 20 p.m.
3. The second measured at 24 according to his watch.
4. For the first, the time is 240.
So the second measured after the first. and the first before the second. Where is the problem?"
But we said 2 and 4, and here there is a problem..
I can think of other solutions that simplify everything, and are simpler than multiple worlds.. (where are they? where?).
The problem is that if everyone measured before the other then how will there be a match in the weaving?
After all, if each one is the first that is not affected by the other, then it can accept any situation, so where will the correlation between the measurements come from?
Israel
So back again to multiple worlds. Simplifies everything 🙂
Israel
5 minutes and 10 minutes are the same, because it is 50 minutes and 100 minutes in the other one.
Let's try this:
1. The first measured at 2 o'clock according to his watch.
2. For the second, the time is 20 p.m.
3. The second measured at 24 according to his watch.
4. For the first, the time is 240.
So the second measured after the first. and the first before the second. Where is the problem?
And in general, if each one measures before the other, then how will interweaving take place? After all, the particle does not have a unique state before the measurement and it can assume any state, so there must be a first one that affects and a second that is affected in order for the states to be synchronized, right?
What happens with 5 and 10 minutes? When and where does it change to everyone's previous index and why?
Israel
1. The first measured at 2 o'clock according to his watch.
2. For the second, the time is 20 p.m.
3. The second measured at 4 o'clock according to his watch.
4. For the first, the time is 40.
5. In any case - each measured before the other.
Is there a section where I'm wrong?
Point:
When the particles pass each other the time on their clocks is -0. Gamma – 10.
Rishon measures by 2 according to his watch.
Monday at 4 according to his watch.
We saw that if the first had measured any time up to 10 minutes according to his watch he would have remained the first, the unaffected influencer.
If at a certain stage the formations change and the first becomes the second, that is the affected one, then there must be some external reason for this.
According to Newton, Galileo and Einstein, the systems are completely symmetrical except for the fact that one measures 2 and the other 4.
2 is less than 4, so the first always remains first.
He takes his measurement at 2 at a distance of 20 light hours from the second, but the measurement of the second at 4 is done at a distance of 40 light hours from the first.
Here too, 20 is less than 40. The first still remains the first.
Conclusion: first time - always first.
Do you see another option?
Israel
Hour 4 on my watch, that is 40 hours on your watch... if your measurement is 40 hours ago on your watch - it cannot affect me. If that is what is meant then I agree
Unless, your system is a preferred system (what we burned).
You're right, 4 according to your time..
Your watch, my watch, our watch..
In any case, even at a distance of 4 light hours there is no possibility that the measurement according to my clock will in any way affect your measurement at 2 according to your time when you are 20 light hours away from me, right?
Israel
"The second measurement is my measurement at 4 o'clock according to my watch. At this moment you are almost 40 light hours away from me, and the time on your watch is about 4 hours."
I am a maximum of 4 light hours away from you...
Miracles.
Gamma factor – 10.
You measured after 5 minutes according to your time, you are 50 light minutes away from me and then you broadcasted.
According to my watch, it took you almost 50 minutes to reach the transmission point, and about 100 minutes more for the transmission to reach me. I received the transmitter containing the spin and angle status about 140 minutes before my measurement at 4 o'clock according to my watch. I already know what my measurement result will be even before I made it.
The second measurement is my measurement at 4 o'clock according to my watch. At this moment you are almost 40 light hours away from me, and the time on your watch is about 4 hours.
Do you see any way that my measurement will affect yours?
Israel
The bone of the dog is the very thing...
That's the whole bone.
Ahhh, the whole point..
Well, anyway, the comments here are delayed so it's not fun like that. This is neither serious nor professional on my father's part. ?
Israel
I passed you and after 5 minutes I measured. You will get my measurement after 50 minutes, while you measure after XNUMX hours.
I didn't understand what the second measurement was.
we
Your argument is partial, because it does not include cases such as thin cows swallowing fat cows as in the Pharaoh case, not to mention the mad cow.
And measuring the bone is the bone of interest and not the dog's bone.
Interweaving is created at the moment of interaction between the objects and not later. EPR talked about momentum created when the particles separated and therefore the momentum of each particle is the same but opposite in direction. The logic says that if you measure the momentum of one, you will also know precisely that of the other, contrary to the claim that quanta do not actually have a defined momentum before the measurement.
But EPR was wrong and quantum won.
If in particle clock A two hours have passed, then in clock B 20 hours have passed.
For your argument we inserted the intermediate arguments.
Because if the measurement on particle A was carried out in 5 minutes according to his clock, which is 50 minutes according to B's clock, then the transmission from A will reach B in less than two hours according to B's clock, and he will be able to know what the result of his measurement would be even before it was carried out.
But there is no possibility that B's measurement can in any way allow A to know what his measurement will yield.
Unless... but we'll get to that later, according to Newton, Galileo and Einstein, the late measurement of B cannot affect A.
accepted?
Israel
Suppose I am on one particle and you are on the other. You pass me and after two hours on your watch you take a measurement. On my watch - 12 minutes have passed, and only in almost 4 hours I will take a measurement. Therefore - your measurement seems to me ahead of mine.
You see me passing, and after 4 hours on my watch, which is 24 minutes on yours, I take a measurement. After another hour and 36 minutes you perform a measurement. Therefore - my measurement seems to you ahead of yours.
Positive.
Israel
2 and 4 in which reference system? Everyone in their own system?
Gamma for simplicity is always 10.
While the particles are passing each other, the weights of both show 0.
Particle A measures 2, B measures 4.
According to Galilean and relativistic systems only, there is no possibility that the measurement of particle B will in any way affect particle A at any stage.
Therefore, only measuring A affects B.
getting?
Israel
Let's say the speed gives a gamma of 6. The first particle moves in the other direction and at a distance of a light hour, according to the second particle's clock, it checks the spin and transmits the signal.
Ok
Ok, so we now have a clear distinction between the "first" particle measured by 2 and which can have an up or down state in the case of electrons, and the "second" particle measured by 4 and whose state, up or down, depends on the state of the first and the measurement angle of the first and second.
Step B: We drive the "first" particle slowly in the cart.
Claim: Nothing in principle has changed. Still the first one can have one of two possible states, and the second state depends on the first state and the measurement angles.
Step C: The first particle moves at a speed close to c but only for 10 minutes according to its clock. So it is measured and broadcasts its status on the radio.
Claim: If when the particles passed each other the time on both clocks showed 0, then nothing changed either.
Evidence: the radio transmission with the state of the first reached the second even before it was measured, so we know what its state will be even before the measurement.
getting?
Israel
Yes I agree.
But not the other way around, agreed?
We can know the world, the universe, the world, please, of the second measurement but not the other way around.
Or simply: the particle measured first can assume different states and we have no way of knowing which one, but the second can only assume one state which we know in advance even before measuring the second one.
agreed upon?
Israel
The world of the second measurement is determined at the moment of the first measurement.
Let's say we're doing the Aspect experiment and one side of the experiment is in Anaheim and the other is in Baltimore. In Anaheim they measure at 1, in Baltimore at 3.
Do you accept that the measurement results in Anaheim are not affected by the measurement in Baltimore but the measurement in Baltimore is affected by the measurement in Anaheim?
Israel
What is "knowing"? 🙂
The particle is in all states as long as it is not intertwined with the measurement system. The "measurement" does not change the particle itself.
Let's go back to the coins and dice example.
1. If there is no communication between the particles - how does party A know that party B has changed the measurement mode?
This is evident in the Aspect experiment: as long as the polarizers are at 0% inclination, the mismatch rate is 0%.
If on one side you leave it at 0% inclination, and on the other side you tilt it by 30 degrees, the mismatch rate is 25%.
Logic says that if both sides tilt by 30 degrees, the mismatch rate cannot exceed 50 percent. In practice it jumps to 75%, as quantum mechanics predicts.
So how can this be unless one side knows immediately that the other side has changed the polarizer state?
Furthermore, if the particle had a definite state before the measurement, then we would get a definite final state in an aspect experiment (passed or not passed since it is photons).
But if we got a distinct situation on each side that does not depend on the measurement situation on the other side, then how did the mismatch percentages jump from 25% to 75% when the difference between the polarizers increased from 30 degrees difference in inclination to 60 degrees?
This means: there is no definite situation before the measurement.
Israel
I did not agree to these things.
I don't think there is communication between the particles.
I do not agree that "measurement" affects the state of the particles. Interweaving measurement between the measured particle and the measurement system.
Superposition means that there is no interweaving between the particles and the measurement system.
There are no two worlds (I'm not talking about the general conservation theory, but about "quantum" versus "classical" systems.
Ok, so let's see what we agreed on.
1. The example of coins and dice shows two things:
A. Instant communication between the intertwined particles.
B. The particles have no defined state before the measurement, they are in a superposition of every possible state (spin up and down in the case of electrons), and have a definite state after the measurement.
2. The two particles if measured at the same polarization or angle will always get an opposite state in the case of electrons, the same in the case of photons.
3. If the measurement of one electron is 180 degrees different from the other, the electrons will be in the same state (up or down).
If we agreed on this, we can proceed to the following claim:
In the same room, at hour 1 the electrons did not have a definite state, at hour 3 the electron measured at 2 already has a definite state, and the state of the electron measured at 4 we know in advance an hour before its measurement if we know the state of the first electron and the data (angles) of the measurement.
getting?
Israel
Whoa
OK, so at 180 degrees.
I wrote horizontal vertical to include photons as well.
So if we move the polarizer by 180 degrees, then in the interlaced we will always get the same spin, get it?
Or in photons, if the polarizers are at an angle of 90 degrees then if one photon passed its interlaced brother will always not pass, accept?
Israel
You measured one electron in the vertical axis - you will get, let's say, a spin up.
If you measure the entangled electron in a horizontal axis - you will get a right or left spin with a 50% probability.
Backward logic..
If the polarization is the same, we get opposite spins. Since the polarizations are opposite, the spins are the same.
Israel
How is the same? You will accept that there is no correlation
Charged? I measure the electron in vertical polarization, I get either spin up or down, so what's the problem?
Then I measure its sibling as well in vertical polarization and get reverse spin, no?
