What did Asimov foresee in 1964 that would be established in the Negev in 2014?

781 תגובות

1. { ” And this is only because there are 'climate skeptics' sitting in the Electricity Authority.
   If there were visionary people there, they would make sure to generate all the necessary energy
   to the State of Israel in solar farms or rather thermosolar farms in the Negev" } ...

   Really ???

2. All the apocalypses you mentioned, with the possible exception of Bug 2000, were delusional and not based on anything in reality, not even a shred. There is no problem inventing apocalypses from the stomach and then being proud that they didn't happen.
   Global warming, on the other hand, is proven. It is not a one-day apocalypse, but eventually, the change may be accelerated.

3. And also on the topics of apocalypses, the environmental disasters that were wished for us - all the futurist prophets and the contracts and the prophets of blackness, they all missed big,
   Not the 2000 bug, not the Aztec calendar, not the prophecies of Nostradamus, nothing happened in 1984, not "on the beach" and not the wars of the worlds, not atomic or biological apocalypses, not an alien invasion, not asteroids...

4. No future predicted the personal computer, no future predicted the Internet, no future predicted the smartphone, not the flat screen TV, nor the other way around that the car will still run on gasoline and rubber tires for 200 years.
   And so probably no futurist will predict what will happen to us in 10 20 30 years.
   Obviously, technology will not replace man as it has not replaced him until today, even the paperless revolution was not so successful, paper has not disappeared from the world and will probably be used by us for many years to come.

5. Asimov was not wrong, in recent times the Ashlim complex in the Negev has been developed which will provide quite a bit of solar energy.

6. Miracles

   Indeed, that was your explanation, and the only one next in mind. But you also did not answer the question raised by this explanation:

   This explanation seemingly leads to another paradox: what would happen if shortly after reaching a constant cruising speed (according to the clock of each spaceship), the spaceships would turn and accelerate in the opposite direction? On the one hand, they continue to accelerate, therefore the distance between them should continue to grow as if they accelerated in the original direction. On the other hand, in the planetary system they have almost returned to the starting point, and are at 0 speed relative to the planets, that is, they have returned to a distance of 10 light years and are at rest relative to each other.

   So maybe you can explain what's going on here?

   Good night.

7. Israel Shapira
   I like Prof. Granot's explanation. This is also what I thought, that the distance between the spaceships (in one of the axis systems) is 100 light years. If you now reverse the accelerations, you are in the same situation, that is, the distance from spacecraft A to B is different from the distance from spacecraft B to A.

8. ב

   You have gone through every possible explanation. As you may have seen, each explanation leads to a different paradox:

   Explanation 1: The scenario - i.e. that the spaceships accelerate so fast - is not physically possible.

   This is the explanation of Ofer Maged.

   Problem 1: Muons accelerate in a short period of time to speeds similar to those in my example. Therefore, not only is it possible, it also exists in nature.

   Problem 2: There is no need for such high acceleration. Even at much lower accelerations, the same paradox will be obtained, but it is more tangible when spacecraft B hardly moves from its position.

   Explanation 2: The distance between the spaceships remains 10 light years.

   This is Prof. Moshe's explanation.

   Problem: If spaceship B, after starting to accelerate for the second time, will reach A after one year according to the season and 10 according to the Earth's time, which is also its season.

   Explanation 3: The problem is symmetrical: the earth is moving towards spacecraft A just as spacecraft A is moving towards the earth and at the same speed.

   This is Prof. Meir's explanation.

   Problem: If the problem is indeed symmetric, then the earth will reach spacecraft A at the same time according to the season that spacecraft A will reach it. But if so, there is no twin paradox at all.

   Explanation 4: The distance between the spaceships is shortened to one light year (your last explanation, and Ofer's as well).

   Problem: As in explanation 2, only more extreme. Spacecraft B will arrive at A in a month + according to a season, and 10 years according to the local time, which is also a season.

   Explanation 5: The distance between the spaceships extends to 100 light years (section 12 in my case).

   This is Prof. Granot's explanation.

   This explanation seemingly leads to another paradox: what would happen if the spacecrafts turned and accelerated in the opposite direction? On the one hand, they continue to accelerate, therefore the distance between them should continue to grow as if they accelerated in the original direction. On the other hand, in the planetary system they have almost returned to the starting point, and are at 0 speed relative to the planets, i.e. they have returned to a distance of 10 light years and are at rest relative to each other.

   Strange as it sounds, this is the explanation that appears in the Bell Paradox to which Nissim referred. Unfortunately, there is no further explanation except for the "relativity of the moment". Professor Granot did not explain why the distance increases to 100 light years despite my request.

   I think the paradox is still not resolved. Hopefully in the next few weeks I will have the blog with the illustrations that explain it.

9. Israel:
   There is a hidden assumption here:
   Two identical spacecraft use the same engine power. The result is that they accelerate while maintaining the distance between them.
   It seems to me that there is no choice but to abandon this assumption and move to the following assumption:
   Two identical spacecraft use the same engine power. The result is that they accelerate. But the distance between them is getting shorter
   Because they gain speed relative to the system they came from.
   Assuming this:
   The distance between them at the end of the acceleration will be one light year.
   But in my opinion this still does not solve the paradox.
   In particular:
   There is a question whether the magnitude of the acceleration alone is decisive or whether the direction of the acceleration plays a role.
   The spacecraft that left Earth accelerated twice:
   For the first time its clock rate decreased relative to Earth's clock rate.
   Whereas:
   The second time her clock rate increased relative to the earth's clock rate.
   incidentally:
   I have no explanations. Just wondering and trying to understand.

10. "But what happened to the spacecraft clocks during the acceleration?"

    Maybe you can tell us?

    "And is it possible for the distance between the spaceships to increase so quickly? After all, this is a speed that is much greater than the speed of light.
    In other words, your description is physically impossible."

    Of course not. Because you are the one who determined that the distance increased to 100 light years. So let's say exactly what is physically impossible.

11. Israel:
    As for the distances, it seems true.
    Regarding the watches:
    In the system that the spacecraft reached at the end of the acceleration, a few fractions of a second did pass.
    But what happened to the spacecraft clocks during the acceleration?
    And is it possible for the distance between the spaceships to increase so quickly? After all, this is a speed that is much greater than the speed of light.
    That is, your description is physically impossible.

12. Ok. So let's see what we got:

    1. In the spacecraft system, they are 100 light years apart.

    2. Each spacecraft by itself is at rest.

    3. There is no relative movement between them.

    4. Time each spaceship separately on the clock - 0 + a few fractions of a second.

    than?

13. In the description of Israel:
    In the reference system of the stars:
    Two spaceships accelerate equally.
    1) If they accelerate equally then the distance between them is maintained.
    but:
    2) Because of the speed, the distance between them is shortened.

    There is a contradiction here.

14. B,
    "If we ignore the question of whether your description is within the range of what is physically possible and refer to the time after the acceleration:"

    Could you please write which section(s) in the description of Israel is physically impossible? Because there is one, it is clear why there is a paradox...

15. Israel:
    If we ignore the question of whether your description is within the scope of the physically possible and refer to the time after the acceleration:
    a) The spacecraft are in a common inertial system.
    b) The stars are in a common inertial system.
    c) There is a (steady) movement between the star system and the spacecraft system.
    Under these conditions:
    In the star system, a distance of ten light years is measured between the spaceships.
    If so:
    In the self-system of the spacecrafts, a distance of one hundred light-years is measured between the spacecrafts.

16. In Hebrew.

    Just say what is the distance between the spaceships after they have finished accelerating, are they at rest relative to each other, and if not, is the distance between them increasing or decreasing.

    Just that please. You can't change a story all the time.

17. Israel:
    If you refer to steps 4,5 without referring to the previous steps, you will not be able to know the distance between the spaceships.
    If you refer to the previous stages, you will not be able to ignore the acceleration.
    If you consider the acceleration, you cannot ignore that the acceleration is the same in relation to the star system.
    If the acceleration is the same relative to the star system then the distance between the spacecraft is maintained in the star system.
    If the distance is conserved in the star system then it must increase in the spacecraft system.
    If the distance increases in the spacecraft system then they move relative to each other.
    If they move relative to each other then there is no common inertial frame of reference for both.
    In conclusion:
    You cannot assume that there is a large acceleration and still continue to use the terms of inertial systems.

18. In steps 4 and 5 the star system is not mentioned, only the spaceships.

    What is the distance in the spacecraft system only?

19. The intention is to:
    If
    In the reference system of the stars, a distance of one light year is measured between the two spacecraft
    Then
    In a reference system where the spacecraft are not in motion (the self system) a distance of ten light years is measured between them.
    That is :
    If light moves from one spaceship to another, its travel time will be measured as one year in the self-system of the stars and ten years in the self-system of the spaceships.

20. So what is meant by the statement that the distance in the self-reference system has increased 10 times? Wouldn't it take light 10 times as long to travel the distance between the spacecraft (in our case: 100 years instead of 10)?

    !!!!!!

21. In the self-reference system, nothing gets longer or shorter!

22. Let's really say that the passengers are also getting shorter or longer, but since the spaceship has changed in the same way they can't feel the difference as you claim.

    But what they can do is measure how long it takes a ray of light to make a round trip.

    If the length of the spacecraft is a light second when it is at rest, the answer is 2 seconds.

    If it was extended or shortened 10 times, then the duration of the trip will also change accordingly.

    Kind of weird, isn't it? You are in the same spaceship at rest and suddenly the rays in it take more time to travel? Relative to what exactly is she moving?

23. Israel,
    If there is a reduction, why shouldn't the reduction also apply to the people who bought a ticket to the space shuttle? They will not feel any change because their speed relative to the spacecraft is zero.

24. Ugh, b, so what's the solution? At what stage was the mistake? Do you get 4 and 5 or not? If not - then does the distance between the spaceships increase or decrease?

    Try to say something unambiguous for a change.

25. Israel:
    If the spaceships move in an inertial system then of course in their own system the distances are preserved.
    Regarding spaceships that accelerate at the intensity you describe:
    ?

26. b, per(e)dox, paradox.

    Ions, relatively heavy particles, accelerate in a very short time to such a high speed that the gamma factor is equal to 5.

    So what would stop us spaceships from doing this?

    And if the distance between them is not maintained as you said - then does it increase or decrease?

    If it changes - then the distance between the ends of each individual spaceship also changes in its reference system, and the spaceship will tear or compress, won't it?

    What will happen to the poor passengers, will they be able to see the ends of their suddenly elongated hands? Or scratch their noses with their short hands?

    Not to mention that the change is only in the direction of movement, and if the spaceship is in the shape of a Boeing 777, it will only extend from the tail to the nose and not the wings, so it can suddenly disappear from the radar without leaving a trace and land on an isolated island and then collect its long tail to it without anyone on the ground He knew where she had gone.

    On second thought, that could explain a lot of things.

27. Israel:
    Your paradox is no different from any other paradox.
    You make an impossible assumption and therefore the result is impossible.
    Your impossible assumption is that two spaceships can accelerate from zero and maintain the distance between them.
    This is a wrong assumption.
    This assumption is not even remotely true.
    When the identical acceleration of the spaceships is so great, their mutual speed is also huge, so your description according to which two spaceships accelerate equally is not possible in reality.

28. Let's finish one paradox first.

    So you see the paradox of the paradox in the case I brought?

29. Israel regarding everyone's reactions. . . It seems that the computer surpasses you, luckily you are not in the endless debate about evolution, because the responses of the robots would still claim that they evolved on their own without you. Sincerely

30. Israel:
    What about the contradiction?
    1) If they accelerate equally then the distance between them is maintained.
    2) If they accelerate equally then the distance between them shortens.

    conclusion:
    If
    Both spaceships have reached a state where they are in the same steady motion relative to the stars
    Then
    The two spacecraft did not accelerate in the same way relative to the star system.

    Therefore, these are two completely different situations:
    1) Spaceships accelerate with equal acceleration and reach the same steady motion after acceleration.
    This is an impossible situation.
    2) Spaceships are in constant motion. Nothing is known about the history of their acceleration.
    This is a possible situation.

31. It's a bit strange that the responses of all the impersonators appear, and precisely mine are always moderated.

32. shortening? even better!

    If it gets shorter, i.e. it will be less than 10 light years, then when spaceship B accelerates towards A it will take less than a year to reach it.

    And this while in the Haaretz system it takes 10 years.

33. Israel:
    1) If they accelerate equally then they keep a constant distance between them.
    but
    2) If they accelerate then they gain speed and therefore the distance between them shortens.

    There is an internal contradiction here.
    The two things cannot coexist.

34. The original section 3:

    3. As soon as spaceship A leaves the planet, spaceship B leaves the earth in the opposite direction from the planet and accelerates to the same extent until it reaches the same velocity V of spaceship A.

    I don't understand why it needs to be fixed. There is no problem with it.

35. Israel:
    Amendment to section 3:
    In the reference system of the stars:
    As soon as spacecraft A leaves the planet, spacecraft B leaves the earth in the opposite direction from the planet and accelerates to the same extent so that it is constantly at the same speed as spacecraft A.
    After correcting this sentence you can immediately see that there is a contradiction here:
    Both spacecraft accelerate equally.
    At every moment their speed relative to the star system is the same.
    The distance between them cannot increase or decrease.
    Nevertheless :
    In the star system the distance between the spaceships gets smaller as their speed increases.

36. Second:
    Before 7 there are 4 and 5. did you get them

    Just this please.

37. Israel:
    There are two options:
    1)
    A) Inertial reference system where two stars are at a fixed distance of ten light years from each other.
    b) An inertial frame of reference in which two spaceships are at a fixed distance of ten light years from each other.
    The two systems pass each other at a constant speed.
    2)
    A) Inertial reference system where two stars are at a fixed distance of ten light years from each other.
    b) A reference system of two spaceships that first accelerates and then becomes inertial.

    It is not clear what happens in the acceleration process and if it is even possible as you describe it.
    What is clear is that if we do not treat the acceleration process we will get a contradiction.
    So let's specify:
    1) in the star system:
    Both spacecraft accelerate equally. And this means that the distance between them is maintained from the beginning of the acceleration to the end of the acceleration.
    This means that in the constellation the distance is measured before the acceleration and you get ten light years and also after the acceleration you get ten light years.
    There is an internal contradiction here because a distance of ten light years should shorten as a result of the speed and become one light year.
    hearing:
    The acceleration process as you described it is impossible.

38. ב

    Before 7 there are 4 and 5. did you get them

    Good night.

39. Israel:
    Your error is in section 7.
    There is no symmetry.
    To see this well let's examine a symmetric situation.
    In the symmetrical state there is no acceleration:
    1)
    Star A is ten light years away from Star B. (This is only true in the rest system of the stars).
    Spacecraft A passes by star A.
    Spacecraft B passes by star B.
    If it happens at the same time (simultaneously) according to the rest system clock of the stars
    So it doesn't happen at the same time (not simultaneously) according to the spacecraft's rest system clock.
    2)
    Spacecraft A is ten light years away from Spacecraft B. (This is true only in the rest system of the spaceships).
    Star A passes by spacecraft A.
    Star B passes by spacecraft B.
    If it happens at the same time (simultaneously) according to the rest system clock of the spacecraft.
    So it doesn't happen at the same time (not simultaneously) according to the rest system clock of the stars.
    3)
    In the resting system of the stars the distance between the stars is ten light years and the distance between the spacecraft is one light year from the beginning of the measurement to the end. (no acceleration).
    In the resting system of the spacecraft the distance between the spacecraft is ten light years and the distance between the stars is one light year from the beginning of the measurement to the end. (no acceleration).

40. You're right snooze, as always. Definitely not a pen.

    How is the treatment progressing? Have we diagnosed the problem yet? How many names have already managed to recognize your split personality?

41. Israel,
    Know?
    http://www.haaretz.co.il/news/science/1.2269829
    Somewhere in the middle there is a reference to the subject of time (past...future)

42. "I'll try one more time"…
    Oh, no Israel, not again

    The correct answer is 13: You have another mistake that you don't want to recognize. Not a pen, and not in a million years when you will be a very, very old pensioner.

43. Dear Mr. Israel, you (again) cannot connect times because the connection is not linear, I no longer follow thousands of examples, but after you understand the principle, you realize that it only works in parallel universes, a good day, an hour, a night

44. I will try one more time.

    "The Twin Paradox Paradox"

    It is said that at a distance of almost 10 light years from the earth there is a planet that is stationary relative to the earth and whose clocks are synchronized with the earth.

    1. At time 0, spaceship A (whose clocks have been reset to planet time) accelerates from the planet towards Earth and in a short time reaches a speed V close to the speed of light so that the gamma factor is slightly greater than 10.

    2. According to the twins' paradox, the spaceship arrives in Israel after 10 years according to local time and after one year according to the spaceship's time.

    3. As soon as spaceship A leaves the planet, spaceship B leaves the earth in the opposite direction from the planet and accelerates to the same extent until it reaches the same velocity V of spaceship A.

    4. Spacecraft A and B now form an inertial system and the relative speed between them is 0.

    5. The distance between them in their reference system cannot exceed 10 light years, I assume. The time on their clocks immediately after reaching constant cruising speed is almost the same as the time of departure of both of their mother planets: 0

    6. Shortly after reaching cruising speed, spaceship B accelerates in the direction of the earth until it reaches 0 speed relative to it.

    7. Because of the symmetry with phase 2, it will meet spacecraft A after a little over a year according to season.

    The problem:

    8. From the point of view of the country, spacecraft B accelerated in a short time and immediately slowed down and stopped. From a practical point of view, if we reduce the acceleration time as we wish, we can say that spaceship B is currently standing not far from the place from which it took off.

    9. From the same consideration, the time shown by Spacecraft B's clock is almost no different from Earth time: 0.

    10. According to the data, Haaretz will meet Spacecraft A after 10 years according to Haaretz's time and a year (or less) according to Spacecraft B's time.

    11. The paradox: it therefore follows that Spacecraft B's clock rotates at least 10 times slower than the Earth's clock which is identical to it and is located next to it.

    12. Unless that is the case, my assumption in step 5 that the distance between the spaceships before S turned around cannot exceed 10 light years is incorrect, and in fact the distance between them is now 100 light years for some unknown reason.

    13. Or I have another mistake that I do not recognize now.

    If you find the error in the paradox, please point to the step where the error occurred.

    Please, no trains that do not appear in it. Just spaceships and stages.

45. Israel:
    Of course the intention was:
    Train No. 3, which does not accelerate, does not violate the laws of physics.
    Train number 2, which accelerates in the system of train number 1, defies the laws of physics.
    If you put spaceship A in the locomotive of train number 2 and spaceship B in its array, then we will return to the example of the spaceships.
    The problem with the paradox is that you gave an example which apparently (I'm still not sure) does not fit the laws of physics.

46. B, did we drink one more time?

    I asked a simple question:

    "How does this solve my paradox?"

    You answer:

    "Spacecraft number 2 defies the laws of physics.

    The reason:
    on train 2:
    On the one hand:
    The locomotive and the collector accelerate to the same acceleration."

    A problem:

    There are no trains in my paradox.

    Please explain - without trains and boats - what is the problem with my paradox.

    Or it's really time to go to sleep.

47. Israel:
    Probably:
    Spacecraft number 3 that is not accelerating does not violate the laws of physics.
    but:
    Spacecraft number 2 defies the laws of physics.
    The reason:
    on train 2:
    On the one hand:
    The locomotive and the accumulator accelerate to the same acceleration.
    On the other hand, the distance between the locomotive and the collector is shortened.
    And this is a contradiction.

48. You outdid yourself in the city of confusion and confusion.

    "This means that in the star system speed is measured between the spaceships." It sure is true (what speed?).

    "This means that when measured in the star system, the spacecraft are not identical to each other in terms of acceleration." (Well, who accelerates faster? A or B?).

    And how does that solve my paradox?

    Good night.

49. Israel:
    If the distance between the spacecraft remains constant in the measurement system of the spacecraft then it cannot remain constant in the measurement system of the stars.
    That is, from the star system they will see the distance between the spaceships getting shorter and shorter.
    This means that in the star system speed is measured between the spaceships.
    This means that when measured in the star system the spacecraft are not identical to each other in acceleration.

50. ב

    "If instead of engine 2 and assembly 2 you put spaceship B and spaceship A then you will get the answer in the paradox of the spaceships".

    I don't understand your physics.

    Can you explain to me what the answer is in my paradox paradox?

    Shmulik

    I received the VFD this week, I need to organize a time to assemble it and see if it increases the motor rotation speed at least 3 times.

51. To Shmulik:
    In the description of the trains:
    We refer to train number 2.
    We say that this train accelerates in the system of train number 1.
    but:
    It is not possible for locomotive 2 and collector 2 to accelerate with the same force and at the same time in the system of train 1.
    And this is because it is clear that the distance between the locomotive and the array shortens during the acceleration from ten light years to one light year.
    That is, the locomotive and the wagon are moving towards each other.
    At most it can be said that the start of the acceleration is at the same intensity and at the same time. But when the speed of train 2 is accumulated in relation to train 1, it is no longer possible to say that locomotive 2 and massif 2 continue to accelerate with the same force and at the same time.
    Since there is already speed between system 1 and system 2, it is not possible to continue the discussion as if in system 2 what happens in locomotive 2 happens at the same time in massif 2.
    Therefore, except for the starting moment, when system 2 is the same as system 1, it is not possible to say that the locomotive and the accumulator accelerate with the same force and at the same time.
    If instead of engine 2 and assembly 2 you put spaceship B and spaceship A then you will get the answer in the paradox of the spaceships.

52. B',
    In the description of the ten-point paradox (as I imagine), in which section do you find a contradiction? I apologize for the question, I just didn't understand how the last example relates to the paradox.

    Israel,
    Have you done any other experiments recently?

53. Israel:
    Suppose there is another station one light year away from the middle station.
    We will call it end station 3.
    Then:
    Train locomotive 3 is at the middle station.
    Train collector 3 is at terminus 3.
    However :
    Train locomotive 2 is at the middle station.
    Train collector 2 is at terminus 2.
    and still :
    Amazingly:
    The length of train 2 is one light year.
    The length of train 3 is also one light year.

54. Israel:
    The difference between train 2 and train 3 is not a difference of one meter.
    There is a difference of nine light years between them!

55. A meter more, a meter less.. What is the problem with synchronizing the trains so that train 2 accelerates until it reaches 0 speed relative to train 3 and parallel to it? Each car and locomotive will be at speed 0 in front of the corresponding car or locomotive in the opposite train. How can you tell them apart?

    Shmulik

    I wish B was right and that was the solution, but it isn't.

    He is right in that if there was symmetry between the systems (Prof. Meir's answer) then we would not get a paradox.

56. 1) For Israel:
    Difference is:
    In the rest system of train 1:
    Regarding train 2:
    Locomotive 2 is a meter from the middle station.
    Collector 2 is located a meter from terminal 2.
    The length of train 2 is one light year.
    Regarding train 3:
    Locomotive 3 is at the middle station.
    Collector 3 is one light year away from the middle station and not at the end station 2.
    The length of train 3 is one light year.
    2) To Shmulik:
    As long as there is symmetry between the two systems, the twin paradox does not exist at all!
    The paradox appears only when clock A moves from point 1 to point 2 which are in the rest system of clock B but are not consumed in the rest system of clock A.
    That is, only in situations where there is no symmetry between clock A and clock B.

57. Israel,
    Did you break B?
    Suppose he is right on this point, is this a solution to paradox^2?
    If I understand correctly, B's attempt to solve the paradox is due to the fact that in your description there are accelerations and somewhere there, the symmetry is broken and the paradox is solved. Is that where B is aiming?

58. Explain to me what is the difference in measurements between train 2 that accelerated to speed V and train 3 that suddenly appeared at the same speed, if in a relative rest system they are the same.

59. Israel:
    If train 2 would arrive at the measurement when it is already at the speed it reaches after the acceleration.
    And no matter how many years (or how long) she is already at this speed.

60. Israel:
    Not true.
    If
    Train 2 would travel for many years at this speed
    Then
    In the measurement system of train 1, such a situation would not be accepted where:
    1) Locomotive 2 is located a meter from the middle station.
    2) Cluster 2 is located a meter from end station 2.
    And yet the length of the train is one light year instead of ten light years which is the distance between the middle station and the end station 2.

61. You would get the same results if train 2 suddenly appeared at the same speed it has been traveling for many years. You can see this clearly if you add another train - 3 - which is traveling at the same speed as train 2 after the acceleration. The measurements will show the same results of train 2, even though 3 did not accelerate during the experiment.

    To the same extent, spacecraft A will travel 10 light years per year even without acceleration. All that is needed is for its speed to be V so that its gamma is 10.

62. Israel:
    You're right.
    But still you ignore what happens during the acceleration.
    Before acceleration:
    Train locomotive 2 is at the middle station.
    Train collector 2 is at terminus 2.
    The distance between the locomotive and the array of train 2 was measured from the rest system of train 1 and was found to be ten light years.
    The distance between the middle station and end station 2 was measured from the rest system of train 1 and found to be ten light years.
    After acceleration:
    In the rest system of train 1 we get the following results:
    Locomotive 2 is one meter away from the middle station. hardly moved).
    Collector 2 is one meter away from end station 2. (hardly moved from its position).
    The distance between Kater 2 and Masaf 2 is one light year.
    The distance from the middle station to the end station 2 is ten light years.
    That is:
    The issue of acceleration cannot be neglected.

63. "There is no rest system that includes both spacecraft."

    There is - and twice.

    1. In the initial stage, when there is no integral part of the planets at rest.

    2. In step 4.

64. Israel:
    1) We talked about a reference system of two stars and a reference system of two spaceships.
    Both stars are not accelerating. They are at rest in their frame of reference. They do not move in relation to each other.
    No, the two spaceships:
    There is no rest system that includes both spacecraft.
    Therefore there is no symmetry between the spacecraft system and the star system.
    In the measurement system of the stars: the stars are the same and the spacecrafts are also the same.
    But there is no measuring system of the spacecrafts where the spacecrafts are the same and the stars are the same.
    2) Suppose two trains ten light years long are facing each other. (Caterer vs. Caterer).
    We will mention three stations:
    a) Middle station. This is the station where the two locomotives are.
    b) Terminus 1 is the station where the collector of train 1 is located.
    c) Tatin Katsav 2 This is the station where the collector of train 2 is located.
    Suppose train 1 is stationary and train 2 is accelerating:
    After a short acceleration the trains move inertially relative to each other.
    Train 1 is measured: Train 2 appears to be one light year long.
    Train 2 is measured: Train 1 appears to be one light year long.
    But the stations are in the rest system of train 1:
    Carriage 1 gauges:
    The distance to terminus 2 remains ten light years. Although train 2 is one light year long.
    Carriage 2 gauges:
    The distance to end station 1 is one light year. The length of train 1 is one light year.
    What's going on here?
    It is impossible to ignore the asymmetry created by the acceleration of one of the trains relative to the rest system of the other train.
    Something happens during acceleration and should be considered.
    And in particular:
    How does it happen that the length of the accelerated train is not the same as the distance between the middle station (where the locomotive is located) and the end station (where the collector is located)?

65. and…?

66. Israel:
    In the spacecraft system:
    Even if the time differences are small, these are still very large accelerations and therefore the two spacecraft cannot remain in the same frame of reference after they start accelerating.
    Each spacecraft accelerates both relative to the Earth and relative to the other spacecraft.
    With the onset of acceleration, three separate reference systems develop:
    1) Earth system.
    2) Spacecraft system a.
    3) spacecraft system b.

67. "But in their own system the time difference between the start of the acceleration of spacecraft A and the start of the acceleration of spacecraft B is now very large"

    Very big for sure. 3 nanometers.

68. Israel:
    Let's divide the acceleration into several segments.
    a) Both spaceships accelerate from zero speed to speed a.
    Both begin to accelerate at the same point in time according to Earth's clock.
    b) Both spaceships are already at speed A relative to the Earth.
    They accelerate from speed A to speed B.
    Both begin to accelerate at the same point in time according to Earth's clock.
    But according to the clock in their own system it is not the same point in time. There is a time difference between the start of acceleration of spacecraft A and the start of acceleration of spacecraft B.
    c) The spacecraft accelerates from speed b to speed c.
    Both start accelerating at the same point in time according to Earth's clock.
    But in their own system the time difference between the start of the acceleration of spacecraft A and the start of the acceleration of spacecraft B is now very large.
    and so on in stages.
    conclusion:
    If their accelerations appear identical to each other from the Earth's measuring system they are not identical in their own measuring system.

69. According to relativity, if the Earth is 10 light-years away from a planet at rest relative to it and its clocks are synchronized with it, and at time 0 on the clocks a spaceship passes over the planet at a speed V so that gamma is equal to 10 and its season shows 0, then the spaceship will arrive in Israel in time 10 years according to local time and a year one per season.

    The point is that you don't need acceleration for this.

70. Israel:
    You are mixing two systems:
    The distance is ten light years in the Earth's rest system.
    The distance is one light year in the spacecraft's rest system.
    This happens because the spacecraft is moving from point A to point B which are in the Earth's rest frame and the distance between them is measured in the Earth's rest frame.
    The symmetrical picture:
    The Earth moves between point A1 and point B1, which in the spacecraft's rest system, the distance between them is ten light years.
    In this case the distance according to the Earth system between point A1 and point B1 is one light year.

71. According to relativity, no acceleration is needed for spacecraft A to reach Israel in a year according to a season from a distance of 10 light years, if the gamma factor is equal to 10.

72. If a year passes in spacecraft A while ten years pass on Earth, it means that there is no symmetry between the Earth's system and the spacecraft's system.
    Why is there no symmetry:
    Spacecraft A passes between two points which are measured in the Earth's system and not in the spaceship's system.
    Let's check a symmetrical situation:
    For the sake of symmetry we will refer to two stars and two spaceships:
    Spacecraft A passes by star A. (Star A passes by spaceship A).
    Spacecraft B passes by star B. (Star B passes by spaceship B).
    Reset the clocks.
    If the clocks are reset in the star system then they are not reset in the spacecraft system.
    If the clocks are reset in the spacecraft system then if they are not reset in the star system.
    We will examine the same symmetric system with acceleration:
    1) The stars and spaceships at rest. The clocks are reset. The distances match.
    2) The stars accelerate in one direction and the spaceships in the opposite direction.
    Although the clocks were reset before the acceleration. They cannot be reset after acceleration.
    conclusion:
    When there is acceleration something happens to clocks and distances.
    It doesn't matter if the acceleration is a large acceleration for a short time or a small acceleration for a long time. The result is a change in speed. And the change in speed causes a change in the times and distances measured.

73. First of all, even without acceleration it will take Spacecraft A only a year to reach Israel, while in Israel it will take 10 years. This is by chance and it just passes the planet at speed V at time 0.

    Second, in stages 4 and 5 both spacecraft are at rest so acceleration is not involved.

    I wouldn't say a contradiction - maybe the paradox of the paradox?

74. Israel:
    1) During the acceleration, the measurement system of the spacecraft is not an inertial system.
    2) You are right. There is an internal contradiction here.
    3) Maybe just as there is a limit speed there is also a limit acceleration?

75. 100 light years.. in an inertial system, after 3 nanoseconds in the measurement system of the spacecraft.

    So what distance will the spaceships be if they continue to accelerate after a short pause? 1000 light years?

76. Israel:
    There is still an internal contradiction here:
    In the spacecraft system:
    How is it possible that two identical spaceships operate an engine in the same way and move away from each other?

77. After the end of the acceleration:
    The spacecraft system is inertial.
    The star system is inertial.
    In the star system the distance between the spaceships is measured as ten light years.
    Therefore in the spacecraft system the distance is one hundred light years.

78. And what is the distance between the spacecraft in their rest system?

79. Israel:
    There is no symmetry between the rest system of the spacecraft after the acceleration and the rest system of the Earth.
    Suppose:
    Spacecraft A leaves planet A.
    Spacecraft B leaves planet B.
    After the end of the acceleration:
    1) In the rest system of the stars the distance between the spacecraft is ten light years.
    The spaceships accelerate equally so the distance between them is maintained.
    2) In the rest system of the spacecraft the distance between the stars is one light year.
    As long as the spaceships are accelerating the stars are getting closer to each other.

80. If it was necessary then try to describe "spaceships" that have a negative time difference in them to transmit messages back in time

81. Another thing:
    If in the Earth's system the distance between the spaceships is maintained and is ten light years
    So in the spacecraft system the distance is increasing and it reaches a hundred light years when the acceleration ends.
    Meaning:
    If in the Earth system the acceleration of spacecraft A is the same as the acceleration of spacecraft B
    So in the spacecraft system the acceleration is not the same.

82. There is no doubt that part of the question of changing times and distances is the question of which of the bodies accelerated and left the rest system.
    for example:
    After the first acceleration:
    Spacecraft A is in constant motion relative to the Earth.
    The Earth is in constant motion relative to the spaceship A.
    If so, how is it determined which of the clocks has slowed down and which has sped up.

83. You are right Mozalman, this is not a quantum problem.

    If you haven't noticed, we are discussing ratios, not quanta.

84. Israel
    This is not a quantum problem.
    It's a psychological problem. And she is with you.

85. Yes, but from the moment Spacecraft B stopped in Israel after 3 nanoseconds, it is part of Israel, isn't it?

    And Haaretz will meet Spacecraft A after 10 years..

    And B will meet her after a year..

    So how does it work out?

86. In the spacecraft system:
    Spacecraft B accelerates towards Spacecraft A. Its clock rate slows down relative to the clock rate of spacecraft A. The distance to spacecraft A is measured as one light year.
    In the Earth system:
    Spacecraft B slows its speed relative to the Earth. Its clock rate increases and identifies with the earth's clock rate. The distance is measured as it is measured from the Earth ie ten light years.

87. in a mosquito

    Perhaps you will already answer the question raised by the paradox of the paradox: how is it that in the earth system spaceship B will meet A after 10 years, and in the spaceship system already after a year.

    Just that please.

88. Israel:
    1) Spacecraft B accelerates in one direction.
    The difference between her clock rate and the Earth's is increasing.
    2) Spacecraft B accelerates in the opposite direction.
    The difference between her clock rate and the Earth's is getting smaller.

89. withering

    I don't know if you followed the long discussion that took place here on the topic of non-locality in quantum entanglement. One of the claims was that if two coins in different rooms far from each other always fall on the same side, there is no transfer of information from room to room. The reason for this is what can be defined as "quantum philosophy".

    I always try to find a physical and not a philosophical explanation for physical phenomena. That's why I always take a specific example and try to see how it fits with my understanding of reality.

    The example I gave earlier was of a disk rotating at a certain point in empty space. If we go back to the picture of the universe from only 100 years ago, the universe is static. There is indeed movement in it, but it can be considered homogeneous and isotropic. When Mater approached Einstein at the Solvay conference with the idea of ​​an expanding universe, Einstein rejected the idea in disgust.

    In a static universe when a rotating disc has completed a full revolution, everything is back to normal and there is no change in the disc and its surroundings. If we use the accepted definition of time as the "rate of change of things" it seems that there is no change in the overall state of a system between rotation number N of the disc and N+1. Certainly not in TTN, which does not have any material except for the spinning disc. So in terms of defining time, no time has passed because everything is back to normal.

    On the other hand, if we bring the big bang into the picture, it seems that there is a change in the state of the system between rotation number N and N+1. the density of the universe.

    My claim is that it is the density differences that create time. There can of course be local changes in the temperature or the density of the material, but this does not change the fact that for any number N in the rotation of the disk a certain volume is associated with the universe, this volume always increases from rotation to rotation in a way that can be described using a fairly simple equation, and therefore the average density in each volume unit also increases at the same Manner.

    This can be compared to the Earth. Although there may be areas with negative curvature - saddles for example - the overall curvature of the land is permanently positive. A completely smooth sea front uniform positive curvature.

    If it is acceptable to you that every given moment is associated with a specific temperature, at least in the field of experiments in TN, we can see why there is a conflict between the bang theory and the relative time of relativity.

    Abu.

    I don't know how you got the idea that I'm belittling someone. Unlike you or your imaginary friend, I always brought links or correspondence I had with the people concerned, which I don't think you bothered to read. If you had read, you or the mythological friend, you would have seen that on the subject of the "paradox of the twins" each offered a completely different explanation for the problem, and each explanation contradicted the other.

    I welcome your decision to withdraw from the discussion. What about the idea of ​​going to rehab for anonymous harassers with all your different names? There they will be able to treat you with the respect and appreciation you undoubtedly deserve.

    "Hello, my name is Abu Lala and I am an anonymous troublemaker.."

    Everyone: Love you Abu!

    "Hello, my name is Anu and I'm an anonymous snooze.."

    Chorus: We love you!

    You can also take with you the unknown genius friend, and perhaps also the exalted flamenco cousin. You can start a band: we and the names. Feel at home..

    The main thing is that you free us unemployed pensioners to reminisce and talk.

90. Israel
    I don't understand where your disdain for doctors and professors who understand more than you about the subject you claim to understand comes from.

    My friend the unknown understands more than you on the subject without a shadow of a doubt. Be sure of that.

    And when he tells me that you look like a strange person to him, then he probably knows why you look like that. (Surely you also understand why he thinks so).

    I have no interest in continuing to discuss the matter with you.
    Just one last question:
    Explain to us, those who don't understand, finally, what are you right about?
    (You say that everyone is wrong - except you of course - but you don't say why. You only imply that you are right. And don't show where you are right).

91. withering,
    The last sentence was a bit confusing:
    I suppose you can talk about an average time as well as a maximum time which is the time that passed from the bang in that area where everything that is (and always was) is empty.

92. withering,
    Certainly time does not flow at a uniform rate everywhere. Gravity slows down the clock and fast speed also slows down the clock.
    I guess you can talk about an average time and also about a maximum time which is the same in that everything that is there (and always was) is empty.
    Israel, what do you think?

93. The A. Unnecessary…

94. Israel,
    A. I will always be happy to listen to the opinion of those who are more knowledgeable than me in a certain field, just as I will always be happy to listen to those who can make a good argument or a good question even without extreme knowledge in the field. I believe that your knowledge on the subject is greater than mine and I have no doubt that you also meet the second criterion. That's why I would love to continue and even add something from my opinion about time because they may settle if what you suggest. In my opinion, time, which is a change in state (after all, if there is no change, how will we, or any physical object for that matter, know that time has passed?) does not flow at a uniform rate everywhere. Talking about the rate of time is apparently impossible because rate means a change in time... but if the reference point is the average time of the universe, then the local time rates can be compared. If all there is in this universe is energy in its various incarnations, then local time is simply the rate of changes in that piece of universe. In an area where the rate of change is high, time flows more quickly than in empty space where the rate of change is low. Do you know a similar approach to this approach to time? Do you have an opinion on the matter? And of course my clarification question regarding what you wrote - does it follow from your definition that the local time is different from place to place?

95. ב

    Sorry, I don't understand what the connection is between what you are asking and my paradox.

    withering

    We are all laymen here..

    Sorry if I didn't clarify an important point: the time definition I brought is only mine. You won't find it anywhere else I believe, certainly not in the mainstream.

    Do you still want to continue?