On the other hand if I measure the other in horizontal polarization I will always get the same spin in both, agreed?
Israel
Yes.
I will just emphasize again that the word "measurement" is loaded.
Let's stay in our world for now.
Do you accept that in a lab in California if you measure two vertically polarized electrons then both will get an opposite state even though we don't know which state in advance?
Israel
not exactly. In "our" world we got a combination of a certain vertical spin if anything in our measuring device. The particle is now intertwined in our world.
In another world, combining the particle with the measuring device has the opposite value.
Yes, of course, the meaning is that they do not have a certain state and are in a superposition of states. In the case of electrons spin up and down together.
After the measurement the state is clear - up or down, but before it the particle can have both of these states.
getting?
Israel
There are no quantum particles in dice and coins.
I don't accept that particles have no state. "Measurement" does not change the state of the particles. They always have all the situations. "Measurement" selects one set of modes.
"Measurement" is an interaction between particles. After measuring, they are "entwined" with each other. Before that the particles can have all the states.
This is my understanding of Everett's theory. Admitted - not understanding something
Miracles
You accepted that in the example of coins and cubes, a quantum particle cannot have a state.
This example is a direct development of Bell's inequality. See:
http://quantumtantra.com/bell2.html
But is it fundamental? In the example of the particles in the room, do you accept that at time 1 they both have no state as we saw in the previous example?
Israel
This is not what the inequality says. This is what the Copenhagen preacher says about inequality.
This is the gist of Bell's inequality: a quantum particle has no state before measurement.
Let's go back to the spaceship example and go step by step:
1. Two particles are intertwined in a small room. The first is measured at 2 o'clock, the second at 4 o'clock. The measurement results are broadcast on the radio.
2. According to what we agreed, at hour 1 none of them have a situation yet. At 3 we know the first state, and therefore also the second state.
3. We conclude that the first had no state until it was measured, while the second state can be known long before we measured it, which cannot be said about the first.
It is tempting to say that the second state is determined by measuring the first, but this is not guaranteed. Perhaps it is more correct to say that when the first was measured, the wave function common to both collapsed, and when the second was measured, it collapsed to the state determined by the wave function.
Agreed so far?
Israel
getting
Communication is disallowed, because it must be quickly on Orit so that you finish arranging the coins within 15 minutes when the distance is a light hour.
Another possibility is ruled out by Bell's theorems of inequality.
We are left with interlaced particles.
You cannot get the percentages required to win the prize if the particles had a state even before the measurement because then the measurement on the other side could not have an effect. getting?
Israel
It makes sense that you are right. I'm not sure, because maybe there's a way we haven't thought of.
But, let's assume you're right. Interweaving is really something special.
What interests me in defining information? Do you not accept that there is no way to win a prize in my puzzle unless you used media or interlaced particles?
Israel
Definitions are meant to simplify.
No, I don't accept, because we haven't proven anything. You may, and may be likely, be right, but we haven't proven anything yet.
If you don't define what information is, then you can't claim that information passes through the interweaving.
So why do we need to get involved in definitions if we both understand well what information is and what communication is even without elaborate definitions?
Do you accept that in my puzzle there are only two ways to win the prize: through communication between the rooms - a telephone for example - which is limited to the speed of light, or through entangled particles with no speed limit?
Israel
Yes
Do you accept that if I sent a 17-digit number from the country to the space vehicle on Mars and they return its double to me within 20 minutes, then the relationship ceases, and this without defining information, communication, swan or swan?
Israel
The point is that you have no way to transfer information above the speed of light
Israel
What is communication?
Israel
What is information?
goes goes, everything goes
Point?
Even from a distance of 2 meters you will not be able to win the prize unless you use communication between the rooms or interwoven particles.
Communication is limited to the speed of light, the particles are not.
And that's the point.
Israel
I have an idea! Let's play your game next week. I'm from here, in front of a phone friend who lives near Alpha Centauri.
Going?
Try to think like this:
You work every day in the barn with Gantz and Eichmann Odeh.
Suddenly, on Tuesday at 7 a.m., out of nowhere appears Naftul that no one knows...
The question is: did Naphthol exist before you met him with your friends in the barn?
A?
Huh?
??
?@??!
Israel
You are in the right direction.
That's what I'm saying, you can measure the object two days after me, or, note: also light years from the object... still, as soon as you have partial information about the other object (this object that exists) it's already creating a connection and 'interweaving' between two objects.
not like that?
one after one.
moo moo
You miss the point.
It is theoretically impossible to meet the conditions of the riddle without communication between the rooms.
If the spins were predetermined and independent of each other, the maximum percentage of mismatches you would get is 50%. You must have tried and that's what you got.
The only way to reach 75% is only through communication between the rooms and coordination between the spins.
Since there is no restriction on who measured first, it is therefore guaranteed that there was no particular spin on a particular side before the measurement.
If and after you accept that (A.B. of horses), we can proceed to the next step: the example of the spaceship that combines relativity and quanta, which shows that the only solution (that I see) is in the combination of the bang theory.
The amazing thing is that the combination of the bang explains the lengthening of time measured in muons for example, but without the need for ratios.
Israel
The question is how to define "information". In your puzzle we could have done the spin check in advance. That is, to simulate every possible situation. This is a huge number of possibilities, but there is no technical prevention.
we
The interaction that created the interweaving is not the measurement.
The interaction could take place on Tuesday at 7 and the measurement two days later at 9.
Israel
It was I who said.
There is no way to know when an example has uncertainty.
Today we understand that it does not make sense in the equation, therefore we remove it from the equation. But here we already have to bring an alternative example.
Hence you reinforce and even repeat my words: the interaction is the interweaving of 'information' (or 'making the connection') between the two objects.
And actually it is the measurement itself.
And that's why I asked you: Why is this absurd?
we
The interweaving was created even before the measurement when there was an interaction between the objects.
You can think of it as two coins connected by a spring in the middle. When they separate, each gets velocity and spin in the opposite direction. If you measured the one, you know the other.
The problem is that it turns out that they don't actually have a defined speed and rotation before the measurement, and it is the measurement of the first that determines the state of the second. Otherwise you could arrange a mechanism to solve my coin puzzle. This is impossible (there is a mathematical proof of this), therefore the particles have no state before the measurement.
What correlation existed between the rooms before? What prevents someone from arranging a similar correlation and winning the prize?
Israel
Right. No information has yet passed - because the correlation existed before that. Notice how I defined information.
Israel
Today, they might use a different example than that cat from that one.
Because of the difficulty in photographing the event, then the 'uncertainty' disappears from the equation. And the result is deterministic. Hence there is no uncertainty effect.
Therefore, this example is irrelevant today.
I would suggest you to think in a more progressive direction, or, more correctly - contemporary.
and find a more successful example and one that a layman will understand.
and display it here.
We will all be happy.
And on this occasion, I think the following case is also logical but still far-fetched:
The moment the relationship between the two objects (the measured and the measured, that is, the observer and the measured object) is created, the 'entanglement' between the two objects is created. In other words, the creation of the connection/touch/thought creates a kind of 'entanglement' of photons, for example, between the two objects...
Does that make any sense to you?
Well, until the response is released (if I could bet money that she is waiting for the manager's approval...) I will go salt the cabbage and close the jar.
Have a nice day
waiting
Elementary miracles dear.
Solving the cube and coin puzzle:
The experimenters take with them 100 z-axis fully correlated interlaced spins (numbered from 1 to 100, one for each roll of the die). They agree in advance the following rule: if when rolling a dice the number is even, then the spin is measured in the z axis. If the spin is up, put the coin on a tree, down on a peli. If in the toss the number is not even, then the charge of the spin is measured but not on the z axis, but rotated by thirty degrees (with the first experimenter rotated clockwise and the second counterclockwise). Since the charge of the measurements goes like the cosine of the square of the angle difference between the measurements, it is guaranteed that if they both cast a positive number there will be a 100% match (they both measure the spin in the z-axis and to begin with the entangled particles ensure that each measurement in the z-axis will give the same result in both spins), if one One is even and the other is odd, so there is a difference of 30 degrees between their measurements (the direction does not matter here), and the square of the cosine of 30 degrees is 75%, and if they both get odd, then the difference between the directions of their measurements is 60 degrees, and the square of the cosine of 60 degrees is 25%.
Israel
No. Just because we haven't been able to solve it, doesn't mean there isn't a solution.
What solution did you think of?
Can we write in the little black notebook that the only way to win a prize is by passing information between the rooms?
Israel
Do not know.
Well miracles, so how will you get the money without transferring information?
Israel
A good definition for information is "correlation between two systems".
Therefore, by this definition, there is no information transfer in interleaving.
Hahaha... Moshe Hadar Alek... an urban legend.
Here is the true story: Ezer Weizman's uncle, Haim, had a farm in Moshav, and little Ezer worked for him during the holidays.
One day he told Ezer: throw away the rotten carobs, the dry ones to cows, and the good ones - to wear out.
But because he had a gap between his teeth, he would speak in S instead of B, and he got:
The rotten ones to comb, the dry ones to cows, and the good ones - to pilot.
This. Just a misunderstanding. Why is this happening to you?
And so it remains.
Israel
Moshe Hadar...
Classically, the transfer of information quickly on Orit is required.
Who knows who invented the saying "the best for a pilot"?
Israel
The best I managed was this:
The first put a coin on a tree if he got an even and on a tail if he didn't
The second name is on a tree if even and random if not.
We will get 100% matching for two doubles
25% matching if results differ
But - 50% match if both then even
So think, you are a pilot.
ZA Plaster.
The best for plastering.
Israel
Oh ok… I have to think about it now….
Don't forget that you can arrange the coins however you like, only the dice you have no control over.
Israel
There will be a match between the currencies in 50% of the cases.
In 25% of the cases you will get two even results on the dice, in 50% different results, and in 50% both are odd.
So it never turned out (on average) as you asked.
Why simplify if you can complicate?
Do you think the award committee will accept your solution?
"The goal, which is accompanied by a considerable monetary prize:
7. When comparing 2 photos with the same serial number, (3, 6, 12.... 100) if in both photos the number in the cube is even, we will have a 100% match on the side of the coin in the photo (wood or paper).