    Nisim, who believes in shortening the length:

    If a train is a light year long when it is at rest relative to you, what will its length be when it is moving relative to you and in your direction at such a speed that the gamma factor is equal to 10?

96. Israel:
    Assume that spaceship B does not undergo additional acceleration.
    That is, both spacecraft undergo identical accelerations.
    After ten years according to Earth's clock:
    Spacecraft A reaches Earth and Spacecraft B is ten light years away from Earth.
    But according to its self-measuring system: Spacecraft B is one light-year away from Earth.
    That is, according to its measurement system: Spacecraft B is one light year away from Spacecraft A.
    But we already said that in the spacecraft's self-measuring systems the distance between them always remains ten light years.

97. Israel,
    I don't think I understand... unlike the sterile area "Tiz al Nabi" (hereafter TAN), in the universe the local density/temperature can vary significantly. Whether an innocent traveler passing by relies on a local measurement or whether he tries to rely on a universal clock as suggested, it is likely that his measurements will differ from global time (the average time in the universe) or from the time that prevails in the NT. Would it not be correct to say in this case that every physical process is expected to exhibit different dynamics in areas with different characteristics, because most of the rates of known processes depend on time, and it does not make sense that an astronaut could rely on such a time measurement, while radioactive material, for example, in the different areas would actually be heard of the current time in a way constant regardless of the local density/temp state.
    Please explain to the layman.

98. Israel:
    In the measurement system of spacecraft A:
    At the end of the acceleration:
    The distance to Earth is one light year.
    The distance to spacecraft B is ten light years.
    And this is despite the fact that, according to the Earth's measurement system, spaceship B is one meter away from the Earth.

99. You write:

    "According to system A and also according to system B, the distance between A and B is ten light years.
    4) Spacecraft B starts accelerating towards Spacecraft A (opposite direction to the first acceleration)

    According to system A and also according to system B the distance between A and B is ten light years.
    conclusion:
    Spacecraft B will reach Spacecraft A after about ten years."

    Now instead of spaceship B, write spaceship A, and instead of spaceship A, write Earth.

    I received: according to the space system A and also according to the Earth system the distance between A and the Earth is ten light years.

    "Spacecraft A begins to accelerate towards Israel".

    Since everything here is the same, I should get:

    "Spacecraft A will arrive in Israel after about ten years."

    In practice we received:

    Spacecraft A arrives in Israel after a year.

    So how does it happen?

    ?

    ??

    ??!?

100. Israel:
     There is no such thing as a "spacecraft system".
     There is the measurement system of a spacecraft.
     And there is the measurement system of a spaceship b.
     These are two separate systems.
     1) The two spaceships before acceleration:
     According to system A and also according to system B the distance between A and B is ten light years.
     2) Both spacecraft accelerate in the same way:
     According to system A and also according to system B the distance between A and B is ten light years.
     3) Both spaceships stopped accelerating:
     According to system A and also according to system B the distance between A and B is ten light years.
     4) Spacecraft B starts accelerating towards Spacecraft A (opposite direction to the first acceleration):
     According to system A and also according to system B the distance between A and B is ten light years.
     conclusion:
     Spacecraft B will reach Spacecraft A after about ten years. (of course when the acceleration times are negligible).

101. With all due respect to relativity, time does not connect, does not connect linearly and if it does connect then probably in separate universes

102. ב
     Once there is no relative speed between the spacecraft, their clocks run at the same rate.
     Think of a clock on the end of a rope that is spinning - the average acceleration is 0, but the clock runs slowly.

103. ב

     You write:
     "So the spacecraft moved less than one meter from its initial position.
     This shift took ten years."

     This is an average speed of 10 cm per year if it is measured in the Haaretz system - and indeed in it it is measured.

     So how does this relate to the fact that in the Earth system the spacecraft moves almost at the speed of light? And if your claim is that the spaceship moved only 3 nanoseconds in the earth system and then stopped for 10 years before meeting spaceship A - then what are you new that we didn't know before? How does this solve the fact that in the spacecraft system only spacecraft B meets A after a year? What do accelerations have to do with it?

104. Israel:
     Yes indeed.
     But in the example you gave, the measurement time is ten years.
     If the measurement time was, for example, of the order of a thousandth of the movement time of a spacecraft b
     Then other results would have been obtained.
     If during the measurement time spaceship B had time to stop relative to the Earth.
     So her clock rate is back and aligns with the earth's clock rate.
     here lies the issue.
     The direction of acceleration is very important.
     If we stick to the claim of miracles that the acceleration in any case causes the clock rate to slow down
     So it is not possible that the clock rate of spacecraft B will return and identify with the clock rate of the Earth.
     hearing:
     The acceleration causes the clock rate to slow down only if it causes the mutual speed between the clocks to increase.
     However :
     An acceleration that causes a decrease in the mutual speed between two clocks must cause a decrease in the rate differences between the clocks.

105. By the same token, you can also write 10,000 years, with exactly the same justifications.

106. Israel:
     Suppose you look at the spaceship through a window that opens and closes. (Stroboscope).
     The window opens once at the beginning of the movement and once more at the end of the movement.
     (Suppose the spacecraft is photographed through this window).
     Judging only by the photos
     So the spacecraft moved less than one meter from its original position.
     This shift took ten years.
     What was between the first photo and the last photo does not belong.
     The spacecraft can accelerate and decelerate. in different ways. It won't change the distance she traveled between the first shot and the second shot.
     The distance traveled by the spacecraft between the first photo and the last photo divided by the time between the photos is the average speed of the spacecraft during the measurement time. (the photographs).

107. Shmulik

     Thanks for the email, in light of past experience I think it's better to make a blog with illustrations to illustrate the problem.

     ב

     Your arithmetic is incomprehensible. If the gamma factor does not exceed 10 in the entire process, how can you claim that "in this time of ten years spaceship B moved about one meter"?

     withering

     "Temperature clocks" are applicable only in areas where the environment is homogeneous and isotropic. Therefore, in the thought experiments we previously conducted here on the website, we defined a cube of space spanning a billion light years that is empty of any material except the cosmic background radiation and the spaceships participating in the experiment. They even gave the area a name - Tiz al Nabi.

     In this area, passengers passing each other can know the absolute time that has passed since the explosion by measuring the temperature of the cosmic background radiation and the two-way Doppler weighting. Therefore they will always arrive at the same time at the same point, contrary to the claim of relativity to a private time for each measurer.

     Then the proposal of "universal clocks" was brought up - a transmitter that broadcasts the local time for example to the universe, and any traveler at any speed can, according to the strength of the reception, which is a function of distance and the Doppler weighting, know what the local time is at his point. If instead of earth time we insert the time that has passed since the bang, we get absolute time, because the starting assumption today is that before the bang there was no time.

     It doesn't matter that "the density/temperature is not the same in every region" - if only external signs that the universe is expanding, and this expansion is what creates time. If things were not so, we could talk about what was 40 billion years ago or watch future systems in the present time, to the great joy of blowing water.

108. Miracles:
     If there is no connection to the direction of acceleration
     So why does the clock rate of a spacecraft in Shev and identify with the clock rate of the Earth?

109. ב
     A gravitational field causes time to slow down regardless of direction. Therefore, any acceleration causes time to slow down regardless of direction.

     Let's assume that spacecraft A is not moving. Spacecraft B accelerates and then decelerates to a stop. If all this happens in less than a second, then the time difference between the spaceships will be less than a second. It doesn't matter in which direction it happens, as long as the spaceship stops at the end.

110. Miracles:
     If acceleration causes the clock rate to slow down regardless of the direction of the acceleration, then how does it happen that the clock rate of spaceship B returns and identifies with the earth's clock rate?
     After all, spaceship B accelerates for the first time, and then Shauna slows down its pace.
     Then she accelerates a second time and again the clock was supposed to slow down.
     The conclusion is :
     There is a close connection to the direction of acceleration.
     If the direction of the acceleration causes the reciprocal speed to increase then the self clock accelerates its rate relative to the moving clock.
     but
     If the direction of the acceleration causes the reciprocal speed to decrease, then the self-timer slows down its rate relative to the moving clock.

111. Israel:
     The measurement is carried out in the Earth's measurement system.
     The start time of the measurement is the start time of the movement of spacecraft A.
     The end time of the measurement is the end time of the movement of spacecraft A, that is, upon its arrival on Earth, that is, ten years after the beginning of the measurement.
     During this time of ten years spacecraft B moved about one meter.

112. Miracles,
     The Torah deals with accelerated systems, says Vicky, but she also says that a complete solution is found in general relativity, and Vicky adds that the transformations are only valid in inertial systems, and if I'm not mistaken, that's what b. Claim about accelerations.
     If the transformations are invalid, and part of your discussion is about transformations, isn't that a problem?

113. Shmulik
     I disagree. General relativity adds another layer to special relativity: equivalence between gravitational field and acceleration. In all our examples there is no reference to the mass, and it can be assumed that the mass is 0.
     Instead of acceleration, think about a discrete change in speed.

     Einstein, in an article from 1905, at length talks about accelerations. Beyond that e=mc^2 ….. it is an inertial mass, not gravity. And this is part of the theory of special relativity.

114. Happily, it turned out that I have an IQ of 35

115. Miracles,
     I didn't like the last sentence. Should have been worded in question form:
     If the systems are accelerated, don't they lose their equivalence? (Then do you have to use the general relations to solve the problem?)

116. Kamila at Yisrael, time is not counted in one place for the entire universe, there are places with different times and different places where time repeated itself saw parallel universes, and even in relationships it is not possible to count it as one, because it splits and is counted at different rates

117. Israel,
     Clarification question,
     If I understood correctly, you suggest that the universal clock be based on the (average?) state of density/temperature in the universe, while the Friedman formula provides a continuous function so that each state of density/temperature of the universe corresponds to one point in time (assuming that the universe will no longer shrink back).
     But the density/temperature are not the same in every region, doesn't that imply that there is a local time that varies from place to place?

118. Israel,
     My life is kicking and his email is waiting for your question (what's wrong with me that I'm constantly spamming emails from other bodies...?)

     Miracles,
     Ok,
     I just want to refine my question that stems from the study many years ago and the entry in the wiki (this time in Hebrew, it was easier) that says:
     http://he.wikipedia.org/wiki/%D7%AA%D7%95%D7%A8%D7%AA_%D7%94%D7%99%D7%97%D7%A1%D7%95%D7%AA_%D7%94%D7%A4%D7%A8%D7%98%D7%99%D7%AA#.D7.A2.D7.A7.D7.A8.D7.95.D7.A0.D7.95.D7.AA_.D7.AA.D7.95.D7.A8.D7.AA_.D7.94.D7.99.D7.97.D7.A1.D7.95.D7.AA
     The basis of the explanation given by the theory of special relativity for the phenomena discussed above are two basic principles:

     The principle of relativity:

     The laws of physics do not change when moving from one inertial frame of reference to another inertial frame of reference. For example, a person in a sealed train car cannot, through any experiment or physical measurement, determine whether the car is moving at a constant speed or is at rest.

     Speed ​​of light invariants:

     The speed of light is constant for every observer, regardless of his relative speed with respect to the body that emitted the light, or his speed with respect to any other body.

     Using these requirements, Einstein explained how to define space and time so that by synchronizing clocks he redefined the concept of simultaneity. From the analysis performed by Einstein it appears that simultaneity is not a quantity that is preserved between inertial reference systems moving at different speeds. That is: two observers who are in relative motion between them, and measure the same pair of events, may not agree between themselves on the question of whether these events occurred at the same time. From these requirements and the principle of locality, Einstein derived the Lorentz transformations that replaced the Galilean transformation as a precise tool for translating physical quantities when moving between different reference systems. However, at speeds much lower than the speed of light the Galilean transformation predicts results with very good accuracy, so that the Galilean transformation can be regarded as an approximation of the Lorentz transformation in the limit v<

     The special theory of relativity only deals with inertial reference systems, i.e. reference systems that move relative to each other at a constant speed. Although it is theoretically possible to talk about acceleration as a kinematic quantity, the transformations between reference systems are only done between two inertial systems to each other. Integrating accelerated reference systems (such as a rotating reference system) is not a simple matter and this difficult problem only found a complete solution in 1915 - when Einstein formulated the general theory of relativity, which is a generalization of the special theory of relativity and also handles accelerated systems when it identifies acceleration with a gravitational field.

     Here I am again:
     That is, if the systems are accelerated, they lose their equivalence and we have to use the general relations to solve the problem.

119. Israel I think when I was a child I was in your experiment, Yom Tov

120. Shmulik

     It seems that the blog is really dead..

     Let's hope the horse (Kind) is still alive..

121. Shmulik
     I look at it this way: the spaceships accelerate at time 0 to a high speed. Now it is clear that they are at the same speed. Suppose the distance between the planets is 1000 light hours, and the speed is such that gamma = 1000. In this situation, each spacecraft sees the distance between the planets - one light hour.
     Do you agree so far?

122. withering

     To your question: "I asked how to measure time or what is a clock?"

     In 1905 - a complex and philosophical matter.

     Today - quite simple (in my opinion). There is a density to the universe, expressed in the number of photons per unit of volume or temperature. These data are communicated by the Friedman formula which is a continuous function for the number of seconds that have passed since the bang, and are absolute at any point in the universe regardless of the observer's speed. Therefore the time at each point is absolute, the number of seconds that have passed since the bang. There is no lengthening of times or shortening of lengths.

     The reason a clock goes forward and not backwards is because the universe is expanding and not contracting. This is also the reason that identical clocks at a certain point tick at the same rate, and that entropy always increases: at the root of things, every device for measuring time measures the density of the universe.

     You can see this in the following simple example (referring to the article you provided):

     A disc rotates in a vacuum. What is the difference in the state of the disc and the universe between a certain rotation and the next one?

     In 1905 - there is no difference.

     Today - the environment of the disk is a little less dense, and the temperature is a little lower.

123. Miracles,
     Doesn't acceleration cancel the symmetries between the two spaceships?

124. Israel,
     Is his blog dead? If only I could go back in time... give a link. I must have come to the wrong site.
     By the way, here is his email. It's time for him to get to know you. Reciprocal:
     susskind@stanford.edu

125. I just read it for the first time.

     In my opinion, the time when this article on time was written (1908) and the time when Einstein published special relativity (1905) are very important.

     Simple, then you didn't know the big bang theory. So believe that time is eternal, always was and always will be, as the universe is infinite.

     Therefore it is possible to write "I regard time as unreal". Makes a lot of sense in an eternal universe, completely different (in my opinion) in a universe that has a starting point (the bang), before which time simply did not exist.

     Father - isn't it time to release the pent-up reaction (why actually)?

126. ב
     1) The special theory of relativity in Parosh allows for accelerated motion!! One should move to general relativity only if there is mass.

     2) Acceleration causes time to slow down during the acceleration phase, regardless of direction. It's just like a gravity field. Great acceleration will stop time, but only for a short time. That is - a sudden speed change does not create any time lag. The lag will be created after a time due to the speed.

127. That's why I wrote "simple", in quotes...
     But I didn't ask what time is, I asked how we measure time or what is a clock? I think this is an easier question. I would really love to see opinions on the subject.

     Are you familiar with Taggart's 1908 paper?
     http://www.ditext.com/mctaggart/time.html

128. simple question? On Suskind's blog the question "What is time"? She is question number 1.

129. Israel,
     And anyone else for that matter…

     what is a watch That is, how can time be measured? (I'm not joking, and the fact that I'm asking doesn't mean that I don't know the accepted opinions on the subject). Requesting as simple an answer as possible to these "simple" questions.

130. Cool

     waiting

     ב

     you say:

     "Average speed over the measurement time:
     The difference between the position at the beginning of the measurement and the position at the end of the measurement is divided by the difference between the time at the end of the measurement and the time at the beginning of the measurement."

     So could you perhaps tell what is the average speed of a spacecraft if it traveled a little less than a meter in a time of 3 billionths of a second?

131. Cool responder

     Indeed things like spurs!

     Let's go through your words one by one:

     "I showed your comments to my friend" but your friend didn't bother to respond directly.

     "He said what you have already been told" but each said something opposite to the other.

     "When he got to section 4, he said that the mistake is actually in your wording/understanding" but also a mistake in the understanding of Prof. Moshe Moshe from the physics department at the Technion. Here is from his response published in my previous post:

     "4. Spacecraft A and B now form an inertial system and the relative speed between them is 0. OK".

     "You don't treat relationships correctly." Well, Schwein. A friend says, a friend knows.

     "Exactly what MR commented to you about at the time." But M.R. Was wrong, and also admitted his mistake as I showed you before.

     "(Even I warned you about that)" But you were wrong, but you didn't admit your mistake.

     "And just like Prof. Moshe told you." But Prof. Moshe did not point out to me that I was not treating relationships correctly, and Prof. Moshe, if he accepted Sections 4 and 5 - and he did - should see that this assumption leads to a paradox, as Prof. Yonathan Granot saw who did not accept Section 5.

     Therefore, Prof. Moshe is wrong, and as a result, so is your anonymous friend.

     "Regarding your experiment - he mentioned fertile transformation" but you don't need any fertile transformation for my experiment. All you need are the dates of Grandfather Yahya.

     "If you still continue to talk about the experiment and the Paradox Paradox, please show all the data" but all the data about the Paradox Paradox were presented here, in 3 other blogs, and in private emails. They were answered by many, including 3 professors of physics and several Ph.D.s. Not even one - A H D - gave the same answer as the other.

     The point of the experiment, namely how and what it proves, I choose not to reveal now.

     So could it be that the mysterious and scientist friend is simply wrong? Because if not, why won't he respond here directly?

     Anyway, thanks for the investment and best wishes.

132. Israel:
     Average speed over the measurement time:
     The difference between the position at the beginning of the measurement and the position at the end of the measurement is divided by the difference between the time at the end of the measurement and the time at the beginning of the measurement.
     In other words:
     The change in place versus the change in time.
     The change in the location of spacecraft B, from the beginning of the measurement to the end of the measurement, is not great. Therefore its average speed is not great.

133. Israel
     Peace.
     I showed your comments to my friend, and he said what you were already told.
     When he got to section 4 he said that the mistake is actually in your wording/understanding.
     You don't treat relationships right.
     Exactly what MR remarked to you about at the time. (even I warned you about that)
     And just like Prof. Moshe told you.

     Regarding your experiment - he mentioned fertile transformation and talked about some things but in the end he said that some data that you didn't present was missing and as a result he couldn't understand what exactly was happening in the experiment you did and therefore he didn't know how to answer.

     In any case, I wish you the best of luck with the experiment, but I also ask that if you are still talking about the experiment and the Paradox Paradox, please show all the data and all the problems you encounter. Otherwise the discussion is just casual.

134. "Although the instantaneous speed of the spacecraft (or/and its instantaneous acceleration) is very large, the average speed is still very small."

     Undoubtedly small. not even C. barely c.

135. Israel:
     Of course, the intention was that after the second acceleration of a spaceship, its clock rate is the same as the earth's clock rate.
     But the main thing is:
     Spacecraft B undergoes two accelerations:
     The first acceleration causes a rate difference between the season and the Earth clock.
     The second acceleration causes the clock rate of spacecraft B to return to the same as the clock rate of the Earth.
     conclusion:
     The rate differences between the clocks depend on the directions of the acceleration.
     If acceleration in one direction causes the rate differences between the clocks to increase
     So acceleration in the opposite direction causes the rate differences between the clocks to decrease.
     hearing:
     There is an exception here from the special theory of relativity which only talks about inertial systems.
     And another thing:
     Although the instantaneous speed of the spaceship (or/and its instantaneous acceleration) is very large, nevertheless the average speed is very small.
     Within the framework of the special theory of relativity, one can refer only to the average speed because steady motion can only refer to the average speed and not to the instantaneous speeds.

136. "The distance between them will appear smaller"?

     So what is the distance between the spacecraft if they started 10 light years away?

     And how do you even "see" distance between spaceships that are 10 light years apart and moving?

137. Water blowing
     You may be smart, but everyone who reads your comments thinks otherwise.

138. Mys catheter

139. Water blowing
     In my name, tell the doctors who treat you peacefully that you are a hopeless organic body and that even 100 Ritalin pills will not help you. It's time to take you back to the closed ward with you permanently attached to the tube and catheter.

140. The funny thing is that your words are also arranged "above" after time repetitions

141. Water blowing
     Whoever took your drill wanted to do brain surgery on you. The doctors said wait a while. Let the little bit of intelligence that is left leak out and then call a repairman

142. B, Israel
     B is right. I agree that both of them accelerate the same moment in the planetary system. On the face of it, it seems that a ground observer would see the distance between the spacecraft as the distance between the planets. But, once the spaceships have speed then the distance between them will appear smaller.
     On the other hand, the space probes will show that the distance between the planets is smaller than the initial distance.
     And now, if each spaceship sees the other speeding up at a different time, then a velocity difference is created between them, so they will not agree on the distance between the planets and even on the distance between them!
     All this assuming that Einstein is right of course...

143. Something about an "experiment" in time reversals - today someone took the drill from me, after the time reversals the drill returned to its place and today it was not taken again, that is, someone (including souls) arranges the "good" things above after the reversals, there is about this in the literature on sections , but try not to laugh, after the rehearsals you see that it exists, respectfully

144. I did not receive another response from him after mine from February 27. It seems to me that the discussion was summed up for him.

     If you went through the correspondence, can you understand why he claims there is no paradox if he accepted that after stages 4 and 5, after the initial acceleration, the spacecraft are 10 light years apart? He only advised me to look at the Earth system, which is obvious, and exactly what leads to a paradox when looking at the spacecraft system separate from the planets.

     3 am - good night.

145. Israel,
     The honorable Moshe doesn't answer you anymore? Did you act annoyed or something?

146. B'

     You write:

     "What happens the second time a spacecraft is in an accelerator:
     Her watch identifies with the Earth's clock! "

     Her clock doesn't sync with Earth's clock. Her watch ticks at the same rate as the Earth's clock, but a fraction of a second behind it. This has no meaning when referring to Spacecraft A, which according to the Earth's time it will meet it in 10 years, and according to Spacecraft B's clock in a year. This is the paradox of the paradox.

     The average speed of spacecraft B in the Earth system is not close to 0 but to the speed of light. Otherwise, how do you explain the figure that she traveled a distance of almost a meter in 3 billionths of a second?

147. for miracles:
     It is possible to coordinate in the Earth's system so that both spacecraft take off at the same time.
     Of course, each spaceship will see the other take off at a different time than the time it itself took off.
     To Israel:
     If spaceship A accelerates towards the earth then one year of the spaceship becomes ten years on earth.
     If the Earth accelerates towards spacecraft A, then one year on Earth becomes ten years on spacecraft A.
     hearing:
     The time differences depend on the question of which of the two bodies is the body that accelerated.
     It seems that the time differences also depend on the direction of the acceleration:
     Let's look at the Earth's system:
     In the Earth system, spacecraft B accelerates once and then accelerates a second time.
     The first time that spacecraft B accelerates, a situation is obtained where one year on spacecraft B is ten years on Earth.
     What happens the second time a spacecraft accelerates:
     Her watch identifies with the Earth's clock!
     How is this possible?
     After all, we said that acceleration causes a change in the rate of the clocks.
     hearing:
     The acceleration can increase or decrease the rate differences of the clocks.
     If acceleration in one direction will cause an increase, then acceleration in the other direction will cause a decrease.
     And again I mention my claim:
     Since the special theory of relativity talks about systems that move in constant motion relative to each other, it is impossible to mix systems that have acceleration.
     At most, an average can be performed throughout the measurement time.
     Note that spaceship B, despite its high accelerations, did not change its position much, so its average speed from the beginning of the measurement to the end of the measurement is close to zero.

148. ב

     Spacecraft B accelerates only twice, to the right and to the left, so that it has returned to 0 speed relative to the Earth. The whole process took 3 nanoseconds in the Earth system, so it stopped a meter away from the takeoff point.

     Miracles

     The spacecraft clocks are synchronized between them, so what is the problem with both taking off at the same time according to their clocks, 0 in our case? A spacecraft cannot "see" the other clock that is 10 light years away from it. But since we synchronized the clocks earlier, then we can talk about the common appearance time: 0.

     You can argue that later on the clocks went out of sync, but then you will have to answer the question whose answer is lagging relative to the second.

149. ב
     Both spacecraft cannot accelerate at the same time. Each spacecraft sees the other accelerating at a different time. At least this is what special relativity claims. I wrote to Israel before why I think this way, but I have no problem explaining again.

150. To Shapiro:
     Here is the order of events:
     Spacecraft A accelerates to the right.
     Spacecraft B accelerates to the right in the same way as Spacecraft A.
     The two spaceships are all this time at a constant distance from each other.
     Spacecraft B accelerates to the left towards the Earth.
     Spacecraft B accelerates to the right in order to land on Earth.
     hearing:
     Spacecraft B was accelerated three times. (right, left, right).
     Therefore there is no symmetry between the pairs
     1) Earth - spaceship a.
     2) Spacecraft A-Spaceship B.

151. The question "what is time" is not simple. In Suskind's blog it is defined as problem number 1.

     I would be happy if the experts would join the discussion here or for a cup of coffee. But they don't, and I just have to thank them for answering as best they can anyway.

     Unfortunately, it is impossible for all their answers to be correct, because each one is completely different from the other. The only one who gave a plausible answer is Prof. Granot, who claimed that the distance between the spaceships increases to 100 light years when they accelerate. (Section 12 in the Paradox of the Paradox, and the possibility pointed out by Nissim). But he did not explain why, and as I showed him such a possibility leads to another paradox.

     For me the paradox is still not resolved. I will try to upload it in other blogs, including the one you brought, and this time with diagrams.

152. Israel,
     You didn't exaggerate the challenge... why does entropy always increase (so that empires fall?)... what would Grandpa say about that?

     Regarding the paradox, I have a suspicion that the email/forum format is sabotaging your ability to get answers: you don't like bothering the expert too much, corrections while the question is in motion, disagreement on details (such as the time it sends the light from the clock display to reach the eyes). Organize an ambush, grab an expert for a conversation deep into the night and don't forget a table, chairs and coffee =)

     Forget what I wrote about forums and try the http://www.scienceagogo.com/forum/ubbthreads.php?ubb=postlist&Board=5&page=1
     It seems that there is a serious company there and don't forget to ask the time question as well. It is much simpler to present and does not depend on many small details.

153. The main thing is that there is love!
     And to your name:
     http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=y2jbrz681Lk

154. Don't be offended, it's a nickname. My wife calls me Maussy, or more precisely: a creature of Maus.

     And also stupid stupid.

155. From Aussie? Do you mind if I read the nickname like little mouse, and not Mouse C? It sounds nicer to me to be a mouse 🙂

     In any case, I don't understand physics beyond the education you get in college with a bachelor's degree in software engineering (not too much).. So I could be very wrong but your idea reminds me a bit of this article-
     http://io9.com/5963263/how-nasa-will-build-its-very-first-warp-drive.

     In any case, good luck in everything, all the best and good good good to my heart!
     And Israel will come to visit from time to time more articles... we miss you.. or at least grandfather Yahya...

156. From Aussie? Do you mind if I read the nickname like little mouse, and not Mouse C? It sounds nicer to me to be a mouse 🙂

     In any case, I don't understand physics beyond the education you get in college with a bachelor's degree in software engineering (not too much).. So I could be very wrong but your idea reminds me a bit of this article- http://io9.com/5963263/how-nasa-will-build-its-very-first-warp-drive.

     In any case, good luck in everything, all the best and good good good to my heart!
     And Israel will come to visit from time to time more articles... we miss you.. or at least grandfather Yahya...

157. Mausi

     If you dig into the guts of every theory that talks about going back in time or the influence of the future on the past - you will find at the root of things the assumption that a photon moves only at the speed of light, and that this speed cannot be exceeded.

     Grandfather Yahya would always say: whoever invented tomorrow - let him take care of it.

     Shmulik

     4 experts - 4 completely different explanations for the same problem. What it means?

     It means demanding.

     I agree that there is no need to tire the poor experts beyond what is necessary. That's why I didn't bring up the issue of absolute time except for the summary post with Prof. Granot, which didn't require a response.

     But a challenge for you: why is absolute time required? What is time anyway? Why doesn't every clock tick at a different rate? Or moving backwards? Why does entropy always increase with time?

158. Mouth, Israel is not really excited about the future =). I presented this issue as a possibility to solve the interweaving but Israel did not buy.
     Israel, I have a super tiny criticism: I followed a significant part of your correspondence with the various experts and the very beautiful question of absolute time versus relative time, you hide in your last email/post. is not that a loss? The expert is already tired, wants to sleep and doesn't want to be called to another topic and we miss a fascinating discussion on this issue. Next time, already in the first post!
     next time,

159. I'll just leave it here
     http://www.epochtimes.co.il/et/14199

160. Shmulik

     The lattice is on a disc and the grooves (8 in number) are on the circumference, along the radii. When the disk spins quickly, the laser beam passes through a slot and the hard part of the disk is immediately blocked. The time period from the moment the beam passes until it is blocked by my equipment - about the 50,000th part of a second. It turns out that the beam travels about 6 km before it is blocked.

     Viewing distance in the facility - about 3 km. I hope to soon increase the spin speed and distance so that I am in the range needed to get significant results.

     The idea is that if there really is a "long photon" that moves at all speeds, and that collapsing at some point causes the entire photon to collapse as quantum mechanics claims, then cutting the slow part of the beam in the device will cause the entire photon to collapse to that point, and therefore the fast part will not reach the observer in the telescope and the beam will disappear.

     The probability of this is extremely low, because if the theory is correct, the "cutting" of the beam should be at a horizontal speed corresponding to the "escape speed" of the slow part of the beam at the same point where it is cut, but this is currently beyond my ability. This is also why the experiment is called "trivial" - it came simply to rule out relatively simple possibilities, so that we would not be in the situation where the first radio transmitters buried capacitor plates in the ground until they discovered that the ground itself could be used as a capacitor.

     I have no idea how entanglement works between a photon and an electron, simply because I also have no idea how entanglement works between photons or between electrons (anyone have?). I'm talking about "direction" - the feed back, like the one between the first and second wire in a transformer. But that's just a direction, probably wrong, and frankly it doesn't really matter at the moment for my experiments. The main thing is that there is an intertwining between photons, and that each photon is also intertwining with itself. This is certainly sufficient for our purposes.

     Onki - how is Moshe Moshe's answer? An answer or a sad answer?

161. Israel,
     What a beauty. I wish strange and unexplained findings would be received (except by you).
     a few questions.
     Why does the knitting have to rotate?
     In your descriptions of entanglement, you talked about a long photon. What about entanglement between a photon and an electron? Are you claiming that another photon connects them and is the one responsible for transmitting the information about the polarization?

162. Correspondence with Prof. Moshe Moshe (omitting email addresses).

     Subject: Twin paradox's paradox
     --------

     From: Israel Shapira >
     Date: 2014-02-25 11:28 GMT-08:00
     To: Moshe

     Hello Prof. Moshe.

     My name is Israel Shapira, and I received your email from Tal Maya from an association in Shaar. The question I have is about the lengthening of time in relationships, I call it the twin paradox." I have featured it on many blogs and received many, completely different answers about it. I would appreciate it if you could consider it.

     "The Twin Paradox Paradox"

     It is said that at a distance of almost 10 light years from the earth there is a planet that is stationary relative to the earth and whose clocks are synchronized with the earth.

     1. At time 0, spaceship A (whose clocks have been reset to planet time) accelerates from the planet towards Earth and in a short time reaches a speed V close to the speed of light so that the gamma factor is slightly greater than 10.

     2. According to the twins' paradox, the spaceship arrives in Israel after 10 years according to local time and after one year according to the spaceship's time.

     3. As soon as spaceship A leaves the planet, spaceship B leaves the earth in the opposite direction from the planet and accelerates to the same extent until it reaches the same velocity V of spaceship A.

     4. Spacecraft A and B now form an inertial system and the relative speed between them is 0.

     5. The distance between them in their reference system cannot exceed 10 light years, I assume. The time on their clocks immediately after reaching constant cruising speed is almost the same as the time of departure of both of their mother planets: 0

     6. Shortly after reaching cruising speed, spaceship B accelerates in the direction of the earth until it reaches 0 speed relative to it.

     7. Because of the symmetry with phase 2, it will meet spacecraft A after a little over a year according to season.

     The problem:

     8. From the point of view of the country, spacecraft B accelerated in a short time and immediately slowed down and stopped. From a practical point of view, if we reduce the acceleration time as we wish, we can say that spaceship B is currently standing not far from the place from which it took off.

     9. From the same consideration, the time shown by Spacecraft B's clock is almost no different from Earth time: 0.

     10. According to the data, Haaretz will meet Spacecraft A after 10 years according to Haaretz's time and a year (or less) according to Spacecraft B's time.

     11. The paradox: it therefore follows that Spacecraft B's clock rotates at least 10 times slower than the Earth's clock which is identical to it and is located next to it.

     12. Unless that is the case, my assumption in step 5 that the distance between the spaceships before S turned around cannot exceed 10 light years is incorrect, and in fact the distance between them is now 100 light years for some unknown reason.

     13. Or I have another mistake that I do not recognize now.

     If you find an error in the analysis and conclusions, please point to the step where the error occurred.

     Thanks,

     Israel.

     ----
     From: Moshe >
     Date: 2014-02-25 19:57 GMT-08:00
     To: Israel Shapira >

     Shalom Israel
     I want to be sure I understand your question.
     According to the wording of your question, it is not clear to me how long the spacecraft was moving in section 6 of your question
     Please tell me how much time passed, according to local time, between the departure of spacecraft B and its return to Earth
     Moses
     : Israel Shapira]
     Posted: Tuesday, February 25, 2014 9:28 PM
     To: moshe@
     Subject: Twin paradox's paradox

     ----
     From: Israel Shapira >
     Date: 2014-02-25 20:44 GMT-08:00
     To: Moshe Moshe >

     Thanks for the quick reply.

     To make it simple - 3 nanoseconds in the national system. In this way, it stands a meter away from the starting point, so that it is possible to take a video from the earth and the spacecraft of the earth's clock and the satellite clock B together.

     Of course, any longer time is possible, but in such a short time the visual illustration is clearer. I know that the spaceship's clock has only passed a clear fraction of a second, but I don't see this as a theoretical problem (does it exist? This is an extremely light nanospaceship..).

     2014-02-25 19:57

     ----
     From: Moshe Moshe>
     Date: 2014-02-25 22:31 GMT-08:00
     To: Israel Shapira >

     I don't see the whole problem here.
     Spacecraft B made a turn and after three nanoseconds returned to its place of origin and stopped. It is standing now and everyone on Earth including spacecraft B will wait about ten years according to their clocks until spacecraft A reaches them
     Indeed, for three nanometers according to local time, the occupants of spaceship B aged only by 0.3 nanometers, this is the normal effect of movement at high speed.
     So what is the paradox?

     From: Israel Shapira]
     Sent: Wednesday, February 26, 2014 6:44 AM
     To: Moshe Moshe
     Subject: Re: Twin paradox's paradox

     ----
     From: Israel Shapira >
     Date: 2014-02-26 9:18 GMT-08:00
     To: Moshe Moshe >

     The problem is that if we look at steps 4 and 5:

     4. Spacecraft A and B now form an inertial system and the relative speed between them is 0.

     5. The distance between them in their reference system cannot exceed 10 light years, I assume. The time on their clocks immediately after reaching constant cruising speed is almost the same as the time of departure of both of their mother planets: 0

     We will get a situation almost identical to the starting assumption:

     "It is said that at a distance of almost 10 light years from the earth there is a planet that is stationary relative to the earth and whose clocks are synchronized with the earth."

     And so if we look at the symmetry with step 2:

     2. According to the twins' paradox, the spaceship arrives in Israel after 10 years according to local time and after one year according to the spaceship's time.

     It seems that according to the season, spacecraft B should reach A after one year, because it is in the same condition and goes through the same process that spacecraft A went through on its way to Israel.

     2014-02-25 22:31

     ----
     From: Moshe Moshe >
     Date: 2014-02-26 9:44 GMT-08:00
     To: Israel Shapira >

     You said that spacecraft B returns to Earth after 3 nanoseconds according to Earth's clock
     So what is the symmetry here?
     Spacecraft B returns immediately (within 3 nanoseconds) and waits for the arrival of Spacecraft A which will arrive in 10 years
     See also below in red

     From: Israel Shapira]
     Sent: Wednesday, February 26, 2014 7: PM 19

     To: Moshe Moshe
     Subject: Re: Twin paradox's paradox

     The problem is that if we look at steps 4 and 5:

     4. Spacecraft A and B now form an inertial system and the relative speed between them is 0. OK

     5. The distance between them in their reference system cannot exceed 10 light years, I assume. The time on their clocks immediately after reaching a constant cruising speed is almost the same as the time of departure of both mother planets: 0 OK

     We will get a situation almost identical to the starting assumption:

     "It is said that at a distance of almost 10 light years from the earth there is a planet that is stationary relative to the earth and whose clocks are synchronized with the earth." OK

     And so if we look at the symmetry with step 2: what is the symmetry here?

     2. According to the twins' paradox, the spaceship arrives in Israel after 10 years according to local time and after one year according to the spaceship's time. This is about Bagpipe A, right?

     It seems that according to the season, spacecraft B should reach A after one year, yes, spacecraft A and B will meet after one year, but this is one year according to the season of spacecraft A moving towards the Earth
     It will be in 10 years according to Earth time. Spacecraft B will wait on Earth until then and the season of Spacecraft B is the Earth clock for 10 years until the arrival of Spacecraft A
     That is,
     Spacecraft B stopped on its return to Earth after 3 nanoseconds. according to earth clock. right or not ?
     Spacecraft A is on its way to Earth and will arrive in 10 years according to Earth time, which is in one year according to Spacecraft A

     Because it is in the same condition and goes through the same process that spacecraft A went through on its way to Israel. She is not in the same situation at all. Spacecraft B traveled and returned and stopped within 3 nanoseconds according to the local time. Whereas Spacecraft A is on its way to Earth. I think your mistake is centered in this last sentence.

     ----
     From: Israel Shapira >
     Date: 2014-02-26 12:52 GMT-08:00
     To: Moshe Moshe >

     Spacecraft B stopped on its return to Earth after 3 nanoseconds. according to earth clock. right or not ?

     Right. But before it stopped relative to Israel, there was a phase - phase 4 - in which it was at rest, i.e. not accelerating, at a distance of 10 light years from Spacecraft A, at rest relative to Spacecraft A, and the time in its season is almost 0.

     The same with spacecraft A: in stage 4 it is not accelerating, at rest relative to spacecraft B, 10 light years away from it, and the time in its season is almost 0.

     This is exactly the initial situation: "It is said that at a distance of almost 10 light years from the earth there is a planet that is stationary relative to the earth and whose clocks are synchronized with the earth", where the place of the planet is filled by spacecraft B and the place of the earth is filled by spacecraft A.

     Therefore, if in the original initial state it takes spacecraft A a year according to season to reach Israel, then this is the time it takes spacecraft B according to season to reach spacecraft A.

     If you do not see the absolute symmetry in the situations, please point out the difference.

     .

     2014-02-26 9:44

     ----
     From: Moshe Moshe >
     Date: 2014-02-26 13:55 GMT-08:00
     To: Israel Shapira >

     See below in blue

     From: Israel Shapira]
     Sent: Wednesday, February 26, 2014 10: PM 53

     To: Moshe Moshe
     Subject: Re: Twin paradox's paradox

     Spacecraft B stopped on its return to Earth after 3 nanoseconds. according to earth clock. right or not ?

     Right. But before it stopped relative to Israel, there was a phase - phase 4 - in which it was at rest, i.e. not accelerating, at a distance of 10 light years from Spacecraft A, at rest relative to Spacecraft A, and the time in its season is almost 0.

     The same with spacecraft A: in stage 4 it is not accelerating, at rest relative to spacecraft B, 10 light years away from it, and the time in its season is almost 0.

     This is exactly the initial situation: "It is said that at a distance of almost 10 light years from the earth there is a planet that is stationary relative to the earth and whose clocks are synchronized with the earth", where the place of the planet is filled by spacecraft B and the place of the earth is filled by spacecraft A.

     Therefore, if in the original initial state it takes spacecraft A a year according to season to reach Israel, then this is the time it takes spacecraft B according to season to reach spacecraft A.

     The spaceships meet after a year according to the season of spaceship A and not according to the season of spaceship B
     At the time of their meeting, spaceship B rests against the Earth and its time is Earth's clock, this is not spaceship A's clock
     The meeting according to the season of Spacecraft B will take place after 10 years from the day of its return to Earth.

     ----
     From: Israel Shapira>
     Date: 2014-02-26 14:14 GMT-08:00
     To: Moshe Moshe >

     Let's look at the situation in step 4:

     We have two spacecraft at rest relative to each other and 10 light years apart.

     At this point spacecraft B accelerates towards spacecraft A.

     Therefore, according to the original twin paradox, it would only take her a year to reach spacecraft A, while spacecraft A would take 10 years. Time in the accelerating spacecraft passes more slowly than in the non-accelerating one in the original twin paradox, and this is also what we saw when spacecraft A accelerated toward Earth.

     Prof. Yonatan Garnot's answer, by the way, is that in phase B the distance between the spacecraft increases to 100 light years. This is also what is implied by Bell's paradox, but I don't understand why. See:

     http://forum.openu.ac.il/opus/bin/en.jsp?enZone=Forum126655&segind=1

     http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bell's_spaceship_paradox

     2014-02-26 13:55

     ----
     From: Moshe Moshe Date: 2014-02-26 14:20 GMT-08:00
     To: Israel Shapira

     I suggested you how to look at what is happening in the problem you presented and I have nothing to add

     From: Israel Shapira]
     Sent: Thursday, February 27, 2014 12:14 AM

     ----
     From: Israel Shapira >
     Date: 2014-02-26 15:00 GMT-08:00
     To: Moshe Moshe >

     I thank you of course, but in my opinion this cannot be the solution.

     If you accepted that in phase 4 the spaceships are at rest relative to each other and the distance between them is almost 10 light years, then according to the original twin paradox if one of them accelerates towards the other so that the gamma factor is equal to 10, then according to the clock of the accelerating spaceship the time that will pass until it meets the other is 10 years One light, and it doesn't matter which one will accelerate. The time that will pass in the clock of the spaceship that is not accelerating is XNUMX years.

     Since in my problem spaceship B is the one that accelerates in stage 6, then according to the original paradox it will only take her one year according to season to meet A.

     2014-02-26 14:20:

     ----
     From: Moshe Moshe >
     Date: 2014-02-26 15:52 GMT-08:00
     To: Israel Shapira >

     I suspect that in your reference you are not making the transition correctly from one inertial system to another
     The change in time in one system must be asked: change compared to some other inertial system?
     The way you describe the problem, there are several inertial systems (besides the short period that a spacecraft system accelerates)
     I suggested that you always take into account the change relative to the Earth's inertial system
     If you do this, then a spaceship that has come to rest relative to the Earth after 3 nanoseconds guarantees that from there onwards it is Earth clock.
     She will wait 10 years according to answer until the meeting with spaceship A.
     This is not a difficult problem, if you describe what is happening in a complicated way, then the simplicity of the problem is hidden.
     It's simple: there are two observers here, one B makes a very short "turn", leaves and returns to Earth after a very short time (let's say, as you said, 3 nanoseconds according to the Earth's clock) and that's all, he rests afterwards and waits for the spaceship with observer A that set off from a distant planet (10 light years) moving close to the speed of light, therefore according to the earth's clock and also according to the clock of observer B placed on the earth, it will arrive in about 10 years according to the earth's clock and according to the spacecraft's clock B assuming Earth. The time that will pass for observer A is of course shortened relative to the time that passes by the earth's clock and by the clock of the spaceship superimposed on it.

     More in red below

     From: Israel Shapira]
     Sent: Thursday, February 27, 2014 1:00 AM

     To: Moshe Moshe
     Subject: Re: Twin paradox's paradox

     I thank you of course, but in my opinion this cannot be the solution.

     If you accepted that in step 4 the spaceships are at rest relative to each other and the distance between them is almost 10 light years, then according to the original twin paradox if one of them accelerates towards the other so that the gamma factor is equal to 10, after a short acceleration of changing the direction of movement of spaceship B, the spaceships move Towards this at a constant speed, isn't it? And in any case, as you defined the problem, the time of movement of one towards the other is very short (perhaps 1.5 nanoseconds in the Earth's clock, according to the figure you stated) and then B stops and rests on the Earth.

     So according to the clock of the accelerating spacecraft (B), the time that will pass until you meet the second one is one light year, no! Spacecraft B stops after 3 nanoseconds, it will meet A after 10 years according to the season and according to Earth's clock
     And it doesn't matter which one will accelerate. The time that will pass in the clock of the spaceship that is not accelerating is 10 years. (Time relative to which system?) Spacecraft A does not accelerate (except when it sets off) and yet its movement time lasts 10 years according to the Earth's clock and one year according to its own clock.

     Since in my problem spaceship B is the one that accelerates in stage 6, then according to the original paradox it will only take one year according to season to meet A. No ! As I explained

     ----
     From: Israel Shapira >
     Date: 2014-02-26 21:10 GMT-08:00
     To: Moshe Moshe>

     Of course, this is the easy and simple solution. The paradox is that this solution conflicts with the system of the spacecraft when viewed separately from the planets.

     In the spacecraft system only, the steps look like this:

     1. The spaceships are at rest relative to each other and are not accelerating. This stage can last for a million years.

     2. At time 0 according to the clocks of the spaceships that are synchronized between them, the 2 spaceships are accelerating in the same direction. Acceleration time period in clocks of each spacecraft: delta T1.

     3. At time T1 in the clocks of each spaceship, the acceleration ends and the spaceships move to cruise at a constant speed and 0 speed between them. Duration of cruise time in each spacecraft's clocks: Delta T2.

     In the delta T2 time period they are 10 light years apart and their clocks are synchronized. This step corresponds to steps 4 and 5 in the original problem.

     4. At time T2 in spacecraft B's clocks, it accelerates toward spacecraft A. According to the data, T2 is equal to delta T1 + delta T2.

     5. Question: At what time, according to the season, will spacecraft B and A arrive?

     My answer: T2 + year.

     The reason: delta time T2 which in the original problem lasted only a fraction of a second, can last as long as we want. If we extend it to 1000 years, it seems that during the cruise we got 2 spaceships at rest relative to each other at a distance of 10 light years from each other and their clocks are synchronized with each other. There are no planets.

     Therefore, if at time T2 in spaceship B's clocks, which is also equal to time T2 in spaceship A's clocks, it will accelerate towards A, then according to the original twin paradox, it will reach it after one year according to season six and 10 years according to spaceship A's clocks.

     And by the same reasoning, even if delta T2 only lasts a fraction of a second, from the moment it started accelerating (T2) it will take a year to reach A. The planets do not change anything, they are not related to the separate spacecraft system.

     And so if we return to the original problem, moment T2 is in step 6, where spaceship B accelerates towards A. The fact that it reached 0 speed relative to Israel does not change anything. According to Season, she will reach A after a year since she started accelerating.

     Hence the paradox of the paradox.

163. ב
     It's attributed to Walter, but he didn't actually say it.

164. Some sage whose name I don't remember said something like:
     Although I disagree with your opinion, I am ready to fight for your right to express it.
     Unfortunately, psychiatry in its beginnings was a system of silencing people and not a system of treating patients.
     Unfortunately even more so even nowadays psychiatry is still far from being a system of treating patients on a scientific basis.

165. Someone started laughing and writes in my name, just a note that after the repetitions, warp and CPR come more easily

166. Lobotomy:
     http://www.cchr.org.il/%D7%A4%D7%A1%D7%99%D7%9B%D7%95%D7%9B%D7%99%D7%A8%D7%95%D7%A8%D7%92%D7%99%D7%94_%D7%9C%D7%95%D7%91%D7%95%D7%98%D7%95%D7%9E%D7%99%D7%94_%D7%A0%D7%99%D7%AA%D7%95%D7%97%D7%99_%D7%9E%D7%95%D7%97

167. I was told I had to have a lobotomy. Who can explain to me what it is?

168. A. I didn't understand exactly what kind of experiments you want to do, Israel, b. If you present the experiments in plural they will reproduce them for you if they are original and they will take credit from you, c. In the experiments I have done such as warp and time reversals I have not yet found how, apart from understanding and self-use, this will benefit humanity on the globe, in respect of blowing water and even in things like reviving people, it is getting a little tiring

169. Israel
     interesting.
     I will present your response to my friend who deals with the issue, and I will update you later.
     incidentally,
     I would be happy if you could present your correspondence with Prof. Moshe, because after all the scientific method is also intended to spread its results widely.

170. Shmulik

     It seems to me that we or Ork have very little to innovate in the matter of weaving. Simply put: we have no green idea how the business works. But as those who dare to challenge Einstein and his thought experiments, it is better that we come up with something with some meat, that is, real experiments, according to the response to Abu.

     I know of a site where several new theories come out every week, including the theory that stupid Einstein stole relativity from his first wife altogether. There are also very interesting theories, for example it can be shown that Einstein's theory is actually Maxwell's theory with an additional dimension to time.

     I agree with Abu: So what?

     Of course, all ideas should be submitted for review, especially to those who understand the field. This is how you can separate the chaff from the chaff. But we have to go to the experiments, otherwise we will be and remain chatterbox on the blog.

     So as we used to say in Palmach:

     permission to speak to a Parablom member,

     And now the submachine gun friend will speak.

171. Nice, at the time I also did some light experiments

172. Abu

     It's nice to play with theories, but the real test is experiment.

     I did the last experiment two months ago, the day before I flew to Israel. Unfortunately, when I returned to the USA, some complications arose, as Yuval Erakman knows, while I was fascinated by the household duties. Now the pressure is off and I hope to return to the battlefield soon.

     At this stage I am conducting what I call the "trivial experiments" - to see if it is possible to make the slow part of the photon collapse even before the fast one, thus preventing the fast part from reaching the viewer. The main problem is the equipment. You have to watch from a distance of 5 km a laser beam that passes through a grating whose width is much smaller than a millimeter and it rotates at an enormous speed. Now where would you find this laser beam in the desert in the middle of the night? After all, her creation is terribly focused. For this purpose, I ordered from China special telescopic sights with a laser attached to them, and I reset through the crosshairs in the sight also another murderous Watt laser that almost melted the reticle. There is no reception in the desert, so we used a walkie talkie. We were able to observe the laser telescope fortunately, because if it had disappeared, the goal would have been achieved.

     But it was fun, and also in the previous trivial experiments I conducted.

     I am trying to increase the rotation speed of the lattice using a VFD, and also the viewing range. There is almost no chance that such an experiment will succeed, but it must be carried out before approaching more complex ones.

     I believe your explanation also requires the transfer of information in 0 time.

     To Prof. Moshe's credit, he responded a lot, but we still haven't been able to overcome the problem. I will wait a few more days to see if there is a solution, and if he has no objection, I will upload the correspondence between us in another response.

173. By the way, what about an answer from Prof. Moshe Moshe? Does he have an answer about the Paradox Paradox? Please keep us updated.

174. Israel
     "The usual explanation is that it is actually one particle because the same wave function describes the two intertwined particles. It is difficult for me to accept this explanation, although if photon A is in Israel and B is in Andromeda and both are actually one photon, then there is no doubt that it is a "long photon" as I claim all the time."

     And I argued (in a different formulation) that the photon interacts with matter and dark energy at a certain point, and this is the reason why there is a symbiosis between intertwined photons.
     So what?
     I have no ability to conduct such an experiment to confirm my claim.
     Do you have the ability to confirm your claim through some kind of experiment?
     (You claim yes but you don't present the experiment.)
     And why is it difficult for you to accept the explanation of wave-particle duality? This is a pretty reasonable explanation.

175. Israel,
     From what I understand, the experiment presented in the last link I posted is another in an attempt to close the last remaining loophole in Bell's argument.

     How about the post titled: Bye bye multiverse
     http://www.scienceagogo.com/forum/ubbthreads.php?ubb=showflat&Number=51243#Post51243
     According to Orak, the conclusion from the article he presents, related to interweaving, claims this. I understood one word out of 12 of this article (if I link directly to the article, my father's cyber army prevents me from uploading the post)

176. Israel,
     I will wait, finally there will be something to do at work.
     By the way, I don't know Yael Bracha from the kibbutz

177. The weaving process is described in each weaving link. I found the most exhaustive explanation on Stanford's website:
     http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=0Eeuqh9QfNI

     In my opinion, in most cases the lectures on YouTube are better than similar lectures at the university. The best lecturers, polished and experienced, not visiting professors from all kinds of distant countries who have to teach a course as part of the curriculum and it is impossible to understand what they are saying. You can always stop in the middle of a lecture and come back later.

     Many people did answer the challenge, but did not necessarily answer correctly.. otherwise they would not have given completely different answers from each other.

178. Israel,
     It's like saying a person is deaf because they can't hear.
     Come on, just don't get out of here, I'm sure there's no speed. not like that. Tell how you are progressing with the paradox^2 and I suggest that you also post in that forum. It seems there are people out there who enjoy answering the challenge.

179. The same mechanism that caused 1 to stick to 2, 3 to stick to 4, and 2 to stick to 3. The interweaving mechanism.

     Indeed, the experiment proposed by Link expands the field of the quantum connection measured in the experiment, but it must be remembered that Bell's proof is mathematical, the experiments only confirmed what the theory requires. See also

     https://www.hayadan.org.il/astronomers-reach-new-frontiers-of-dark-matter-130112/comment-page-20/#comment-327767

     down.

     The idea of ​​a conspiracy between the polarizers is not new, so in the later ASPECT experiments the position of the polarizers was determined only after the photons had left the source.

     I finally received Prof. Moshe Moshe's email. Tomorrow I will send him the paradox of the paradox.

     We had a blessing at Kibbutz Yael, she should be 59 now. Do you know?

180. Israel,
     And what mechanism causes 1 to stick to 4? Quantum SQL?
     I agree that we are a bit of a water miller and in Israel water has not been falling from the trees lately but here is something like this, to finish:
     http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2014/02/140220112515.htm

181. Still don't understand what the problem is with 4 interlaced with 1. Go over the timing diagram. After all, in stage 4 they interweave photons 2 and 3, when 2 was interwoven with 1 and 3 with 4. So why didn't the interweaving thicken from 1 to 4 like a torch on the way to the Olympics passing between the messengers? So what about 1 has already inflated his soul, what goes through the interweaving is just a state of polarization, isn't it?

     You did give an explanation: back in time (no?). And where the strange quantum GPS doesn't work?

     Between the 2 quirks, I believe in infinite speed. She doesn't seem strange to me at all. On the contrary, a limit on speed seems illogical to me in an infinite universe, because as I mentioned, if we reached it, what would stop us from shooting a small arrow that would go through the same finite speed? Lorentz transformations?

     But it seems to me that we have been a bit limited. The link to Nick explains the matter nicely, and if you are more thorough you can watch Suskind's lectures that include all the mathematical formalism and thus learn straight from the horse's mouth (Kind). It is enough that you get to lecture 5 to understand the matter, I believe.

182. We have already discussed that quantum mechanics does not explain anything but describes reality and from that I quoted an explanation for why the coins fall this way and not another way, an explanation that you decided was philosophical but it wasn't.
     In the backward interlacing experiment, after the measurement of B and C, D stops being interlaced with C and becomes interlaced with A. I would like to point out that you argue with the researchers' conclusions (which is fine), but it seems to me that to think that they simply ignored your apparently so obvious conclusion, when it comes to researchers on the subject, is too simplistic a thought (you are welcome to send them an email on the subject). Here is their conclusion again (from the article on the website, it is assumed that the scientific article is more detailed):
     The researchers suggest that the outcome of their experiment shows that entanglement is not a truly physical property, at least not in a tangible sense. To say that two photons are entangled, they write, doesn't mean they have to exist at the same time. It shows that quantum events don't always have a parallel in the observable world.

     On the other hand, look at what is now required from your claim:
     1. Infinite data transfer speed
     2. Quantum GPS - it has no equal
     3. A quantum SQL server, which holds an index of all the particles in the universe, receives a query from A to whom to be entwined now and returns an answer to be entwined to D.
     You ignore the problems of relaying information (I've given up on trying to convince you about infinite speed) and too easily accept the fact that the particles pass the interweaving baton from one to the other, as if they were sprinters.

     I checked some links in that forum (a very impressive forum) and look what I found:
     http://www.scienceagogo.com/forum/ubbthreads.php?ubb=showflat&Number=50830#Post50830 - The question of the year that the scientists were asked was: What scientific idea is ready for retirement?. In the next link the answer was: Infinity. I recommend reading (I didn't get to the end of the thread)

     I will read the link from Nick and then I will ask again what you think happens in an experiment where an electron is coupled to a photon and then the electron is measured.

183. And D is not intertwined with C?

     I'm with the kids today, soccer, etc. The link to Nick is from my name. You must fully understand the experiment described there, otherwise it will be difficult for you to understand why information undoubtedly passes, and why at infinite speed. I have a feeling for some reason that many of the commenters here and in your links do not know or fully understand the Aspect experiment, hence the confusion and the washing of the words, "correlation" Elek.

     Remember that if you do not accept that information passes in zero time, you will have to give an explanation to the question of the coins: how do they always fall on the same side if there is no transfer of information between them? And if we can choose as we wish the spawn times in both rooms, what limit is there to the speed of information transfer?

184. Israel,
     But A is claimed to be intertwined with D and not with C. Intertwined with D even before D was created.

     Ork wrote that quantum mechanics describes reality, not explains it. I was impressed by the man that he understands a thing or two in the field and his words regarding the physicists' attempt to understand how the complex wave function relates to reality is consistent with the other response I sent you to which says:
     But this step, in which the original overall probabilities for the second particle were replaced by the conditional probabilities that take the known outcome involving the first particle into account, is just a change of our knowledge – not a remote influence of one particle on the other .
     This is no more a philosophical answer than the probabilistic explanation of why a 6 came out of a die out of 6 possibilities. This is actually Bohr's answer (also an old master), if I understood that article from Eretz correctly, to Einstein.

     Difficulties in understanding (mine):
     An electron and a photon are intertwined. Are you claiming that when I change the spin of an electron, a photon is launched at infinite speed from the electron to the photon, and it knows, against everything we know about the world, to reach its destination? Again, filled at infinite speed, but to get to know him? It has no equal. You can say that weaving has no equal either, but that is not true. Tunneling, the two slots are definitely brothers to the weapon of the interweaving.
     Next, do you propose an experiment in which you block this photon? then what? Will the coupling break? Will the uncertainty principle be violated?
     What is special about this futon? As far as I know, all photons like all electrons are the same. Why do we discover the others and not him?
     Please send me a link to Nick Herbert (sorry for the ignorance)
     I suggest again to try to raise the question there in the forum. Orc seems like someone who doesn't give up (reminds us of someone who was here once, doesn't it?)

185. I just saw your comment. The first question is why there are actually no hidden variables. The response does not refer to the Bell inequality and the Aspect experiment.

     If I have to choose between a strange physical explanation and a philosophical explanation, I prefer the physical one, if it can be verified experimentally.

186. In all three links there is no explanation of how weaving works, only a description of it. This includes Orc's explanations. In the same link, they also talk about the spin of photons instead of polarization, and there is no fussing here and there.

     I also didn't really understand what the problem is with interweaving particles at different times. After all, if A is intertwined with B, B is intertwined with C, and then A disappears, then it is clear that A is interwoven with C, isn't it?

     But you see a typical phenomenon here, which perhaps answers your question about the law of conservation of energy: according to the description, many billions of particles can be intertwined, and the collapse of one will collapse them all. So if we start from the assumption that collapse requires a minimal amount of energy, how did they all collapse from the same amount?

     You could also ask the same question about the dominoes falling, and the answer would be the same: the energy was stored before, it is not related to the energy you invested in dropping the first stone.

     Don't you like the infinitives? We are all with you. But what to do, this is what happens in weaving, according to Nick Herbert's article.

     "By the way, I couldn't understand your answers about my laser flashlight. If I shoot light with my laser flashlight at the wall. Why doesn't light hit a wall faster than the "speed of light"?

     Hit, hit, but how will you measure it? How would you measure a bullet faster than escape velocity? Neutrinos in double beta decay? Infrared or ultraviolet light if you don't have the equipment?

     Regarding the question of the wall: the same as the question of the tunnel. Photons come from the two lanterns, and each photon moves at all speeds. But the wall is only sensitive to the part moving relative to it at the speed of light, which plays the role of the escape velocity in the tunnel.

     Note: this is not "photons moving at all speeds" - each photon by itself moves at all speeds.

     But it will be difficult for you to understand the concept if you are not familiar with the Maxwell model and the ballistic pendulum.

187. Israel,
     How about the following explanation:
     http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/3158/why-quantum-entanglement-is-considered-to-be-active-link-between-particles
     The first explanation

188. Israel,
     As they once said on Family Guy:
     Can't I be both?
     Anyway, I poked around and found a discussion on the subject at http://www.scienceagogo.com/forum/ubbthreads.php?ubb=showflat&Number=48635
     A commenter named Orac that I followed provides interesting explanations and some very interesting links:
     Interweaving between photons that do not exist at the same time (Hebrew University):
     http://phys.org/news/2013-05-physics-team-entangles-photons-coexisted.html
     Interweaving between electrons and photons:
     http://spectrum.ieee.org/tech-talk/semiconductors/devices/a-quantum-dot-first-entanglement
     I'll tell you what, infinite speed doesn't explain it and certainly when infinite speed needs GPS and when this rather scandalous solution (let go of your tongue because I wrote scandalous?) requires an explanation of how the information knows how to reach its destination, it pretty much suggests that you're in the wrong direction.
     The description given in the forum seems to be a more in-depth description of the issue. By the way, the thread there is still open and that Orac seems quite serious. Try asking your questions there too

     By the way, I couldn't understand your answers about my laser flashlight. If I shoot light with my laser flashlight at the wall. Why does light not hit a wall faster than the "speed of light"?
     If I have 2 flashlights. One is fixed and the other is moving. Imagine a situation of a road with 2 lanes. One lamp stands at the traffic light and waits for its turn and the other lamp races towards the traffic light. When the second light reaches the line the first light is on, they both shoot in the same direction. The light from both lamps will reach the wall at exactly the same time. Why is this so, if the photons travel at all speeds?

189. Jacob, Shmulik not Shmuelan, is Shmuelan.

190. "Republican stinginess" - you are a fool, the Americans have a deficit of 17 trillion dollars and you think that cutting the NASA budget is "stinginess", on the contrary, it is extravagance at the expense of the public

191. Of course I see it.

     This is also the reason why I always write "feasibility" of non-locality, and not an explanation of non-locality.

     Even in response to Anu/Gaspant/Anaaraf the snooze I wrote "a direction to explain what happens in weaving".

     The usual explanation is that it is actually one particle because the same wave function describes the two entangled particles. It is difficult for me to accept this explanation, although if photon A is in Israel and B is in Andromeda and both are actually one photon, then there is no doubt that it is a "long photon" as I keep claiming.

     My "direction" is the so-called "feed back" like the one that exists between the first and second wire in the transformer.

     When you turn on your radio transmitter, then if I turn on my receiver I create a little load on the transmitter. The transmitter transmits photons, and the re-feeding is carried out using "virtual photons". But what happens if all that is emitted is only one photon? Why don't we have re-feeding there too?

     This is the direction. If we accepted that information can travel at infinite speed, then feeding back at infinite speed can be the direction of the interlacing mechanism. But as mentioned, this is only a direction.

     Does it matter now? Not really. You don't need to understand how GPS works to use it. And for our purposes, it is enough that the mechanism works.

192. Israel,
     Sorry for the broken last sentence. Here again:
     I repeat the question: how does infinite speed solve the target problem? Reaching the destination requires additional knowledge because infinite speed alone is not enough. How can you not see that?

193. Israel,
     Unfortunately I gave you an opening to use your wonderful quill drawing ability when I wrote "in a square".
     Explain to me how infinite speed allows the spin information to reach exactly its destination?
     An answer like: "What other solution do you see" is not an answer.
     I'm biting my lip not to write more about this question because then I'll provide you with options to calm down =) and I reserve the right to comment on the rest of the stuff.
     I repeat the question: how does infinite speed solve the target problem? Reaching another goal of knowledge that just infinite speed does not solve. How can you not see that?

194. Shmulik

     It is that "we are unable to discover a hint of such information transfer. We do not detect any radiation and in fact nothing and we are really good at detecting radiation" - does not mean that information does not pass. The problem is logical, not technical: if no information passes, how are the spins or polarizations always synchronized?

     And who even said it was radiation? If 200 years ago I told you that you could watch and chat with your friend in America while driving in a car, would you have thought about radiation? Why not the Holy Spirit?

     But Ehud - and I believe you too - claim: there is no transfer of information, even in the case of coins that always fall on the same side. Elk philosophy.

     And we - here we come?

     "If it is about transferring information, then the information passes at an infinite speed, and that is already problematic."

     True... very problematic. But what to do if this is exactly what is happening?

     "Infinite speed does not explain how the information knows how to reach its destination. It's already weird squared"

     in a square? on the third, fourth and tenth. But what other solution is there to the results of the Aspect experiment, as you saw if you read Nick's article?

     "As much as I tried to imagine a wind with infinite speed, I couldn't understand what exactly you were talking about."

     Our imagination is not built to handle infinity. But let's go back just 100 years. The picture of the universe is infinite - it has no limit, always was and always will be.

     So what finite speed exists in an infinite universe? It is said that it has a certain value V relative to the land. What happens if you move at speed V, you will not be able to shoot a projectile in the direction of movement and thus achieve a speed higher than V?

     Conclusion: in an infinite universe the speeds can also reach infinity.

     "I showed you how to know the momentum of projectiles whose speed is greater than the escape velocity"

     really? Could you apply the same method to massive capture of neutrinos? After all, there is no doubt that they pass through us, so why is it so difficult to capture them?

     By the way, I hope you see why it is impossible to discover tachyons if the theory is correct. They are just too fast.

     "Plus your analog allows us to detect velocities lower than the escape velocity but that's not the case with your photons so an analogy is only true when it benefits you?"

     Certainly this is the case with my photons. But don't forget, in a "long photon" the fast "bullet" reaches the target before the slow one, which causes the entire photon to collapse.

     In the example of the projectiles and the tunnel, if we shoot from the moon to the earth, as soon as one projectile is captured by the earth's gravity the whole system collapses to that point, including the faster projectiles that have already passed without leaving any momentum, and the slow ones that have not yet arrived.

     You may see how the problem of going back in time was solved here in the Weiler experiment (forgive me water). When you measure the photons 1000 light years away from the cracks, it does not mean that the photon has already traveled 1000 light years and its measurement affects what happened 1000 years ago. The explanation is different here: the long photon, 1000 light years, collapsed in the detector, which simultaneously caused its slow part that had just reached the cracks to choose the state, wave or particle, at the same absolute moment when the fast part collapsed, as measured by the absolute temperature clocks.

     "Why after we turn off the laser, don't photons continue to reach the wall and paint it?"

     same as above. They have already crashed into the wall.

     "(I assume a low photon speed will lead to a different color)"

     Right. Incidentally, this is the first problem that emerged in all of Einstein's thought experiments. "Lightning struck the track, and the light moves along the track and the train traveling on it at the same speed relative to each system" wait, if it hit the track, then along the train it moves in different colors, right? A little reddish in the direction of progress and a little oval against it, no? So how can we talk about the same light?

     And I - Ana, am I coming?

     "If all photons are moving at all speeds, where are they?"

     They move until they collapse. They cannot crash unless they hit an object that is at the appropriate speed, just as projectiles do not crash or get caught in any terrain match except the match with a specific speed matching the escape speed.

     Therefore, if you turn on a flashlight and aim at Mars, as long as there is nothing to stop the beam, it is on the entire trajectory to the planet. Once it collapsed, it disappeared from the entire track.

     My experiments are based on this idea.

195. Water blowing
     I have the impression that your body is saturated with inexhaustible amounts of the snafus. You urgently need rehab. The returns will end you in the 50s they called it B.K.T - permanently unkosher. Peacefully waiting for you. The treatment especially for you is free. Only then I hope you will be like one of the people.

196. Israel,
     First, I must correct the impression you may have had, that I do not accept the facts. It is clear that the results of the coin fall is as you describe, and that quantum mechanics is the theory that predicts the correct solution and any theory that might replace it, if it is a theory of hidden variables, will have to be a non-local theory.
     What bothers me is the following:
     1. If it is a transfer of information, we fail to discover a hint of such transfer of information. We don't detect any radiation and basically nothing and we are really good at detecting radiation. It just means we haven't found out, of course, but it's interesting.
     2. If it is about the transfer of information, then the information passes at an infinite speed, which is already problematic.
     3. If we are talking about the transfer of information, then it is not just the transfer of information at an infinite speed, but that the information knows how to navigate with the help of quantum GPS between one electron and another. Filled with infinite speed but infinite speed does not explain how the information knows how to reach its destination. It's already weird squared. Please address this point.

     Parallels to the analog world:
     The parallel to the analog world is nice to give some kind of intuition but that's all. As much as I tried to imagine a wind with infinite speed, I couldn't figure out exactly what you were talking about. In addition, I showed you how it is possible to know the momentum of projectiles whose speed is greater than the escape velocity, by placing a wall (or a person you don't want them to visit). My wall is not valid for you. Additionally your analog allows us to detect velocities lower than the escape velocity but that is not the case with your photons so an analogy is only true when it favors you?

     Lasers and the speed of the photon:
     When we produce a laser by an avalanche of electrons, the light is coherent and parallel monochromatic and we know exactly how much energy we invested and how much energy we need to receive from the laser. If the photons from the laser move at all speeds, why after we turn off the laser, don't photons continue to reach the wall and paint it? Why isn't a different color light produced (I assume a low photon speed would lead to a different color)?

     LHC:
     The LHC is built in such a way that it accurately monitors all the energy produced and compares it against the measured one, this is to try to check whether energy has leaked into other dimensions, this is to try to locate (also) gravitons. That is, the LHC is built so that it should detect all kinds of leaks. If all the photons are moving at all speeds, where are they? Why do we not detect a trace of these infinite photons moving at infinite speeds?
     http://home.web.cern.ch/about/physics/extra-dimensions-gravitons-and-tiny-black-holes

     Perhaps I will find time to follow your correspondence with R.H. Like this, before bed =)

197. Confucius you sound unemployed to me

198. Water blowing
     If they put your mind in a bird's head there would be a lot of free space left.

199. With all due respect to the theories you write, when a photon touches the wall it touches it several times due to its movement backwards and forwards in time many times, therefore it depends on how it stabilizes on reality in the dimension of the wall and therefore its effect can be statistical if we do not count all the dimensions of the photon, have a good day

200. Shmulik

     You say “one small photon, reaches the wall. We know how much energy it took to create it, we know the energy it gave to the wall. Nothing is missing. How does a photon have infinite energy?

     Let's go back to the bullets through the tunnel example. Infinite projectiles are coming, so will they transfer infinite energy to Israel?

     The answer is negative. As we saw only 12 projectiles at most, whose relative speed when they reach the tunnel does not exceed 11.2 km/s, transfer momentum and energy to the country. All the rest are "transparent" and do not transmit momentum or energy.

     I would try to explain the theory to you on one foot, but the dismal past experience prevents me from doing so. There was a very intelligent commenter here at the time with the nickname R. H., who after two months of litigation with him on the subject we were unable to convince each other. So if you and I have not been able to convince each other that if coins in separate rooms always fall on the same side it is or is not a matter of transferring information from coin to coin, what are the chances that we will be able to reach an agreement that what I call an "active site" normalizes the infinities?

     If you wish, you can read the thread (the longest, the longest in the site's history) at:
     https://www.hayadan.org.il/astronomers-reach-new-frontiers-of-dark-matter-130112/

     But it will be difficult for you to understand what it is about if you are not familiar with the following topics:

     1. The ballistic pendulum.

     2. Maxwell's site model.

     3. Lesage's gravitation model.

     4. Mach principle.

     And of course, relationships.

     Do you think it's worth the trouble?

201. Sometimes they say that the truth is more important than anything, sometimes it is better not to know it

202. Water blowing
     Today at 2 am Zeus himself will come and take you to the Pantheon in the Acropolis. You will be used there regularly as a museum exhibit for everything stupid that exists in our world and your favorite parallel worlds. Sincerely.

203. What I wanted to say is that space has nothing, and the photon knows where it is from moving backwards and forwards in time many times and settling on what it touches, the movement many times creates a wave, and it settles on a single possibility from its movements backwards and forwards in time, until then it has many statistical possibilities to be found, and he goes through many routes

204. Israel,
     Other than greatly enjoying your penmanship, I don't see how the description of a classical phenomenon (spirit) answers my question.
     One small photon, reaches the wall. We know how much energy it took to create it, we know the energy it gave to the wall. Nothing is missing. How does a photon have infinite energy?
     Relativity collapses in a black hole because it encounters infinity and it seems that you propose to start your explanation with infinities, ones that disturb the laws of conservation. not like that?

205. Shmulik

     In Hayat, Shmulik, 12 at night, we pensioners have to get up early to do headstand on the beach.

     The general idea was detailed in the comments in the article from two years ago. I will try to explain it to you with a simple example:

     If a wind blows in your face, if you shout or whisper it will carry your words with it.

     If we lowered the speed limit, this wind can move at any speed, as high as required. You don't need to add energy for your words, or the movement you've given the wind molecules, to move at any speed. The energy does not come from you, it already exists in the spirit from before.

     It is clear that from the point of view of the one to whom the spirit moves relative to him with infinite speed, its energy is also infinite. But as in the example of the projectiles with the earth, only projectiles at certain speeds, or wind molecules at certain speeds, are not "transparent" to you, and these molecules move at finite speeds relative to you.

     Don't forget, there are only 3 types of motion: relative speed, acceleration, and the speed of light. Therefore "infinite speed" does not matter to a body at a constant speed, it is at rest and its kinetic energy is equal to 0.

     Miracles - what's the problem with mm? Don't you see that a photon moving at all speeds but measured only at the speed of light explains well the MM experiment and all of Einstein's thought experiments, and still maintains the absolute time of Newton and Maxwell?

     Good night.

206. Honorable Shmulik in relation to accountants, if power and material can pass through parallel worlds, the laws of conservation need some correction for parallel worlds, what else do I have a problem with funds that I paid in parallel worlds things like sales to different parties in parallel worlds and accounts that become transparent, in short also the law of accountants in connection For "transparent" money, how do you say "fake" with respect.

207. Israel
     Are we not going back to Michelson-Morley?

208. Israel,
     wake you up As mentioned, you can understand infinite time because I don't see a problem, things will continue indefinitely. Regarding an infinite mass, it is not clear to me whether something like this can be proven.
     Infinite speed, it seems to me, contradicts the law of conservation of energy.
     I still don't understand what it means that it is moving at all speeds. Where does the energy come from? In every experiment we do, the law of conservation of energy holds.
     Please explain

209. Miracles

     You are on point. I'm proud of you.

     My opinion is that if the track is at rest relative to the background radiation and the train is at rest, the time on the train is at rest and therefore lengthens. If the opposite then the opposite.

     The required experiment for comparison is the muon experiment. But note: in all muon experiments, they move against the radiation. If we were to start with a system that is in motion relative to radiation and emits muons that will be at rest relative to it, and the time in them would still be lengthened - I would be convinced of the lengthening of time. The current format of the experiments is not unequivocal, if only for the simple reason that any system that is in motion relative to the cosmic background radiation, heats up. So why don't the clocks slow down?

     In fact if you fly fast enough, your spaceship will vaporize due to the friction with the radiation. So how can we compare stationary systems like ours to systems like high-speed muons?

     In contrast, with Einstein in 1905 there is no difference between the systems, because they did not yet know about the background radiation.

     I have to go to bed. We will wait for Prof. Moshe Moshe's answer to the paradox of the paradox, and we will hope that Moses until Moshe did not rise like Moses.

210. Come on, one last joke for the forum, and sleep.

     In the meantime, if you want me or anyone to take you seriously, try to answer the question you didn't answer:

     What is the relevance of your virtual particles and high energies to the discussion?

     Because if you don't answer, a shadow of suspicion creeps into your heart that maybe you read some short story on the subject somewhere, and therefore decided to show off as usual on the only subject you feel you might understand something about.

211. Israel
     I mean in your opinion. There is no acceleration and no strain, so I understand from you that there is no time difference.

212. Israel
     You are funny.
     Have you ever thought of becoming a medical clown or doing stand-up comedy instead of bragging on science websites about things you have no idea about?

213. Shmulik

     waiting

     we

     admit, admit, are you moving?

     And next, if you want to pretend, change the link attached to your name. For some reason you are all connected to the same link.

     Have you thought about maybe opening a rehab center for anonymous harassers?

214. Shmulik

     "Where did you get that from?"

     Hence (Zvi's response):

     https://www.hayadan.org.il/lux-detector-will-operate-for-300-days-in-the-next-year-0311138/comment-page-3/#comment-455201

     And here is the bottom line, which seems to have been written for you:

     "I'm not sure I like this conclusion, but what is clear is that a flat, isotropic and homogeneous universe is indeed infinite in size and "mass".

     To your second question: the photon does not "fly", the photon is a wave - a galaxy if you will - and it always moves forward at all speeds.

     If you think this is difficult to digest, look at the question I asked Ehud about all the problems that such an assumption solves at once.

     Not worth thinking about?

     Come on, friend, we need to go to bed soon.

215. Improve the tone, Israel?
     I wrote four words:

     Israel
     What is a virtual particle?

     Is that what bothers you?

     Why don't you just admit that you don't really understand what you're talking about? Israel Israel Sometimes you are such a miracle...

216. Israel,
     Again, the infinities you described do not necessarily exist. infinite time? Maybe in the future =), infinite material? Where did you get it from? The point I was trying to convey is the law of conservation of energy/momentum. The infinities you described do not contradict the law of conservation of energy. Infinite speed, yes.