8. If comparing 2 pictures with the same serial number on one side the die shows an even number and on the other odd, we will get an average of 75% matches between the coins.
9. If comparing 2 pictures with the same serial number on both sides the die shows a detail, we will get an average of 25% matches between the coins.'
So what good is your solution?
Or maybe you will tell the committee: the solution is multiple worlds, or square worlds, or flat worlds (where did Asaf?) or Hamshirs, or zebras, the main thing is to bring money.
Hint: the problem is unsolvable in Einstein's time.
Israel
Let's simplify. We have 100 entangled electron pairs. We will check the spin on the vertical axis, each time a pair - and wonder and wonder, each time we will get opposite spins.
Is it actually the same puzzle??
I still haven't figured out the problem with the cat.
If instead of a cat in a box we put a bomb in the box with the same mechanism, that if it explodes then the box will explode with it, so as long as we don't see the explosion the bomb is in a state of both exploded and not? After all, there is a certain moment when the bomb exploded, if it did explode, so even though the particle is in superposition, as long as it has not disintegrated in terms of observation, the result is that the bomb is alive, even though we cannot see it.
What's going on with the coins, do you accept that if there is a solution it requires transferring information faster than light?
Israel
I think like you. Bohr and his friends, to this day, think otherwise.
Why if there is no observer then the cat will not be either alive or dead at that exact moment? How exactly is the viewer related?
Israel
So you're saying that the viewer has no influence on the breakup?
The link I gave explains that there is no paradox
Why would the viewer cause a breakup? The cat is inside the box alive if the particle has not disintegrated and dead if it has disintegrated.
As long as the particle is in superposition, then it falls into the first category, i.e. it has not disintegrated, and the cat is alive.
It is also possible to put a breath detector connected to a timer or simply a video inside the box that will tell us if and when the cat died, or simply measure its condition or body temperature if it dies to know exactly whether it has gone into this particular state against its will.
So at what point was he both alive and dead?
Show of hands in the coin puzzle?
Israel
If the viewer is the one who caused the particle to disintegrate, then until the box is opened, the cat is both alive and dead.
Israel
Here is an interesting explanation:
https://arxiv.org/pdf/1501.02691.pdf
Even anonymous people are allowed to read...
Miracles,
I admit with shame and shame that I was never able to understand what the problem was with Schrödinger's cat.
Could you explain?
anonymous,
All Higgs - Elohimilian…
And every boson - Aluochana..
Anu, a Beitar fan, is not afraid of anything..
Do you know why no one solves my coins and dice puzzle?
Hint: Einstein wouldn't have solved it either.
Is it intractable?
Ramzoz: If you believe like Rabbi Nisimov YBLA that "the whole idea that measurement has an effect on a "quantum state" is nonsense - then you won't solve it either..
anonymous
All situations exist all the time. The world splits apart every time there is a random event (like a photon hitting a semi-transparent mirror, or a free neutron decaying). When you watch such an event, one "anonymous" is in one world and a second "anonymous" is in the other world.
Schrödinger's cat explains it well.
You don't have to accept this explanation. If you have a better explanation - I'd love to hear it.
What is certain: the truth - always, surpasses reality.
And because of this, truth always prevails and reality always changes. Changes according to the outline of the truth...
Our miracles:
You said something like this:
All modes exist before measurement,
But measurement has no effect on the existing (quantum) state...
And this is a slap on the left cheek and immediately, a slap on the right cheek.
- Henny asks:
So, what determines the movement of body x, in space and time?
Is this the measurement, or is this another case and unknown to anyone but you - miracles?
BSD
Our Israelis:
As it is written: All Higgs - Elohimilian...
Of course, from what is written in our Holy Torah: God is everywhere, at any time, and in everything...
Each Higgs is a little God who performs his work, and determines the course of time and place of everything at the time...
as written
That's how the water will blow and that's how the rock will wear.
That's how the wind will pass and that's how it will be in nature...
The little one will decide and the big one will do..
The reality is the consensus (general agreement).
There are infinite truths in reality;
They fight among themselves;
The truth is closest to reality,
She is the stronger
And she determines the consensus.
we
Many gods? I thought there was only one.
As it is said: You are one, I am zero, together we are ten.
Ariel
mixed sleep
So at some point the interweaving is untied? Where, when, how fast?
It is said that it remains flexible and exists, do you see the problem with combining quanta and relativity in the spaceship model?
If you can, try to solve the coins and dice puzzle I presented to Nisim. It is completely classical and does not involve relativity or quanta.
Miracles
What other world or parallel universe or twisted dimension did you disappear to? My riddle is completely mundane, what is the solution?
Israel,
This is a thought experiment that involves two theories that you think contradict each other. Not going to get into an argument about it with you, but I'd argue that you don't transfer information faster than the speed of light, so locality is preserved.
If you measure something on the spacecraft, you only know what will be measured on the CAM if you know that the particles are *still* intertwined. You still need to make sure that nesting holds and therefore still need to perform some kind of relational check. That's my second cent. I could be wrong but I sleep well at night.
Sarel
...This is a private case, in which many small gods are each doing their work within the framework of their role in a given space and time...?
Ariel
So how do you solve the problems I raised? Multiple worlds like miracles?
Or maybe it really is just the almighty boss whose word will be everything?
Israel,
I wish it was simpler. Nobody wants a probabilistic model for quantum.
Miracles
Solve the following puzzle with multiple and even square worlds.
We have two rooms, whose clocks are synchronized between them. In each room a coin, a chess cube, and a camera.
1. At moment 0 in each room, we roll the die in room 1 and arrange the coin as we see fit so that it looks like a tree or a tile, and take a picture of the coin and the die together. This is picture 1 of room 1.
2. Same in room 2. This is photo 1 from room 2.
3. Repeat the process 100 times in each room. We received pictures 1-100 of each room.
4. We have 15 minutes in each room to finish all the pictures.
5. We send the photos to third party.
The goal, which is accompanied by a significant cash prize:
7. When comparing 2 photos with the same serial number, (3, 6, 12.... 100) if in both photos the number in the cube is even, we will have a 100% match on the side of the coin in the photo (wood or paper).
8. If comparing 2 pictures with the same serial number on one side the die shows an even number and on the other odd, we will get an average of 75% matches between the coins.
9. If comparing 2 pictures with the same serial number on both sides the die shows a detail, we will get an average of 25% matches between the coins.
We may use any means, coordinate codes between the rooms, and prepare as much as we want for the experiment, as long as we finish taking all the pictures within 15 minutes from time 0.
Now, we have no problem doing this if there is communication between the rooms.
But can we do this if the rooms are a light hour apart?
Isn't it simpler that everything will be in his word?
Israel
I understand it's Many Worlds.
Isn't that hidden variables?
Israel
I think all situations existed before the measurement. Doesn't make sense otherwise.
The truth is I don't accept. The whole idea that a measurement has an effect on a "quantum state" seems nonsense to me. I think Schrödinger was right.
So what do you claim, that the particle had a state even before the measurement?
This is certainly not the claim of the leading school of physics.
Want an explanation why this is not the case? Do you know the inequality theorems and various Bell experiments?
Israel
The truth is I don't accept. The whole idea that a measurement has an effect on a "quantum state" seems nonsense to me. I think Schrödinger was right.
Miracles
What do you expect from Judah? It is still in the 18th century. He didn't wake up. Give him coffee with 5 grams of quantum coffee and he will wake up.
1. The particle has no quantum state before the measurement.
2. In full entanglement, measurement of the first particle in terms of common time determines the state of the second but not vice versa.
getting?
Israel
I don't understand what you said
In Armstrong's example almost (why mandatory? Possible), not in our examples.
There is no way to know what the results of the spacecraft's measurement in 2 will be.
We know for sure what the result of the measurement in the globe will be on the 4th, already at 3 o'clock, an hour before the measurement was made.
So how can it be said that "in the situation you described it is not possible to say what previous event"?
Israel
The condition for talking about order between events is exactly what I said - the transition between time-like and space-like.
In Neil Armstrong's example - as soon as the time between the events is greater than a second and a third, then a binding order is created.
But if the spaceship is small, a toy spaceship, and it moves at a low speed, one meter per second, in the small room ahead, then do you accept that the measurement in it at 2 o'clock precedes the measurement at 4 o'clock of the globe that is placed on the table in the room?
Now you tell me at what speed the spaceship from a meter per second to almost c the formations turn over, or at what distance.
Don't forget that before the measurements both sides were in a state of superposition of two states, and for both to end up in the same state one of them must be measured first.
Israel
Do not mix the two experiments. Regarding the spaceship - do we agree? I will say my position again: in the situation you described it is not possible to say which event preceded it.
Reference to Prof. Kirsch's article:
https://arxiv.org/abs/1811.00378
You forgot section 1..
1. It is said that we use the same setup as in the above experiment in a small room, and on one side of the experiment the measurement of one of the photons in horizontal polarization occurs at 2 o'clock and on the other side at 4 o'clock, also in horizontal polarization.
We know that the measurement results on both sides - passed or not passed, 1 or 0, will be the same. Can we say that:
The measurement of the "first", the photon measured at 2 o'clock - does not depend on the measurement result of the "second", measured at 4, but the measurement result of the "second" depends on the measurement result of the "first"?
Yoram's answer:
I believe the answer is yes.
Israel
Within a reference system all clocks advance at the same speed, don't they?
I agree that it doesn't matter to the problem you describe. As I said earlier - in certain situations, the order between two events is not defined.
I will give you a simple example.
Let's say that in 1969, on July 20, at 21:00:00 Zulu time, the manager of the control center in Houston pressed a circuit breaker (event A), and at 21:00:01 a light went on in "Eagle" - event B. These events are space -like and cannot affect each other, therefore, it is not possible that the circuit breaker turned on the light.
What is important for this matter - in this situation, it is not possible to say whether A preceded B, nor vice versa - without first defining the reference system.
My gut feeling is that your example is as well. From the point of view of the country, the spacecraft moved away 20 units, so from the point of view of the country - the country measured first.
As far as the spacecraft is concerned - the earth has moved away 40 units, so as far as the spacecraft is concerned, the spacecraft measured first.
I mean - I don't agree with you.