     The accountants of Energy Conservation, Tana Co. do not encounter any problems today, everything works out without embezzlement, no one needs to be sent to prison and the neutrino occasionally does get stuck in matter and we fully understand why it rarely produces interactions, therefore your solution, which adds much more mystery seems to me problematic. Explain your argument to the accountant like this, for the single photon that was forced to participate in the two slits experiment: Did the photon fly at all possible speeds in its flight towards the slit?

     By the way, in Feynman's Nobel lecture he talked about a universe with one electron. do you know
     http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/One-electron_universe

217. Oh God, a man is not allowed to play chess in peace!

     we

     I will answer you if you identify yourself, and explain the relevance of your virtual particles and high energies to the discussion.

     And of course, you will improve the tone.

     Miracles

     You mean according to the interpretation of relativity? Time on the train moves more slowly, so Sona will lag behind the station clock. This is in a joint photo.

218. Miracles and farts

219. Israel
     and for his matter. Let's go back to the simplest case of a fast train that passes 2 stations A and B. When passing through station A, they synchronize their watches. What time will spectators on the train and at station B see in the suit of station B?

220. Israel
     I don't know what your obsession with grandfathers is, but you keep dodging like a photon traveling at all speeds..
     Maybe you will already answer my question: what is a virtual particle?
     If you don't answer I'll understand that you just don't know.
     And if you don't know what a virtual particle is, then where does your audacity come from to pretend to know what you don't know? Did you learn it in the kibbutz?
     And how does the nickname I chose and the nickname chosen by the other commenter have anything to do with your lack of knowledge? Is this another (pathetic) attempt to divert the discussion from the main point?

221. Israel
     Why are you responding to a group of retarded retirees who have nothing to do but talk and show off?

222. We... Facebook... Please accept.

     Didn't I tell you a long time ago about the promise I made to Grandpa, peace be upon him, not to waste time on anonymous commenters who change names all the time and harass the respected commenters?

     So eliminate web chatter. Either you identify, or you overlap. After all - grandfather...

223. Israel
     Your quick response indicates that my assessment is fundamentally correct. As for the style of your response, it is not suitable for a kibbutz.

224. No, our Israelis.
     I am not the "Hephaestus" commenter.
     But he probably also sees that you are trying to walk in shoes that are several sizes bigger than you.
     Besides, 96 has long been out of date. So what do you have to update us? (except for the things you don't know). Maybe something about a virtual particle?
     Which brings me back to the question I asked you and you dodge it and try to make me tell you stories like it's a storytelling festival.
     So what about the question I asked you, Israelis?
     What is a virtual particle? Maybe tell us? After all, you are "savvy" in high energy physics, aren't you?

225. Come on Phaistos, back to the barn.

     What name will you come to us with now? Maybe ref..

     I meant Rapsajni!

     Percy Maddoni?

226. Miracles and Israel
     I noticed that you two are the dominant stars in this article. Tell me, don't you have something better to do than talk? You are probably both bored pensioners

227. Right..

     Teach us, Anu, tell us a story about high energies!

     Maybe something with octane 96?

228. Israel Shakespeare
     Only you can solve such a paradox.
     And what about an answer to my question? Why are you dodging like a virtual photon? Maybe it's because you didn't study high energy physics? (Which of course does not prevent you from bragging in the field).

229. Like an anonymous commenter, only with less thick to me.

     Let's go, Khalas Tala. Immediately immediately solve the paradox the paradox of the twins.

230. Israel
     What is a virtual particle?

231. No.

     Time is increasing rapidly due to tension. As above in the movement against the cosmic background radiation.

     But if you claim that my idea is valid against the claim that the particle is spread throughout space, how can we even talk about the lengthening of time? Einstein's entire claim is based on the assumption that the photon moves at only one speed, that of light, and its position is always defined. For this he fought Bohr and his gang. So if it's not so, what's the point of relativity anyway?

232. Israel
     In flight experiments, the resulting lag is a function of flight time. GPS satellites take into account both speed and acceleration. Are you claiming then, that the calculation in the acceleration component is wrong?

233. Miracles

     in acceleration

     sympathetic

     If the particle was created at time 0, and there is a non-0 probability of finding it at time XNUMX second at any point in the box whose area is a light minute, my logic says that if it was created in the center of the box it would have exceeded the speed of light.

     Feynman says that in short distances photons do go the speed of light, and it is not about the speed of the bunch.

234. Israel

     Clarification and that's it, unfortunately I don't have time for endless discussions.
     The partial is not spread over the entire space it is its wave function, the thought that
     This particle is complete bullshit. True the square of the wave function is
     The probability of finding the particle but even if I have a particle in the box
     And I don't know where it is exactly I can write a function that describes the
     The probability of finding it at any point. This does not mean that the particle is indeed
     Found at every point.

235. Israel
     What does my faith have to do with this? I was just asking if two things are equivalent.
     What's more, clocks in high-speed experiments do lag behind, don't they?

236. good news!

     —–Original Message––
     From: Tal Maya – Bashaar
     To: Snuz2001
     Sent: Sun, Feb 16, 2014 11:47 pm
     Subject: Answer to your question "The Twin Paradox" from the association "Basher"

     Peace be upon Israel,
     On 13/1/14 we received your question about the "twin paradox" that was sent to us through the website for physics students.
     We have directed your question to an expert on the subject, but in order for him to be able to answer you, he would like to receive a number of clarifications regarding the question.
     If you are still interested in the answer, we will be happy to put you in touch with Prof. Moshe Moshe who can answer your question.
     If you are indeed interested, we will give you the password so that you can contact him.

237. Not different? even better!

     But if the particle is spread throughout space - why do you believe so much in the lengthening of times, and the shortening of distances?

238. Israel
     I don't understand how your proposal differs from the idea of ​​a particle spread throughout space.

239. sympathetic

     The quote from Feynman about the electron on its way from the source to the background visiting Andromeda was brought up only to show that the idea of ​​the "long photon" moving at all speeds is not as delusional as it initially sounds.

     You say "this is its wave function that can be spread out in space", but isn't the probability of finding the particle obtained from the square of the wave function?

     Here's a practical question: If I emit a photon a light second away from a wall with a door, and the door closes less than a second after the photon exits, is there any chance of finding the photon from behind the door?

     And another question about photons: are two photons with the same polarization and wavelength the same, or are there other properties that distinguish them?

     And a final question: we will ignore for the moment the question of whether there really is a "long photon" or not. Do you accept that such a photon solves all the problems raised before:

     1. The solution to matching the properties of entangled particles is philosophical, not physical.

     2. The delayed choice experiment: the future affects the past.

     3. A kilometer-long high-speed train is shortened to a millimeter, without the passengers' knowledge.

     4. Passengers passing each other have a different and acceptable private time, even though they all share the same time: the age of the universe is the same for everyone.

     5. Parallel universes.

     6. Aper's "paradox" is that information, or anything in general, moves faster than light.

     7. Experimental results from M.

     8. Einstein's generational problems and the paradoxes that arise from them.

     And again and again, puzzling explanations for which the need disappears if it is assumed that the same photon moves at all speeds.

240. Israel

     It is clear to you that not everyone who has read a popular Feynman book understands what a Feynman diagram is
     and what is at its base. At least you still read and don't quote from Wikipedia. As for what miracles are
     He wrote to you "This is equivalent to saying that a particle is everywhere at the same time, in my opinion. And if it's sound
     So it's not a new idea" Unfortunately, he doesn't understand much about quantum theory. A quantum particle does not
     Found simultaneously in many places, it is its wave function that can be spread over space.
     There is an abysmal difference between the wave function and the particle itself, for the sake of accuracy it is not given in the theories
     The existence of existence to attribute a physical reality to the wave function except in Bohm's interpretation
     where the particle is point and the wave function represents an information wave that navigates the particle. I am
     Again I warn you from hearing parts of sentences of people who understand more or less and horse
     of theories on top of these understandings.

241. You think?

242. Israel
     I didn't think that "it won't seem to you" is a valid method of proof 🙂 There is one situation where you are right - if I move away from a star at a speed lower than the speed of light, then I see a clock on the star moving forward, but if I am above the speed of light, the clock will look as if it is spinning backwards ( I am in the generation that had hands on the clock...).

243. water

     indeed..

     Miracles

     Yes..

     Just... but judge for yourself: if you go through the speed of light in relationships, first turn to the reason and the break becomes imaginary. Don't you think there might be some correlation between the two?

     At sub-light speeds if you scratch your ear the whole solar system knows about it. If we lower the quantum limit, so does the whole universe. At least that's how it is with Newton. So why would the pawn's place be different? Just because he's a pawn?

     But the fact that the information appears everywhere - and we know from entanglement that this is indeed the case, because the entangled particle can also be at the other end of the observable universe and still react immediately - does not mean that we can measure this information, so we are back to the starting point.

     Shmulik

     Physics doesn't like infinity, but our universe is probably infinite, that's what Zvi says. (He also says that such rains are harmful to agriculture, but that is another article).

     So let's go back for a moment to the picture of the universe from 100 years ago: infinite, homogeneous and isotropic. This is the universe on which Einstein built relativity, before Friedman and Mater came along and turned the tables.

     If such a universe has infinite mass, infinite time, infinite distance and infinite infinity - why wouldn't it have infinite speeds? Not only why, do you not see that if there was some speed limit, there would be a violation of homogeneity and isotropy? If the speed of light or sound or the tsunami were the maximum speed - why exactly this? Where is the homogeneity?

     So does this mean we can measure what moves above a certain speed? Not necessarily. This is where the example of the tunnel in Israel comes to our aid.

     Because as we saw in the example, out of an infinite number of projectiles that pass through it, at most 12 will leave a mark in the form of momentum. All the others are "transparent" for him, in fact they don't exist. If we take an Earth compatible moving at a certain speed relative to the Earth, then only 12 other projectiles will transfer momentum to it. So with any other compatible at any speed.

     The person at the end of the tunnel would indeed absorb all the momentum, but if the projectile is a neutrino for example, he is completely unaware of its existence. Indeed many neutrinos pass our way all the time and we are not aware of them at all, that is why they are called neutrinos.

     And as if to strengthen my thesis, those fast neutrinos are able to go through many suns without getting tired, like the fast bullets that go through the tunnel..

     Problem of infinite energy? Why? We saw that only certain projectiles out of infinity transfer momentum and therefore energy, so where is the problem?

     It should be noted that the tunnel example is only an illustrative example. It's like the rainbow, which, although it's everywhere, we only see it at a certain distance, and we can't reach or pass the rainbow either, like the speed of light.

     The more relevant example for our purposes is the ballistic pendulum, but it seems to me that we have already summed it up.

     Regarding Feynman: it doesn't matter at the moment if the multiplicity of paths for a photon is true or not. What is important is that there is an alternative to the lengthening of time in the interpretation of postulate 2, which also explains many other things. Is this alternative correct? I don't know, probably not. The advantage: it can be tested experimentally. (I've been very busy at home lately as the disappearing Yuval knows, so I couldn't make any progress).

     I saw the lecture on YouTube. I do not claim that there is no explanation that involves going back in time - I only claim that any such explanation stems from the speed of light as an upper limit - so what would happen if this limit was removed?

244. Israel,
     I need more clarification, among other things because this is a cool idea.
     In the two-slit experiment we know how to throw a single photon at the wall. Are you claiming that this photon is flying at all possible speeds at the same time? One of the least popular things in physics is infinity, and in particular infinite speed and in the solution you propose, such a speed exists. doesn't it bother you? What about the law of conservation of energy, isn't conservation of energy violated here? The reason the neutrino was discovered was because the accountants of the momentum in beta decay did not work out and the idea was put forward that there are other particles moving to them. Since then, there are no momentum problems so where does the energy for infinite speeds come from? Additional dimensions?
     In addition, in the momentum example you gave, if a person was stationed at the end of the tunnel you dug, he would absorb all the momentum of the projectile so there is really no problem measuring momentum. How does this example reflect on the speed of a photon that does not fly at the speed of light? I would like to add that one should be careful of parallels between classical Torah and quantum mechanics. The expression of the electric force is very similar to the gravitational force insurance they are really, really not similar and in fact, until they discover quantum gravity, gravity is not a force.

     Regarding the past-future, in a recent symposium with Prof. Kraus, Nobel laureate in physics, Frank Wolichek touched on the past-future theme of the nanoscopic world. This topic is in the minds of the best experts. Not just MDB. You are welcome to listen:
     http://www.youtube.com/watch?feature=player_detailpage&v=y8brILtcOSw#t=2364

     One more thing, regarding the glorification of professors who are no longer with us:
     The fact that you claim that Feynman's explanation is the best explanation does not make the explanation an existing fact. There is no proof that the electron/photon actually flies simultaneously in all possible trajectories. If you build a solution that is its base floor, your building is not standing on solid foundations

245. Israel
     I don't understand, you don't conclude from a fake root that time actually goes backwards.
     And I will ask you a question for clarification. Suppose there is a pion that has become two photons. The pion had a gravity field, and it now no longer exists. Does this information appear immediately everywhere. Am I even writing nonsense right now?

246. What is "beautiful" is successfully turning back time and moving back in time, when you discover that you are a monkey, thanks to experience

247. sympathetic

     Feynman's QED, p. 95

     But we could just as well say that the photon is going backwards in time

     So here is the smoking gun: Feynman diagrams lead to what Israel calls "MDB" - going back in time.

     But if we go back a little, to page 87, we read in the process of building a time-space diagram:

     I am going to have a 45 angle representing something going the speed of light

     Conclusion: The speed of light as a unique value is built into Feynman diagrams (no?)

     But why go far, it is enough to look at the gamma factor in Lorentz transformations. In calculating the self-time of a system moving at a speed higher than the speed of light, the denominator in the fraction - and the entire expression - becomes an imaginary number. So what could the meaning be except going back in time?

     If you are interested and have time, I can point out another option. If my experiments are crowned with success (…) I have no doubt that you - and everyone - will be interested. So let the natural course of things take its course.

     And if we quote Nissim, "this is equivalent to saying that a particle is everywhere at the same time" what other possibility besides infinite speeds for the same particle can be attributed to the assumption that the particle has no definite place before the collapse of the wave function?

248. Israel

     As mentioned, I don't have time to show you all the problems with your claim that "a photon moves at all speeds."
     From 0 to infinity - solves all the problems we raised in this article and others in one." I would like to
     Just to wake up your eye because Feynman or more precisely quantum field theory not only gives the photon any
     Speed ​​is possible from 0 to infinity as you show it but it also takes into account
     Photons traveling back in time, an idea you keep insisting on calling science fiction. So
     If your ideas are based on theories of great scientists, then the whole theory and not only
     You are what you think.
     Unfortunately I don't have information about laboratory equipment, I'm sorry.

249. Israel
     Ockham said that one should not complicate beyond what is necessary. And the ugly one said when you have to shoot then shoot, don't talk…..
     Maybe you're right. This is equivalent to saying that a particle is everywhere at the same time, in my opinion. And if it's sound then it's not a new idea...

250. You can go on and on with ping pong, but as you can see, it just gets more complicated, more complicated, more complicated and more complicated.

     Ockham's rule: the same photon moves at all speeds. This solves the problem here and everywhere else.

251. It's miracles…..

252. Israel
     You are right, of course, when there is acceleration, then there is a problem - for that, 3 photons are sent..
     But - I definitely agree with you that the distance has no meaning if there are high speeds and long distances. If you cannot measure in any way (and you are sure that you cannot measure, in my opinion) then the concept of "distance" really has no meaning.

     That's why I gave a simpler example - the 2 spaceships come from a long distance, in a back row, and pass "simultaneously" over the two stars. And here I say, there is a contradiction. Here there is no problem of measurement: everyone records the time when crossing, and everyone can measure all the distances.
     And the conclusion is that there is no simultaneity rule in this case.

253. But how would you know that after 2 nanoseconds of acceleration according to the distance to the other spacecraft increased from 1000 to 1000,000 light hours as you claim? Isn't the test supposed to take at least 2 million hours?

254. Israel
     Fixed speed…..I don't understand what's bothering you. Sent a photon ... came back after an hour, so half an hour ago the body was half a light hour away. Send another pulse and you will also know what the speed is.

255. really? When the body is 1000 light hours away from you and in motion? When will you know the distance? And where will he be when you know it, not at some other distance?

256. Israel
     I don't see a problem measuring range to the body in motion. Send two photons and get both range and speed. how am i for you

257. Miracles

     You write "The front spacecraft sees the rear star a light hour away.
     Do you get that?”

     Again, we return to the recurring question: What does seer mean? in the eyes? through a telescope?

     Because if we use Einstein's method, the method to measure the distance is by means of an electromagnetic signal sent to the star. So how will she "see" him if she moves, and even accelerates, relative to him?

     sympathetic.

     I myself give a very low chance that the theory is correct, so there is no self-deception here. On the other hand, do you accept that the idea I put forward - a photon moving at all speeds from 0 to infinity - solves all the problems we raised in this and other articles in one? Explains the results of an M-M experiment without giving up absolute time and distance? The results of an aspect experiment? The immediate collapse of the wave function? The results of Weiler's delayed choice experiment? Eliminates the need for parallel universes and going back in time?

     If you ever have time and desire, I can try to explain my position why such a photon is required by Maxwell's theory in an infinite, homogeneous and isotropic universe, and why the same principle can also explain the origin of inertia and gravitation.

     But right now you can help me with a practical advice. I need a diffraction grating - which is not entirely transparent. At the time we used those made of metal in the laboratories, today they are all made of completely transparent plastic. Do you have any idea where you can get one where the width of the grooves is 20th of a millimeter or less?

     CD will not help, because I need a mesh with slots along the axis of rotation, while in CD they are on the circumference.

     Thanks.

258. Israel

     Unfortunately, I don't currently have time to try to explain to you why the solution you present is not acceptable
     From a judicial point of view. For now, I'll be content with the reasoning I've already put forward before. you believe
     Because Feynman was an excellent physicist if your solution is so simple and fits the words of
     Feynman Why didn't Feynman get on it before you? The answer is by the way very simple, and it is
     that the idea is not true. Unfortunately, I don't have time right now to enter into a discussion about this issue. incidentally
     It was Feynman who warned scientists that the easiest person to deceive is yourself
     Therefore, before you present a new theory, you should think about why it is not true
     And why is it true?

259. Israel
     You are not describing what is happening. I explained my position and you did not respond, so I will explain my position in a different way.
     Let's assume they both accelerated together in negligible time to gamma 1000. The back spacecraft sees the front star a light hour away. The front spacecraft sees the back star a light hour away.
     Do you get it?

260. Ok, let's follow the steps in each spacecraft's clocks individually.

     00:00:00:000:000:000 on the clocks of each of them - start of acceleration.

     00:00:00:000:000:002 on the clocks of each of them - acceleration final. The spacecraft is now at a constant speed and is an inertial system.

     That's why the clocks are synchronized.

     If the distance between them increases 1000 times as you claim, then if they continue to accelerate it will increase even more.

     But they are an inertial system and can equally accelerate in the other direction. Because no matter which direction they accelerate, the distance should increase in that direction as well.

     But if they accelerated in the other direction, they are at 0 speed relative to the parent planets, at a small distance from their point of departure, and are actually an integral part of the parent planets.

     And the parent planets in your example are 1000 light hours away, not a million or a billion...

     Therefore they are also at the same distance. 1000 light years.

     Conclusion: After reaching cruising speed they are the same distance apart as before they took off and their clocks are synchronized.

     Disclaimer: In the Bell Paradox to which you referred me, it is written that the distance increases, as Prof. Granot and you claim, but without explaining why. I asked him why, but he did not explain. If you could explain or point to the link, it is possible that this may be the solution to the paradox, but it raises new problems.

261. Israel
     I really don't agree with you. I did not mention acceleration, I clearly said that the spaceships are already in motion. measure distance? Send a photon, a stopwatch and divide by two. I, like you, measure the distance to airplanes in motion, a little slower but the same technique...

262. Shmulik

     If Tanah had gone to Israel, Tanah would have been removed from the projectile. That is not the case. The bullet accelerates, reaches its peak speed in the center of the country, slows down, reaches the same speed at which it met the tunnel on the other side, and then escapes the country. If he later meets a matching land - or a million in a row - he will repeat the exercise and always return to his original speed.

     That's why no momentum goes to Israel in a comprehensive summary, even though it changed its place.

     Miracles

     If the acceleration of the spaceships was not simultaneous in their system, then there was a spaceship that accelerated first. Although the system is not completely symmetrical - spaceship A accelerates in the direction of spaceship B, while spaceship B in the opposite direction from A - but they started the acceleration at the same moment according to their synchronized clocks, and each went through the same stages separately, so that at the end of the acceleration, each spaceship's clock shows the Same time as the other.

     I don't understand what it means "an earthly observer will say that in the system of the spacecraft's axes - the distance between them is 1000000 light hours". How does he know the distance between them? Did he measure, i.e. send a beam of light, measure its return time, multiply by the speed of light and divide by 2? How can he even measure the distance of a spaceship in motion, let alone acceleration?

     Isn't it simpler to assume that the same photon moves at all speeds? After all - Feynman...

263. Israel
     I'm working on it 🙂
     I think (just think...) that the solution lies in the fact that you said that the spaceships accelerate at the same time. Let's look at the situation after the acceleration - both spacecraft at high speed. For the sake of understanding, let's assume that the spaceships arrived from afar at high speed. where we will assume a distance between the stars of 1000 light hours and a gamma equal to 1000. Regarding earthly observers, the assumption of simultaneity defines that the distance between them is 1000 light hours. Therefore, an earthly observer will say that in the system of the axes of the spacecraft - the distance between them is 1000000 light hours.
     Now suppose that the spaceships, in their system of axes, pass by the 2 stars at the same time. Regarding them - the distance between the stars is a light hour, therefore the spaceships fly at a distance of a light hour between them.

     You said the spaceships accelerate together in the star axis system. Therefore - they do not accelerate together in their axis system.

     until now right?

264. Israel,
     I'll dwell on the rest of your comment later, but tell me, why do you think the drive won't shift? The projectile that passes creates a slight curvature in space and thus attracts the KDHA to it, equally from all directions. If there was a person in the orbit (who would have survived the conditions there and think of the paradox of the twins paradox) and the projectile had passed near his head, the impact could have caused damage to soft tissues even if its speed had exceeded 11.2 km/h.
     I'm wrong?
     Shame and bereavement I will admit that she blossomed from the memories of the escape speed of Kdvah...

265. A great paradox, but its solution appears below..

     What about a solution to my paradox?

266. Definitely
     http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ehrenfest_paradox
     The paradox is simple - a hard disk starts spinning. Its circumference should decrease but not its radius.

267. Shmulik
     The influence of the future on the past, like most of the topics I mentioned, is based on the assumption that a photon moves only at the speed of light.

     From Wikipedia: Feynman's main work was in the field of quantum mechanics. He developed several approaches to think about quantum dynamics, the most prominent of which is the orbital integral and the propagator. According to Feynman's path integral approach, a quantum system progresses in time between different points in space through all possible paths.

     This is the best explanation today for the strange properties of light.

     You write: "Actually we don't measure anything when the spin change occurs".

     Do not need. It is enough that we measure the spin itself. Do you or anyone have an explanation for the fact that the spin in entangled electrons is always reversed other than transferring information between them? Hidden variables maybe?

     "As for the momentum, the fast bullet will transfer more momentum to the KDWA, right?"

     No. Above the escape velocity, 11.2 km/second, all the projectiles will continue on their way without leaving any mark in the form of momentum. Below the escape velocity all projectiles will be captured by the earth's gravity and move in simple harmonic motion. Therefore, the projectile that will transfer the most momentum to Israel is the one moving at a speed of 11 km/s. Higher speed projectiles are "transparent" as far as the earth is concerned, because they do not transfer momentum to it.

     "How does this relate to slow photons?"

     If we describe a photon as a "long photon" consisting of projectiles moving at all speeds, and that our only way to know about its existence is to measure the momentum it transfers to our senses or devices, we see that, like the example of the projectiles passing through a tunnel in Israel, only a very limited range of certain speeds can be measured. If we implement the analogy, then the escape velocity relative to the Earth (11.2 km/s) is equivalent to the speed of light, and is therefore the only one we can measure. Below it the bullets do not reach, above it they do not measure.

     And as in the case of the speed of light, if we move faster in the direction of the shells, then projectiles that were previously "transparent" - for example a projectile at a speed of 17 km/s - will be captured by the earth's gravity. Therefore if we move in the direction of the light, it will continue to move away from us at the same speed: simply the bullets that were previously transparent, now become measurable.

     Are there examples of this principle in nature? Yes. Slow neutrons explode the uranium nucleus, while the fast ones pass through it as if they were transparent. Also: ballistic pendulum.

     I read your link, but it didn't update much.

     Nissim Hadar

     There is no doubt that there are paradoxes other than mine, but the one I brought is relevant. I am not familiar with Ehrenfest's paradox. Is there a link?

268. Israel Shapira
     There are simpler paradoxes than yours - how about Arnfest's paradox (spinning disc)?

269. Israel,
     The influence of the future on the past is the subject of a very serious study, therefore calling it MDB (in the sense that it is obvious that this is not a correct solution) does this study an injustice.
     Much more fantastic is to say that the electron does all possible ways at once. Feynman said it but did not prove it. Also saying that there is an infinite speed is a very problematic claim: infinity is problematic, we don't measure any radiation and actually we don't measure anything when the change in spin occurs. It doesn't work with any other information transfer that we know of.
     Regarding the momentum, the fast projectile will transfer more momentum to the C.D.A., won't it? How does this relate to slow photons?
     I sent you a link to an article describing the possibility of particles faster than light, if photons have mass. did you read it

270. sympathetic

     If I remember correctly, at the time you argued that the time was ripe for a new scientific theory.

     To the point: I entered the article with what I called the "twin paradox" - a built-in contradiction that apparently exists in the very idea of ​​the lengthening of time.

     A month ago, I raised the paradox on several sites. I received answers from 3 experts, and many others. The experts are: Prof. Yigal Meir, Prof. Yonatan Garnot, and Dr. Ofer Magad.

     Each "solution" was completely different from the other, and as I have shown I believe, they are all equally wrong.

     In addition, several topics were raised in this article, all of which share a feature that, in my opinion, is worthy of the books of the subject of the article: MDB.

     1. The solution to matching the properties of entangled particles is philosophical, not physical.

     2. The delayed choice experiment: the future affects the past.

     3. A kilometer-long high-speed train is shortened to a millimeter, without the passengers' knowledge.

     4. Passengers passing each other have a different and acceptable private time, even though they all share the same time: the age of the universe is the same for everyone.

     5. Parallel universes.

     6. Aper's "paradox" is that information, or anything in general, moves faster than light.

     Which claims are extremely interesting, but in my opinion there is another solution to all these claims: the photon is not Einstein's classic photon from 1905, a packet of energy that moves through the universe at one speed, the speed of light. In fact, the photon moves at all speeds - from 0 to infinity. We - through our senses and devices - can only measure the aspect that moves at the speed of light.

     Does this contradict what we know from QED? on the contrary. According to Feynman:

     "Each electron by itself travels in all possible ways at the same time: in a nice and straight way... suddenly changes its direction, makes the long way to the Andromeda galaxy, where it turns back and returns to the background" Brian Green, "The Elegant Universe" p. 122.

     So if an electron - or any other quantum object such as a photon - is enough to visit Andromeda during its short trip from the source to the detector - it must be moving at a great many speeds, and surely faster than light, right?

271. Water blowing
     If you continue to write about your returns in this way or we will no longer accept your sacrifices and incense. They will reject outright. May I know what the deal is today? So that it will be possible to recommend you an idol doctor that matches your measurements and your understanding.

272. Israel

     Good luck with your venture, I appreciate your determination. By the way, I have respect
     for your search. I recently read an article about how to tell the difference between crazy
     crank and the claims of a person like Einstein who at the time was unconnected
     to the scientific system and yet came out with announcements that things must be changed
     from their base. In any case, you do not suffer from the impression of the dialogue with you
     Among the symptoms of a crank are: ignorance of scientific theories
     and reluctance to hear about them, a proposal to change the laws of science without offering any
     A prediction or confirmatory experiment. You are certainly aware of the existing theories and their influence
     of changes on them and also offers to confirm your claims in an experiment. So good luck.

273. Split into parallel universes, change something, and you have a different truth

274. Other truth is a lie... There is even such a site 🙂 http://www.emetaheret.org.il/

275. In parallel universes people sometimes see a different truth

276. Water blowing
     You are also a bad liar…

277. Look, Mr. Nissim, I have transparent money, more than a billion shekels in the bank, but it is transparent, transparent from time returns, because the good things are arranged above, such as life and death, or just so that you too can use your money and it will not depend on my transparent money, on things like credit cards, inflation and exchange Banknotes, in honor of water

278. Blowing water... Why don't you go back in time and stay there? You will be very very rich!!!
     And we will benefit...

279. Look, Mr. Otanfishtim, my background in physics is limited to a few courses at the university, but most of it comes from experience in time reversals and an attempt to relate conventional physics to the interpretation of the parallel worlds, with respect

280. Water blowing
     Why do I have the impression that your knowledge of physics in its various branches tends to zero, including your obsession with parallel universes, it also stems from insufficient knowledge. Perhaps you will recommend to the readers some book or article on the subject, for example, Scientific American or Science, and tell us about your mathematical background. We are all thirsty for ideas.

281. sympathetic

     The song appears in one of the books dealing with quantum mechanics. Schrödinger himself did not like quantum mechanics and regretted his connection to it.

     Regarding the experiments, I'm actually quite realistic about their chances of success. low of low. On the other hand, the chances of having fun doing them are very high, so there really is nothing to lose.

     Shmulik

     A photon moving at all speeds solves almost all the problems raised in this article, and more that were not raised. In fact, QED requires many velocities for the same photon. "The sum of the histories" Elek. If you solve my tunnel puzzle, you will see why we can only discover with our senses and instruments the part that moves at the speed of light.  

282. Something about the position and momentum, because the space is empty and in fact there should be nothing in it, the position and momentum of the particle, because it moves in relation to itself and the environment it returns from in time, is strongly affected by movements backwards and forwards in time, and if you want these properties, the particle must first stabilize on time, and to stand up in relation to something like a test. Good day, so until we checked the position and the momentum they are a kind of illusion in reality because they play in other dimensions in time and time

283. Miracles

     "I say that position and momentum is information about the particle. Given a given (classical) system,
     You can always know the position/momentum of each particle at any time."

     I have no problem with this claim and I probably misunderstood you and if so I apologize
     You wrote "If two similar molecules collide then their information (position and momentum) is exchanged
     At the moment of the collision." I understood that you attribute the information to the molecules and not about the molecules.
     According to the link you directed me to, I also understood that you assume that the information is with the molecules
     And not because the information is the result of measuring the molecules. As I have already written several times
     In my opinion, information is external knowledge about a physical system, which is why I brought heat as an example. if you still
     Think that molecules have information I definitely do not agree with you.

284. Israel,
     Countless experiments with photons were not performed and the accountants were satisfied at the end of each and every test (want to say, all the energy was measured and there is nothing more to measure?
     I mean, I didn't understand what you mean when you write "So maybe what you always measure is only the part that moves relative to you at the speed of light?" What else is there?

285. Israel
     You moved me with your song and also with the innocence. Physicists and others try dozens of them
     Years to find an experiment that would differentiate between different interpretations of quantum theory or present an interpretation
     Brand new and you think you will succeed. Anyway good luck…

286. sympathetic.

     You write: "The equations of quantum theory work perfectly, and experimental results can be predicted with great accuracy."

     The equations of Newton's theory also work perfectly and experimental results can be predicted with great accuracy.

     But Newton did not pretend to explain the origin of gravity, the results of which his equations predict with such great accuracy.

     I accept your position: as long as there is no experiment that differentiates between the different philosophical views it is only a matter of taste.

     And this, in my opinion, is the essence of the discussion here and elsewhere: to collect information that will lead to experiments, and for that I thank everyone and especially you. The purpose of the experiment - to solve what you said: what do the equations mean or what does the wave function represent?

     Then we might be able to give an answer to the well-known song:

     Erwin with his psi can do
     Calculations quite a few.
     But one thing has not been seen:
     Just what does psi really mean?

287. sympathetic
     I say that position and momentum is information about the particle. Given a given (classical) system, it is always possible to know the position/momentum of each particle at any time. This is Laplace's claim. On some level this is true, but there is a problem. You need infinite memory to know the position/momentum of the particles (even when there are not many particles). This claim is true in a continuous (analog) world, but not necessarily true in our world (in my understanding).

288. Miracles

     Once again you send me to websites instead of expressing yourself, Mila. The argument is
     Not about Maxwell's breast, but whether there is information for molecules or whether there is information
     It is related to our knowledge of the world. You said the Mokula have information on where she is
     Exactly located?

289. Israel

     You write "I don't understand philosophy that much." , I'm sorry to disappoint you all
     The discussion around quantum theory is purely philosophical. The equations of theory
     The quanta work excellently and experimental results can be predicted with great accuracy.
     The only existing debate is philosophical, what the equations mean or represent
     The wave function?
     The EPR experiment teaches us that in the explanation we have to give up either locality or
     Rally. The Copenhagen interpretation prefers to give up realism, no
     Talk about the world without measurement. Unmeasured things have no existence. are you
     On the other hand, I prefer to give up the locality. This is what a man in his faith said
     will live As long as there is no experiment that differentiates between the different philosophical views in question
     Just a matter of taste. Modern physicist you are conservative because you are trying hard
     Preserve the image of the classical world and you will tell him on the other hand that his explanations are not
     physical.

290. You always measure it at the speed of light. But what happens if you accelerate forward or backward? He once again moves away from you at the speed of light..

     So maybe what you always measure is only the part that moves relative to you at the speed of light?

     A puzzle in mechanics:

     You are drilling a tunnel from pole to pole in Israel. 20 shells at speeds from 1 km/s to 20 km/s reach the tunnel and pass through it. Which shell will transfer the most momentum to Israel? Which is the least?

291. Israel,
     You wrote that photons move at speeds from 0 to infinity (I just wrote 5 km/h). Ready to explain what you were talking about? A photon doesn't always move away from me at the speed of light?

292. 5 km/h relative to what? You? Andromeda?

     And how will you measure it if you are not equipped to measure low speeds?

293. Israel,
     Every tachyon who studied at the Technion
     Well, can you expand on a photon at a speed of 5 km/h please.
     Did you see the link?

294. Back in time…

     parallel universes…

     Millimeter long trains…

     Photons are zeros forever…

     And all this in order not to accept that there may be another interpretation to postulate 2 as every tachyon knows?

295. In addition, I claim that acceleration has no direct connection to the twin paradox, and Israel, as I understand it, claims that it does.

296. Shmulik
     If I understood correctly - the argument between us was about the reality of the shortening at high speeds. I think it exists, Israel thinks not.

297. Israel,
     Or the future affects the present and then what seems to you to be happening immediately, doesn't seem that way to rushing water and maybe another solution that we haven't thought of yet. By the way, I must tell you that the solution that the future affects the present and the past sounds less impossible to me than the solution of infinite speed for any distance, without us measuring radiation, heat, etc., but what does it matter what sounds less impossible to me.

     administration:
     In one of your posts you wrote about photons moving at all speeds, from 0 to infinity? Ready to expand?
     By the way, you might be interested in
     http://www.livescience.com/38533-photons-may-emit-faster-than-light-particles.html

     What ended the argument between you and Nissim? Where does it stop?

298. Honorable Mr. Israel, what if they have a connection back in time, and they appear together, does that not suit you? Maybe it's already trite?

299. sympathetic

     I don't understand philosophy that much.

     All I understand is that if 2 coins always fall on the same side, then either there are "hidden variables" or there is a connection between the coins, i.e. information passes from one side to the other. The same goes for particles.

     I do not believe that the only explanation there is a philosophical one. I think there is a physical explanation.

300. And read here - even more interesting
     http://www.nature.com/nphys/journal/v6/n12/full/nphys1821.html

301. sympathetic
     Read here …. http://www.cc.gatech.edu/computing/nano/documents/Bennett%20-%20The%20Thermodynamics%20Of%20Computation.pdf

     (In one sentence - the breast does not have to be warm....)

302. Israel,

     First, according to the Copenhagen interpretation, it is not possible to talk about one side of a coin before we have decided
     that we want to measure which side it fell on. The Copenhagen interpretation does not attribute
     Of no importance to man as an intelligent creature or not, this is a mistake in your understanding of the interpretation.
     According to Copenhagen, information is only related to measurement by a classical measuring device. the information
     It can be in our brain to be recorded by a computer or preserved on the screen of an oscilloscope...
     As soon as a measuring device measures we have the information no matter if you
     Think inside or outside the box.
     Again I am not answering your currency question because it is not relevant to the Aspect experiment
     According to the Copenhagen interpretation. I explained to you that your request is what you call it
     A physical explanation is meaningless according to the Copenhagen interpretation because according to it
     Physical meaning can only be attributed to measurement results and not to the objects you are
     Assumes exist without you measuring them like (side of a coin). In short, because interpretation
     Copenhagen corresponds to the quantum theory it cannot be rejected experimentally and therefore the debate about
     Whether it is true or not is purely philosophical or even just a matter of taste or view
     world.

303. Miracles

     So you thought... you are invited to produce a machine with higher efficiency than the barrier of a Carnot machine.
     Heat does not depend on a model, on the contrary, thermodynamics physically determines how much energy is given
     To extract from a given system how much energy will go to heat. On the other hand, how are you?
     Determining the size of a molecule is already model dependent. Is a molecule a point in space that moves
     Scattering, does its size depend on the "cloud of electrons around it". Maxwell's demon cannot accumulate
     Information about all atoms in both rooms without heating up again we learn that heat
     is a model-independent physical quantity and is a physical limit on our knowledge of a situation
     System.

304. Water blowing
     It gives the impression that you are obsessed with parallel universes. Maybe you will go there and bring samples.

305. Look at the measurement, it's a measurement in parallel worlds, you have to see how it settles on reality, on the dimension we are in and how much we change our reality in our parallel world without disturbing the other worlds, intelligence changes if it affects the space and it goes back to parallel worlds, the interception of the parallel worlds Please, with respect

306. sympathetic
     On the one hand, you say that heat is a physical variable for everything. On the other hand you say that the position of molecules is model dependent. I thought that heat also depends on the model...

     In any case - the solution to Maxwell's demon paradox that I know of is actually based on a problem with saving information, and is not a measurement problem.

307. sympathetic

     According to the Copenhagen iteration, the only thing that matters is measurement. Therefore, if as you claim "in the whole discussion
     Between us I represented only the position of the Copenhagen interpretation" so this is the only measurement that exists regarding your position, and therefore the only one that exists..

     To the point. According to Copenhagen, if a coin fell on a certain side inside a closed box then this information does not exist independently until we have measured, i.e. predicted with our own eyes which side.

     Moreover, measurement is related to human beings as intelligent beings. This leads to the question: what happens if a certain person has a low IQ? Does his measurement count more than that of an intelligent chimpanzee? of a sophisticated device?

     But let's say we only use extremely smart surveyors. One of them is inside the closed box, the other is outside. The insider measures, i.e. sees which side the coin fell on, and informs the outsider that he measured. Not what the measurement result is - just that it is a measurement.

     Now it is impossible to say that there is no objective reality because it was measured by an intelligent being, right? And this despite the fact that the outsider did not measure it and does not know what it is.

     Does this solve the difference between "known information" and "unknown information" in the APR paradox? No.

     If the measurer inside transmits his known information faster than light, we will get a paradox of cause and effect. If the same information passes by itself as in the case of a chain, we will not get a paradox. The surveyor outside cannot know what the information is, so even though it exists and has been verified by the surveyor inside, we will not get a paradox.

     And you still haven't answered my repeated question:

     How do the coins or photons in different rooms know to always choose the same state if there is no transfer of information here?

308. Miracles

     Heat is, in a nutshell, not "a concept that describes our lack of individual knowledge, and in addition it is also a subjective concept."
     Heat is a physical variable that can be measured and has consequences in the theory of thermodynamics. the existence of heat
     As a physical quantity and that of entropy shows you that there is a limit to information and therefore cannot be turned into an example
     All the energy of gas to work without investing additional energy.
     If collisions between molecules is a subjective concept, who determines which molecule and when it occurs
     Between molecule and molecule collision. A molecule is a production defined in the model in which we examine nature
     on certain energy and time scales. In another model we will talk about atoms or corks as basic units. the information
     What you supposedly attribute to "molecules" depends on your model.
     I will elaborate, who determines if a state between atoms is a bound state, is it a stable state, does a collision collide
     A molecule or atoms within the molecule. You define objects and then give them sizes, position and momentum. what
     Prosh location of Mukola? Should its size be taken into account? In classical physics you are still allowed
     To build a model of the world that in principle is not accessible to you through experiments but in my opinion you cannot associate with objects
     In it information as you chose to do, the information is in your model. Quantum theory according to interpretation
     Copenhagen says that the only information accessible to you is information about measurement results, that is, knowledge
     Yours on the world.

309. Israel

     You do read my words but probably not carefully because you write
     "Ehud is a follower of the Copenhagen Iterfantasia." And I stated a number
     Sometimes this is not the case. Although you are absolutely right and in the whole discussion
     Between us I represented only the position of the Copenhagen interpretation.

     A discussion between us according to the Copenhagen interpretation has no information and no information
     Known, there is only what you call known interpretation. You assume in all
     Your questions objective existence of objects (coins or photons) before
     that these were measured. The Copenhagen interpretation means that you can speak as if there is
     Only on what is measured and therefore your demand for a physical answer is unfounded.
     It is not that there is no physical explanation for the phenomenon, but the question itself is meaningless
     It's like asking what is the length of the color brown?

     Examples of you assuming the existence of an objective world regardless of measurement abound,
     Your coin experiments are an example of this. The explanation of the electrons "source sends photons at the same time
     Electrons in half C to the right and left. The detector on the right is a light second away from the source, and the left one
     A light minute away. Synchronized clocks are placed along the entire route.
     For the first two seconds, the 2 electrons are in a superposition of UP and DOWN. ".
     The Copenhagen interpretation tells you that you live in illusions, your perception is classic and presumptuous
     Existence of a world without measurement. Bohr claims that the
     The only one that can be asked is about the results of experiments and possible results of experiments everything else
     is not accessible to us. By the way, you of course know that there are other explanations, such as the multiple worlds
     or Boehm's interpretation as long as all interpretations agree with experimental results is impossible
     Physically deciding between them and choosing which one you believe in is a matter of taste, se tu.

310. Or maybe makes your understanding like this..

311. This makes your question meaningless…

312. Thank you for the clarification. Really related to weaving.

313. Israel Shapira
     What you hear on the radio is free. Energy you take through a transformer is not free.

314. Well, and...? What exactly did I mix?

315. Israel Shapira
     You are mixing 2 things. A transformer works on magnetic induction and the electricity company can (in principle) oblige you. Just take a transformer and plug it in - the current in the coil of the transformer that is connected to the power (the main coil) depends on the power consumed in the secondary coil. If you put a coil near a pole with a high current then you are literally stealing electricity.

     In addition to this, there are corona outbreaks, especially from the isolated ones. These bursts contain high frequencies and this is what will be heard on the radio. That is - the radiation does not "come out" from the wires, and if your radio's antenna does not receive them, they will be absorbed by the ground, or reach space.

316. Gasp (when will you have the same name for at least 3 consecutive comments?)

     Ehud definitely claims that information does not pass between entangled particles or entangled coins. Here are his words:

     If we are in different rooms and each of us flips a coin a thousand times
     And the coins in both rooms fell on the same side, there is no transfer of information here.

     Ehud is a follower of the Copenhagen Iterfantasia. According to the Copenhagen interpretation, it is not defined what happens during measurement
     And what exactly is measurement, does measurement take place in the mind of the researcher, (because we are unable to experience superposition) and what is the size (in terms of the number of atoms) of the measuring device.

     Regarding my "direction" to explain the weaving, I will ask you a question in electricity:

     In the lines and poles of an electricity company, electricity flows at a voltage of thousands of volts. which lines can be used as antennas,
     And in fact they are actually antennas as can be argued when passing with the radio under high voltage lines.

     An antenna radiates energy into the universe. So are high voltage lines. Does this energy depend on the shelter? If, for example, you place a small transformer at a certain distance from the high voltage lines and use the induced voltage to turn on a lamp, can the electricity company send you a bill for using its services, or can you claim that the energy was radiated and wasted even without you, and your action has no effect on the company's generator.

     Think hard.

317. Gespent
     Why don't you read the sign???

318. And in relation to all these wonderful gods, they also know how to play backwards in time, therefore they have one truth, but as in relationships - those who grow apart begin to have time differences in parallel universes, good morning and happy

319. The phenomenon necessarily includes - backward movement in time and parallel universes that are created from duplication, even if it is "universes only of the particles" and because I "can't" explain - I do statistics to cover the missing "knowledge" and transmit information back in time

320. Water blowing
     It's good that you use punctuation marks, otherwise it wouldn't be clear what you're writing...

321. Israel
     This is exactly the time and place to lay out your lesson for "a direction to explain what happens in weaving".
     I am listening. You too, all of us too. 🙂
     (In my opinion, the answer is not unambiguous. The answer to this question will be complex.
     What is it similar to? Imagine you believe in Jehovah and you ignore Allah, Jesus, Buddha, the spaghetti monster, etc.
     An answer to the question asked, in my opinion, will consist of an explanation that will clear the ears of all believers of all genders).
     Ehud does not claim that information does not pass between them (as I understand his words).
     He claims that, for what is happening - information cannot be read.
     What is happening is an unexplained phenomenon.
     Can you explain the phenomenon? (Again: I am all ears to your explanation.

322. The particles move backwards and forwards in time many times, spin up and down have many possibilities in parallel worlds, and when you check it on one side, it stabilizes in time on discrete possibilities, what does this say about the wave of possibilities - this means that the other possibilities are erased backwards in time, if they are opposite And far and disconnected from the erasure they probably remain in a distant and isolated state, now if you want to transmit information far and back in time, because the knowledge of the movement back in time is a bit lacking, you can transmit back but information that is less than a logical one, meaning you have to double the transmission to get strong information, Again, there is movement back in time here, but it has been partially erased, so it is difficult for us to transmit stably, that our dimension is more "larger", thank you

323. The great Gesphy

     If a coin fell on a certain side inside a sealed box, then the side, wood or tile, is information.

     If you are inside the box - you know what the information is. If outside - then no.

     In relationships, if you send known information faster than light according to the previous definition, you can contradict the law of cause and effect as I showed in the example of Rafi Moore's spaceships. On the other hand, if unknown information passed faster than light, there is no contradiction.

     Capish?

     It is clear that there is a "symbiosis" between entangled photons. Otherwise how are they always in the same polarization?

     I claim: information passes between them. Ehud claims not. That's what the debate is about. Believe me, I listen carefully to everything Ehud says, but am still waiting for a physical answer that I asked him.

     As I mentioned, I have a direction to explain what happens in the weaving. If someone who understands the subject shows interest, I have no problem discussing the idea.

     Regarding M.R. - I believe that most of us miss him, despite the bluntness. He got upset with me but didn't explain why even though I asked. Maybe because no one likes to be made aware of their mistakes time and time again, as you may have seen from the thread in the article you quoted from.

324. Israel
     Your parallel is wrong. What is information versus known information? There is information. There is information that is known and there is information that is not known.
     When the photons are intertwined, there is some kind of 'symbiosis' between them.
     Physicists (who deal with high energies) know that symbiosis exists.
     But they cannot measure it.
     And this is the real problem: something is happening - but this something cannot even be measured.
     What you are doing is simply raising the question: is something happening. You don't even offer a solution or a hypothesis, at least, for what's going on.
     I'm sorry to break it to you but you are starting to sound like miracles.
     And the link you brought me regarding MR... Well, his last response in that thread was:

     "As I said, I decided to stop my participation in the discussion because all I "gain" from it is being annoyed at the way my words are treated.
     I will only add that now - in addition to the fact that in my opinion all the conclusions reached by Israel about the existing theories are wrong, I also retract my recommendation that he present his theory to some scientific body.
     I refrain from writing why because, as mentioned, I am tired of the endless debates and the treatment my words receive."

     Please take Ehud's words seriously, at least, and also offer some kind of hypothesis or explanation for the phenomenon, beyond an answer such as: startling action from afar.

     And I don't want to expand my words in this response, let's move forward step by step and not try to jump over the navel.

325. sympathetic

     I will continue to do this to you until you answer the question I have asked so many times:

     How do the coins or photons in different rooms know to always choose the same state if there is no transfer of information here?

     "There are correlations" can be divided into 3 explanations: coincidences, hidden variables, and transfer of information. If you know of another physical possibility, find out.

     Information: Which side did the coin fall on, a tree or a tail. It can also be in a closed box, and you don't know which one. Paraphrasing Einstein's words "The moon exists even though I don't look at it". Therefore, even though the coin fell, the system (human, owl, machine) does not know on which side the coin fell, and therefore cannot move it.

     Known information: the system knows on which side the coin fell, a tree or a straw, so it can send it.

     "If information was passed from whom to whom it was passed
     From the plantation I threw to yours or maybe vice versa from your coin to mine. when information
     There is a sender and there is a recipient. How do you determine who is the sender and who is the receiver using the theory of relativity
     In private one can distinguish which event is in the past and which event resulted from it"

     My opinion is that even in the case of interweaving it is possible to know who is the sender and who is the receiver. We can see this in the following example:

     A photon source simultaneously sends electrons in half C to the right and to the left. The detector on the right is a light second away from the source, and the left one is a light minute away. Synchronized clocks are placed along the entire route.

     For the first two seconds, the 2 electrons are in a superposition of UP and DOWN. Since after 2 seconds the right electron hits the detector, then the spin is determined in it and from there it becomes left-handed. If we place detectors at a distance of 2 light seconds for example from the left, we will get the same spin at a distance of a minute or a light year, because the spin is determined after 2 seconds according to the time of the synchronized clocks on the way, and until then the electrons were in superposition.

     In coin tossing, if A's coin in A's room was tossed a seven and B an eight, then the side was determined by A and from there it went to B. The former determines.

326. sympathetic
     Distinguish between the collision of 2 molecules and heat. Heat is a concept that describes our lack of individual knowledge, and is also a subjective concept. In the case of heat, we completely agree.
     My intention in transferring information between molecules is simple. Think of snooker - one ball collides exactly with a stationary ball - from that moment the hit ball is stationary, while the second ball has acquired the speed of the first.
     If the collision is not head-on - the information is in the 2 molecules. If we assume both are moving, one towards the other - then their speeds will alternate.
     Problematic case - what happens when three balls collide at the same time?

327. Miracles

     I didn't say that information is not psychic, it is also coded in our brain
     which is ultimately a physical object. Information is our knowledge of
     The world from the experiments we performed and from the messages we received. We are working hard
     This knowledge is through physical means and therefore all the limitations of physics apply to it.

     Let's go back to your momentum in the collision of molecules there is a transfer of information. between whom
     Who has an information transition? Is one molecule handed over to another the
     The information? Is it found in both molecules? where are you sitting
     The information in a molecule and what physical rules apply to it. Additionally
     The fact that physics talks about heat and entropy shows us that knowledge
     Our knowledge of the positions of the molecules and their momentum is limited. Only to the demon of
     Maxwell has access to all the motions and positions of molecules and is known
     Part of a paradox.

328. Israel

     Once again you do this to me, what is information and in contrast known information.
     I don't understand the difference between information and known information in your words and every time
     You are diverting the discussion instead of defining what you are talking about. As far as Bohr is concerned, there is
     Only known information about the world is obtained experimentally.

     The fact that we accepted the same side in the coin toss does not mean that information was passed but that there is
     Correlations. I will try to explain better. If information was transferred from whom to whom it was transferred
     From the plantation I threw to yours or maybe vice versa from your coin to mine. when information
     There is a sender and there is a recipient. How do you determine who is the sender and who is the receiver using the theory of relativity
     Privately, it is possible to distinguish which event is in the past and which event resulted from it, as the rest
     Two events are space-like, there is no one that precedes the other, therefore it is said that there is between them
     Correlation does not pass information.

329. sympathetic

     It is possible to measure a property of spin up or of polarization as one can measure a property of wood or a pellet in a coin.

     And as with our coins in different rooms, the wood or pely information goes between the coins, otherwise we wouldn't always get the same side on both coins. And although the information was passed, we are unable to send known information, such as on which side the coin fell on the seventh toss. If we could do this, we would be able to transmit any information using Morse or binary code.

     I don't know a physical interpretation of the wave function, and I would love to hear about one. I admit, as a tool full of words, that I have a private general direction, but this is alternative physics, and also probably wrong.

330. sympathetic
     Let's do the opposite. If information is not a physical thing then why is there a physical limit to the rate of its transfer?

331. Israel

     Bohr claims that science only talks about information that we have super intelligent productions
     The world, there is no point in talking about what is not accessible to us. Therefore if according to the theory if the object has
     Physical A certain property that I cannot measure has no physical meaning. transfer
     Spin condition (for example spin up) that the person to whom it is sent cannot read it,
     This means that the same spin up property should not be attributed to the physical state.
     To understand the Copenhagen interpretation you must explain to me what the physical difference is
     which you attribute to the wave function. What is its physical meaning?

332. Miracles

     We've already been through this once. The invention of a new physical law - the law of conservation of information
     And you found two articles that allegedly cite the law. Your misunderstanding of articles and o
     Sources do not make your statements true. If the molecules have information please explain
     Me what is entropy and what is heat?

333. sympathetic

     About your question:

     Is it possible to transfer information in a collision between molecules? I believe the answer is yes. If I am a light hydrogen molecule, I can feel the difference between the slight push given by another hydrogen molecule that collides with me and zepta separated from oxygen, and I haven't mentioned carbon dioxide yet..

     The information: at a certain relative collision speed, I can tell what collided with me by measuring the acceleration given to me.

     By the way: you write "molecules have no information, we have information about them and when molecules are in a gas we do not have access to their position and momentum, we only have statistical information, the average speed related to temperature, pressure, etc..."

     The chapter dealing with FLUID DYNAMICS by RESNICK and HALLIDAY opens with the following sentence:

     One way of describing the motion of fluid is to divide the fluid into an infinitesimal volume of elements, and follow the motion of each particle.

     The book adds: This is a formidable task.

     Although formidable - but not Impossible.

     I remember thinking about this sentence in the context of quanta. How can you really follow the progress of individual molecules and still maintain the principle of uncertainty?

     So you're saying it's impossible? sounds logical.

334. I heard that Roseanne Barr won the title of Miss World in the internal beauty pageant.

     I hope the analogy is clear: a definition in system A is not the same as a definition in system B. The hypocrites from The Lion King are convinced that lions are the ugliest animals. Watchful owls claim that information is only related to the knowledge that owls have about the world. We are interested in the question of what information needs to pass quickly through the light in order for a contradiction to relativity to exist. My argument is that the figure of one, not even zero, that system A sends to system B faster than light is enough to contradict relativity.

     We can see this in the following example (courtesy of Rafi Mor):

     Suppose Alpha and Beta are two hostile planets. Event B featured the launch of a missile from Beta to destroy Alpha. A spaceship passing by detects the launch and sends Alpha a warning message. The message travels at a speed faster than the speed of light relative to the spaceship's frame of reference and it reaches Alpha before the launch occurred in its frame of reference. This leaves enough time for Alpha to send another light-speed message to a battleship nearby to Beta, which destroys Beta even before the missile is launched...

     The warning message in our case can consist of one bit of information: one. No human is involved in the entire process, which is purely technological. The bit can consist of an electron spin state - UP for example.

     However, the state of the electron must be known to the spacecraft before it can send the information about it faster than light. This is what is meant by known information. If she had measured the spin she could not have known what she would get, even though the spin information was instantly transferred to alpha.

     This leads us to the question of what is information transfer.

     We saw in the previous example that polarization or spin is a representation of information. Ehud claims: "If we are in different rooms and each of us tosses a coin a thousand times and the coins in both rooms fall on the same side, there is no transfer of information."

     However, on one thing I believe we both agree: this situation is completely different from the situation in the natural way, where every coin in every room randomly falls on one side or the other, and therefore we will only get 50% matches.

     Since in our coins, or in intertwined particles, we know with 100% confidence what the state of the coin or particle is in the other distant room, and this is only because we know what the state is in ours, the question arises: how do the coins or photons in different rooms know to always choose the same state if there is no Here is the transfer of information?

     Physical explanation please.

335. sympathetic
     You said what I am saying has nothing to do with the additional definitions. I showed you a residence that disagrees with you.
     I say, and it became clear to you now that I am not the only one saying, that information is not what you think.
     There is no room for discussion here.

336. Miracles

     Again you cite sources instead of standing behind your claims. It's clear
     Go because the objects to which we attribute properties in science are the fruit of distinctions
     ours as humans. Molecules have no information or knowledge we can gather information or
     knew about them.

337. sympathetic
     Go read the physical information entry on Wikipedia. You might learn something.

338. Miracles

     The problem is that you define things for yourself that have nothing to do with the common definitions. Who needs to face
     With that, it's you. Information is knowledge we have about something. What to do, molecules have no information and they certainly don't
     knowledge. Man or an intelligent being organizes the world and this organization is called science and is the organization of our information
     as humanity over the world. No need to invent new science like you do morning news.

339. sympathetic
     I think you are confusing knowledge with information. Anyway, that's how I define information. Deal with it 🙂

340. Miracles

     Are you reinventing science again? The information of molecules? Molecules have no information, we have information about them
     And when molecules are in a gas, we don't have access to their position and momentum, we only have statistical information, the speed
     The average related to temperature, pressure, etc...

341. sympathetic
     If two similar molecules collide then their information (position and momentum) is exchanged at the moment of collision.

342. Israel
     I do think that Angelina Jolie has an edge over Rosen Barr in a beauty pageant, that's how far we go
     Agree (although Count Bar has an inner beauty).
     The argument is not about semantics but that I have a feeling that what you call it
     Information is different from the conventional meaning and therefore you think that the dialogue between
     Einstein to Bohr in the context of EPR is strange.
     Back to our eyes, information is related to human knowledge, it can be saved
     In all kinds of ways on a computer, written on paper or as a memory in the brain but it is
     Related to the knowledge of living production (also aliens) the world.
     If we are in different rooms and each of us flips a coin a thousand times
     And the coins in both rooms fell on the same side, there is no transfer of information here.
     Flipping the coin as long as I don't know what you got in a certain toss I don't
     Can predict which side the coin will fall on. I don't have any information about the dumping of the information
     Specifically, which is different from absolute randomness, the only information I have about the world
     is the results of my toss. Only when we compare results can I see that there were
     Here are the correlations.
     I answered your question and now please ask me the next question. molecules
     The gas in the room you are in is constantly colliding with each collision
     Is this how information is transmitted?

343. There are many definitions for information, you can Google.
     The definition I gave is sufficient for the purpose of the discussion.
     There are also many definitions of beauty. But even though I haven't defined what it is, I have good reason to believe that Angelina Jolie has an advantage over Roseanne Barr in a beauty pageant - even though I haven't defined it.

     So let's skip the semantics and go straight to the point:

     Are you claiming that if we are in separate rooms and each of us tosses a coin a thousand times, and then it turns out that each time the coins fell on the same side, there is no transfer of information from room to room?

344. Israel

     Again you define how information is encoded and not what it is.
     Please explain to me the difference between known information and information.
     I think you are confusing the definitions of what is information and correlations
     But we can find that out only after you explain to me what information is
     known By the way, both Bohr and Einstein had two definitions for information:
     Known information and information.

345. Doesn't refuse, doesn't play, and doesn't mess up.

     You are deviating from the essence of the discussion: is the APR paradox indeed a paradox.

     I defined for you what information is for the purpose of the discussion. spin, polarization, momentum. one or zero. There is no need for additional definitions, such as "information related only to humans" which implies that other intelligent beings (extraterrestrials for example) or artificial intelligence cannot send information.

     According to what is written in Wikipedia, the paradox is that information - spin, polarization, momentum - passed quickly from light.
     Since this implies that one particle is communicating with the other instantaneously across space, ie faster than light, this is the
     "paradox

     So if you have complaints about the definition, bring them to the wiki, not to Israel.

     It seems to me that we have reached the root of the difference between us. I gave you an example: if there are two separate rooms and every time a coin is tossed in one of them it lands on the same side as a coin tossed in the other room falls - there is a transfer of information between the rooms.

     If you claim that if we are in separate rooms and each of us tosses a coin a thousand times, and then it turns out that each time the coins fell on the same side, that there is no transfer of information from room to room - then we strongly disagree. Is that what you claim?

     And this despite the fact that in the case I described it is not possible to send known information from room to room.

346. Israel

     You're playing a dirty game (and I don't mean coins)
     "And even if in two separate rooms coins that are tossed always fall
     On the same side when comparing the results, it is still impossible
     To transfer any known information between the rooms using this method, though
     That information - on which side the coin fell - undoubtedly passed."
     And you write
     "And relativity only prohibits the transmission of known information,"

     Why a dirty game? Because I asked you to define information
     And you didn't want to, you gave me a definition of how to code it, zero
     Or one, but you didn't agree to define what information is.
     We agreed that I would define information and I defined it
     How much we learn about the world from the results of an experiment. Now
     In the middle of the game you change the rules and I feel like it
     Suddenly with two definitions, information???
     and known information??? Please define what you are about
     Speak. For Bohr there is only one piece of information
     And it is our knowledge the results of experiments the rest do not have
     We can attribute to him a reality.

347. You are somewhat missing the Bell inequality, if you set an up state, you set it with a certain probability and even though there is a complete match with down, the information only passes with a chance of less than one, it passes and it is possible to transmit back in time only in partial "bits", which means that in order to transmit broad information you have to multiply You have broadcast many times and this is reflected in the transition from dimensions to time dimensions for example and it is possible, again it is possible, to transmit information back in time. Respectfully blowing water

348. sympathetic

     If there are two separate rooms and every time a coin is tossed in one of them it lands on the same side as a coin tossed in the other room - there is a transfer of information between the rooms. It has nothing to do with humans. A machine can also toss the coins.

     We can mess with definitions as we wish, but for the subject of the discussion - the transfer of information faster than light - if machine A detects that coin A has fallen on side A and transmits this information to machine B faster than light - there is a contradiction to the law of cause and effect according to relativity. It has nothing to do with humans.

     Even if in two separate rooms coins that are tossed always land on the same side when the results are compared, it is still impossible to transfer any known information between the rooms using this method, even though information - on which side the coin fell - has undoubtedly been passed.

     Relativity only prohibits the transmission of known information, therefore non-locality does not contradict relativity. And Einstein should have known this before he wrote the APR article, hence my puzzlement: why did Bohr need to explain this trivial point to him? Or maybe he understood something we don't?

349. Israel

     Information is only related to people, not currencies. The currency does not know
     He upholds physical laws, these may be non-local, but associated knowledge
     Only for humans. The Copenhagen interpretation of quantum theory tells you
     Knowledge is only what is measured in an experiment, you must not think what the coin knows
     Or not, or develop theories about little angels who pass messages, talk
     Only about what you (people in general) know.

350. The situation here is different.

     Normally, the lamp has no effect on the coins. So if no information was passed, how does the coin in the second room know to choose the same state as in the first when the lamp was lit? Filled a few times, but 1000? Isn't that a probability of 2 to the power of 1000?

351. Israel

     As long as you don't know whether I turned on the light or not, no information was passed.
     Every toss was with equal probability for you, you couldn't know what came out in advance.
     If you could have known what came out in advance, I would have said that information was passed.
     This is similar to the two boxes in which we put one coin "wood" and one coin
     Two "flies", the boxes are sent to the different rooms, when I open
     My box and see "tree" I know you will see "peli" but no
     No information passed.

352. sympathetic

     If I sent an UP status - not UP or DOWN, just UP - it certainly added to the knowledge of whoever received it. He knows it's UP and not DOWN, and if it's for example an instruction code to open fire, I give him important information.

     If you answer the question I asked at the end of the last comment, I believe it will clarify the differences between us:

     If we are both in separate rooms and flip coins 1000 times, and then compare what happened on the flips, do you accept that we will only get 50% matches?

     And if it turns out that every time you randomly turn on the light at your place there is a match in what we received, do you accept that information was passed between the rooms?

353. Israel

     I will try again. First to your question about Mars,
     send a message either up or down to Mars or any other planet
     It is not sending information. Because it's like I'll tell you "tomorrow."
     Either it rains or it doesn't rain", is from the sentence I wrote
     You learned from something not new you knew.
     In addition, the spin state does not pass through the intelligence of the two observers because it did not exist
     before the measurement.

     To your question about tossing coins, again before measuring there are not two coins
     There is one quantum state, in retrospect the state collapsed into two coins or the other
     Spins but according to quantum theory before I measured I have no information
     about the world apart from the initial conditions.
     Your perception is the existence of objects in front of the measurement, their measurement
     Then relate their states through the measurement of one of them.
     But there are no objects before the first measurement.

     Finally, information related to humans for their knowledge of the world.
     If the knowledge of an observer of the world has not changed as a result of some measurement
     He or someone else committed no information transfer here.

354. I just saw your comment.

     The answer is no.

     If after you know what the coin fell on, a tree, and you want to send me a "yes" message and you send the box, then the answer is "yes" because you have already sent known information.

     Now a question for you:

     If we are both in separate rooms and flip coins 1000 times, and then compare what happened on the flips, do you accept that we will only get 50% matches?

     And if it turns out that every time you randomly turn on the light at your place there is a match in what we received, do you accept that information was passed between the rooms?

355. sympathetic

     Be that as it may, it doesn't matter what we call it, information or not: if I measure the spin of an electron that is with me and send the information - UP or DOWN - to Mars faster than light, so that my friends there know what state I got in my electron - isn't that a contradiction to relativity?

     And isn't the spin state exactly what passes between two entangled electrons, in zero time?

     Otherwise how do you explain that their spin is always reversed? Hidden variables? chance?

     And secondly, I do not claim that information can be sent through interweaving. Only she passes.

356. Israel

     To clarify my argument, a question and please answer only yes or no
     (Sorry for the sting, of course I would be happy for a detailed answer).
     If I cast, I predetermine with you that "tree" is "yes"
     And "fli" is "no" and I flip a coin and put it in the box
     closed and sending it to you, did I give you information?

357. Israel

     An excellent idea instead of discussing, you can answer an American questionnaire.
     My answers:
     1. Yes and no.
     2. Yes and no.
     3. Yes and no.

     And I can go on and on. That someone chooses to send
     Information in a certain encoding does not guarantee that it will be possible to read on the other side
     her. Therefore, it is not enough to send information, but you must make sure that it is possible
     read it and differentiate between it and the background. A protocol must be established in advance
     to determine how the information will be sent and to make sure that it will be possible to differentiate it
     and between the noise.
     In quantum theory, the measurement is not an active sending of information or information
     Rather, it is the imposition of the quantum state on a certain set of axes in probability
     certain Since the process of imposing on the axis system is random from the beginning
     It is not possible to convey information by quantum measurement.

358. sympathetic

     Let's try to see if we can reduce the disagreement between us a little by asking questions to which the answers can only be yes and no:

     In 1941, Admiral Ngumo of the Imperial Japanese Navy sailed in wireless silence. The instructions he had were to attack the American fleet at Pearl Harbor on December 7, unless he received a radio instruction to cancel the order. If this order had been accepted, history would have been different.

     1. Do you accept that in this case it is enough to send one beep, which will symbolize the number one, to send the information (in the case in question - the success of the talks in Washington)? Yes No.

     2. If you received 1, do you accept that if we send the digit one from one point to another, we have sent information? Yes No.

     3. Do you accept that the number one can be symbolized by the spin UP state of an electron? Yes No.

     4. Do you accept that the angle size of a polarizer represents information? Yes No.

     5. Do you accept that the polarization state of a photon represents information? Yes No.

     6. Do you accept that if the Japanese admiralty could send Ngumo the number one through a message expressed as the polarization state of a photon or the size of the angle of a polarizer, you could transmit information to him? Yes No.

     7. Do you accept that if such a message were to travel faster than light it would be in contradiction to relativity? Yes No.

     8. Do you accept that such a message - that is, the state of the photon's polarization or the angle of the polarizer - passes instantly from one end of an aspect experiment to the other? Yes No.

     Hope this helps clarify the point.

359. Israel

     I liked your answer
     "I already answered you: one or zero. This is all that is needed in our case"
     You reminded me of the joke why Polish women speak binary with the husband
     theirs? Answer: They always tell him one zero zero.
     In any case, you formulated how information can be represented in your opinion and again no
     You answered my question about what information is.
     I've given you information several times and I'll say it again
     (Apparently the information did not pass between us):
     Information is the knowledge we have about the world from the results of experiments
     and from media where others report to us the results of experiments they have performed.
     Now by this definition when looking at another aspect experiment
     That one photon is measured by the observer (let's say the left one) to the right observer
     No information was added, because he did not perform any experiment and neither
     Received no message from the left viewer. Thus in an aspect experiment
     There is no passage of information at a speed greater than the speed of light.

360. That's all it takes.

     If the photon moves at all speeds, from 0 to infinity, but we, with our senses and instruments, can only measure the part that moves at the speed of light, that explains everything.

     Go through the MM experiment, go through all the thought experiments that lead to relativity in all the books, starting with Einstein's light ray chase experiment, continue through all the train experiments of all kinds, go through the aspect experiment, and finish with Weiler's delayed choice experiment, and you will see that the range of speeds varies from 0 to infinity Lephoton explains almost everything easily, and that's without the lengthening of time, the lengthening of the length, and the braggadocio of the zebrabirin.

     How and why this happens is another story. But in fact, this is exactly what QED claims:

     "Each electron by itself travels in all possible ways at the same time: in a nice and straight way... suddenly changes its direction, makes the long way to the Andromeda galaxy, where it turns back and returns to the background" Brian Green, "The Elegant Universe" p. 122.

     So if an electron - or any other quantum object such as a photon - is enough to visit Andromeda during its short trip from the source to the detector - it must be moving at a great many speeds, and surely faster than light, right?

361. Israel,
     Why serious? Wonderful and why should I decide that I don't have enough information. I would appreciate any explanation

362. Shmulik

     Non-locality does not contradict relativity, even though information passes in zero time.

     In my opinion, there is a much better explanation for quantum erasure and the delayed choice experiment than an influence on the past from the future.

     You certainly did your part. I hope so do I.

     You ask: "How does infinite speed explain the quantum eraser?"

     Look at the video in the link:

     http://delorian64.wordpress.com/tag/%D7%9E%D7%97%D7%99%D7%A7%D7%94-%D7%A7%D7%95%D7%95%D7%A0%D7%98%D7%99%D7%AA/

     He explains the operation of the quantum eraser.

     Notice at time 06.30 they talk about "the time it took for the photon to reach the D0 detector"

     It goes without saying that if the photon moves at infinite speed then it doesn't take much time to get anywhere.

     The same reasoning also explains the delayed selection experiment: the detector does not affect the photon in the past but in the present. If the effect occurs at infinite speed, then it is not affecting an event that occurred a million years ago when the photon apparently left the source, but at the moment. The same photon is both at the source and at the detector a million light years away at the same moment.

     delusional? This is exactly what QED claims.

     So what is more serious: an impact on the past, or a photon moving at all speeds, from 0 to infinity?

     Indeed miracles and wonders.

363. Israel,
     There is no reason for the explanation to be simple and there is no problem that non-locality contradicts relativity. Relativity is a theory and non-locality is a fact and if the only correct explanation is infinite speed, relativity will have to be corrected/changed/replaced.
     Since the whole issue of interweaving is completely incomprehensible, the claim that the future influences the past, is a paradox, is not true. We don't know enough.
     You agree with me that I did my part by posting another explanation on the topic of interweaving. Paradoxical as it may sound, it is no more paradoxical than an infinite speed of… what? Information we fail to measure? By the way, how does infinite speed explain the quantum annihilator?
     Regarding the other issues you brought up, miracles. miracles and Wonders

364. I already answered you: one or zero. That is all that is needed in our case.

     Wikipedia says: connection between signifier and signified.

     But - because I'm a good guy, why don't we use your definition, and see if information doesn't immediately go through an aspect experiment as you claim?

     Define: Information.

365. Israel,

     I will try for the thousandth time, what is information in your opinion? Give me a definition!
     I will end here so that the question is clear. After you define we can discuss
     If she passes etc...

366. sympathetic

     The reason I returned to Suri (when did I even leave it?) is because I believe in what I say.

     To see this, take your boxes with the balls. In the case you described, there is indeed no transfer of information. If, on the other hand, you have a thousand boxes, and you decide with your friend on Mars (who also has a thousand boxes), that starting from moment 0 on your synchronized clocks, you will both open one box after the other every second, and that your friend will randomly wave each time a sign that says one or a sign that says zero, And after you compare the results, it will become clear that when the remote showed one you both got the same color in the balls in the boxes with the same chronological order, and when it showed zero you got opposite colors, and this in every thousand (or million squared) of the boxes - can you say that there is no transfer of information here (the color of the ball or what written on the sign)?

     This is the essence of the experiment described in Nick's link, which is actually an aspect experiment.

     And can you use this method to send any information?

     No. Not even what color is the ball in the box you've already opened, which your friend knows anyway.

     And only for that - sending known information - relativity forbids.

     And so, I am forced to return to my question: what about the mismatch percentages in the Aspect experiment? How are they triangulated when the sum of the angles is doubled if there is no information transfer, the polarization of the photon or the state of the polarizers?

367. Israel

     First of all, you didn't understand my point. I am not saying that the fact that it is about
     A statistical phenomenon indicates that this is not a law of nature. the claim
     is that it is not possible to convey information since it is a phenomenon that manifests itself
     Only statistically.
     Regarding your words, what does the closed sentence mean:
     ” There is no contradiction to relativity in this, because although information passes, it does not exist
     can send information, and relativity only forbids that." If
     The information passed and we passed it by measurement, by definition
     We have sent information. In any case, you're back to the grind again.

     Information as I defined it is the result of a measurement, do you have it
     alternate definition. As soon as one of the observers makes another measurement he has information
     And not to the other viewer. The viewer on the other side does not learn something he did not know
     In that a measurement was made and he cannot measure and determine with certainty that the first observer
     performed a measurement, therefore there is no transfer of information in the experiment. No information was passed
     at zero time. As long as information is information there is no problem with it collapsing
     at zero time. An example of this is the two boxes in one box experiment where I put a ball
     red in the second a green ball. I sent one box to Mars and when it arrived I opened it
     the box here on earth. As soon as I discovered the color of the ball here in Israel
     I know the color of the ball on Mars, can you tell me about its color?
     of the ball passed in zero time?
     As mentioned, there is a fundamental difference between non-locality and the transmission of information, I hope
     that on this point you agree with me. And again I ask, please define exactly for me
     What is information for your perception. Regarding Nick Herbert's link, I will try to read it
     when i have time

368. Shmulik

     Here are some issues raised in this article, in my opinion each of them is more paradoxical than the other:

     1. The future affects the past.

     2. In relative motion, each observer sees the other's time as slower, but both agree on the same age for the universe.

     3. Kilometer-long trains are compressed to the millimeter, but the passengers inside do not know about it.

     4. Non-locality supposedly contradicts relativity.

     Now here is your challenge:

     Offer a relatively simple explanation that would solve all those problems in one - at a much smaller price, very reasonable, and which also fits perfectly with what we know about the nature of elementary particles from QED.

     Immediately immediately to work.

369. Israel,
     I recognize the fact that information may work at an infinite speed, but as I wrote, some hold that the future affects the past is not as "paradoxical" as Dar. Waves of writing and your demand for a logical answer, that is, one that will please you, is not logical
     Sincerely 🙂

370. Shmulik

     There have already been several articles by Gali about interweaving and time repetition. See:
     https://www.hayadan.org.il/quantun-philospy-part-b-07121/

     Here's a challenge for you:

     What alternative explanation for going back in time can you find for the Weiler experiment?

     Hint:

     The same explanation also solves the problem of interweaving, the transfer of information faster than light, the lengthening of time, and more.

     The handbook to work.

371. Shmulik,
     I passed here only by chance 🙂

     I think you give my father too much credit.
     What are the chances that he actually looks at all the comments this simpleton? I think he's sorry he posted the damn article 🙂

     Email him or something 🙂 Or at least write this comment in one of the new articles.
     Cheers

372. Israel,
     Let's go to work. I hope you find an axandra worth experimenting with that you hope to pick up but I think I've done my part in showing that there may be other solutions to the interlacing problem that don't require infinite data transfer speeds.

     I love that Heaven always ends with the word respect. big.

     Father, is there any way to lift the gauntlet regarding the article I attached a link to? Here is the link again:
     http://www.nature.com/nphys/journal/v8/n6/full/nphys2294.html

373. Miracles - without our water we would all have dried up a long time ago.

374. Israel Shapira
     Do you respond to him??? 🙂

375. I will try to expand again Mr. Israel, information travels far and its connection goes back in time, but what I wanted to expand (and not in the services) is that even if you are physically in one dimension, you can go down an infinite number of times (again even if it is currently only one) statistically and again statistically to infinity Sincerely

376. water

     After you go down the dimension, don't forget to lower the water.

377. Honorable Mr. Israel, this is statistical information and it is possible to send information, again statistical information and this is an indication that you are "going down" in size, have a good day

378. sympathetic

     "The non-local correlations are only obtained statistically" - true, but when it comes to statistics that include such a large number of entangled photons, the statistics gradually take the form of a law of nature.

     The second law of thermodynamics is also a statistical law, and is considered fundamental in all the laws of physics.

     Did you get to read Nick Herbert's link?

     http://quantumtantra.com/bell2.html

     This is not an EPR experiment. In the described experiment, complementary sizes are not measured. No momentum, no position, no spin, no polarization, no energy and no mass. Only one function: the photon passed or did not pass the polarizer. 1 or 0.

     Unlike the Michelson Morley experiment whose results can be interpreted in several ways (Lorentz interpretation for example) there is no logical physical possibility to interpret the results of the experiment described in the link other than non-locality, the transfer of the photon polarization information or the state of the polarizers from one side of the experiment to the other.