"There is no such system"
Why not?
Unprincipled. Do you accept that the measurement in the spacecraft in 2 is not affected by the measurement in Israel, but the measurement in Israel in 4 is affected by the measurement in the spacecraft?
Prof. Kirsch accepts..
Israel
You wrote "in this system - a space land" - but there is no such system.
There are two systems here.
Suppose there are two events A and B. So in one system A can precede B, and in the other system B can precede A (under certain conditions).
Miracles
And that's another shortcut..
The spaceship passes over the Earth at time 0 in both.
The spacecraft measures time 2 according to the season.
The country measures time 4 according to the season.
In this system - Eretz Halit - the measurement in the spacecraft is the first and is not affected by the measurement in the earth regardless of the distance or the relative speed between them (according to relativity).
The measurement in Israel is the second and depends on the results of the measurement in the spacecraft.
getting?
Because if not, you will encounter the problem of when and where the creators changed and the measurement in Israel was changed for the first time.
Israel
There are a lot of topics there... Can you please describe to me the experiment of the planets and the spaceship? You said "Earth-spacecraft system" there... and I don't understand what you mean.
Israel Shapira
Sign up on Google "Simple Universe, the site of Sabdarmish Yehuda" there are dozens of articles there. according to subjects. What is not clear enough, ask and I will try to answer.
Good Day
Sabdarmish Yehuda
Miracles
Waiting, probably because you mentioned Michael's name.
Yehuda.
Do you have the Poshing calculations including formulas on your site or anywhere else? Do you perhaps know the mathematical calculation including charts and the relevant integrals?
I would love to go through them.
Miracles
Summary of the correspondence I had with Prof. Yoram Kirsch on the subject. The problem there is clearer, and still not solved.
Hello Yoram.
My name is Israel Shapira, and I received a reference to your article in Cornell from an acquaintance of mine, Michael Rothschild. I have read the article and would be grateful if you could answer any questions I have on the topic of combining non-locality and relativity, and other topics.
with gratitude,
Israel.
Yoram's answer:
Israel Shalom
I would be happy to try to answer your questions.
Best regards
Yoram Kirsh
Prof. (Emeritus) Yoram Kirsh
Department of Natural and Life Sciences
The Open University
University Road 1, Ra'anana 43537
Many thanks Yoram for the quick response.
Let's start with the main problem that I also raised in the PHYSICS FORUM:
https://www.physicsforums.com/threads/entanglement-relativity.976564/
The wording there is not good enough as Michael Rothschild rightly pointed out to me, and I will try to summarize it here. I believe you know the material well, in fact the question is an extension of the interweaving experiment with the polarizers which aims to decide between hidden variables and the Copenhagen interpretation which you describe in your Cornell article and also in your book The Universe According to Modern Physics.
1. It is said that we use the same setup as in the above experiment in a small room, and on one side of the experiment the measurement of one of the photons in horizontal polarization occurs at 2 o'clock and on the other side at 4 o'clock, also in horizontal polarization.
We know that the measurement results on both sides - passed or not passed, 1 or 0, will be the same. Can we say that:
The measurement of the "first", the photon measured at 2 o'clock - does not depend on the measurement result of the "second", measured at 4, but the measurement result of the "second" depends on the measurement result of the "first"?
Yoram's answer:
I believe the answer is yes. At hour 1 none of the photons still have a quantum state and both are in a state of superposition. There is no possibility that the measurement of the second will in any way affect the measurement of the first, but immediately after the measurement of the first, which was recorded and also broadcast on the radio, we already know what the result of the second measurement will be and the measurement will always confirm our knowledge.
This is the critical point. Since there are other possibilities, interweaving in time, Weiler experiment, quantum eraser, I would like to get confirmation on it before we can move forward to the problem that apparently exists between interweaving and the lengthening of time in relationships.
Yoram's answer:
I think you're right.
2. According to the uncertainty principle, a quantum particle whose momentum is precisely defined does not have an exact location. Does the principle also apply to photons? Does a monochromatic photon emitted from a laser at moment 0 even if its momentum is defined in a certain reference system and depends only on Planck's constant and the photon's wavelength not have an exact location and is in fact spread with equal probability in the universe?
Yoram's answer:
I do not think so. It will have some uncertainty in place as well as momentum.
Is at moment t in the same reference system the distance from the laser ct as claimed by Einstein, or is it different? And what about a light beam that consists of a collection of photons, is its distance from the source always ct?
3. I was told that the No communication theorem is the proof that information does not pass between entangled particles. In my understanding, No communication theorem deals with the impossibility of sending information through entanglement, which is true, but does not deal at all with the mechanism that allows the particles to have the same quantum state (or the opposite). am I wrong? Is there a consensus in academia on this issue?
Yoram's answer:
I think you are right. Not sure about the consensus.
4. According to Newton, a body in free fall is accelerating, according to Einstein it is not. I don't think Zev is right. Both in private relationships and in general relationships there is a meaning to acceleration.
What about an electric charger? He is beaming with acceleration. So if such a charge - a block of rubbed amber - falls freely, will it radiate as Newton claims? I think he will also radiate according to Einstein. If it is placed on the table in the laboratory and is accelerating according to Einstein - will it radiate then?
Yoram's answer:
probably not.
Thanks in advance -
Israel.
Thank you Yoram.
1. We now have a clear distinction between the first particle that is not affected by the measurement of the second and can randomly receive any quantum state during the measurement, and the second particle that is affected by the measurement of the first and the state of the polarizers, all data are known even before its measurement, and therefore the result of its measurement is also known in advance.
We will technically change the experimental set-up and instead of photons in motion we will use particles at rest - electrons that are fully intertwined in the z-axis for example or even photons in a condensed state - Einstein, the main thing is that we can let one side of the experimental set-up be in motion relative to the other side. For simplicity we will continue to use photons and polarizers to maintain unity with the original experiment.
Step B: We put the first particle on a spaceship that passes quickly over the surface of the earth where the second particle is located. The Earth and spacecraft clocks show 0 at the moment of the suit, gamma factor is equal to 10.
As before, the spacecraft measures its particle in horizontal polarization at a time of 2 hours according to the season and the earth at a time of 4 hours according to the season, also in horizontal polarization. In the earth-spacecraft system, the measurement in the spaceship B2 is the first, so the particle in it can have any quantum state. The results of the measurement in Israel in 4 are affected by the results of the measurement in Israel. The result of each measurement is recorded and broadcast on the radio.
It is said that at 1 o'clock according to the spacecraft's clock, it passes by a planet that is 10 light hours away from the Earth and whose season is synchronized with the Earth's time. The time in the planet's clock is 10 hours, and in the spacecraft as mentioned 1. The lengthening of time.
In the spacecraft, they are informed from the planet that the particle in Israel was already measured 6 hours ago and the result of the measurement has already been recorded and broadcast on the radio, and will reach the planet in 4 hours.
In the spaceship they decide to change the polarization of the polarizer to vertical. Since this measurement is the initial one in a ground-spacecraft system, the result can be 1 or 0 with a probability of 50%.
We received a situation where the measurement in Israel is in horizontal polarization and in the spacecraft vertical, and the match will be with a probability of 50%, and this is contrary to our starting assumption that if the polarizations are reversed the results will also be the opposite.
If we try to solve the problem by saying that in the earth system the measurement preceded the measurement in the spacecraft, then this requires a certain speed between the earth and the planet or a certain distance from the earth where the formations are overturning, because it is easy to see that at a low speed, a meter per second for example, nothing changes and the measurement in the spacecraft is still the first .
Yoram's answer:
Regarding the paradox, I also think it still exists on one level or another.
Thank you Yoram.
In relation to the problem of measuring water before, I still have not received an answer despite attempts in several forums such as PHYSICS FORUMS. I don't see how it can be solved unless, apart from the two theories that rule physics, relativity and quantum, we add another ruling theory, the big bang theory, and we add another clock to the two clocks on Earth and in the spaceship, the cosmological clock that stems from the big bang theory.
According to the bang theory, at every point in the universe there is a natural time which is the time that has passed since the bang (about 13.7 billion years today) and can also be measured by measuring the temperature of the background radiation and converting it to the time in seconds that has passed since the bang.
We see that in the case of the twin paradox, for example, the traveling twin can no longer claim that his time is as valid as the remaining twin's clock, because they both agree that the universe cooled a little when he met his brother and therefore a lot of time passed in it as his brother claims. One can of course argue that the cosmological clock is artificial and does not reflect anything, but I am not convinced that it is. Not only the temperature decreases with time, but also the number of photons per unit volume and the density of the universe as a whole.
If the simultaneity in the case of interweaving is indeed conditioned by the cosmological clock, then there is no change in all the vanity experiments, thought or real, that have been conducted, since they are conducted in systems that are stationary relative to each other. On the other hand, in the problem I raised in which the systems in which the measurement is performed are at a relative speed to each other, the solution is this: at low speeds the measurement in the spacecraft will advance to the measurement in Israel up to a certain distance from the country. In our case where the gamma factor is equal to 10, up to a distance of about 12 light minutes from the earth and a time of about 12 minutes in the time of the earth and the spacecraft, the measurement in the spacecraft in 12 minutes will precede the measurement in the land in 24 minutes. After that the formations reverse, and at a distance of 10 light hours from the earth (as in the example I gave) the measurement in Israel at 4 o'clock precedes the measurement in the spacecraft at 2 o'clock or even by 1, because at a distance of 10 light hours from the earth the cosmological clock advanced by 10 hours while the spacecraft clock only by an hour. Since even in the spacecraft the cosmological clock advanced by 10 hours from the moment of the suit near Israel, so the measurement in Israel precedes the measurement in the spacecraft.
A slightly strange idea that may not be completely in line with special relativity, but can explain certain things about absolute simultaneity. According to the cosmological clock, at every point in the universe there is an absolute time at every moment that does not depend on the speed of the measuring device. Using sufficiently accurate radiation clocks, it is possible to synchronize, for example, a simultaneous attack on a distant planet by ships that arrived at it in different ways and at different speeds and whose clocks were out of sync, which was not possible according to the knowledge that existed before the discovery of the cosmic background radiation.
Israel
1 - The transmission will arrive from the Earth to the planet in its 13th time - 3rd time and another 10 time units.
2 – The spaceship crossed the planet at time 10 planet time and time 1 spacecraft time.
3 - The spacecraft in an hour (after crossing the planet) will perform a measurement. It's 20 on Earth and spacecraft clocks.
I don't understand the problem.
I will ask a question - let's say that both the earth and the spacecraft are checked at time 2: do you think they were checked at the same time?
Yehuda
Absolutely not .... Newton's laws explain the distance very well. Either you are wrong, or Newton's laws are wrong.
your choice…
Dear Nissim
After all, I also explain the moving away of the moon according to Newton's laws
I will explain again.
I initially thought it was accepted that the expansion of the universe (the Hubble) does not exist within the galaxies because of the gravitation that exists in them. But I checked the size of the gravity operating there (Newton's laws, remember?) and found out that it is a gravitational acceleration of magnitude ten minus 13 km per second squared at the edge of the galaxy. On the other hand, the Hubble expansion of the universe is on the order of 1 km per second at the edge of the galaxy, which means that the expansion of the universe is 13 orders of magnitude greater than the gravity acting in the galaxy. Conclusion - the expansion of the universe is not even aware of the existence of the galaxy. And this is also considering that in general gravitation is reset by its centrifugal force!
So, if the expansion of the universe exists for the distance to the moon, then it cannot be ignored and it is about 25 mm per year.
I would have preferred to measure a smaller result and leave something for the tidal waves and the dozens of formulas in the article I was referred to. But it is what it is and you have to live with it.
That is, I determined everything according to Newton's laws and this is what came out.
Good night miracles
Yehuda
Yehuda
I'm only talking about the moon... even in this range you invalidated Newton's laws.
That's all I'm talking about.
for miracles
Smile a little, don't be angry
And in our eyes
Are you stating that I dismiss Newtonian physics because the formulas are complicated for me?
So you are wrong. I like Newton but don't think he is correct in galaxies. Newton is correct in the solar system and this is according to Newton's own words who only knew the inner solar system up to the planet Saturn. Newton did not know galaxies and if he saw spots in the sky he defined them as atmospheric disturbances. But the universe suddenly became bigger, billions of light years, now sages have come and are trying to contain Newton's laws over billions of light years of the universe to trillions of times distances and that... How to put it mildly... not "so" going because there is a lot of gravitation missing. Will the conclusion be to throw the formula far away (as Yehuda prefers) or to add additional matter to the universe and also dark energy to the universe like miracles and the best scientists want.
Miracles, I may be wrong and tomorrow the dark particle will be revealed to us, but keep in mind that I may be right. And that doesn't take away from my faith in Newton and all his laws, but in the solar system. But...beyond that, there is a need for proven measurements without adding mysterious material to them like the king's hand.
And you, dear Nissim, are already running and defining me as an opponent of the laws of hydraulics and as a believer in the name of the blessed Almighty. Where do you get that from?, please calm down, it's just science.
And I'm really sorry that I can't understand the formulaic stuff you sent me to. It may be completely true but unfortunately I am unable to express an opinion on it.
And miraculously your auto can continue to drive safely, but… as long as you're traveling in the solar system, beyond that, I'm not sure if the laws will work.
Good day miracles
Sabdarmish Yehuda
Yehuda
Isn't it worse to declare "There is none, because we didn't find it!"??
You don't just throw away dark matter - you throw away all modern physics, even Newton's physics. Does it make sense to you? I really don't. I am very worried that my car will not stop because the laws of hydraulics and friction are wrong...
We did not find the first replicator - so we will declare that God created life??
Yehuda
You're kidding, right? Are you dismissing Newton's physics because the formulas are complicated for you??
Title "The law of conservation of momentum is wrong because the formulas are complicated for Judah".
Are you kidding?
To my friends Israel Shapira
You will be happy to know that I have planned an experiment that will allow testing the gravity, plastic/elastic pushing principle. The experiment must be done under conditions of high vacuum. This is a tool that costs tens of thousands of dollars and I currently have another role for my funds.
Good day my brother
Yehuda
Miracles
My response to the rest of your mistakes
Regarding the GPS, the annual deviation of Ksm per year in the speed of light is supposed to be a few micrometers at distances on the surface of the earth, and indeed I noticed that the announcer on the bus announces the station a micrometer after the place. I called the bus company and they told me that they are aware of the micrometer problem and they hope that they will be able to introduce the update in Tramp's deal of the century.
and about the validity of measurements. Understand, dear Nissim, that you cannot measure with a deviation of a thousand percent and say that the measurement is accurate. My wife sent me to buy ten potatoes and I came with one and told her there were nine more apples in the package, she brought me an empty plate of apple chips. Miracles, that's what drives me crazy, how they don't understand that a proof based on dark matter is against the whole essence of measurements in science.
It is true that it is possible to predict that a day will come and we will find the dark matter as we found the neutrinos, but almost a hundred years have passed, when will we stop looking and declare: there is no dark matter. point.
You say that the Paris standard requires a constant speed of light, and I say that Paris will know how to manage both if the speed of light changes and if it turns out that dark matter has stopped.
Besides that, you managed to drag me into the whole world of physics, I said that the speed of light changes and the only constant thing in the universe is the changing constants. What to do, we are in a changing universe where everything is changing. And that's what there is.
That's my opinion.
Yehuda
for miracles
Good Morning
I went to the link you referred me to that explains the distance of the moon's orbit from the earth and I almost fainted. A collection of dozens or hundreds of dense formulas that you claim explain the distancing. And there's no way I'm going to spend time trying to understand them, instead see my simple explanation any high school student can understand:-
A. Hubble's constant which is about 70 km per second per megasec (3.2616 light years) is about 25 mm per year for the distance to the moon (380,000 km) - a simple triple value.
B. And this is actually the moving away of the moon from the earth. point. Not 38 mm.
third. The addition of about 13 mm measured for the distance is due to the change in the speed of the laser light that measures to a distance of 1.3 light seconds (the distance to the moon)
d. A really, really simple universe.
I asked: If the distance is only 2.5 cm per year, could the conventional explanation explain it??
What is left for us is to explain the locking of the moon's rotation to the earth. I suggest leaving this explanation for the dozens of formulas in the link you directed me to.
Good Day
Sabdarmish Yehuda.
Israel
I live northeast of Seattle... a bit of a hole, but green and beautiful, and not too much snow.
I'll take a closer look at your link tomorrow, looks interesting.
Regarding what you said to Yehuda, I take it you mean that pushing doesn't work in elastic collisions, right?
But - if Judah waives all conservation laws, then there is no problem.
Yoda
Really impressive.
I admit, as a full-fledged vessel, that I checked the numbers under the assumption that I would get a discrepancy of several billion times up or down. I was very surprised when the numbers lined up pretty well with a black hole radius. Were you aware of that?
Regarding Einstein and E=mc^2 do not lose heart. Did you know that Pushing produced the well-known formula years before Einstein? According to Pushing, the particles are the source of the energy and the masses are the absorbers that absorb and translate the energy of the particles. Therefore there is no problem with the vsl theories of all kinds, as the article you brought from Davidson shows.
The elastic collision problem still remains to be solved.
Nisim, where did you go, encrypted again? In the end you will reach the pole..
And why didn't you participate in the discussion I had with Michael and Prof. Yehoram Kirsch about the apparent contradiction between quanta and relativity? So far no one has been able to solve the problem I raised. See:
https://www.physicsforums.com/threads/entanglement-relativity.976564/
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tidal_acceleration
Yehuda
Here is a link that explains the drifting of the moon's orbit. Again - if according to your claim, the moon is not moving away, then the law of conservation of momentum is wrong. On the other hand, if you allow the conservation of energy to be discarded, then what is another law between us? 🙂
If you say that the speed of light is not constant - then you are the one who claims that the definition of the meter (or the other) is not good. I guess you think the whole GPS system can't work, right? After all, it uses this data to determine a location with incredible precision....
The Paris standard won't help you either, because this standard is what shows that the speed of light is constant 🙂
What do you think is the meaning of the "background temperature of the universe"? Do you think this temperature can be measured, for example, inside the sun?
"And if indeed so - the expansion was supposed to be accelerated... - that's what I'm saying. If the expansion creates energy, then this energy should have accelerated the expansion…
"For me, validity immersed in a lot of dark matter and energy is not defined as validity!" ???? I did not understand! Do you rule out measurements because of the explanation for the measurements? where did we get???
Yehuda - you know very well that a new scientific theory has to explain at least everything that the old teachings explain. If you reject the basic laws of usage (which, by the way, are sentences based on symmetry) - then you must explain all existing observations with the help of your Torah.
If not - then please tell me which existing teachings you do accept.
for miracles
You asked: - You wrote "In this case, there is no confusion left to explain the tides, etc. Just an interesting result” – are you saying that the law of conservation of momentum is wrong?
My answer is that the law of conservation of momentum is not wrong, and the laws of physics are fixed everywhere. But it's still an interesting result. One of the explanations should be given up. I do not know the calculations regarding the momentum of the Earth and the Moon, and it is difficult for me to express an opinion.
Question: - If so - this means that the laws of physics are different everywhere in the universe.
Answer:- No, but constants may be different. If there are, for example, regions where the background temperature of the universe will be greater, the speed of light will be greater there, and yes... I have a problem with the law of conservation of energy...
I gave an example of an article where others also think like me about the speed of light, let's see what conclusions they reach with the law of conservation of energy.
Question: - How do you want to set the meter and the second?
My answer:- Why do you think it's my job??, maybe try to define the meter and the second yourself?
I claim that the proposal to define it according to the speed of light is flawed. I can come up with an idea for example:-
The meter is one part of 299,792,458 of the distance that the light beam travels in space in one second at a background temperature of 2.725 degrees Kelvin. That is, at a different background temperature, the meter will be different.
And maybe you should go back to a standard meter-long pole like the one in Paris??
You asked:-How exactly can the expansion of the universe create energy?
And if indeed so - the expansion was supposed to be accelerated...
Answer: I don't remember saying that.
You asked: - I brought up a point that you ignored - the equations of general relativity (which have long since replaced Newton's laws) were found to be valid for a distance of tens of millions of light years.