     If you know another interpretation - this is the time and place to present it. The red carpet awaits in Stockholm.

     And as I have already shown, this does not contradict relativity, because although information passes, we cannot send information, and relativity forbids only that.

     But for every position that denies non-locality, I will have to answer: what about the percentages of mismatches? What explanation is there for this violation of Bell's inequality other than non-locality?

     Until a reasonable answer is given, I remain in my opinion: non-locality exists. Information, the polarization of the photon or the state of the polarizers in an aspect experiment, passes in time 0 from one polarizer to another.

379. Israel

     First I'm glad you no longer use the phrase information.
     The non-local correlations are only obtained statistically.
     There are also other possibilities to explain the experiment are less
     My favorite for example is the possibility of an effect going back in time
     When you can move back and forth in time there is no problem with
     Locality as you can move slowly and then move time back,
     Anyway, I personally am not a fan of this option.

     Regarding the example, I did not say that there is a photon or two photons intertwined.
     There is a quantum state when photons are measured it collapses into a state of
     A photon here and a photon there. In principle you could measure the angular momentum
     total and then the state would not collapse to the state of photons. In short, what you are
     Measurer is what you get (Copenhagen). To your question, yes, the same wave function
     Can take the course twice or any number as we wish. For example, photon and the past
     The same in a series of polarizers.
     The questions you ask have no plausible explanation when you assume realism
     On the other hand, if you advocate Copenhagen (and I don't) then just talk about results
     Experiments and that's it.

380. Shmulik

     Shameful confession: I have the faintest interest in MDB.

     My opinion is that there can be a logical physical explanation for everything we are dealing with in this article: the constancy of the speed of light in all reference systems, the lengthening of times, the shortening of lengths, interweaving, non-locality, influence on the past and more.

     My opinion is that if the same solution is indeed correct, it simply explains other phenomena: gravitation and inertia for example.

     My opinion is that this can also be tested experimentally.

     And that is the only thing that will convince anyone, and above all me.

     So to work.

381. Israel,
     Do you believe or hope? I actually think that the effects of the future on the past is a great MDB solution. Reality surpasses imagination. I also don't think that logic is related to the subject since what is "logical" in quantum mechanics or infinite speed as a solution to interweaving.

382. Shmulik

     I believe there can be another and much more logical explanation for the Weiler experiment than the influence of the future on the past.

     Miracles

     I didn't sculpt and I didn't sculpt. What am I, Tumarkin?

383. sympathetic

     I never ignored a thing you said.

     In my previous response to Shmulik I described an experiment with coins that is identical in its logic to the Aspect experiment. As you can see, it has nothing to do with quanta at all. My argument - and also Nick Herbert's - is simple: it is not possible to have a 3-fold mismatch between the polarizations of the photons in the Aspect experiment, or the coins in my experiment - without an instant connection between the two measurement points. If it is possible - in the coin experiment which can be carried out immediately - please point to such a way.

     But if you don't succeed, maybe you will accept the fact that non-locality is required from an aspect experiment?

     But let's get to more serious matters. In a previous response I asked your opinion on the question of whether an entangled photon can collapse twice in different places and times. I gave the example of an entangled photon source, one pole of which is 10 meters away and the other a million kilometers away. The right photon collapses after a fraction of a second and the left one after 3 seconds. So how is this possible if both actually constitute one entangled photon? Can such a "long photon" collapse twice in different places and times? Or maybe it is not one entangled photon, but simply 2 entangled photons?

384. Israel

     I explain and you ignore yours...maybe only with blows it will go away.
     Information is our knowledge of the world and not the state of affairs in the world.
     A sentence like ” for all those who doubt the lack of locality, i.e. instant transfer
     of information" non-locality does not require an instant transfer of
     Information and the two are not the same as long as there is some barrier to possibility
     Our knowledge of reality. As long as we do not have complete knowledge of a situation
     The eyes of the world can be non-local connections but we are not
     We can use them. An aspect experiment is not a logical experiment it assumes
     The principles of quantum theory have a mathematical aspect that is defined on
     by Bell's inequalities, but it also has an interpretational explanation
     Copenhagen and there is very important to complementarity. from a bone
     Your questions are you a realist (like Einstein) who believes that there is reality
     Regardless of our measurements, a particle that flew to the right and one that flew to the left.
     The Copenhagen interpretation says that the only information we have about the world
     It's experimental results and we can only talk about them.
     Another way to explain to you why it is not possible to transfer information from a viewer to a viewer
     In the experiment an aspect is an expression. The contradiction to locality or realism is statistical
     In every single experiment it was possible to think that the pair of particles was already coordinated
     When they came out of the source, a contradiction to this assumption is accepted only after execution
     A large number of experiments and therefore in a single experiment the measurer on the right cannot transfer
     Information for the surveyor on the left.
     To be honest, like you and Zvi, I feel a certain discomfort with the Copenhagen interpretation
     But at the moment I don't see a suitable replacement in sight. There are many problems with the interpretation
     Boehm's and Ruben's are not exactly political.

385. Israel Shapira
     I still see no reason to reject a very useful engineering tool....

386. Israel,
     Explain why you think there is no connection to quantum mechanics?
     This is about all the experiments for Bell's inequality, isn't it? http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bell_test_experiments

387. Israel,
     Were you not convinced by my references to the effects of the future on the past?

388. Miracles

     Distances are measured using a ruler.

     For Einstein, they measure with a clock.

     It is clear that if there is a lengthening of times in inertial systems then there is also a shortening of lengths. Otherwise there is no consistency. But my original claim is that there is no time dilation in inertial systems. All the experimental evidence - circling planes, GPSs, muons, etc. - can be explained without time extension in inertial systems.

     Shmulik

     I read Bohr's article. But Bohr did not know about the Aspect experiment at the time.

     Aspect experiment has nothing to do with quanta, complementarity, polarization or wave function.

     An aspect experiment is a logical experiment.

     To see this, picture two isolated rooms. Each time a package containing 1000 coins is placed in each room. In each room one coin after another is thrown and it is recorded whether it fell on a tree or a straw. Then the results are compared between the two rooms: if coin number 134 in room A fell on a tree and number 134 in room B also fell on a tree - a match. No. 479 in room A, wood and in room B, wood - inconsistency.

     When you write the number 0 on the large board in the center of each room, the percentage of mismatches is also 0.

     Now conduct the experiment as follows: on the large board in the center of room A write 0 and in room B write 30.

     The mismatch percentage is 25.

     Now they change: in room B write 0 and in room A -30.

     The mismatch percentage is also 25.

     Now they register 30 in room A and 30 in room B.

     Logic says that if there was no connection between the rooms, the mismatch percentage cannot exceed 50. In practice, it is 75.

     Try doing this experiment. All you need is 8 coins, 4 on each side. This has nothing to do with quanta at all. The experiment is logical, and proves that there must be a connection between the rooms. Since in a real experiment the polarizers - the plates - can be moved as far as we want, it also means that the transfer of information - the state of the polarizer - is instantaneous.

     And that's all for today.

389. Israel,
     The original article (paid):
     http://www.nature.com/nphys/journal/v8/n6/full/nphys2294.html

     Avi,
     Is it possible to get an article on this topic? He is fascinating

390. Israel,
     You will be forced to write my story.
     The "explanation" I have already given is that the future affects the past and if it turns from an "explanation" into an explanation, the Nobel Prize will (hopefully) also belong to Yakir Aharonov and not only to the groups that proved the explanation.

     http://arstechnica.com/science/2012/04/decision-to-entangle-effects-results-of-measurements-taken-beforehand/
     http://discovermagazine.com/2010/apr/01-back-from-the-future
     Don't read at night, you won't be able to go to sleep.

     In addition, I brought part of the article in Haaretz (Zvi didn't like this answer so much) but, here it is again (but this is the last time):
     Bohr's reply to the argument of Einstein Podolsky and Rosen was published in the next issue (No. 48) of the newspaper in which the original article was published (Physical Review). Bohr's answer is long and detailed and contains two parts. One part deals with the "translation" of Einstein's argument into the language of physicists by means of a practical experimental setup in which measurements of the type described in EPR can be made. Bohr analyzes the EPR claims using this experimental set-up and shows why the assertions of quantum theory agree with common sense (the physicist) and are not "puzzling". He also explains why there is no need to break the principle of relativity and why there is no contradiction to the theory of relativity. This part is relatively easy to understand and has been accepted by the world's physicist community as a good answer to the EPR argument. The second part is "philosophical" in nature and in it Bohr repeats his principle of complementarity and the idea of ​​the relativity of physical quantities to the experimental setup. According to him, a complete description of reality should be given by a complementary series of magnitudes which never exist together. This part is difficult to understand, and in fact it can be stated that for many years it remained closed and incomprehensible to many physicists. Even Einstein himself, in a response letter he wrote to Schrödinger, admits that he does not understand the idea of ​​complementarity.

     According to Bohr's analysis, we are not concerned with a "mysterious" transfer of information from one particle to another. What determines, then, that in one experimental set-up we can talk about the position of the second particle, while in another experimental set-up it is about its speed, is nothing more than the way in which we constructed the experiment.

     We will illustrate Bohr's argument with a simple parable. Suppose we perform an experiment in which two different balls (one red and the other black) are put into two sealed boxes in such a way that we do not know which ball is in which box. We will now send one box to the other end of the galaxy. After it arrives, we will open the box in our lab. If it seems that there is a red ball in it, we will know "immediately" that there is a black ball in the other box, and vice versa. This is not a "mechanical" effect of the experiment we performed in the laboratory on the ball at the edge of the galaxy. The logic of the experiment is the one that allows us to predict the result at the edge of the galaxy based on the measurement in the laboratory. And this is how Bohr summarizes his argument (emphasis in the original):

     "From our point of view, we now see that the formulation of the aforementioned criterion for physical reality as proposed by Einstein, Podolsky and Rosen, contains ambiguity in relation to the meaning of the phrase 'without any disturbance to the system.' Of course, in a case like the one we are now discussing, there is no question of a mechanical disturbance to the system being studied during the last critical phase of the measurement process. But even at this stage there is essentially the question of the effect on the very conditions that define the types of predictions regarding the future behavior of the system. Since these conditions are an inherent element of the description of any phenomenon to which the term 'physical reality' can adequately fit, we see that the argument of the authors mentioned above does not justify their conclusion that the quantum-mechanical description is essentially incomplete."

     In conclusion, Einstein claims that the electron has a defined location and speed even when it is not measured, while Bohr claims that these are created only during the measurement, and since there is no single measuring system that can measure both the location and the speed at the same time, they do not exist together. How can you determine who is right in this debate? Aside from philosophical arguments, is there a way to settle the debate physically? This would be possible if we could, for example, measure the position of the electron in unmeasured time. But how is this possible? After all, at the moment of measurement, both parties agree, it has a place.

391. Israel Shapira
     I tend to agree with you that "apparent distance" is a vague concept. I would define it like this: suppose an observer in one spaceship sends 2 signals with a known difference in the direction of the other spaceship. From the return time of the signals, it is possible to know (that is, to define) both the distance and the speed of the other spacecraft (yes, I know that a single signal is enough, but it is a little more complicated).
     I ignore accelerations - it is meaningless in the cases we are talking about.

392. Anonymous - me.

393. Miracles

     It's hard for me to understand what "the distance the viewer sees" means when he looks at a distant spaceship. Mars is much bigger than any spacecraft and much closer, and we still need complicated methods to calculate its distance from us. So a spaceship 1000 light hours away? Bigger than us, right?

     Perhaps you mean that if the spaceship was at rest relative to us and we were to send a radio signal to it and measure its return time and multiply by the speed of light, we would be able to correctly estimate its distance from us. But a spaceship in motion? And in a hurry? Huge on us.

     To all those who doubt the island of locality, i.e. the instant transfer of information between two points.

     I'm willing to take the risk and promise anyone who finds another logical interpretation of the Aspect test results other than non-locality, a parade of honor on the red carpet in Stockholm.

     By logical interpretation I mean: mathematical, physical, logical, algorithmic explanation, etc.

     Explanations along the lines of: "The wave function is common to all particles wherever they are, all particles are equal before the Creator, the seventeenth dimension communicates with the home dimension, etc., are not considered.

     If the Nobel Prize is not enough, here is a much bigger prize: if you manage to find a logical explanation for the fact that when one of the poles is tilted by 30 degrees the percentage of mismatch is 25, but when both are tilted by 30 degrees in opposite directions the percentage of mismatch jumps to 75 - I will have to swallow my pride, gnaw the Hats off, and shut your big, stupid mouth.

     How's that for an incentive?

394. Israel

     First an apology, I have no time for the twin paradox, as someone who raised children
     I appreciate that taking care of twins is a complex problem.

     Regarding the aspect experiment, the answer depends on what you call information. We will call it information
     as information obtained from measurement. Before a measurement was made there is one wave function no
     A particle flying to the right and a particle flying to the left have only an interlaced wave function. in the moment
     When one of the viewers (let's say on the left) performed a measurement, no information was passed on to the viewer
     the second (at a distance of 10 meters from him to the right). Why was no information passed though
     That the wave function has collapsed? Because the viewer on the right did not perform any measurement and as I defined
     Information is the result of measurement. As soon as the observer on the right makes a measurement he
     It will not be possible according to its results to know if indeed the observer on the left has already performed a measurement or
     No, and therefore no information was passed even though the wave function collapsed to a state of two
     particles.
     There is no distinction between information and known information. According to the Copenhagen interpretation of the information
     The only thing that exists is a measurement result. Because Einstein was a realist he believed that
     In the experiment before the measurement there is a pair of particles with properties he saw in the experiment as a violation of locality
     or reality and indeed the experiment indicates a violation of reality (the existence of an object without its measurement)
     If you hold the Copenhagen interpretation.
     hope I helped you.

395. Israel Shapira
     I also think not...but - do you accept that given 2 observers at a distance X, and one observer changes his speed to a certain gamma, so for the observer whose speed has changed the distance he sees becomes smaller in gamma, while for the other observer the distance has not changed?

396. Israel,
     I quoted additional "explanations" for weaving, shall I write again?

397. No

398. Israel Shapira
     Let's assume a distance of 1000 hours between the 2 spaceships and both accelerate at the same time in the same direction (on the straight line between A and B, and in the direction from A to B. Let's assume that the spaceships accelerate to gamma == 1000.

     Let's assume that A accelerates a little first.

     Spacecraft A accelerates and sees B at a distance of a light hour. B is speeding up and for A it is still a light hour away.

     Spacecraft A accelerates and B sees it 1000 light hours away. B accelerates and now sees A 1000000 light hours away.

     Makes sense?

399. Shmulik

     Do you have a solution to the paradox of the paradox? They don't tell me anything! Discover Israel immediately!

     There is no absolute blanket agreement that this is the transfer of information at an infinite speed? So that those who disagree will explain the results of an aspect experiment without such a transfer. We are all ears.

     write stories? And who will perform experiments aimed at finally understanding how interweaving and non-locality work and how it is even possible to talk about time relative to each measurer in a universe where all measurers agree on the age of the universe common to all?

     Thanks for the compliments, but even on our little site there are some better writers than me (without modesty), even on this page.

400. deer,
     thanks a lot for the answer

401. Israel, if you get a good answer, I demand a 10% bargain fee. 10% of what? First there will be a solution and then we will discuss (does this remind you of something?)
     In relation to the interlaced discussion, as you can see, there is no absolute blanket agreement that this is the transmission of information at an infinite speed.

     candy:
     Because you made a mistake in drawing the pen at the time and your writing style is better than mine, here is an idea for a story: the human race advances in science from experiment to experiment and every now and then they have experiments that change the paradigm (Michaelson-Morley, for example). The point of the story is that in any such experiment, its very existence is what complicates reality and physics (that is, before the experiment, reality was really simpler) and something or someone engineers it (in order to create an interesting reality for humanity/to solve its problem), but the situation got more and more complicated . In every such experiment, this someone (whatever it is), adds another level of complication, but this time due to the progress of the experiments, the quarrel (!) arose between quantum mechanics and the theory of relativity and little by little the scientists come to the conclusion that we actually live in the Matrix and that similar to World of Warcraft except that suddenly An opening for the programmers to break out/separate/take over the programmers (like the good imagination).

     Come on, do you write?

402. Israel,
     Didn't I write some explanations (not mine of course)?

403. Zvi, if you're already here, would it be too much to ask you to go through the "twin paradox"?

     https://www.hayadan.org.il/what-asimov-planed-for-the-negev-in-2014-2712137/comment-page-15/#comment-473382

     Thanks.

404. A response I added to Shmulik's request in another thread (referring to what is happening here):

     I'll start with an apology - I don't spend most of my days dealing with topics related to quantum, so my knowledge on the subject is limited to the knowledge of a bachelor's degree student + a little more.

     On the merits,
     I tend to accept Israel's position. The Copenhagen interpretation, i.e. the interpretation according to which particles that are in superposition and then at one moment collapse simultaneously and yet no information passes because basically nothing was known, feels to me like an evasion that with great difficulty comes out justified due to the doubt in the court of relativity. Worse than that, for this lame theory they give up the determinism that in a science like physics this seems absurd to me and it does create countless logical paradoxes that ultimately stem from the fact that measurement takes on a sacred role and no one knows how it enters the equation. In my opinion, such a paradoxical interpretation should only be accepted when there really is no choice, and unfortunately I have the impression (and this is a description I heard from someone, and unfortunately I don't remember from whom) that a significant number of physicists working in the field have fallen in love with the absurdity of quantum theory and they preserve it with religious zeal (most physicists, by the way, simply ignore the problem and solve things As they know without bothering themselves with what exactly that means).

     The question is of course whether there is another option and the answer is probably yes. There are several other formalisms which give the same experimental results but they disagree with the Copenhagen interpretation. The best known of them is the Bohemian mechanics developed by the physicist David Bohm (he of Aaronov Bohm). According to this theory, the full results of classical and quantum physics can be explained by assuming the existence of the "quantum potential". Mathematically, this potential can be obtained in a quite natural way by placing {Re^{iS/hbar) in the Schrödinger equation where S is the classical action and R is the quantum potential. In this way we naturally get the Hamilton-Jacobi equation that describes the classical behavior of a particle which includes an additional component related to the quantum potential and tends to 0 in the classical limit. According to the supporters of the theory, it fully explains the quantum results and is completely deterministic - there are no half-alive and half-dead cats and measurements that are not clear from them.

     So why doesn't everyone believe it?
     The supporters of the idea have many non-physical reasons - Boehm was a communist in the 50s, and Bohr a dictator, etc. There may be something to it, but I still think there are two main reasons: physical and methodological.
     - The physical reason is that the quantum potential does not obey the special theory of relativity - that is, it spreads at an infinite speed... This is of course very dirty and very problematic. On the other hand, as I mentioned, I don't really think that the Copenhagen interpretation really presents a local solution - its apparent locality is also based on a lie and hocus pocus. So if locality is given up in the quantum limit anyway, I at least prefer the Torah to continue to be deterministic.
     - The methodological reason is that this Torah did not present any new result, it was only proved to be equivalent to the Copenhagen interpretation. In this respect, there is a historical advantage to the old interpretation, simply because it is the one that has already been accepted and the new one has the burden of proof.

     So who is right?
     We will wait and see. My hope is that a new bell will be restored that will succeed in finding a "bell inequality" that will make it possible to differentiate between the Copenhagen interpretation, the Bohemian interpretation and other interpretations.

405. Shmulik

     What is the problem with the measurement? It is only the one that causes the particle to choose a single state, like a spinning top that, when it spins, is in the superposition of NGF and when it falls - or stops - it chooses one and only one state.

     If you think that there is no transfer of information in zero time, try to explain the results of the Aspect experiment in another way.

     As you mentioned, one of the things that results from the two cracks experiment is the influence of the present on the past (the Weiler experiment). But here Einstein has a seizure, despairs and returns to the patent office, where everything is clear and logical.

406. Israel,
     Is it true that all the problems stem from the measurement problem?
     I can only repeat the answer I already wrote, which is that I don't know. It could be that we have information transfer in zero time and it could be that there is something else here, but I wrote that precisely because it is zero time, literally zero (or to the point of Planck time) it is actually easy for me to accept that something else is happening here. What exactly? Nobel prize. I have already written, it may be that the future affects the present, it may be that the principle that Bohr described is indeed the correct and correct description, it may be that information works at infinite speed (I think that such a description will demonstrate to you in a more tangible way the problematic nature of this solution), but not necessarily.
     I asked the question in the thread: https://www.hayadan.org.il/black-holes-no-more-not-quite-2701148/comment-page-3/#comment-473438. We'll see if we get other interesting answers.

407. sympathetic

     waiting

     And if you have time, could you perhaps go over the "paradox of the twins"? It has been in circulation for over a month, and has been tested by several professors, and there is no solution yet.

     "The Twin Paradox Paradox"

     It is said that at a distance of almost 10 light years from the earth there is a planet that is stationary relative to the earth and whose clocks are synchronized with the earth.

     1. At time 0, spaceship A (whose clocks have been reset to planet time) accelerates from the planet towards Earth and in a short time reaches a speed V close to the speed of light so that the gamma factor is slightly greater than 10.

     2. According to the twins' paradox, the spaceship arrives in Israel after 10 years according to local time and after one year according to the spaceship's time.

     3. As soon as spaceship A leaves the planet, spaceship B leaves the earth in the opposite direction from the planet and accelerates to the same extent until it reaches the same velocity V of spaceship A.

     4. Spacecraft A and B now form an inertial system and the relative speed between them is 0.

     5. The distance between them in their reference system cannot exceed 10 light years, I assume. The time on their clocks immediately after reaching constant cruising speed is almost the same as the time of departure of both of their mother planets: 0

     6. Shortly after reaching cruising speed, spaceship B accelerates in the direction of the earth until it reaches 0 speed relative to it.

     7. Because of the symmetry with phase 2, it will meet spacecraft A after a little over a year according to season.

     The problem:

     8. From the point of view of the country, spacecraft B accelerated in a short time and immediately slowed down and stopped. From a practical point of view, if we reduce the acceleration time as we wish, we can say that spaceship B is currently standing not far from the place from which it took off.

     9. From the same consideration, the time shown by Spacecraft B's clock is almost no different from Earth time: 0.

     10. According to the data, Haaretz will meet Spacecraft A after 10 years according to Haaretz's time and a year (or less) according to Spacecraft B's time.

     11. The paradox: it therefore follows that Spacecraft B's clock rotates at least 10 times slower than the Earth's clock which is identical to it and is located next to it.

     12. Unless that is the case, my assumption in step 5 that the distance between the spaceships before S turned around cannot exceed 10 light years is incorrect, and in fact the distance between them is now 100 light years for some unknown reason.

     13. Or I have another mistake that I do not recognize now.

     If you find an error in the analysis and conclusions, please point to the step where the error occurred.

408. sympathetic

     In the Aspect experiment (the technical incarnation of the thought EPR experiment) two things must be distinguished:

     1. The polarization information of the photons or the state of the polarizers passes instantly from one polarizer environment to another. If this did not happen, we would get a zigzag pattern typical of hidden variables in the graph of the percentage of discrepancies, which does not violate the Bell inequality. In practice, we get a sinusoidal pattern that violates Bell's inequality, and is possible only in the case of non-locality, i.e. instantaneous transfer of the information of the state of polarization or polarizer.

     2. Although there is an instant transfer of information, this does not contradict the relationship that only prohibits the sending of known information.

     The discussion reached this point because of a paragraph Shmulik brought from Wikipedia at the time:

     Einstein, Podolsky and Rosen asked how can the second particle "know" to have precisely defined momentum but uncertain position? Since this implies that one particle is communicating with the other instantaneously across space, ie faster than light, this is the
     "paradox

     According to the quote, Einstein claimed that the transfer of information between particles contradicts relativity and therefore creates a paradox. My argument is that he was wrong twice - transfer of information does occur (1) but it does not contradict relativity (2).

     But then the question arises: how is it that Einstein did not see that there is no paradox? Why did it become a paradox if it does not exist?

     This has nothing to do with Bell's inequality theorem or the Aspect experiment. All the data were visible and clear even then, and it is a fact that Niels Bohr wrote them in his response article that came out a month after the EPR article.

     So how did Einstein miss such a trivial point in his most important paper since general relativity?

     What I want from you:

     You claim, if I understood correctly, that entangled photons can be treated as a single photon.

     But a single photon collapses at only one point and only at a certain moment. But this is not the case with entangled photons.

     For example: if a source of entangled photons is 10 meters from detector A and a million km from detector B, then photon A will collapse and flash after about 30 nanoseconds and photon B after about 3 seconds.

     So how is it that the same photon collapses twice in two different places and at different times?

     Or maybe you meant that a single wave function describes the 2 separate particles?

     Thanks.

409. Israel

     I had some time and read your previous response to Shmulik and I
     I think you understand the issue and it is clear to you that it is not possible to send information
     at a speed above the speed of light in the EPR experiment. So I don't understand what you want from me?

410. Israel

     Again you have not defined what according to your definition information is, is it the state of affairs in the world
     Or is it about our knowledge of the state of the eyes in the world. This definition has
     Great importance in quantum theory. Since I don't suppose that I will receive a definition from you
     What is information, I'll try to settle for what you gave me and move on to talking about the EPR experiment.

     According to your understanding, where or rather with whom is the information about the spin state of
     The electron or the polarization of the photon? And against whom exactly is this information transmitted?

411. Miracles

     A spaceship sees nothing. Just her watch, her accelerometer, stars, and darkness across an abyss. It can measure with light rays the acceleration of its accelerating companion 10 light years away, but then you get into all the vagaries of relativity.

     Do you think it's worth the trouble? How are you in hyperbolic differential equations? That's what it's about.

412. Israel Shapira
     I'm working on it …. My question is misleading. You don't need to ask whose time is earlier, but whose time is earlier - for an observer in every spaceship. That is: maybe the situation is that each spaceship sees the other accelerating first.

413. Shmulik

     I do not claim that there is a contradiction between non-locality and relativity. Wikipedia holds that Einstein claimed this, but it does not appear in the original EPR paper, as you have already seen.

     Apparently, there is a contradiction here: according to relativity, information cannot be sent faster than light. Information - spin, polarization, polarizing state - passes instantly through the interweaving. So how is it that there is no contradiction?

     For this you need to pay attention to the subtleties:

     According to relativity, if you in Israel know the state of the electron's spin - above for example - and you send this information to your friend on Mars faster than light, you have violated the principle of causality.

     However, this does not happen in the weaving experiment. Before you have measured the state of the electron, you cannot know what its state is. Before the measurement, it is in two positions - up and down - and this in all three measuring axes. Elk superposition.

     The measurement causes the electron to choose one particular state - up in our case - and its brother interwoven in Mars to immediately choose the opposite state (in the case of photon polarization, the polarization will be the same). The information - the state of spin or polarization - passed instantly from an entangled particle to its brother, or if we describe them as one particle located in two places, from one side of it to the other.

     But have we thereby violated the prohibition of transferring information faster than light?

     The answer is no.

     The reason is the definition we gave: "According to relativity, if you in Israel know the state of the electron's spin - above for example - and you send this information to your friend on Mars faster than light, you have violated the principle of causality".

     This does not happen in the case before us. Before the measurement you do not know the state of the electron. After you have measured, you will not be able to send the status information faster than light. It did pass instantly, but you didn't know what it was before the measurement, so you couldn't send it either. This is also what Bohr explained to Einstein in the link you provided.

     This is not a matter of semantics. Let's give a real example from everyday life: the company "Schrödinger et Heisenberg - Cats Ltd" announces the development of a special breed of cats with nine souls, each of which is half alive and half dead. You in Israel are interested in bringing Mecca by purchasing its shares traded on the bustling stock exchange of Mars before everyone else.

     Immediately you measure the spin of the entangled electron that you always rock with you, and know that your combine mate on Mars will immediately get the opposite spin in his entangled electron. Will you be able to buy the shares before everyone else?

     The answer is negative. You cannot transmit any information in this way. If you talked in advance that spin up means "buy" - how can you know what spin you got before you measured? It was passed immediately to your friend the speculator, but you will not be able to send the information, even though it has already passed.

     And only that is what relativity forbids.

     If you manage to prove that information does not pass immediately through interweaving, or on the other hand that information can be sent faster than light through interweaving, you will also be able to interest many people. Especially people in a certain committee, in a certain capital city, of a certain Scandinavian country, which also exports cheap furniture.

414. Israel,
     All I'm saying is that I don't know and when it comes to time zero I'd rather suspect something else, even the effects of the future on the present. Note by the way that Nils Bohr also claimed that this is not about the transfer of information in zero time (which is, you can argue that since Nils and the geese, a generation has passed and we have learned something else).
     What do you think of Zvi's sentence, from the thread: https://www.hayadan.org.il/black-holes-no-more-not-quite-2701148/#comments:
     "General relativity has been tested many times and meanwhile there is not a single experiment that disagrees with it."
     (I'm trying to trick you into it, if you haven't noticed)

415. sympathetic

     I hope you accept the following definitions for information, which are the only relevant thing required for the discussion:

     1. Electron spin state.

     2. The polarization state of the photon.

     3. The tilt angle of the polarizer in the Aspect experiment.

     If I understood relativity correctly, the possibility of sending information about one of these three states at a speed that exceeds that of light, and no matter in what form, constitutes a violation of the principle of causality, i.e. the advance of the cause of rotation.

     I understand, of course, that if we try to send this information through interleaving we will not succeed, but that does not mean that the information does not pass.

     Otherwise, please explain how the same polarization is always measured for an entangled photon on one side if the situation is determined only at the moment of measurement in the other past at a distance of tens or millions of kilometers?

416. Miracles

     You're right.. it's me who doesn't understand..

     ZA How did I not realize on my own that when you wrote "In the eyes of an earthly observer, the distance between them must be 1000 light hours" you meant "We have 2 planets 10 light years apart in their reference system"? After all, it is clear as a planet!

     You write "From here I conclude that in your paradox, your assumption that both spaceships accelerated at the same time is .... problematic".

     no problem. It is possible to synchronize the clocks of the planets and the spacecraft in advance, and each accelerates at time 0 by only one season. It's in the problem data.

     You can indeed argue that it is not a common time, that is, that the time of one of the spaceships is earlier or later according to Einstein's definition of clock synchronization, but then you will have to answer the question: whose time is earlier?

     Because of the symmetry, the clocks are synchronized.

417. Israel

     You didn't explain to me what information is, you just said how it can be represented
     as a zero or one state. Is information something physical, a bit state?
     Or is information my knowledge of the system? A particle is in a box
     Yes or no, I open the box and find out. After you define what information is
     We can talk a little about the EPR experiment and see if information is indeed transmitted in it.

418. Israel Shapira
     Do not say "you are not understood"... say "I do not understand"...
     I will explain even more simply.

     We have 2 planets 10 light years apart in their reference system.
     We have 2 spaceships, flying in a row at a speed (relative to the planets) V, so that gamma == 10. The spaceships fly on the straight line connecting the two planets. We will soon see what the distance is between them.
     Assumption: the spacecraft pass the planets simultaneously, that is, the front spacecraft crosses one of the planets while the rear spacecraft crosses the other planet.
     For observers in the spacecraft the distance between the planets is one light year and therefore the distance between the spacecraft is one light year.
     If so, in the eyes of an observer on the entire planet the distance between the spaceships is a tenth of a light year.

     But - if we assumed that the spaceships cross the planets at the same time, then the distance between them should be (for an observer on each of the planets) 10 light years.

     Conclusion: we made a mistake in the assumption.

     From this I conclude that in your paradox, your assumption that both spaceships accelerated at the same time is …. problematic.

419. Miracles

     You are not understood.

     What does "in my eyes" mean? How does he decide what the distance is? Did he measure, that is, send an electromagnetic signal and measure with a watch the arrival time of the repeated pulse?

     My paradox talks about planets 10 light years away. If possible, try to only refer to it and the different steps in it, so that I can understand what it is about.

420. Israel Shapira
     Let's talk for a moment about the accelerating spaceships at the same time. Suppose they accelerate to speed v. Let's take another pair of spaceships that are already moving at speed v at a certain distance between them and assume that each of them flies from a hub on one of the spaceships we had (at the end of their acceleration).
     We will call them A and B respectively. In the eyes of an observer in spacecraft A (or B) the distance between the planet and the Earth is a light hour. To an earthly observer, the distance between them must be 1000 light hours.
     We have reached a contradiction. Why? Because we assumed that A and B passed A and B at the same time, both with respect to observers in spaceships and with respect to an earthly observer.

421. sympathetic

     information:

     One or zero state. Through these two modes it is possible to display any information that is required, by computer.

     In electrons: "up" or "down" state. same as above.

     In photons: polarization. same as above.

     Let's focus on the aspect experiment for now:

     A photon source emits a million entangled photons in opposite directions. The photons pass through polarizers on both sides and immediately after them their polarization is measured. When the polarizers are tilted at 0 degrees, the matching percentage between the polarizers is 100%. When one is at 0 degrees and the other at 90, the percentage of adjustments is 0%. When one is at 0 and the other at 30 degrees, the percentage of discrepancies is 25%.

     Logic dictates that when the two polarizers are tilted by 30 degrees in opposite directions, the mismatch percentage will be 50 percent or less if there is no instant connection between the photons or the polarizers. In practice, as the results of the experiment show, it is 75 percent, as claimed by quantum mechanics.

     Try to explain the results of this experiment without the transfer of information at 0 time - information: the polarization of the photon or the state of the polarizers - without the immediate transfer of information.

     Note that you do not need to refer to a wave function, photons, entanglement or quanta. To the same extent, you can use small chocolate rolls. The problem is only logical.

     running to work

422. Israel

     First explain what you are going to information.

     In quantum theory there is a situation. Before the measurement there is an interlaced state. the situation
     can become two photons if we measure them but before the measurement
     The wave function cannot be treated as two photons but as a state
     One quantum is similar to a single photon.

423. sympathetic

     In the original Aspect experiment, a photon source sent entangled photons in opposite directions and their polarization was measured at a distance of about 13 meters from each other. In later experiments the distance reached many kilometers.

     If you mean that before the measurement the photon is in two places that are 10 or a billion km apart at that moment before the measurement - then yes, as you say "in the experiment there are no pairs of photons" but one photon, a "long photon".

     Still, within the same long photon, the polarization information is transferred from one side of it to the other in 0 time.

     agree?

424. Israel

     First please read what I write to you before you repeat the argument "if you know
     The Aspect experiment, where it is about pairs of entwined photons". In the experiment there are no photon pairs
     Until you measure a photon, just like a photon has no location until you decide to measure the location
     His.
     You are telling me that both in the single photon or electron experiment and in the EPR experiment information is transmitted.
     Since you emphasize this point again and again I invite you to articulate exactly why you are reading information.
     After you define, we can discuss whether it actually passes or not? Is information just knowledge or lack thereof?
     Our knowledge of the world or is it a physical size?
     Regarding your puzzlement, I'm not enthusiastic about trying to understand how and what the great scientists thought, I prefer
     deal with the issues themselves. In any case, regarding Einstein, he formulated the EPR experiment as based on locality
     And realistically, I think that the framework of his discussion with Bohr sharpened these issues, but I don't see
     It makes sense to deal with it personally.

425. sympathetic

     I agree with you, and I have already pointed this out many times, that even in the collapse of a single photon or electron there is a transfer of information to a distance at time 0. My puzzlement regarding the EPR paradox is why, as written in Wikipedia, it is claimed that the "paradox" is that there is a contradiction to relativity if non-locality does exist. Non-locality exists, but this does not contradict relativity. So what, Einstein didn't know this himself? Did you need Niels Bohr to explain this point to him? This is my puzzlement.

     If you are familiar with the Aspect experiment, where it is about pairs of entangled photons between which the transfer of information occurs at time 0. It can be treated as a separate episode regardless of quanta or wave function.

     Miracles - so is there a paradox or not? If you find a mistake in "The Twin Paradox Paradox" - point to the particular step where the mistake was made.

426. Israel Shapira
     If I was wrong .. then there is no paradox

427. Shmulik

     Do you not accept that the results of the experiment in the link I provided can only be interpreted as the transfer of information at time 0?

     If so, prepare yourself for sharp questions from me.

     Unless you attribute supernatural properties to the particles in the experiment or to the experimental set-up (magic, spells, going back in time, blowing water...)

     But then prepare yourself for pointed questions from the Creator.

     Miracles

     indeed.

428. Israel

     I'll try again, unfortunately I don't have time to read the link maybe later this week...
     In any case, until a measurement is made, there are no two photons at all
     A woven one. Thus your puzzlement about the EPR experiment is at all relevant to the measurement of
     A single photon. What if the wave function of a single photon is spread over an area
     Do you know how big the single photon must collapse into the area where it is measured? how are you going
     The information for the whole space that the photon was measured by the measuring device? On
     This is how Bohr will answer you that a photon has no location or meaning until the magnitudes are measured
     these. It is the measurement that determines what features you will receive. anyway if you think
     As information passes, the problem already exists for the measurement of a single particle
     in the detector.

429. Israel Shapira
     I think I was wrong…..

430. Israel,
     Oh Israel, why do you insist? Listen to the music of my words:
     It may be that what is happening is the transfer of information, but in a way that does not contradict the theory of relativity, but it may not. You stated yes but the fact is that no one knows what is going on there. Did you see what Nils and Molly and the other geese said, I showed you a link that describes that maybe information from the future affects the present (if this may be true about the two slits experiment, why not about weaving) and our own deer, describes himself that what is happening there is not clear (by the way, you can jump to the thread One and ask him about it, he will surely be more informative than me)

431. Israel Shapira
     Yes, but I think it's not simultaneous on the spacecraft clocks so I'm splitting it up, and looking at all the possibilities.
     Let's take another option:
     Spacecraft B accelerated, followed by Spacecraft A, and the third step is stopping B.
     At stage 0 - everyone is standing and the distances are clear.
     In stage 1-1000 the acceleration. At this point, we are like in the classic case: B sees A at a distance of one light hour, A sees B and the Earth at a distance of 1000 light hours, and the Earth sees A at a distance of XNUMX light hours.
     In stage 2 - A. accelerates. Earth sees B still 1000 light hours away. B sees the Earth at a distance of a light hour. A also sees B at a distance of a light hour. B sees A 1000 light hours away (after all, they are in the same frame of reference).
     In stage 3 - B stops. A still sees B a light hour away. B. …… hmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmm …. According to my understanding B still sees A 1000 light hours away.

     Do you think I was wrong?

432. Shmulik

     From your link:

     The de Broglie–Bohm theory describes the physics in the Bell test experiments as follows: to understand the evolution of the particles, we need to set up a wave equation for both particles; the orientation of the apparatus affects the wave function. The particles in the experiment follow the guidance of the wave function. It is the wave function that carries the faster-than-light effect of changing the orientation of the apparatus.

     So it's the wave function that carries the faster-than-light effect? Leave, so be it.

     We still received information transmission faster than light. parable.

     Miracles

     "The claim is that there is a shortening/lengthening due to the constancy of the speed of light, and not the other way around..."

     And in my opinion there is another explanation that leaves the absolute time of Newton Maxwell and Lorentz intact, and still does not contradict every observation and experiment known to us, including the Michelson Morley experiment, Boeings and GPSs.

     "Spacecraft B accelerated and stopped before Spacecraft A even moved. It's trivial here, right?"

     Yes.

     But we are discussing the case that both accelerated at the same instant 0 according to the clocks of the planets synchronized between them, which is also time 0 in the spacecraft.

433. Israel Shapira
     I'll start with the simple case: spacecraft B accelerated and stopped before spacecraft A even moved. Here it is trivial right?

434. Israel Shapira
     "And maybe there is a different explanation for the constancy of the speed of light in all reference systems besides the lengthening of times and the shortening of lengths..." - why are you twisting things? 🙂 The claim is that there is a shortening/lengthening due to the constancy of the speed of light, and not the other way around……

435. Israel,
     I'm not as knowledgeable in the field as you are, so to answer I'll really need 14 years, but checking on Wiki, the theory of non-local hidden variables is not considered a dead theory but (currently) a kind of leech on quantum mechanics. Here is the full entry (attached here although I'm sure you know):
     http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/De_Broglie-Bohm_theory

     Regarding what exactly happens in weaving, etc., as I wrote, a Nobel Prize. Beyond Nils's answer, which is interesting in itself here on the site, in the discussion of Hawking radiation, Zvi writes as follows: https://www.hayadan.org.il/black-holes-no-more-not-quite-2701148/#comments

     "In quantum theory there is a very delicate matter called entanglement. The idea that you take a pair of particles in a certain defined quantum state and separate them from each other, in this state the particles are each in an undefined quantum state, on the other hand when we measure the state of one, the state of the other will be determined immediately and it doesn't matter how far away it is. The mechanism by which this effect works is unclear (because the whole measurement issue is unclear)"

436. sympathetic

     If you accept that an aspect experiment is described by Nick Herbert in the link:

     http://quantumtantra.com/bell2.html

     So I would love to receive a physical explanation of how the data described in it (which as far as I know are consistent with the data from the original Aspect experiment) can be explained without non-locality, i.e. that the pairs of entangled photons or the polarizers themselves communicate with each other.

     By the way - there is an explanation, which involves a "collusion" between the polarizers, so that the photon polarization information can still be sent at a lower speed than that of light - but in advanced experiments the loophole in the original experiment was fixed, so that we are left only with the possibility of non-locality, i.e. instant communication.

     And this is the main thing: how do the entangled photons manage to convey their polarization information, and how do they do it in zero time.

437. Think and well.

     On the other hand, since the paradox has been in circulation for more than a month, has been criticized by quite a few experts, it is still the focus of heated discussion in:
     http://aleph.weizmann.ac.il/Index.asp?CategoryID=854

     And there is still no solution -

     Perhaps we should also prepare ourselves for the possibility that there is no solution to the paradox for the simple reason that there is simply no time dilation in inertial systems.

     And therefore maybe there is no shrinking of distances either..

     And maybe there is a different explanation for the constancy of the speed of light in all reference systems besides the lengthening of times and the shortening of lengths...

     Which actually goes very well with what we know from quantum mechanics, which Einstein fought all his life - and lost...

     Think and well.

     All the best.

438. Israel Shapira
     First of all, assuming continuous acceleration over time, then it's quite simple. Let's say we start at a light second distance. The time will therefore be 2 seconds. It is clear that during acceleration the walking time will increase and the return time will decrease. But, the walking time can increase without limit while the return time can decrease by a maximum of one second.
     Second, your example is very interesting and I need to think about it. What I think, right now, is like Bell's paradox, you have to notice that the accelerations don't happen simultaneously in terms of the spacecraft. I will think about it….

439. The round-trip time will always be greater than a situation where the speed is constant" - why?

     Let's try this with my example with the earth and the planet 10 light years away at rest and their clocks are synchronized. The 2 spaceships, A and B, accelerate at time 0 common to them and the planets to a relative speed so that the gamma factor is equal to 10. Acceleration duration - picosecond according to local time.

     When they have reached this speed, they stay there for one picosecond according to the clock of each spacecraft, then accelerate back and stop. The distance each spaceship traveled in its planet system - less than one meter.

     If the distance between them increased to 100 light-years before they accelerated back, it should continue to increase when they accelerate in the opposite direction because in Picochania's time when they are at a constant speed they form an inertial system as they were before they left the mother planets. Therefore the distance after they stopped should be at least 100 light years.

     But after they stopped they are part of the mother planets, which as mentioned are 10 light years away from each other, so how does it work out?

440. Israel

     I don't want to get into trouble again, but I will repeat the answer about EPR that I gave you a long time ago.
     Before a measurement is made there are no two particles there is one quantum state. The image of a moving particle
     In one direction and the other in a second direction is a classic wrong image. Before the measurement is not given according to
     Quantum theory to talk about particles, there is only an entangled state.

441. Israel Shapira
     I will tell you why in my understanding the distance has increased. Imagine that at any given moment the rear spacecraft sends a signal to measure distance in the front direction, so the round-trip time will always be greater than a situation where the speed is constant.
     You also have to look at it from the point of view of a ground observer. It seems really logical to me that the distance between them will remain constant, and it actually corresponds to the elongation seen in the spacecraft system.

442. Shmulik

     The flight has passed, only the jetlag remains.

     Bohr is no less a maestro than Einstein, and in the final analysis also the great conductor. If you followed the story described in the link (spot plots and the changing polarities) you may have seen that there is no possibility of hidden variables, at least within the scope of the described experiment. If you disagree with this statement, prepare yourself for questions from Rachel the daughter, Rebecca the mother, and Sarah the grandmother.

     Meir Amiram showed at the time how the results of the experiment described in the link (which is actually an aspect experiment) do not require non-locality beyond the range of the experiment. However, it must be remembered that Bell's theorem of inequality is the basis for a mathematical - not empirical - proof of the existence of non-locality. The experiments only showed what the theory required.

     I read Bohr's answer to Einstein in the article you cited, and he shows Einstein very nicely why non-locality does not contradict relativity. However, the questions remain: 1. How does information - spin or polarization - pass from one particle to another? 2. How does he do it in 0 time?

     And as mentioned, if you doubt that this is exactly what is happening, prepare yourself for some pointed questions about the spot experiment described in Nick Herbert's article.

     Miracles.

     I read about the Bell Paradox. I did not find an explanation for the claim made there, namely that when two spaceships are accelerated simultaneously the distance between them increases. It is difficult for me to accept this statement, and in my opinion the paradox I raised rules out this possibility. If you want I will explain why.

443. Israel,
     Another easy thing. An article by Ben Yisrael was published in "Haaretz/Odysseh" discussing, among other things, EPR:http://www.haaretz.co.il/odyssey/1.2226918
     And from the article:
     Bohr's reply to the argument of Einstein Podolsky and Rosen was published in the next issue (No. 48) of the newspaper in which the original article was published (Physical Review). Bohr's answer is long and detailed and contains two parts. One part deals with the "translation" of Einstein's argument into the language of physicists by means of a practical experimental setup in which measurements of the type described in EPR can be made. Bohr analyzes the EPR claims using this experimental set-up and shows why the assertions of quantum theory agree with common sense (the physicist) and are not "puzzling". He also explains why there is no need to break the principle of relativity and why there is no contradiction to the theory of relativity. This part is relatively easy to understand and has been accepted by the world's physicist community as a good answer to the EPR argument. The second part is "philosophical" in nature and in it Bohr repeats his principle of complementarity and the idea of ​​the relativity of physical quantities to the experimental setup. According to him, a complete description of reality should be given by a complementary series of magnitudes which never exist together. This part is difficult to understand, and in fact it can be stated that for many years it remained closed and incomprehensible to many physicists. Even Einstein himself, in a response letter he wrote to Schrödinger, admits that he does not understand the idea of ​​complementarity.

     According to Bohr's analysis, we are not concerned with a "mysterious" transfer of information from one particle to another. What determines, then, that in one experimental set-up we can talk about the position of the second particle, while in another experimental set-up it is about its speed, is nothing more than the way in which we constructed the experiment.

     Is only Einstein allowed to be an old master and Bohr not?

444. Israel,
     How are you flying?
     Thanks for the nice article but, what are no hidden variables? There are no local hidden variables but non-local ones are definitely possible (and the dark matter is what holds them and we will still make the universe display a blue screen. Wait and see).
     Just to summarize my opinion: it is the language that forces us to read what is happening in the interweaving and transmission of information. Because most of the hidden is revealed, it is a mistake to decide that there must be interlacing at the speed of light just because you don't know what other explanations exist. This only indicates our inability to explain this fascinating phenomenon. Just as we have no ability in principle to explain what the hell is going on in the two slit experiment. I really liked the variation to the experiment in the form of the late choice experiment: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wheeler%27s_delayed_choice_experiment
     By the way, one of the explanations for this phenomenon is this: A more exotic possibility is that a photon could see in the future or change the past.
     You must call me philosophizing, but dear Aharonov will not agree with you:
     http://www.themarker.com/magazine/1.1898894
     Who knows, maybe by understanding the concept of time we will get answers to these questions.

     Claims like: maybe the old master "knew something" (and decided to keep the secret for the benefit of future generations) may be good for books such as The Da Vinci Code but in reality if the master knew something, the master would have published and in my very personal opinion, the old master exhibited the known phenomena of an old master The one who tries to protect his life's work and therefore tries to stick sticks in the wheels of the bastards who try to sabotage it (see Arthur S. Clarke's First Law)

445. period (b you can listen, but don't interfere)
     Ok. I assume you meant 20 years in the remaining twin's life. In the eyes of the remaining twin - the other twin flies for 20 years, to a point almost 20 light years away and then it returns. That is - the remaining age of the twin is 50 years.
     Regarding the flying twin - due to Lorentz contraction, the point I mentioned is visible one light year away (approximately). And so within a year he reaches it. As it rotates back, the Earth appears to be within a light year and so another year will pass. That is, when they landed they were 12 years old.

446. ב
     What symmetrical twins do you have???? Go read the article.

447. Einstein was not wrong.
     You are wrong in misinterpreting his words.
     As long as the twins are symmetrical:
     In the resting system of Twin A: Twin B is in motion and therefore its clock slows down.
     In the resting system of Twin B: Twin A is in motion and therefore its clock slows down.
     Twin A's resting system is not the common exit point of the twins.
     Twin B's resting system is not the common exit point of the twins.

448. Nissim, please explain. But a physical explanation. That is, describe the age of each of the twins at given times.

     Let's say they were both 10 years old and then one of them decided to take off into space and suddenly flew at 0.999 of the speed of light. After 20 years of flight, it reverses without acceleration. And after 20 years of flight he lands on Earth without acceleration.
     Let's see you describe (no need for exact numbers) the different points of view of each of the twins. in each of the phases of the flight.

449. ב
     You wrote "There is not one fixed point when the other moves relative to it. It just doesn't exist. This is the whole innovation of the theory of relativity." No - it's Galileo.

     I don't understand, are you saying Einstein is wrong? Yes or No? And you should read what he wrote before you answer.

450. Miracles:
     You are mixing things up.
     Galileo claimed that the earth revolves around the sun.
     Einstein claimed:
     The site system does not exist.
     All inertial systems are symmetric. There is no preference for one inertial system over another.
     When the two twins are in inertial systems. There is no preference for one twin over the other.
     But if they are in inertial systems then they cannot leave a common point and return to this point.
     The twins' clocks can only differ when the symmetry between them is broken.
     The symmetry is only broken if there are any differences between the twins such as in acceleration. by gravity in the distance

451. point
     There is no paradox and there is no need to consider accelerations. I explained it over and over again... but everyone is locked in their own opinions, thinks they are smarter than Einstein, and doesn't listen. It is certainly possible to explain the twin paradox without accelerations and the explanation is simple. That's how you learn it at university, and I don't understand at all what the discussion is about here.

452. ב
     This is not a relativity theory 🙂 You're kidding, right? The one who "innovated" it is a nice Italian named Galileo Galilei. You should learn about him...

     Read what I wrote... And try to understand.

     Listen ... until you study a little, and read Einstein's article in particular, you will never understand.

453. Miracles are not true. If you don't consider accelerations there is a paradox.
     After all, if the twin flying in the spaceship is always moving at a constant speed both going and returning (as you described by jumping without acceleration). So on the part of the twin in the spaceship, time on Earth passes more slowly. And then there is a paradox.

454. Miracles:
     There is no possibility that in inertial systems one point is fixed and the other is in motion.
     The two points always move relative to each other.
     I've said it too many times.
     This is the whole meaning of the theory of relativity.
     There is no one fixed point when the other moves relative to it. It just doesn't exist. This is the whole innovation of relativity.
     If the two twins are symmetrical, then by what do you decide which twin stays in place and which twin is in motion?

455. ב
     Yes. You are very confused with the concept of "symmetry". In the twin paradox, one twin stays in place and the other moves to another place and returns. There is no symmetry here, because this point is fixed in one system and moves in the other system.

     Just don't get confused - it has nothing to do with acceleration either. The twin that initially travels at speed 0 and after that at speed V, and so on. If you assume an instantaneous transition between the speeds you will still get the paradox.

     And it's not really a paradox - it's a direct and simple result of special relativity.

456. Miracles:
     We will continue the trip:
     The twins return to point M, which is their starting point.
     Because of the symmetry, the twins are identical.
     We got a situation where the twins move in relation to each other but after returning to the starting point their positions are identical.
     The connection to the twin paradox:
     If the twins are symmetrical there can be no difference in clocks after the reunion at the starting point.
     Therefore the twin paradox cannot exist in inertial systems because inertial systems are symmetric.

457. ב
     You are describing something completely different, which has nothing to do with our problem.

     Why are you bringing this up? It has nothing to do with the twin paradox.

458. Miracles:
     To make it clear, we call it by appropriate names:
     The central point will be called point m.
     At equal distances from it and in opposite directions are point K1 and point K2.
     The twins leave symmetrically at the same time from point m.
     Twin A arrives at point K1.
     Twin B reaches point K2.
     When Twin A arrives at point K1 there are time differences between his clock and the clock at point K1.
     When twin B arrives at point K2 there are time differences between his clock and the clock at point K2.
     The twins are symmetric about point m and therefore their clocks are the same.

459. ב
     Let's be precise "so far your words" - these are Einstein's words.

     You wrote "from point A, twin B leaves symmetrically to twin A and reaches point C" - there is no such thing as leaving symmetrically. What you want to say is that point C is always halfway between A and B, right?
     But you are wrong in advance - the distance between C and A is equal to the distance between C and B .... but in whose eyes? Look - A moves away from B faster than C moves away from B, so from B's point of view - C is not halfway between him and A.

     Say - do you disagree with Einstein?

460. Miracles:
     We will present the things you said in a symmetrical way:
     From point A, twin A goes to point B.
     When he reaches point B, there will be a time difference between his clock and the clock at point B.
     So far your words. And now let's see it symmetrically:
     Point C is symmetrical to point B in relation to point A.
     From point A, twin B leaves symmetrically to twin A and reaches point C.
     What happens to twin A will also happen to twin B.
     That is:
     When he reaches point C, there will be a time difference between his clock and the clock at point C.
     This time difference will be the same as the time difference created in the other twin.
     Therefore the twins will be the same age after each of them has reached their goal point.
     Although the twins are in motion relative to each other. They will be the same age.
     Of course, after returning to the starting point they will be the same age.

461. You played it with this Bell Paradox, I completely forgot about it, and indeed it is very reminiscent of my Paradox Paradox. Thanks.

     I'm going to sleep (still in jetlag) I'll study it later. It seems to me that this is probably the solution, what's more, this is what Prof. Yonathan Granot claims: the distance between the ships increases in the process of acceleration.

     Good night, and well done for the attention to detail.

462. Israel Shapira
     See here
     http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bell%27s_spaceship_paradox

463. Shaw Paradox Bell? There is a Zenon paradox, an APR paradox and an APR paradox, but a Bell paradox? Maybe Bell's inequality theorem?

     If you know an explanation for my paradox - find out in the forum. Don't be so shy!

464. Israel Shapira
     The truth is that it always seems the opposite to me :(….
     If the rig rotates fast then the round trip time of the beam increases, right? That is, we see that the clock of the system in motion is slower, as expected. Therefore, if the device measures a shorter time, then it must be shorter - because the speed of light is constant.
     This is the explanation I learned at the time... I'm not exactly convinced either 🙂

     By the way, your paradox is very reminiscent of Bell's paradox, and the explanation for this paradox is what I said... The Bushmen

465. Miracles, once again did we drink? 🙂

     Please answer why in the system that the length description is shortened. Just that.

     Sanyak Elek..

466. Israel Shapira
     Time has shortened, the speed is constant, I don't know, I was taught to double speed while gaining range.
     Try and see for yourself….

467. and…?

     Does anyone doubt that light rays move - or move - at the same speed in two reference systems?

     What is the connection to the shortening of the length?

468. Israel Shapira
     Let's not start drawing conclusions from combinations of cases 🙂

     RLG is Ring Laser Gyro. They replaced the mechanical gyro in most inertial navigation systems on fighter planes. Their operating principle is based on the Senyak principle and is quite simple to understand. There is a closed track (I know a square one and there is a triangle) where 2 laser beams move in opposite directions. Even a small rotational movement creates a difference in the track times, and you can see the performance differences when the rays meet again. The principle of operation is based on the fact that the light rays move at the same speed in both reference systems (the box of the fixed assembly and the rotating triangular assembly).

469. Miracles

     It is clear that according to relativity the lengthening of time is not related to accelerations. what's the point

     And what about RLG? I googled and got references to some library.

     Put gas:

     Follow the thread that starts with this comment:
     https://www.hayadan.org.il/ball-state-prez-intelligent-design-not-science-0408135/comment-page-26/#comment-448700

     You will see that Michael was wrong for two and a half years as expressed in his response "I told you that I did not do the exact calculation and it is possible that my guess was not correct".

     Note that in a late response he also made the correct calculation, in a link that shows the invariance of time and length.

     There are more comments, you can scroll towards the end. I just don't want to be kept waiting too long.

     I haven't spoken to Yuval since I returned to America. I am currently with the children, so it will be a bit difficult to detail the experiment I conducted before I went to Israel. He came to give an answer to the question: Is a photon that came out of a light source and passed through a barrier, found beyond the barrier even before it passed through it in the natural way, that is, movement at the speed of light?

     Note that the answer in QED is positive. Also in weaving experiments.

     What do you think? Passed or not passed?

     By the way, we tried to reproduce the experiment in Israel. Since you have to send a laser beam over long distances and observe it, the two highest places we found in the Jerusalem area are... Beit Meir and Moshav Ora..

     Not a strange coincidence? I mean the names…

470. ב
     I happen to call it what it should be called.

     Listen, I keep referring you to Einstein's article. He gives an example, which I gave and shows how there is a difference in the clocks - no accelerations at all.
     Until you read the article... don't kid yourself that you have any idea what you're talking about - throwing out a password without understanding it isn't exactly helpful.

     If you read and don't understand, I'd be happy to explain it to you, but you're so locked in your opinions that I think it's a waste of time for both of us.

471. Miracles:
     As far as I know, special relativity only talks about inertial systems.
     but:
     Call it what you want: special relativity or general relativity.
     If there is no breaking of the symmetry between the twins then the twins will be the same age after returning to the starting point.

472. Israel
     Please show me where M.R. admitted a mistake. (As far as I remember when it came to the subject of logic he had no mistakes).
     "I would be happy to receive any help and answer" - get ready to be happy. But you will start with Rachel the daughter. From there we will proceed, if necessary, to questions about the grandmother.
     "Plan and perform real experiments" - what experiments did you perform and what were the results?
     (And what about your obscure friend? I remembered that you told us that you came up with some matter on the obscure subject).

473. ב
     I understand what you are saying. The point is that special relativity has no problem with accelerated motion, despite what they teach in high school. The special theory of relativity is based on Newton's theory (and Galileo originally) plus the statement that the speed of light is constant in any inertial system. There is no problem with accelerations in special relativity. In particular, the famous mass-energy formula is the result of acceleration considerations in special relativity.
     General relativity is the next theory to explain what gravity is, and it links acceleration to gravity.

     Where does your statement that there are no accelerations in special relativity come from? I suggest you (again...) read Einstein's article where he talks about the special theory of relativity, and there it is also about accelerations.

474. Miracles :
     It is not clear to me why you refuse to understand that in inertial systems in empty space (without gravity) it is not possible for one twin to stay in place while the other twin goes on a journey.
     If you say that twin A stays in place because no force acts on it, while twin B accelerates because some force acts on it, then you will not solve the problem either, because if there is a force in the system that accelerates one of the twins and does not accelerate the other twin, then one system is inertial while the other system is is not inertial.
     That is, it is an exception to the theory of special relativity.

475. Israel Shapira
     By the way - I think RLG shows exactly shortening due to speed. And you don't need high speeds to show it.

476. Israel Shapira
     I have a way to show that there is no (direct) connection between accelerations and the twin paradox, based on your paradox, but simpler.
     Suppose two twins. The first twin accelerates to V, sails 10 years, slows to 0, accelerates to V in the return direction, sails 10 years, slows to 0 and lands on Earth.
     The second twin accelerates to V, decelerates to 0, accelerates to V in the reverse direction, decelerates to 0 and lands on the ground.
     The accelerations are fast and constant.
     And yet - there is an age difference.
     They are

477. Mr. Show me the logical errors in my words without a doubt - and most of the time he was undoubtedly wrong.

     Not only was he wrong, he also admitted his mistakes. If you ask, I'll show you exactly where.

     I would be happy to receive any help and answer on the subject of relativity from those who understand the subject. But he must prepare himself for questions from Rachel the daughter, the granddaughter, the great-granddaughter, up to at least 20 generations.

     And also the mother, grandmother and great-grandmother.

     The experience I gain here and on other blogs helps me a lot to understand the subject and also to plan and carry out real, non-thinking experiments (very interesting, by the way) which I think are the only way to find out the physical reality.

     Except that I believe that only the Michaelson Morley style experiment can change opinions that have been fixed for generations, and that includes my own opinion.

478. ב
     Even if you assume that the experiment is carried out in space, you will find that the paradox exists. In the thought experiment I described there is no reference to the gravitational field of the earth.
     If you think otherwise then you just don't understand what I'm talking about. I described a simple experiment - the experiment is based solely on the assumptions of special relativity. There is no physicist who disputes the results of this experiment. If you don't accept that then I have nothing to talk to you about. Instead of throwing passwords - learn to listen, and learn basic physics...

479. I remember you raised the questions here over the last two years. And I also remember that MR showed you where the logical errors in your words were, which you flatly refused to accept. And since that's not how I (or anyone from my friends) can help you on this matter.
     If you have a specific question about interweaving or non-locality please write the things clearly, and I will address them.

480. Big S

     I don't just chat with the kids - I chat with everyone. Only in this article did I mention and give links to the correspondence I had with three professors who understand the subject of relativity.

     On the topic of weaving - I would always love to hear new ideas. I believe I already know the old ones - all from well-known professors there.

     The question about interweaving - or more precisely non-locality - is not if it happens but how. If your friend has an idea, then I'm all ears, you too, all of us too. I raised my idea for the general direction here two years ago.

481. Israel
     I came for a short visit (at least until the new website is built).
     If you are tired of chatting with the children, and you are interested in researching the subject seriously, then I can give you a link to the work that my friend did with two other researchers (one of them is a professor) on the subject. The work is from a year and a half ago and was published on arxiv.
     At the moment, that friend is busy writing a doctoral thesis on entangled particles. So if you have questions, I invite you to write them here in an orderly manner, and I will make sure to direct them to him and get back to you with an answer.
     (If you want a link to the work, then enter your email address here).

482. Shmulik

     And why would it bother your tired and busy mind where are the hidden variables? Bell's theorem and the many experiments that followed it proved that there are no hidden variables.

     The information - polarization or spin, up or down - requires exactly one bit of information. And this is what passes between interwoven particles, but in three axes.

     And just as in the coin the side - wood or straw - is determined at the moment of fall, so also in the photon the polarization is determined at the moment of measurement.

     But unlike a pair of coins, if one falls on a tree in Jerusalem it has no effect on another coin in Tel Aviv and it can certainly fall on Peli as well, with entangled photons the polarization is always the same.

     So how does the photon in Tel Aviv know to choose the same polarization of his brother in Jerusalem if the same bit of information did not pass to him?

     Go to the link related to my name, there is the explanation why information must be passed.

483. Israel,
     What do you mean you need a bit and a half? The bit has to be stored on something (atom, photon, whatever you want). Do you think the hidden variable is stored on the photon you are changing? Because if not, something else needs to hold that data. Here, the dark matter holds the hidden variables! We found a use for it

484. Showed off, huh?

     But if both photograph exactly the same... and the photographed diameter is exactly the same... then what is the physical aspect of the length shortening?

     Is this a virtual contraction? Psychedelic? Maybe a Neanderthal?

     Because with normal foreshortening, you see a large and clear image when you take a close-up photo.

485. "We'll take 2 twins on Earth."
     This sentence is wrong.
     Earth has gravity.
     Because of gravity there is a breaking of the symmetry.
     One twin stays on earth and the other twin goes out and returns.
     The effect of gravity does not belong to the discussion of special relativity.
     If the twin paradox exists, it does not exist within the framework of special relativity.

486. ב
     Please answer the question. yes or

487. Israel Shapira
     Well, you're right...but
     Both will photograph exactly the same thing - in the end it's the same photons. As far as Spacecraft B is concerned, the time is as I said, but the information is from a month and a half ago.
     The point is that photography is essentially freezing the state of the photons at a given moment, and in this case it is the same photons.

488. Miracles:
     In inertial systems it is not possible for one twin to stay in place and the other twin to go out and return.
     In inertial systems there is symmetry between the twins. Everything that happens to one happens to the other.
     The two twins leave a common point and return to it.

489. Another time waiting, what did I say?

     We will try without the link:

     From "The Twin Paradox Paradox":

     "11. The paradox: it therefore follows that Spacecraft B's clock rotates at least 10 times slower than the Earth's clock which is identical to it and is next to it.

     You say: "So Spacecraft B will photograph in a suit what happened on December 31, 2014 at 23:00 PM"

     On the other hand: "And spacecraft B (you must have meant A) will take pictures of what happened approximately in the middle of November 2014."

     But note: spaceships A and B are together at the moment of the suit. What is the problem with spacecraft B leaving a copy of the photo near A, or transmitting it to A immediately, so that A will have a photo of the New Year 2015 celebrations, more than a month before it reaches her naturally, that is, through light rays?

490. From "The Twin Paradox Paradox":

     https://www.hayadan.org.il/what-asimov-planed-for-the-negev-in-2014-2712137/comment-page-4/#comment-468532

     "11. The paradox: it therefore follows that Spacecraft B's clock rotates at least 10 times slower than the Earth's clock which is identical to it and is next to it.

     You say: "So Spacecraft B will photograph in a suit what happened on December 31, 2014 at 23:00 PM"

     On the other hand: "And spacecraft B (you must have meant A) will take pictures of what happened approximately in the middle of November 2014."

     But note: spaceships A and B are together at the moment of the suit. What is the problem with spacecraft B leaving a copy of the photo near A, or transmitting it to A immediately, so that A will have a photo of the New Year 2015 celebrations, more than a month before it reaches her naturally, that is, through light rays?

491. Israel Shapira
     The suit moment depends on the inertial system and is not absolute. As far as Spacecraft B is concerned, the moment of the suit is 1000 hours before Spacecraft B reaches the Earth. As far as Spacecraft B is concerned, the moment of the suit is one hour before arrival. Let's say that the three clocks show exactly the beginning of 2015. So spacecraft B will photograph in the suit what happened on December 31, 2014 at 23:00 p.m., and spacecraft B will photograph what happened approximately in the middle of November 2014.

     I have no idea what a rotating clock paradox is….

492. Miracles

     Do you mean "Spacecraft B sees the Earth with a very large time lag compared to Spacecraft A"? They are filming at the same moment, aren't they? So which newspaper in Israel with which date will the photograph show from A and which from B?

     Solve the twin paradox (two identical clocks side by side but one turns ten times faster than the other. Is this technically possible?).

     Solve the Congruent Paradox (congruent Mars passes by Mars so that its diameter is 1000 times larger in a joint image with Mars. So what, it won't cover Mars in the image? Is this optically possible?).

     And then to your question: "Do you think something is wrong with special relativity?"

     Successfully.

493. ב
     Do you accept or not accept my description? If not - which sentence do you think is wrong? If so - then what is the debate about?

494. I'm sorry but you broke the symmetry again:
     In inertial systems there is no twin that is in place and a twin that goes back and forth.
     Both twins are perfectly symmetrical.
     They depart from a common point of symmetry and return to the same point.

495. ב
     So you are wrong. Please try to understand my explanation.
     Let's take 2 twins on Earth. Choose a point in space 1000 light hours away. Twin A flies to this point and returns to Earth. Its speed is such that distances and times are shortened 1000 times. In general, this speed is close to one millionth of the speed of light, so let's assume that it is the speed of light.
     In terms of twin B - the one that remains - twin A flies to a distance of 1000 light hours and returns, at the speed of light. Therefore, Twin B ages by 2000 hours.
     In terms of twin A - the distance shortens to a light hour. This is also true on the way back. Therefore, twin A only ages by two hours.

     Think of a photon making a similar trajectory. From the point of view of the ground observer - the photon will take 2000 hours to make the orbit. As far as the photon is concerned - time 0 will pass - the departure time is the same as the return time.

     now it's clear?

496. Miracles:
     I have already said several times:
     Within the framework of special relativity (no gravity, no acceleration) the twin paradox does not exist.
     Because of the symmetry between the two twins, it is not possible for the age of one twin to be different from the age of another twin after returning to the common starting point in the common starting system.

497. ב
     What are you trying to say?

498. Israel
     Don't put words in my mouth. This is not the same picture. Spacecraft B sees the Earth with a very large time lag compared to Spacecraft A.
     I really don't understand what you are striving for... do you think something is wrong with special relativity?

499. Miracles:
     Note:
     According to the theory of special relativity (no acceleration, no gravity, only inertial systems):
     Between point A in inertial system A and point B in inertial system B there is point C in inertial system C with respect to which point A and point B are completely symmetrical.
     Point C is the point of symmetry (regarding distance, speed and everything else).
     In the twin paradox:
     The twins leave the point of symmetry and return to the point of symmetry.
     They are symmetrical in everything that can be measured. including the time they spent on the journey.
     The examples you give are examples of "breaking" the symmetry.

500. At the point of symmetry all measured sizes are the same.
     There is a point of symmetry between twin A (in spaceship A) and twin B (in spaceship B).
     This point moves towards the earth at a speed that is half the speed of a spaceship b.
     From this point of symmetry the two twins look identical.
     From this point of symmetry:
     Spacecraft A moves away from the point of symmetry at the same speed that spaceship B moves away from it.
     The twin in spacecraft B goes through a segment of acceleration when it goes from spacecraft B to spacecraft C, so it is not an inertial system.

501. Miracles:
     You mean that their speed is symmetrical with respect to the Earth system (including spacecraft A).
     But you are ignoring other factors that are not symmetrical.

502. Miracles

     Are you becoming a forester for us all of a sudden? If, as you say, the distance between the spaceship and the earth is getting shorter, then what will the picture taken from a great distance that has suddenly shortened a billion billion times?

     Just answer that please. No branches and no rhinos.

     And yes, I know the answer you are preparing is: the same image as from the adjacent spacecraft, only larger. This is almost true (except for the bigger one), but where did the distance shorten?

503. ב
     I have no error. If spacecraft B and C are symmetrical to the Earth, and spacecraft A is in the same inertial system as the Earth, then the 2 spacecraft are also symmetrical with respect to spacecraft A.

     It's the A-B of horses…….

504. Israel Shapira
     You climb on thin branches … they will break in the end 🙂
     Imagine that at the beginning of 2015, right at midnight, spacecraft B passes A. The resulting image will be slightly after that hour on Earth. Let's say that at that moment there was an explosion on the earth, so that's right, spacecraft B will see the explosion almost immediately and spacecraft B only in 1000 hours. On the other hand - spacecraft B will reach the earth right next to the explosion so there is no problem.

505. Miracles:
     You have an error:
     Spacecraft B and Spacecraft C symmetries with respect to the Earth.
     They are not symmetrical with respect to spacecraft A which is the starting point of the twins.

506. Shmulik

     There is only one relevant figure: up or down. one or zero. It takes exactly one and a half bits to store it.

     Sorry, maybe a Nobel Peace Prize. That's what's left.

     Miracles

     It is also possible to talk about moment 0 if the clocks are synchronized (Earth and Spacecraft A) and calibrated (Spacecraft B at the moment of the suit near Spacecraft A).

     You say: "As soon as B replaces A - the image of B will be 1000 times larger than the image of A."

     The problem:

     A gamma factor can equally well be a million to the power of a million. Image size accordingly.

     So it follows that Spacecraft B can photograph a newspaper published in Israel 1000 hours before the information in the newspaper reaches Spacecraft A naturally, right?

     So what about the ban on transferring information faster than light?

507. ב
     Look at it like this:
     A pair of twins on Earth, and spaceship A 1000 light hours away. Twin B takes spaceship B and flies at a very high speed to spaceship A and back. From the point of view of twin B, the distance is shortened to two directions and the flight time is a total of two hours. As far as twin A that remains, the flight time is 2000 hours, because for him the distance is 2000 light hours.
     Note that what matters is the speed and not acceleration.

508. ב
     It's not a salad, just a bit complex…..
     You didn't follow…. Spacecraft B moved from Spacecraft A to Earth. That is, between 2 points in the same inertial system. And yet there is a change in time. This is real change. If spacecraft B returns to A, like C, two hours will pass for it, and for spacecraft A 2000 hours will pass.

509. Israel,
     I already wrote, Nobel Prize.
     Regarding hidden variables (if they exist, of course), since they have to be stored somehow, doesn't their final amount put a limit on the amount of simultaneous changes that can be made (if a gas is characterized by volume, density, etc., then the speed of each and every atom changes hidden, i.e. the number of variables hidden in the gas is finite)?
     I propose an experiment in which we will try to make n+1 changes, where n is the maximum possible number of hidden variables, we will break the strict conservation laws and then see if the universe will display a blue screen 🙂

510. Miracles:
     You made a salad:
     Nevertheless, I think I managed to understand you.
     the question:
     where are the twins
     According to my understanding, the twins should be in spaceship A, which remains in place, and spaceship B, which flies towards Earth.
     Then the twins do not return to their common starting point.
     Even if there is symmetry between spacecraft B and spacecraft C.
     There is no symmetry between the twins.

511. ב
     great
     Now let's take the example of Israel. We have synchronized clocks on Earth and on a stationary spacecraft a thousand light hours away. Spacecraft B flies at such a speed that there is a shortening of time and distance by 1000 times, as we agreed on earlier. Speed ​​and very close to the speed of light.

     Now spaceship B is coming from afar and passes spaceship A as it faces Earth. At the moment of the suit, spacecraft B synchronizes its clock with spacecraft A. Called for an hour now - 3 of our players have 0 time.
     Regarding an observer on Earth, spacecraft B leaves spacecraft A from a distance of 1000 light hours, so the time to reach the earth is 1000 hours.
     As for Spacecraft A, due to short distances - the Earth is only one light hour away, so for her, the flight time is only one hour.
     It sounds strange, but note that there is no symmetry here! Our place of synchronization rests in the Earth system but moves in the A spacecraft system.

     To complete the story of the twin paradox - imagine spaceship C coming from exactly the other direction and passing over the earth at the exact time that spaceship B is passing, and they synchronize their clocks at this point.
     Now - when spacecraft C passes spacecraft A, then as far as spacecraft C is concerned, the clock will show two hours, but spacecraft A's clock will show 2000 hours. Note that there is symmetry here - between spacecraft B and C.

     OK ?

512. Yes. Shorter than the length of the body when it is at rest.

513. ב
     You're right, I worded it wrong. Do you agree that if you look at a fast body then its length looks shorter?

514. What is shortened is only a length measured in a moving system compared to the same length as it is measured in the self system.

515. No !
     In the self system the length is not shortened!

516. ב
     great. And you agree that lengths shorten at high speeds?

517. Yes.

518. ב
     Ok
     Do you understand why you see someone's watch in motion moving slower? Are you clear that this is a real lag and not just a mathematical trick?

519. Israel Shapira
     I will answer again... and stop talking about "moment 0" - the time of occurrence of an event depends on the inertial system.

     The Earth photographs the 2 spacecraft - if the photograph is taken while the Earth sees the suit, then the images will be the same size.

     The moment B replaces A - B's image will be 1000 times larger than A's image.

     And I will ask you the same basic question - do you accept the constancy of the speed of light?

520. Yes .

521. ב
     You are so far from understanding the twin paradox so let's wait with it. Answer me my question. And I will ask again - is it your understanding that the speed of light is constant in all inertial systems? That is - will everyone who is at rest (in his view) measure the same speed of light?

522. Ok, we agree for a change, synchronized, maybe even intertwined.

     And here is the symmetry breaker:

     At moment 0, Haaretz photographs the two spacecraft.

     Will A appear in the picture the same size as B?

     Smaller?

     bigger?

     At the moment of B's ​​suit next to A, the two spaceships photograph the country.

     Will the picture from B of the country show the same size as in picture from A?

     bigger?

     Smaller?

523. Miracles: (on Rishon Rishon).
     A) There is a close connection to the twin paradox. The twin paradox does not arise from special relativity.
     As long as we are talking about inertial systems (without gravity) the twin paradox does not exist.
     The explanation is because of the symmetry:
     The two twins leave the point of symmetry and return to it.
     At the point of symmetry their times are the same. There is no younger twin and older twin after returning to the starting point.
     b) In the twin paradox, we are talking about twins that are in inertial systems. In the mentioned experiment it is not about inertial systems.
     c) I didn't understand you: what is the direction of movement of the charges in the conductor and what is the direction of attraction between the conductors?

524. ב
     Let's start with (c) - you're right, and there is an attraction between conductors only when there is a parallel component between them. The more parallel the stronger the pull.

     (b) Do you think we didn't carefully examine what happened there?

     (a) It is true what you say. But this has nothing to do with the twin paradox.

     Let me ask you a simple question, and we'll move on from there. Do you accept the first postulate of special relativity, which states that the speed of light is constant in any inertial system?

525. Miracles:
     A)
     When it comes to inertial systems (without gravity).
     If the two twins are in constant motion relative to each other.
     So the point of symmetry is in a third inertial frame. Exactly between the two sets of twins.
     B)
     Regarding observed time changes:
     These are not inertial systems. It is necessary to carefully examine what exactly happened there and why these results were obtained.
     third)
     In the case of the conductors you brought earlier:
     Shortening distance can only be in the direction of movement. There is no shortening of distance in a vertical direction to the direction of movement.

526. ב
     Why don't you listen to my advice? Do you want to dig even deeper?
     In which inertial frame is your point of symmetry? Is it accelerating or in a fixed place?

     And another question: Do you deny the confirmations we have for changes in times? For example, do you deny the Haifley-Keating experiment? Do you deny that GPS satellite clocks show different time?