Answer: For me, validity immersed in a lot of dark matter and energy is not defined as validity!
Israel
What's new?? I have 3 degrees now.... on the day ….
Yehuda
My health is excellent, very busy with a new and challenging company!
You wrote "In this case, there is no fuss left to explain the tides, etc. Just an interesting result” – are you saying that the law of conservation of momentum is wrong? If so - this means that the laws of physics are different everywhere in the universe. It seems to me a very extreme result for your theory, especially when you claim that the universe is simple...
How do you want to set the meter and the second? Without defining both you cannot talk about the speed of light, or about gravity in general....
How exactly can the expansion of the universe create energy? And if indeed so - the expansion was supposed to be accelerated...
And I brought up a point that you ignored - the equations of general relativity (which have long since replaced Newton's laws) were found to be valid for a distance of tens of millions of light years. This means - much more than the extent of galaxies.
Below is an article published by the Davidson Institute
Is the speed of light constant? – Davidson Institute
The constant speed of light is the basis of the theory of relativity and modern physics, but a new theory claims that in the past it was faster, an explanation that may solve mysteries related to the formation of the universe
One of the revolutionary assumptions that formed the basis of Albert Einstein's theory of relativity is that the speed of light is constant in all reference systems. That means a person sitting on Earth and a person in a spaceship moving at high speed will both see the light moving at exactly the same speed - 299,792,458 meters per second. This assumption has far-reaching consequences for the progression of time and the elongation of space at high speeds, and it has been proven over and over again in countless experiments.
Researchers from the University of Waterloo in Canada and Imperial College London offer a slightly different theory. According to them, the speed of light is indeed constant in all reference systems at any given moment, but it changes in time and was higher in the past. The theory they propose may solve an existing problem in cosmology and explain the early stages of the universe's evolution. End quote.
So… I'm not alone
The problem of the law of conservation of energy still remains.
good week
Sabdarmish Yehuda
Lisrael but Seli!
The hall and the pool!
If your question is how I determined the decrease in the speed of light, the answer is simple
In the first step, I saw on Google that the speed of waves is proportional to the root of the temperature of the space in which they move, so a clear but brave conclusion should be that the speed of light is proportional to the root of the background temperature of the universe and since our universe is getting colder, it is clear that the speed of light will decrease. The laws of gases determine the cooling during expansion, I calculated this with the Hubble constant and got that the speed of light should decrease by about 11 mm per second per year.
Regarding the variation of the gravitational constant G and the weight of bodies, I calculated it according to the gravitational pushing of my simple universe. That is:-
If the universe is expanding then the pushing is small, because there are fewer pushing units per unit volume. The ratio is an inverse ratio to the third power of the linear expansion of the Hubble constant, but in gravitation it is a product of masses, therefore the ratio is inverse to the third power squared, that is, an inverse ratio to the sixth power of the Hubble constant.
I did the math and the weight loss is 0.4 micrograms per year per kilogram. About.
Are the above simple elementary things understood? If you don't come to me in Herzliya, I will explain to you with my own eyes. Guaranteed coffee!
Good week Israel
Sabdarmish Yehuda
Yehuda
The cold countries? Today it's almost 30 degrees in Los Angeles. It's only cold when you see news about the weather in Israel.
So what did you really think? There are about 30 orders of magnitude to be wrong, so how did it work out?
Good week to all science responders
We will answer your mistakes, we will try according to the order of appearance
to Macho
Claim:
Regarding changing the speed of light. When you look at ancient / distant bodies, you can still see that they behave with the same speed of light. Unless, again, you also change the second and the meter... end of quote.
My answer: There was a period right after the big bang when the universe expanded inflationarily and I asked the lecturer - if the speed of light was much greater then could we have given up on the invention of the inflationary universe?, the lecturer thought for a few seconds and answered apparently yes. I don't remember who the lecturer was, but his answer is interesting, or do you still prefer the inflationary period? I prefer not to add to science things that can be done without.
Regarding the experiment I proposed (of course the upgraded version) I think it is an interesting experiment. Let us see first of all if there is a change of phase difference between the beginning of the experiment and the end and then we will decide if and how we will explain it. Even if there is no phase difference, we have determined precisely that there is no change in the speed of light over time. I think this is also an achievement.
Regarding the laser experiment to the moon that you and Nisim just mentioned. I checked the measurement from the point of view of my theory and an interesting thing was obtained that the moving away of the moon is due to two phenomena. The first: the expansion of the universe at the distance to the moon is about 25 mm per year, and the second is about 13 mm resulting from the change in the speed of light by a little more than 38 cm. SS XNUMX mm approximately.
The explanation requires accepting the knowledge that the expansion of the universe also exists within the galaxies.
In this case, there is no fuss left to explain the tides, etc. Just an interesting result
In addition... how are you Nissim, we haven't heard from you in a while. Hope everything is good.
And for your comments:
- About the moon I answered
- The meter?, does need to upgrade its definition
- The formula of relativity is unnecessary at speeds where it is usually hundreds of kilometers per second in galaxies.
-Indeed, the main remaining problem is how to get along with the Energy Conservation Law. After all, if the speed of light is small, does it lose relative energy during the change of speeds??
problem! and food for thought. I have some ideas for a solution, for example:
The big bang will still continue and the expansion of the universe emits energy from the matter into the expanding and cooling space???, etc., but this is currently a conspiracy.
As I said, food for thought, and I would be happy if you also come up with ideas.
good week
Yehuda.
I meant Judah of course 🙂
Israel
And another small point... If the speed of light changes, then the principle of conservation of energy does not hold
(E=mc^2)
Yehuda
In addition - the distance to the moon is measured continuously, and the distance increases according to the slowing down of the earth's rotation (a direct result of tides).
This does not agree with the fact that the speed of light is changing.
In addition - a meter is defined according to the speed of light... Are you claiming this definition is wrong?
Yehuda
Dark matter is not an attempt to fit the results to Newton's formula. We have known for 100 years that Newton's formula is an approximation.
Maybe it's worth moving on to Einstein's formula? Einstein's formula has been tested for ranges of tens of millions of light years.
What do you say about that?
Yehuda
Dark matter is not an attempt to fit the results to Newton's formula. We have known for 100 years that Newton's formula is an approximation.
Maybe it's worth moving on to Einstein's formula? Einstein's formula has been tested for ranges of tens of millions of light years.
What do you say about that?
Yehuda-
I have no misunderstandings about the experiment you described (of course in the corrected version, when only one of the rays travels a large distance before interference. And when the measurement is of changing the phase difference. I am quite convinced that this must have been one of the main purposes for which the facility was built.
There are also echolent experiments with laser reflection from the moon, which have not yet measured any change.
By the way, what is your prediction / interpretation of the change (assuming such a measure is made, of course)? Has the speed changed? Maybe time has changed? or the distance? Or maybe some combination of the three? Or maybe the wavelength of the photons has changed?
Each of these changes leads to changes in other constants... and most of them are either inconsistent, or by definition not measurable.
In any case, I believe that the change of G by a factor of 10, between the scales of the distance to the Sun, and the distance to the center of the galaxy, (like the one your solution suggests, if I understood correctly...) should have had indications from here to Andromeda.
The same goes for changing the speed of light. When you look at ancient / distant bodies, you can still see that they behave with the same speed of light. Unless, again, you also change the second and meter...
As a mind game it's nice. But I still wouldn't put the money on this solution.
Yehuda,
Sorry you were offended, but I don't mean to offend. I didn't come to belittle you, but time and time again you showed that you don't understand how an interferometer works, even though I explained it over and over again and that's why I said that you don't seem to understand basic concepts, so it's hard to take your words seriously.
By the way, the radius of the proton is about 0.9 femtometres, which is six orders of magnitude smaller than 1 nanometer, we should see immediately that there is a change in the speed of light.
And as for the heat part, you're right, I didn't calculate it, and it seems to be on the order of magnitude of what you said.
to Macho
Your response regarding non-observance of the Energy Conservation Law is challenging. I think that the law of conservation of energy must be preserved and I will think about the solution to the problem.
But I'm interested, what do you think about the experiment to test the constancy of the speed of light??
And regarding the other disparaging things, see my last response to Ariel.
In any case it was challenging to respond to you.
Sabdarmish Yehuda
to Ariel
How did you not find the accuracy of LIGO??, it's so simple!
I went to our friend Google, and he revealed to me the secret about the possible accuracy of LIGO:=
Most sensitive: At its most sensitive state, LIGO will be able to detect a change in distance between its mirrors 1/10,000th the width of a proton! This is equivalent to measuring the distance to the nearest star (some 4.2 light years away) to an accuracy smaller than the width of a human hair.
.
Did I exaggerate in stating about a nanometer?? It seems to me that it is much more accurate.
And did you search at all? Or did you just disrespect me and set me up to prove that I'm not lying? So please apologize.
But maybe we have reached the not fun stage in the responses where everyone tries to show how smart they are and how much Yehuda is not, and he needs to learn.
If this is the case, maybe it really is time to say goodbye?
Ariel has no place for an insulting assertion that I do not understand basic topics in physics. So what are you responding to me at all?, save your time and don't make an effort!
And about the radioactive explanation and the heat generated.
Do you think what is the heat generated by 0.4 micrograms of mass per year. It seems to me that it will be enough for you to have a cup of coffee every day
It was fun to respond to you Ariel
Sabdarmish Yehuda
Yehuda,
I wrote the first comment before I saw the suggestion of your experiment, and anyway, it looks like you need a refresher on how things work. Read how interferometry in general works, think carefully about why your experiment will not work in any way (the hint of the speed of the rays in relation to each other will remain the same) and come back to me with a new experiment.
Yehuda,
I'm sorry but you don't seem to understand basic topics in physics.
Regarding the first part - the rest of my response is relevant even if it is a loss of weight, since the difference is measured *in relation* to other masses, so even if it is a change in G, the weight ratio between the masses would remain the same. Regarding the heat - it is a difference of 50 micrograms between the different models over decades. Again, you seem to have no basic understanding of the issues you are discussing. Radioactive decay exists everywhere in nature (a nice example - a banana) but it does not seem that the heat is "unbearable" (perhaps in the summer in Haifa - speaking from experience), these are relatively negligible amounts on a scale of months but can reach measurable sizes over decades and even hundreds of years (dating carbon)
Here is a nice article from 2013 (not scientific, but provides scientific explanations) in English:
https://www.livescience.com/26017-kilogram-gained-weight.html
It seems that I did not understand the problem originally, but it is an increase in weight as a result of the accumulation of carbon and mercury on the weights. Your theory doesn't seem to work.
Regarding the second part - I have no idea where you get the accuracy of 1 nm, I searched everywhere possible, could you attach a source for the number please? And suppose you can measure changes of 1 nm in the optical path, the optical path for the two rays will be the same and therefore you will not see a change in the phase difference.
Also, I recommend you read up on how interferometry works because you don't seem to understand it that well.
Good place to start:
https://he.wikipedia.org/wiki/%D7%90%D7%99%D7%A0%D7%98%D7%A8%D7%A4%D7%A8%D7%95%D7%9E%D7%98%D7%A8%D7%99%D7%94
- Ok, I think I got the general idea -
This is indeed a refreshing and brave approach to formulating a new physics:
, there are no absolute constants, everything changes, and we can add more free variables as we wish. And don't try to download constants, to maybe find a more general explanation/theory.
-I understand that we also threw the conservation of energy out the window,
Because if c changes, and the mass m does not change,
So we all lose energy?
I'm afraid that the entry (see below) on Wikipedia regarding changes of physical constants is outdated, and requires writing, because it contradicts all your claims, like all the sane publications I've come across...
Contrary to what you mentioned, all the results of experiments that tested changes in c and g only yielded narrower barriers around lack of change. Or do you have any secret sources?
- There are constraints that must be met with every change of each of the physical constants, if you want a consistent result (calibration theory) I understand that you have new and exciting insights on the matter, which were not discovered by physicists from the field. ? Well, it is known that all scientists lack courage. No one would dare to publish or read something that sounds too innovative, or are they simply not up to date? Otherwise, it's really not clear how the world of science is no longer like a storm, due to these sensational discoveries? How do you explain that?
To Ariel, Israel and others
Below are explanations of an experiment I just invented. We will humbly call him:-
"Mikaelson-Morley-Sabdermisch experiment" to test the variation of the speed of light.
The experiment will be done at the LIGO facility.
Experiment details:
In the LIGO facility, we will send the laser beam only along one arm along a path of about a thousand kilometers and in the other arm for a minimal distance of only a few meters, and we will check the phase difference created as a result of the difference in the optical paths, let's say it is X.
Now we will run the experiment for about an hour.
The result:
If the speed of light is constant during the entire experiment then there will be no change in the phase difference X between the beginning and the end of the experiment,
but,
If a phase difference appears between the beginning and the end of the experiment, .... The conclusion is one:-
The speed of light has changed.
What do you think my friends of the consiliars (Don Corleone's advisers)?
Is there a chance for an experiment???
Sabdarmish Yehuda
Hello to Ariel
Let's be precise:- First of all, it is not about losing mass, God forbid, but only about losing weight. point. After all, this is the conclusion we must accept in the case of a decrease in the magnitude of the gravitational constant G!!!
That's why your entire response regarding mass loss (God forbid) is irrelevant.
Besides, if the explanation was mass loss from relativistic decay, the heat would have been unbearable. thought so.
And regarding LIGO, I understand very well how it works and the way of thinking of Michelson-Morlay in their experiment, but I am referring to LIGO's publications. They claim that their measurement error is 1 nanometer, so if I try to measure a change of six or eight nanometers per hour I might be able to track a possible decrease in the speed of light. But, it may or may not be possible. You have to find out about this in LIGO itself.
In any case, I will try to upgrade the experiment. I have an idea..., maybe.
I will now turn to the response of my friend Israel about Schwartzchild and his radius.
Yehuda
Peace and blessings to my dear friend Israel Shapira!
What will we hear in the cold countries?
To your voice, because it is the evening of my soul's bride
In the winter you leave Atari.
I was indeed happy to receive your encouraging response emerging and growing from the dark matter.
Don't be angry my friend, in my many sins I don't really understand her but...
I will just finish my debt to our friend Ariel and get back to you and your response
I will lift my waist and head, with love!
Ariel, I'm coming (in an hour, two hours)
Yehuda
Yoda brother Salno.
"Here are two predictions in numbers:
The size of the gravitational constant G has been measured and it is approximately 6.67 times ten minus 11 meters divided by one third (second squared times kg) and it loses 40 trillions of its value per year.
And by the way, the gravitational constant G has been measured thousands of times, but its accuracy varies from measurement to measurement.
The speed of light is exactly 299,792,458 meters per second and it loses about 1.1 cm per second every year.'
I don't know how you calculated, but if we take the Schwarzschild radius for the radius of a black hole:
2GM=Rc^2
And we assume that the radius and mass of the black hole do not change, so...
You hit not bad at all!
Sakhtein, Mabrok, Tafdel..
What did you really think?
to Ariel
I'm on my way to bed. We will think about your response tomorrow.
Good night
Yehuda
Yehuda,
I will comment on what you wrote to macho - the assumptions regarding the 'loss' of the mass of the (former) standard kg are in relation to other units. According to what you claim, the change was supposed to be uniform and therefore a change in mass should not be measured, but in practice a change in mass was measured in relation to other masses, most likely as a result of radioactive decay of some kind, or improper maintenance of the weights (for example, washing with too strong a current, etc.).
Regarding the answer to my question, either you do not understand how LIGO works (and in particular how the MM interferometer works) or I did not understand you, if the first is correct, it does not matter what the speed of light is, what you are measuring is the phase difference created as a result of the difference in the optical paths, and therefore Even with variable speed you will not see any difference because the phase difference will remain the same during the entire experiment. Try again.
to Ariel
Suggestion for an experiment: a possible decrease in the speed of light and its measurement with the help of the LIGO facility
The LIGO facility is built in the style of the Michelson Morley interferometer. Its arms are about four kilometers long and the laser beam is able to move within it with repetitions about fifty times, therefore about 200 kilometers.
Assuming that the speed of light will decrease, the device will measure as if a change in length between the beginning of the experiment, and the end after several hours. The device is able to measure with an error margin of 1 nanometer.
Example:
Suppose we measure a change of 8 nanometers for 10 hours along a 200 km path in the LIGO facility
Find the decrease in the speed of light per year:
Answer:
8 nanometers for ten hours are like 7012.8 nanometers per year for 200 km and are like 0.0105 meters per 300,000,000 meters (light second) per year,
That is: the decrease in the speed of light per year is the size of:
0.0105 m / s
Today the laser beam in the LIGO facility moves to a distance of 1600 km and not only to a distance of 200 km, therefore the experiment can only last about an hour
to Macho
The gravitation constant G has an exact size that unfortunately we only know approximately.
I see no reason to deny my claim that:-
G changes in trillions per year.
Not only is this a legitimate claim but this change can even be measured!
G changes over time, meaning - the weight of bodies changes!
All you have to do is search Google for the article "when the kilogram loses its weight" and try to explain how the standard kilogram units scattered in different parts of the world lose their weight even though they are maintained.
And as for the constant changes, we are in a changing world, the background temperature changes all the time,
Change is the only constant in our world.
Where did you see that the final conclusion from my theory is that the gravitation formula is at all relevant in galaxies??, please don't put words in my mouth!, surely changing the gravitation formula will not give the solution both in the solar system and in the galaxies, and a more drastic change needs to be made!, you need to be brave and check if gravity Significant at all at these distances of the galaxies, one of the 22 possibilities claims that there is no need for gravitation in the movement of the galaxies, and their movement works for another reason.
(Then you don't even need to invent dark energy)!
So let's go and throw away all the text about your/my conclusions about gravitation in the solar system
And I still haven't explained anything about the galaxy tails?, right, because I haven't said what my solution is instead of gravitation for large distances.
You only need to check one thing:
Is the approach of checking all the possibilities for a solution and sifting from them the right solution a correct approach that will bring us to the right solution?, because if you only think about gravitation and dark matter and argy is mandatory??
So I failed.
Yehuda
To Ariel and Meko
I accept the challenge and answer. There is an option to experiment
Yehuda
Yehuda,
To challenge you a bit, what experiment do you propose to measure the change in the speed of light over time?
Some reading material, for fans of conspiracy theories.
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Time-variation_of_fundamental_constants
Also, to claim that a quantity measured with precision of ~(ppm 10-6) varies by a trillion (10-18) is a rather problematic and pointless claim.
But back to the main theory you are trying to promote, if I understood correctly, there are no constants in time and space at all (everything changes, doesn't it? G, c, h .. it's really more convenient when there are no constants, let's throw them out the window..)
But more than that, your theory also requires that the gravitational force measured over small distances (~solar system) be ~10 times stronger at galactic distances?
This means that the force also does not behave in the 2nd power in relation to the distance.. Well, who said that 2 is a necessary constant? We'll throw it in the trash too.
After all this, you still haven't explained anything about the distribution of velocities in the tails of the galaxy, which depend on the density distribution of the material, and not necessarily on its mass, or the constant G.
to Macho
Below are two predictions in numbers:
The size of the gravitational constant G has been measured and it is approximately 6.67 times ten minus 11 meters divided by one third (second squared times kg) and it loses 40 trillions of its value per year.
And by the way, the gravitational constant G has been measured thousands of times, but its accuracy varies from measurement to measurement.
The speed of light is exactly 299,792,458 meters per second and it loses about 1.1 cm per second every year.
The above two "prophecies" can be measured and if you want I will tell you how to do it.
If you want, I have a few more predictions.
Good night
Yehuda
Yehuda
Ariel's comment is correct. I get even worse. Your knowledge is loose. The question that arises is one. when will you grow up
everything is fine and dandy,
just to remind you -
The gravitational constant G (the cosmological and G!) is one of the constants that have been thoroughly tested (measured) thousands of times, and over dozens of different orders of magnitude of mass, distance, time, speed, and so on.
to Macho
Regarding your response from 22.1 at 12:26
And regarding predictions of the theory there are such, and there are many:
- The speed of light changes relative to time,
- Friction in movement in the "rake" space,
- universe expansion is accelerating,
– variable gravitational constant, and more and more
And regarding the publication of the theory in the scriptures, my English is minus elementary.
If someone from the academy is willing to review my article, correct the necessary correction, take care of its translation into English, I would be happy to cooperate with him in publishing it.
First come first served!
Are there any brave left in the academy?
Please respond gently
Sabdarmish Yehuda
to Macho
We will do this in an orderly manner and access your first response, from January 21.1.2020, 20, from 20:XNUMX:-
You said that the dark matter also causes gravitational repulsion, therefore it is impossible to eliminate it just like that without worrying about repulsion. My answer is that during the verification phase of the 22 possibilities for a solution we will have to throw out all the solutions that will not give us the freshness. On the other hand, a gravitation formula that will give us an exact acceleration using ten times the mass M, will give us exactly the same acceleration using ten times the gravitational constant G. Check it out.
Of course, the beautiful pictures that NASA publishes about gravitational dusting will also adapt to the dusting that will result from increasing G.
And I'm not trying to look for only such a solution that would justify only impermanence in addition to gravitation, but I would also like to have a solution that would give us the accelerated expansion of the universe without dark energy for example?, maybe one of the other 22 options does this??
I never said that the other scientists are liars, God forbid, or that there is a conspiracy of any kind... but you have to be precise, for example, in what Newton said, and when he said that his formula was true all over the world, this world was very tiny. The solar system alone up to the planet Saturn is about ten astronomical units less than a thousand light years, not complete light years and even billions of light years we are talking about!
So Newton was very right but his universe was small and without rotating and distant galaxies and the comets were... perhaps astronomical phenomena.
This of course does not make Newton a liar or that he and Einstein were "wrong" or that there was a conspiracy against me" and only I see the light, etc., etc., some proportions please!
I'll rest a bit and move on to your second comment. It is more challenging…
Please respond gently
Sabdarmish Yehuda
to Macho
Your responses are interesting and challenging.
I will delve into them and respond to you.
Yehuda
Some elementary elements in the world of science for adults-
-Scientific publications.
If you are so convinced that you have something new for the world, why don't you share it with the rest of the world besides us?
Publishing allows other people to understand and also provide critique of your ideas. peer review,
Even if your theory is correct, I am skeptical that you have tested it with the same level of thoroughness as a collection of thousands of other scientists.
If you don't create a critical mass of people who think like you, then the theory will disappear into the vacuum. my condolences
- ability to predict -
If your "theory" is correct and relevant, it should provide a prediction, including an experiment that will make it possible to check whether it has an advantage in prediction compared to other theories.
I have a theory of everything, which says that the universe is inside a black hole with 17 dimensions, and another 13 folded dimensions, and 75 elementary particles, but I have no idea of an experiment that can prove it, and I don't have the time and courage to publish it.
-
to Ariel and others
What is amazing is that the whole dark matter thing is very basic :-
What is more important the formula or the measurements,
Why not check all the possibilities for good and bad and sift out the bad?.
I found 22 and others may come up with more, but this is a finite number of possibilities, a number that is by no means large.
And it does not require high mathematics or physics, everything is at the level of elementary algebra.
And as for the question of why others didn't discover it, it's really simple, after eighty years since the days of Fritz Tzviki and Vera Rubin, someone from academia needs to stand up, brave, (such as Professor Milgrom, for example, who came out with an innovative approach at the time, of correcting Newton's second law instead of an idea the dark matter, but I believe there are other brave ones as well.)
I am retired, but if someone from the academy would like, I would be happy to give a fun lecture on this topic.
And if someone wants to laugh and belittle?, shame on him, I'm not angry, it's just science.
Maximum I'll be wasted... not bad!
Sabdarmish Yehuda
Mecho don't bother, I tried to explain this to Yehuda a year ago but nothing came through. He is convinced that everyone is against him.
Yehuda please, your knowledge of physics is limited to introductory courses. Not beyond that. Not that your opinion isn't important or that you can't have insights on the subject, but consider that tens of thousands of physicists study the subject and the consensus is that the dark matter model is the best explanation available. Do you doubt the model? Point out specific points that do not agree with the measurements and see why the model is not good.
Dark matter may not exist. We haven't found a dark matter particle yet. But such articles show us what we are looking for - fast or slow particles, what is their charge, what is the mass, etc.
During the time of Boltzmann, one of the fathers of statistical mechanics, the existence of atoms was questioned by many physicists, but the model explained interesting results, for example Brownian motion. In the end, the evidence for the existence of atoms convinced the scientific community, even though the first observations of the nucleus did not arrive until 1909.
Regarding your point about the Nobel Prizes - it is rare for a theoretical work to win a Nobel Prize before its predictions come true - that is not the point of the Nobel Prize. Einstein won the Nobel Prize for his work on the photoelectric effect even though it was not the main part of his work.
Before the discussion here plunges to the freezing level,
The most significant indication of the "dark matter" is the distribution of rotation speeds at different distances from the center of the galaxy. It has nothing to do with M22 and the missing constant, nor even with the theory of relativity. It is enough that you believe in Newton.
The second piece of evidence is related to the observed gravitational contraction due to dark matter. Heavy soiling is something that has photos taken of it. And there are also other testimonies.
Of course, it can always be argued that Einstein and/or Newton were wrong,
Either the ignorant scientists all made a conspiracy, to mislead the public, or they are just fixated, and you are the only one who saw the light, yes, like Einstein. good luck with that.
In my opinion, the dark matter refers to all the properties, weather, oxygen, other substances in the air and space in the dark areas, which altogether makes up this visible result.
At 15:28, from the depths of the dark matter, my response arrived whose sender details I forgot to fill in, but you will all know with confidence that this is my response and you can also compare it 17:28.... Similar but not the same.
For your judgment
Please respond gently
Sabdarmish Yehuda
to me. Porat
Have you heard of the "Columbus Egg"?
to "just fucked"
(corresponds to the original)
At first I thought of ignoring your comment, but after seeing the ending "and there is no waste" I realized that I am dealing with a commenter who is not from Emkita beer but from the top of the top and therefore it is appropriate that we respond and not be humiliated.
And to our eyes, it is clear that there is no great wisdom in canceling the splendor of creation "the dark matter" that came to strengthen the term M in the gravitation formula without checking other dark things and other alternatives. M in the denominator, so what do you think about a "dark gravitational constant" for large distances? And, in general, every term in the formula can be "darkened" and here we already have five possible solutions that are worth checking.
I came up with 22 solutions and you will surely be happy that another dimension of yours is one of the possible solutions on my site.
You surely understand that most of the solutions will fail in the process of testing them and your solution failed not because it is not true but because it is unscientific according to Popper who claims:- An idea is scientific if it can be exposed to refutation.
If you would like to see all 22 possibilities you can see it in the simple universe of Sabdarmish Yehuda
I hope I have reproduced to the best of my ability and would be happy to confront your responses, but
Please respond gently
Sabdarmish Yehuda
to "just screwed" and others.
I responded to you with a really beautiful response, but unfortunately I forgot to fill in the name, email and website sections, and therefore my beautiful response, faded into the space of the other dimensions, and became as invisible as the dark matter. But I will save my waist and restore it again so that everyone can see that even dark things can come back to life from another dimension for the glory of the State of Israel, the scientist
Please wait gently
Sabdarmish Yehuda
Yehuda,
Oh God, and to think how come none of the thousands of astrophysicists and cosmologists who dedicate decades of their lives to the profession has not surpassed it! Genius of the generation!
(By the way, the Nobel Prize will only be awarded if they finally manage to find the dark matter. According to the Higgs particle)
to "just fucked"
The ending of your response is the word (Aramaic?) "Bilatha"
This led me to the conclusion that you are absolutely far from being screwed up and it is challenging to answer your response.
It is not wise to dismiss the gravitation formula without an answer. I analyzed it and discovered 22 possibilities to solve it, for example, why choose only the letter M in the gravitation formula and change it with dark matter?, how about changing the letter G with a dark gravitational constant, and in general, every letter in the formula can be "shadowed" for good or bad, etc., etc. .
The last of the 22 options I analyzed are another dimension and another universe (an idea I heard from Professor Milgrom).
Although your and Milgrom's ideas are good and provide a solution, I do not accept them because they are simply unscientific according to Popper who stated:-
An idea is scientific if it can be put to the test. point.
Therefore, your idea about another dimension is noteworthy, but not in our universe (:))
So please don't get angry.
About all the other options and what I preferred, absolutely not dark, you can check on the websites of simple universe Sabdarmish Yehuda
Please respond gently
Sabdarmish Yehuda
In my opinion, dark matter is giant black holes that are far beyond our ability to observe them.
and scattered around the known universe
They exert a gravitational force on the galaxies in the visible universe.
That's why the galaxies are constantly accelerating and moving away from each other
Dear Sabdarmish
(as gentle as I can)
You are right in assuming that the entire article is based on assumptions (quite scandalous)
Regarding the existence of dark matter, I assume 🙂 that you are wrong
In my (scandalous) opinion, dark matter exists but we have no access to it (not when we live in XNUMXD and use the tools we find in XNUMXD in order to "touch" multidimension)
This is my poor opinion and it is not wasted
Once an apple fell on the head of someone named Newton in his garden, and for some reason since then everyone thinks that this is how the galaxies are supposed to move and rotate. you are welcome! , little proportion:-
At large distances, when the gravitation measurements are different from what is obtained from the gravitation formula, the formula should be thrown away for large distances, and the measurements should not be changed! This is a fundamental rule in any formula!
Always the measurements are sacred and the formula is temporary!
And in gravity, they do it in a poor way with dark "illusory" matter, and when it's not enough, then they add dark energy, and when it's not enough, they cool them and heat them as much as is necessary and it helps like drinking glasses for the dead.
Dark matter and energy are the biggest scientific mistake of the XNUMXth century!
I wonder how long they will drag them out.
Studies that establish something about dark matter "the splendor of nature's creation" have never won a Nobel Prize and believe me, there in the Nobel Prize committee they know that its entire existence is based on nonsense.
That's my opinion,
Please respond gently
Sabdarmish Yehuda
WOW