527. Miracles:
     Every time I bring you back to symmetry and every time you try to "break" the symmetry.
     In the absence of gravity both twins are symmetric. There is no reason for the point of symmetry to move in the direction of one of the twins.

528. What does it matter how the spaceships are built in the sand, assume that there can be a symmetrical system, assume that each side sees the same time difference from their point of view, so this is only possible in parallel worlds, in another dimension, and therefore movement backwards in time is also possible, at will

529. ב
     Your point of symmetry initially moves at half the speed of the flying twin. "Once" the twin rotates back, your point of symmetry should also rotate back. At the end - when all three returned, then the age of the symmetry point is roughly in the middle of the ages of the 2 twins.

     I don't understand why you are arguing about a known phenomenon in satellite engineering. This is not something theoretical - it is a phenomenon that is part of the everyday life of a space engineer.

     You remind me that I once saw a car stuck in the sand. The driver had no idea what to do and continued to spin the wheels and dig in even deeper. What the driver should have done was (a) say "what a fool I am to have gotten into this situation", and (b) ask for help from someone who understands. B... look for someone like that 🙂

530. Israel Shapira
     A (stationary) will see the explosion after 1000 hours. I think we agree on that.
     As for B, assuming that his watch is synchronized as soon as he passes A, you have to think for a moment. At the moment of the suit, B sees the Earth at a distance of one light hour, so he will see the explosion after one hour. Note that it is almost at the same moment (for him) that he arrives on Earth. This is not surprising because B sees the land approaching him at a very high speed.

531. Miracles:
     We talked about the twin paradox.
     If there is no gravity then:
     In the middle of the distance between the two twins there is a point of symmetry.
     An observer at the point of symmetry will read identical times on the twin clocks.
     The viewer will read identical times in all stages:
     a) Before the twins leave the point of symmetry.
     b) during the journey.
     c) After the twins return to the point of symmetry.
     As long as the symmetry between the twins is maintained, no paradox exists. The age of the twins, after the renewed meeting at the starting point, will be the same. It does not depend on their speed relative to each other during the journey.

532. See, see (them together).

     But what happens if there is an explosion on Earth at time 0? At what time will it be seen on the clock of each spaceship?

     To remind you: Spacecraft A's clock is synchronized with the Earth, and Spacecraft B's clock is calibrated to the time of Spacecraft A at the moment of the suit, i.e. time 0.

533. Israel Shapira
     Take my example. Reject or approve.
     There are 2 explosions, do you see them together?

534. Wait, who determined what the Haaretz system is and what the Halit B system is?

     All we have is one spacecraft at rest relative to Earth and the other in motion, right?

535. Israel
     There is no symmetry. Spacecraft A is 1000 light hours away from Earth in the Earth system, and spaceship B is a light hour away in the system.
     This is exactly what I explain all the time about the twin paradox, and this is exactly what Albert himself says in the article.

     Again - Spacecraft A "breaks the symmetry". What is wrong with the explosion example I wrote? Won't what I said happen?

536. Miracles

     The earth moves towards the spacecraft just as the spacecraft moves towards it, at the same speed and at the same distance.

     What breaks the symmetry? No examples, just a simple answer to the simple question please.

537. Israel
     So I will explain in a different way. Imagine that spacecraft B collides with spacecraft A. We see explosions from both spaceships. Do you agree that we will see both explosions at the same time? As far as the country is concerned, the explosion happened 1000 light hours away.
     On the part of spacecraft B - the distance between spacecraft A and the earth is a light hour, and there is no problem here.

538. Back in America, Versano.

     Shmulik

     As I wrote, information does not pass from Zatamiram? How does the photon interwoven in Mars know to choose the same polarization as the photon in Israel if no information passes to it?"

     Do you find other options besides hidden variables and passing information? Go to Israel immediately!

     Miracles

     Yes, but the earth is moving relative to the spacecraft just as the spacecraft is relative to the earth and at the same speed, isn't it? And here we have no accelerations that would break the symmetry. So why do the signals from the spacecraft to Israel arrive after one hour according to the spacecraft clock and in the opposite direction 1000 hours? Where is the symmetry?

539. Israel,
     The change takes place faster than our instruments can detect and yet this does not mean that information is sent from one particle to another. It could well be that something completely different is going on there and future generations will solve the mystery. Why is your claim that the information is necessarily launched there better than mine? We both don't know what's going on there but only after us there is no doubt.

540. Israel Shapira
     No, both A and B are 1000 light hours away. The echo from A will return after 2000 hours and the echo from B after 1000 hours.

     Imagine a case like this: at the moment of the suit, the 2 spacecraft transmit a signal to the country. In the system of A and the Earth 2 the signals will arrive after 100 hours. But in the eyes of spacecraft B - 2 the signals will reach the earth after one hour.

541. Miracles

     It is said that Spacecraft A is stationary relative to the Earth at a distance of 1000 light hours and its clocks are synchronized with the Earth. At time 0 in spacecraft A and in the country, spacecraft B passes by spacecraft A and at that moment the country sends the radio pulse.

     When will he return from spacecraft A and when from B? After all, B is only a light hour away from the country, isn't it?

     think well

542. Israel
     No. There is no "real distance", there are only relative distances. I assume there is a planet 1000 light hours away and as soon as the spacecraft passes the planet (in my time system) I send the signal.

543. But if the gamma factor is equal to 1000 it is actually only one light hour away due to the shortening of the length, isn't it? That's why the round trip time of the signal can't exceed two hours, can't it?

544. Israel Shapira
     If I see the spacecraft 1000 light hours away and the spacecraft is at a speed close to c, then the signal will reach the spacecraft halfway. That means a total of 1000 hours until I receive the echo.

545. Miracles

     You believe in shortening the length, don't you?

     If a spacecraft is at rest 1000 light hours away from the Earth and the Earth sends it a radio signal, it will receive the return signal after 2000 hours.

     After how long will it receive the signal if the spaceship moves in its direction at a relative speed so that the gamma factor is equal to 1000? Two hours or less?

     Think hard.

546. ב
     1) Not accurate. The theory of relativity has no problem with accelerated motion. For example, one of the phenomena that happens with GPS satellites is a lag of the clocks due to the speed of the satellites, and these satellites are in circular motion.
     2) Each sees the other as backward, this is true. But we talked about the stations, and there is no symmetry there.
     3) True
     4) True
     5) True

     But that's not what we talked about. We talked about a train that goes between 2 stations. I see you're too lazy to read, so here's a short excerpt from an article and tell me what you think:

     If at the points A and B of K there are stationary clocks which, viewed in the stationary system, are synchronous; and if the clock at A is moved with the velocity v along the line AB to B, then on its arrival at B the two clocks no longer synchronize, but the clock moved from A to B lags behind the other which has remained at B by 0.5*t*v^2/c^2 (up to magnitudes of fourth and higher order), t being the time occupied in the journey from A to B

     This is exactly the explanation for the twin paradox. what are you saying?

547. Miracles:
     1)
     The special theory of relativity talks about systems that move in a constant motion relative to each other.
     Systems that move in steady motion do not change direction and do not return to the starting point.
     2)
     The idea of ​​relativity is in the symmetry of the systems.
     One system does not have an advantage over another.
     One train does not have an advantage over the other.
     Therefore there is no difference between the locomotive clocks.
     3)
     Each observer recognizes a difference between his own clock and the clock of the system moving relative to him.
     The viewer's vantage point is not symmetrical with respect to the train clocks.
     The observer is close to the clock in his locomotive and far from the clock in the locomotive of the other train.
     4)
     From an observation point from which the diameters are an equal distance apart (the point of symmetry) all measurements will be symmetrical.
     Including the clock measurements of the locomotives.
     5)
     If two locomotives leave the point of symmetry and then return to it. So their times are symmetric throughout the process. at the end of the process. At the point of symmetry to which the diameters return, the diameters of the diameters show a symmetrical reading.

548. ב
     Read Einstein's article...one of you doesn't know what he's talking about. He's just talking about trains there.
     You completely ignore the fact that distances shorten at high speeds.

549. Israel Shapira
     I told you my opinion. After all, the paradox is beautiful and I don't have a solution that convinces me...
     On the other hand, I don't have a solution for Zenon's paradoxes either, so maybe the problem is with me?

550. Glad me and Aristotle convinced you.

     What about the paradox of the paradox?

551. Miracles:
     If two trains are traveling opposite each other
     And if the two locomotives reset the clocks.
     So there is a point midway between the two locomotives about which the trains are symmetrical.
     If two matching carriages are at this point then the reading on their clocks will be the same.
     As mentioned, the point is exactly in the middle between the two diameters.
     If a train is traveling between station A and station B and a train is traveling in front of it from station A to station B
     So halfway between the two diameters there is a point of symmetry.
     The point of symmetry moves relative to the stations in the same direction as the train moves relative to the stations but at half its speed.
     If the train reverses its direction of travel (travels in reverse) then this point also reverses its direction of movement.
     That is:
     Suppose:
     Reset the locomotives at station A.
     The moving train is traveling towards station B.
     In this case :
     The point of symmetry moves towards station B at half the speed and reaches half way.
     Suppose the train now returns to station A.
     The point of symmetry will also return to station A.
     What happens is:
     Before the trip, the point of symmetry is at station A.
     The point of symmetry moves up to half the distance to station b.
     The train reverses its direction of travel and returns to station A.
     The point of symmetry reverses the direction of its movement and returns to station A.
     Because the diameters are symmetrical about the point of symmetry. Their times as measured from the point of symmetry are the same.
     That is, after returning to station A, the time reading on the clocks of the two locomotives is the same.

552. Israel Shapira
     And you didn't explain to me the attraction between electrical wires.
     And Aka's idea? Aristotle's 5 elements are more convincing (the air wants to be up, etc.).

553. Israel Shapira
     A cesium watch feels less stiff because it was put on a tall building? And you didn't answer me how RLG works...

554. Clocks that are in acceleration or gravity are in stress. Muons move only against the cosmic background radiation and are therefore also refracted.

     You can also put the watch in the fridge. You will see the time lengthen (the clock will tick more slowly compared to a clock not in the refrigerator) just as the biological clock of a carrot lengthens in the refrigerator and it ages more slowly.

555. Israel Shapira
     How do you explain that two electric wires carrying current in the same direction attract each other? When I learned this - it was a direct result of the shortening of the distance between the electrons.

     And how do you explain the time differences in GPS watches? Part of the difference is due to the speed of the satellites, and part to the change in the force of gravity. Are you claiming that there is no difference in watches?

     How do you explain the amount of moons we see?

556. Israel Shapira
     So how does RLG work?

557. And before that you wrote "As I understood the topic, the contraction is completely physical, and any measurement you make should confirm it. We know that the shortening of time is physical, what's the problem with shortening the length?'

     So is there or is there no measurement to confirm the length contraction?

     Put a magnifying glass in front of the sun. Do you agree to put your hand in front of her? After all, according to you, the sun may not be hot at all, so maybe your hand won't burn?

     And yes, I claim that there may be no length contraction or time extension in inertial systems. I've been claiming this for three years on the site, so it's nice that you noticed.

558. Israel Shapira
     I wrote "I know that there is no experiment that directly confirms that there is a length contraction". And I was serious about the sun thing. What is uncomfortable for your position is a philosopher? 🙂
     And what exactly is the matter with the length? Are you claiming that lengths are not shortened?

559. The only logical axis: the line connecting the Earth and Mars.

     And Hellas Philosoph (there is no experiment that confirms that the sun is hot..) I am talking about some kind of empirical evidence of the shortening of the length, like the evidence that exists for the lengthening of time. Do you know one?

560. Israel Shapira
     When you say passing by Mars …. What axis system did you mean? If in the Earth's axis system, then the corresponding will be seen at the distance of Mars and therefore will look the same size (in terms of cross-section). The longitudinal contraction of the adapter has no effect.
     I know that there is no experiment that directly confirms that there is a length contraction.... There is also no experiment that directly confirms that the sun is hot.
     There are experiments that confirm the lengthening of time, and there are experiments that confirm the constancy of the speed of light in different inertial axis systems (I use systems based on this phenomenon every day....)
     Therefore - in my opinion there is no reason to think that the lengthening is not physical.

561. Shmulik

     Weaving experiments were done for miles. The results in all of them are consistent with the interpretation of quantum mechanics, i.e. that the information passes instantaneously.

     Miracles

     If you photograph any object from half the distance, its size in the image will be doubled (try this in a room).

     There is no experiment that confirms the length contraction.

562. Israel Shapira
     You say the adapter will only contract in the direction of motion. How does it follow that his diameter has increased?
     And what is mathematical contraction?? According to my understanding of the topic, the contraction is completely physical, and any measurement you make should confirm it. We know that the shortening of time is physical, what is the problem with shortening the length?

563. Israel,
     Don't know what's going on there and actually, nobody knows. Hahaha, if I knew...as mentioned, we do not perceive any radiation that is transmitted when we perform this change and this strengthens the claim (but only slightly, because we actually only know how to look under the flashlight) that this is not the kind of information that the theory of relativity talks about.
     I read that they want to perform an interweaving experiment with the space station. Let's hope the experiment happens
     http://www.livescience.com/28553-quantum-entanglement-distance-test.html

564. Shmulik

     Information does not pass from Zatamiram? How does the photon interwoven in Mars know to choose the same polarization as the photon in Israel if no information passes to it?

565. It is also possible with low accelerations, but the paradox is more illustrated at high accelerations, where spacecraft B hardly moves from the launch site and can be captured on video near the clock from which it took off.

     Regarding the contraction of the length: if a compatible Mars passes by Mars at a huge speed in the direction of the Earth, then according to the Lorentz contraction it should appear larger because the contraction is only in the direction of progress and not in the vertical direction.

     In a photo from the country. Will it cover Mars because of its large diameter? Is this even possible from the optical point of view? Or maybe the contraction of the length is only mathematical without a physical aspect, and this is to maintain consistency in the relationships due to the lengthening of time?

566. Israel,
     We are left to disagree on the fact that information passes. It's not the same type of information. Nobel Prize, did I say?

567. Nissim, it's nice that you assume that the theory of relativity is correct, but I think that it is necessary to refer to the period of World War II and try to understand the "political" desire not to change back in time and parallel universes, the "bad" results and make a worse version of the war, again after rehearsals Time, in short, don't get into it. Respectfully blowing water

568. ב
     You wrote "If two trains are traveling in front of each other then:
     If the locomotive clocks are reset, then every car that takes a picture of its own clock and the clock of the corresponding car on the opposite train will get the same reading on both clocks."

     If two trains depart from two distant stations, and their clocks are synchronized at this moment, then as time passes each will see the other's clock as lagging behind.
     This is the most basic thing in special relativity, something you learn in XNUMXth grade. It is also scientifically proven in several ways: among them the clocks in GPS satellites and the number of muons in cosmic radiation.
     If you don't accept it then there is no point in further discussion…..

569. Israel Shapira
     I assume that the theory of relativity is correct, and that in the end there is no paradox. That is - at the end spacecraft A ages by a year and spacecraft B and the Earth by 10 years. Let's ignore the accelerations at first:
     1) From Earth's point of view: Spacecraft A flies to it from a distance of 10 light years at speed c, therefore the time measured on Earth is 10 years.
     2) Spacecraft A sees the Earth at a distance of a light year and therefore it measures a light year.
     3) Spacecraft B is at rest close to the Earth and therefore also measures 10 years.

     Now - the paradox you pointed out needs to be resolved. Let's assume a low acceleration. Suppose, that in the Earth system, 2 halons accelerate for an hour, and the deceleration of B also lasts for an hour. Even now, at the end of the acceleration/deceleration - there is still no big difference in the clocks. Spacecraft A sees the Earth and B at the same time and at the same distance, and there is no problem here.
     We want that at the end of the deceleration the distance B will see A be 10 light years. That is: at the end of the first acceleration, B will see A at a distance of 100 light years. It seems to me that for this purpose, it is enough that the acceleration of B, in its system of axes, happens before the acceleration of A.

570. Miracles:
     We have already said earlier somewhere:
     If two trains are traveling opposite each other then:
     If the locomotive clocks are reset then each car that takes a picture of its own clock and the clock of the corresponding car on the opposite train will get the same reading on both clocks.
     occording to this:
     Let's say that between station A and station B there is a train headed in the opposite direction to the train leaving from station A.
     The locomotives are reset and are at station A.
     The passenger gets on the locomotive and goes to station b.
     In the middle of the way the train changes direction.
     Still a car against a car get the same call!
     That is, if the locomotive returns to station A, then its clock shows the same reading as the locomotive of the train standing between the two stations.

571. ב
     enough What you say is true even when the train is at rest. And if anything, the picture is a moment after and not before. And in any case, if in B's photo they will see both the train clock and A's clock, then they will see the same time.

572. Miracles:
     To make sure that the cameras are synchronized, you can turn them both on with a switch located exactly in the middle between the two stations.
     Although the cameras are synchronized:
     Camera A captures what is happening at the time of photography. (close to the camera).
     Station B films what happened at Station A but it takes time for light to get from Station A to Station B.
     That is, the image received by camera B is of a moment before the zero hour of the train carriage.

573. Ok, so if Anne is busy, which of the spacecraft's time is earlier and who sees the second one as closer, A or B?

574. Israel Shapira
     I still think the solution lies in the distance between the 2 spaceships. My feeling is that there is no symmetry in the acceleration time, that is spacecraft A sees spacecraft B at a different distance than spacecraft B sees spacecraft A.
     I think the explanation for this is the "temporary nature" of the launch of the 2 spacecraft. You said that the launch of the 2 spaceships takes place at the same time... and I assume that you mean the star clock. I don't think this is true for the 2 spaceships. I don't think each spaceship sees the other being launched at time 0. This means that they don't see each other at a fixed distance, and also that there is a relative speed between the spaceships.

     I guess that doesn't convince you. But I'm pretty sure that simultaneity can't be talked about in this case.

575. Miracles:
     Even if the train stops at station A, the image reaches the camera at station B with a delay.
     This is the time it takes for light to get from the source to the camera.

576. ב
     You are becoming a troll 🙂 …. According to what you say - even if the train stops at station A, then there will be a time lag in taking photos from station B. And according to this, the stations themselves are not synchronized either...

577. Suppose there are identical cameras at both stations.
     Let's assume that the two cameras record the clock at time zero in the carriage to which the passenger arrives from station A.
     The time at station A is zero.
     Station A's camera will record zero time on the train clock.
     Camera B also shoots at zero time according to season. Light takes time to get from the carriage clock to the camera b.
     Therefore, camera B will photograph the state of the clock as it was at the time the light exited it, that is, before zero time in its system.

578. ב
     The time difference depends on the relative speed and not on the location. Therefore, the 2 stations will show the same time on the train clock.

579. Israel Shapira
     I got you. Let think about it….

580. At both stations the timers are the same.
     Each station reads a different time on the train clock.

581. You did explain - but I cannot accept your explanation. You wrote: "How does a spaceship measure the distance to a second spaceship? It sends a photon and measures time until the photon returns. Spacecraft A sent a photon to Spacecraft B and by the time the photon arrived - the spaceship moved away (this is an accelerated movement) and therefore the time of flight increased. On the way back, the acceleration of A does decrease the flight time, but the total time will increase.

     But in step 4 we reached the situation:

     "Spacecraft A and B now form an inertial system and the relative speed between them is 0"

     So what acceleration are you talking about if the spaceships are at rest relative to each other and at a constant speed?

582. ב
     Not true. The clocks are the same at both stations. I suggest you read Einstein's article. You are welcome to argue with him 🙂

583. Israel Shapira
     I explained why I think so….I didn't say I was convinced I was right 🙂 It really doesn't make sense for the range to increase a lot in such a short time. But, think about the distance between 2 photons that leave the same point with a short time difference... this distance is infinite, in the eyes of the photon of course.
     Just because something doesn't make sense doesn't make it harmless.

584. for miracles:
     In the example you gave:
     At station B the clocks of the train and of station A do not seem to be reset.
     To the viewer at station B, it appears that the passenger boarded the train before the zero point of time.
     Therefore, when the passenger gets off the train at station B. The train's clock is reset with the clock of station B.
     That is, the passenger arrives at station B when he is exactly the age appropriate for the station B clock.

585. Please Eraf, you wrote that you accept 5, and 5 means that the distance between them does not exceed 10 light years.

     So you claim that the distance between them increased to 100 light years in the billionth of a second in which they accelerated? Why?

586. Israel Shapira
     You assume something I wrote that I don't assume: does the distance between the spaceships remain 10 light years? I wrote that I think the distance is getting shorter, but what will happen if the distance increases? And on second thought... I think the distance will increase.

     How does a spaceship measure distance to a second spaceship? It sends a photon and measures time until the photon returns. Spacecraft A sent a photon to Spacecraft B and by the time the photon arrived - the spaceship moved away (this is an accelerated movement) and therefore the time of flight increased. On the way back, the acceleration of A decreases the flight time, but the total time will increase. The same phenomenon occurs when B measures a distance to A - the walking time will be short, and the return time will be long - and the total time will increase.

     What is it similar to? For a plane that flies between 2 points, back and forth, when there is any wind. I hope it is clear to you that it doesn't matter what the wind direction is - the wind will always increase the total flight time.

587. Miracles.

     I'm sorry if I sounded whiny, but try to avoid expressions such as "you argue with Einstein too" (of course!) and "I'll explain slowly" (explain slowly or quickly, just explain correctly).

     You just pick me up for landing, and if you need to land then you do.

     Well, you deny section 7, and this after confirming 4, 5, and 6.

     But note: if you confirmed 4 and 5, then you confirmed that spaceships A and B are 10 light years away from each other, the relative speed between them is 0 and the time on their clocks is almost 0.

     This state is almost completely identical to the original state of the land and the planet about which you said "wonderful".

     Therefore we can treat the spacecraft as if they were the original planets.

     In stage 1, spaceship A accelerates towards the country. In stage 2, she arrives in Israel in a year according to the season and 10 years according to Israel time.

     This step is the same as step 6: spacecraft B accelerates towards spacecraft A. (Remember that in stages 4 and 5 the spacecraft reached the same state of the earth and the planet).

     Note that as far as the spaceships are concerned, their history does not matter: they are simply two bodies 10 light years apart, the time on their clocks is 0 and the relative speed between them is 0.

     And what happens in such a situation when one of the bodies accelerates towards the other as in stage 2? We already know this from stage 2: he reaches the second body in a time of one year according to his clock and 10 years according to the clock of the second body.

     This is step 7: Spacecraft B is the accelerating body, therefore because of the symmetry with 2 it will reach Spacecraft A (the second body) in a time of one year according to six seasons.

     so far getting? If not, explain why.

588. sympathetic
     whatever

589. Israel, Israel
     Let's go step by step through your argument. Try to concentrate…

     "It is said that at a distance of almost 10 light years from the earth there is a planet that is stationary relative to the earth and whose clocks are synchronized with the earth."
     -great

     1. At time 0, spaceship A (whose clocks have been reset to planet time) accelerates from the planet towards Earth and in a short time reaches a speed V close to the speed of light so that the gamma factor is slightly greater than 10.
     -Ok

     2. According to the twins' paradox, the spaceship arrives in Israel after 10 years according to local time and after one year according to the spaceship's time.
     -Right

     3. As soon as spaceship A leaves the planet, spaceship B leaves the earth in the opposite direction from the planet and accelerates to the same extent until it reaches the same velocity V of spaceship A.
     -Ok

     4. Spacecraft A and B now form an inertial system and the relative speed between them is 0.
     -Right

     5. The distance between them in their reference system cannot exceed 10 light years, I assume. The time on their clocks immediately after reaching constant cruising speed is almost the same as the time of departure of both of their mother planets: 0
     -Ok

     6. Shortly after reaching cruising speed, spaceship B accelerates in the direction of the earth until it reaches 0 speed relative to it.
     -Ok. The spacecraft is some distance from Earth.

     7. Because of the symmetry with phase 2, it will meet spacecraft A after a little over a year according to season.
     -No!!!! Spacecraft B's clock shows time very similar to Earth time.

     The problem:

     8. From the point of view of the country, spacecraft B accelerated in a short time and immediately slowed down and stopped. From a practical point of view, if we reduce the acceleration time as we wish, we can say that spaceship B is currently standing not far from the place from which it took off.
     -Right

     9. From the same consideration, the time shown by Spacecraft B's clock is almost no different from Earth time: 0.
     -Right

     10. According to the data, Haaretz will meet Spacecraft A after 10 years according to Haaretz's time and a year (or less) according to Spacecraft B's time.
     —As I said again and again and again no!!!

     11. The paradox: it therefore follows that Spacecraft B's clock rotates at least 10 times slower than the Earth's clock which is identical to it and is located next to it.
     —The real paradox is your lack of concentration….

     12. Unless that is the case, my assumption in step 5 that the distance between the spaceships before S turned around cannot exceed 10 light years is incorrect, and in fact the distance between them is now 100 light years for some unknown reason.
     - I asked you earlier what happens along the length of a spaceship in the eyes of a spaceship itself, and you did not address...

     13. Or I have another mistake that I do not recognize now.
     —Think about what I'm saying and stop being such a schmuck. Maybe I'm wrong, but you couldn't make it clear to me where….

590. Israel

     Unfortunately I don't have time maybe at the end of next week...

591. Miracles

     As I said I don't have time to invest in comments and it doesn't matter which attribution system, but
     From some of your comments (I don't have the strength to read them all) it is evident that you are not at least knowledgeable
     in a private relationship. Sentences like "The acceleration is very high and brings the spacecraft
     To top speed after one second and back to 0 speed after another second."
     A second is not defined but rather a reference system.

592. Shmulik

     First, I'm proud of you for going to the source and revealing my true face.

     Second, who exactly does it matter?

     Third, note: information is undoubtedly passing, and at infinite speed. But that doesn't mean that if Alice tries to send information to Bob via interleaving, she will be able to do so. She doesn't, and relativity only forbids that.

     Fourth, I'm going to visit Alik now. Bye.

593. Ask Job 🙂
     You are welcome to have no doubts (speaking of violence), but I again claim that it is not at all clear what happens in the entanglement (Nobel Prize, well physicists, don't you like it?) and therefore I am not ready to be simplistic and claim that it is information just as photons transmit information.

594. Shmulik.

     Let's start with the critical question.

     There is no doubt, I believe, that what happens in the interweaving is the transmission of information. The spin of the electron or the polarization of the photon. The argument is something along the lines of "actually the two entwined particles are one object, so there is no transfer of information between two objects".

     This is a correct argument, but it only adds more power to the principle of non-locality: each electron before the collapse is not locally defined (uncertainty). Therefore, even in the collapse of a single, unentangled electron into a unique quantum state, information transfer occurs at infinite speed.

     Regarding Wikipedia - you caught me red-handed. I also read the original article and found no mention of relativity, only non-locality. That's why when you brought the quote from Wikipedia a few months ago, I thought it would be convenient to drop the bag on you... but you are 100 percent right. The wily old fox did not tie himself directly to the contradiction between non-locality and relativity. He called her spooky but the supposed contradiction is a later interpretation.

     Still: if relativity claims that it is not possible to transfer information faster than light, then how is it that this is what happens in interweaving? How cunning can God be, even if not evil?

595. Father, can you let me go?

596. From Ofer's article:

     "Did we get a result that converges with the classical limit for the case in which the departing brother accelerates for a short time and then continues at a constant speed? You bet! "

     And now that you've seen that you're saying the same thing, please explain to me what's wrong with my argument. Just that.

597. Israel,
     And to that I replied that you exaggerate his abilities and in any case, if he claimed, then he claimed and was wrong, but I challenge you here: you sent me to Wikipedia and showed that there it says that a paradox exists, while I went to the original article. I don't have time to read the whole thing but I looked for the words paradox or general relativity or local and I didn't find it. I looked for the word Contra and found one instance of the word contradiction that speaks of a contradiction between the authors' definition of physical reality and the facts that quantum mechanics tells us so that the whole discussion between us refers to things that Einstein did not say but Wikipedia. It was enough to let Einstein enjoy the benefit of the doubt...
     In short, further discussion of this question must only be from references from the original article and not from claims that Wiki raises.
     Check for yourself:
     http://prola.aps.org/abstract/PR/v47/i10/p777_1

     I have a few questions: in the discussions held in Shira in the 30s, was it discussed that there would be no damage to causality? Did they come to these insights and I still insist: Is what happens in the interweaving even a transfer of information (this is the critical question)?

598. Israel Shapira
     Now - let's add a distance of 10 light years at the point where the speed reached its peak, that is - we will continue sailing at high speed for 10 years in the star system, and of course we will be far away between the stars in another 10 light years.
     now what will happen? Our spaceship will reach the second planet after 10 years, and the pilot will only age in a year (let's say).
     This is a slightly simpler case of a paradox in twins - we can repeat the same method and get a difference of 18 years instead of 9 years.

     what did we see The time difference in the twin paradox does not depend on the magnitude of the acceleration. Therefore, the calculation of Ofer Maged (I think that is his name) is not clear to me.

599. It is clear that if the time is measured according to the clock of the stars and the spaceship stopped after 2 seconds at the other star and the time on it moves more slowly, then the time difference between the clock of the spaceship and the stars is less than 2 seconds.

     Point?

600. Israel... calm down

     Suppose the spacecraft accelerated very close to c. Therefore, the distance between the stars will be very close to a light second…..
     Time is measured by the star clock. Everything that has not been defined - define as you wish, and please specify.

     When we find out this matter you will understand...or I will understand that I am wrong.

601. I say that you should stay in your previous job (selling pickles).

     What is the distance between the stars? After a second according to which clock, spacecraft or stars? What is wrong with my paradox according to you? How much does a kilo of pickled onions cost?

602. Israel Shapira
     I will explain even more slowly ……

     1) We have 2 stars and XNUMX spacecraft.
     2) The 2 stars and the spacecraft have synchronized clocks.
     3) The spaceship leaves the first star and accelerates and immediately slows down and stops at the second star.
     4) The acceleration is very high and brings the spacecraft to its peak speed after one second and back to 0 speed after another second.

     My claim - the difference between the clock of the spacecraft and the clock of the stars does not exceed 2 seconds at the end of the process.

     what are you saying? 🙂

603. I wish I understood what "the clock in the spaceship stops" means (the clock stops? the spaceship stops?) or "the 2 clocks show the same time" (which 2 clocks?).

     Well no matter. I hope you at least understand what I mean. Consider the matter closed.

604. Israel Shapira
     I wasn't shown it. I will state my position again, and please consider it. Assume that the acceleration tends to infinity. In this case the clock in the spaceship stops for a time tending to 0. Therefore, at the end of the acceleration there is still no difference in the clocks - that is, the 2 clocks show the same time.
     Agree or not?

605. Miracles

     Let's finish one issue first. I believe I showed you that there is no problem with 10. If there is - explain, but also refer to what I write.

     By the way, none of the professors who examined the paradox I brought up claimed what you claim. So maybe it's your fault?

     Shmulik

     I read the links and I know the arguments. I understand of course that it is not possible to send information through interweaving and relativity only forbids that. But if Einstein claimed that non-locality contradicts relativity and non-locality exists, it makes me think that maybe the maestro saw what we are missing.

606. Israel,
     Or something else we don't think of.
     I saw that Chinese researchers determined that the speed of weaving is at least 1000 times the speed of light. entertaining
     In any case, it is clear that a diskette needs to be replaced, I wrote this in about every post of mine, but I insist that the experts do not yet bury the theory of relativity because, among other things, replacing "information" through interweaving does not harm causality. Did you see the links I gave?

607. Israel Shapira
     Do you agree with me that a spacecraft sees itself shortening as it accelerates? Maybe she sees herself as getting older? What I think is that if I send a pulse of light from the end of the spacecraft to the mirror on the other side and receive back then I will receive the pulse back in a shorter time if I accelerate.
     I ask because of the example you gave. I fly in a spaceship accelerating from the planet to Earth, and at the same time a spaceship is launched from Earth in the same direction as I am accelerating.

     This raises 2 questions.
     The first is simultaneity. You meant simultaneity in the reference frame of the stars. Is it also at the same time regarding the spaceships?
     The second question is about distances, therefore what I asked at the beginning of the response. Because of my speed, the distance to the Earth is small, beyond the approach of course (Lorentz contraction). But - what about the distance between me and the other spacecraft? is he small grows up? stayed the same?

608. Miracles

     The reference is in the last comment.

     And I don't think the question is if you said something wrong... just remove the wrong...

     Shmulik

     I don't know how "we" think about transferring information. What I think is that if I have a million pairs of entangled photons far apart and the polarization in each pair is always the same, then either the polarization was created during the entanglement (hidden variables) or the polarization information passed from one photon to another, or it's just chance (well, a probability of 2 to the power A million but who's counting?)

     the choice is yours.

     And in the case of Einstein - his EPR paradox is completely legitimate, except that it was decided precisely in the apparently paradoxical direction - non-locality.

     So isn't it time to change a diskette? I believe this is what Einstein would have done, despite his great imagination.

609. Israel,
     What else is there? This answer will probably win the discoverers a Nobel prize, but if I don't think I'm wrong when I write that there is no transfer of information in the way we think of transfer of information (through photons, etc.) and the language is the one that complicates us. Something is happening there, but what, is completely unclear.
     Did you look at the links I sent?

     Regarding the blindness, I don't know if it is indeed blind admiration, but your entire argument is based on "Einstein" as a concept in isolation from Einstein the man who, as Wikipedia has shown, was wrong again and again because he ignored the advances in physics. If we assume that most major advances come just before the age of 30, he probably couldn't have solved anything at his age, according to Arthur S.'s first law. Clark:
     When a distinguished but elderly scientist states that something is possible, he is almost certainly right. When he states that something is impossible, he is very probably wrong.

610. Israel
     I don't know which response you are referring me to.
     Did I say something wrong?

611. waiting (what's new?)

612. Nissim, do you also read comments other than your own?

     This is for example:

     https://www.hayadan.org.il/what-asimov-planed-for-the-negev-in-2014-2712137/comment-page-6/#comment-469457

     Please Eraf, maybe because of the keyboard..

613. Israel, I answered you specifically....here it is again

     So I will explain very slowly…. Also because I don't have Hebrew on my keyboard...
     1) Ok
     2) True. But the reason is not the acceleration but the contraction of the distance. Let's assume that spaceship A comes from a distance already at speed V and at the moment of the suit they synchronize their clocks. The twin paradox will still arise
     3) Ok. Note that during the acceleration the distance between the 2 spacecraft is less than 10 light years to something like a light year.
     4) True
     5) screens
     6) That is - the spaceship will stop at some distance from the Earth.
     7) Absolutely not 🙂 A sees the Earth a light year away after he finishes accelerating. B does see the planet at a light-year distance after it accelerated to V, but this distance increases back to 10 light-years after it stops.
     8) Ok
     9) True
     10) As I said again and again - no and no. "Drifting" time is a function of time and the age difference increases continuously for a year/10 years.
     11) No…. This is a wrong conclusion.
     12) This is not the mistake
     13) And maybe now you recognize the mistake?

614. This Israeli Einstein, an hour is not an hour, a kilo is not a kilo, a meter is not a meter...

     Miracles - you still haven't answered my comment. Are you still claiming to have found fault with my argument?

     Ehud If you're already here, could you maybe go over "The Twin Paradox Paradox"?

     https://www.hayadan.org.il/what-asimov-planed-for-the-negev-in-2014-2712137/comment-page-4/www.yahoo.com

     It has already been circulated for a month, and there is no solution.

615. ב
     Let someone get on the train at A and get off at B. If he accelerates quickly at both stations it will have almost no effect on the times. If it accelerates/decelerates within a second, then the maximum is 2 seconds. Ehud also agrees with me on this point.
     On my part, if he changes trains at B and returns to A, we will get an error of 4 seconds. We can reduce the error as much as we want...

     And you didn't answer about the clock on a wire - where I showed that the direction of the acceleration has no meaning.

616. The train does not start its journey from zero speed at the first station and does not end its journey at zero speed at the second station.
     There are two measurement systems:
     a) The train system.
     b) The station system.
     The two systems do not come together in the move you describe and therefore this move is not the move of the twins.

617. Miracles :
     Regarding the centrifuge:
     I really don't know the answer.
     But let's think together:
     If it was in space (no gravity). So it could be argued that there is no rotation and there is only "anti-gravitational force" (the centrifugal force). Therefore, two clocks located at both ends of the radius are symmetrical and the reading on them is the same.
     Also in space:
     There is no symmetry between a clock that is on the circumference of the centrifuge and a clock that is on the axis of the centrifuge. Because at the perimeter there is a strong "anti-gravitational force", while in the center there is no "anti-gravitational force" at all.
     On Earth:
     The earth's clock is in the same system as a clock that is on the axis of the centrifuge. That is why there is no symmetry between a clock that is in the circumference of the centrifuge and the Earth clock.

     And besides, it is not clear if there is an effect of the Earth's gravity on what happens in the centrifuge.
     It is possible that the force of gravity, although it is weak compared to the "force of anti-gravity", nevertheless has a strong effect.
     As an example:
     Suppose a very strong magnet and by it a very weak magnet. There may be a very strong mutual influence between the two.
     another example:
     In a transistor, a very small current dictates the behavior of a very large current.

618. ב
     Surely this is a common system. Let me put it the way Einstein put it. We have a railway if two stations A and B. A fast train passes A, and the train and the station record a time t0. As above when the train crosses B - time t1. The station staff calculate how much time has passed, and so does the train driver. There will be a time difference, although in terms of the train - the train stops and the stations move...

619. Miracles :
     That's not half of the twin paradox.
     In the twin paradox, they leave one common system of origin and return to the same system.
     What you are describing is two separate systems. There is no exit from a common system and no return to a common system.

620. sympathetic
     Let me explain to you in a simple way. Let's say 3 people. One guy on star A and the other on star B, the stars are stationary relative to each other, 10 light years apart. The third guy is flying the spaceship in a straight line at high speed. It passes planet A and syncs together with the guy on that planet clock. He arrives at Star B and compares watches. Do you think there won't be a time difference? This is exactly half of the twin paradox and raises the same issue.
     This is actually Einstein's own description - he called it "peculiar consequence"

     And read what you wrote to me again - it's really confusing... and certainly doesn't describe what B and I are talking about. We talked about whether the effect of acceleration depends on its direction.

621. Miracles

     You told me a lot but you didn't answer the question directly, so I guess the answer is yes.
     Unfortunately, despite your education, it seems that you do not understand the basis of special relativity.
     As mentioned, I don't have much time, but I will still try to explain the Twin Paradox to you
     in short.
     As I already wrote to you, unlike space, a straight path between two
     Time events gives the longest time difference. Therefore if there is
     One spaceship moving relative to the other can watch each
     From the spaceships to claim that it is at rest and therefore time is shortening
     In the second spaceship. This claim is rightly called symmetry.
     The paradox is broken thanks to the fact that to make a circular path
     From the earth to some point in space and back one of the observers is required
     to speed up and therefore it is not true because the two observers are identical and can claim that they have
     Time passes more slowly.

622. sympathetic
     I didn't notice the question. I'm a computer engineer who studied at the Technion and a master's student, and I have a master's degree in the philosophy of science, and I happened to be dealing with the twin paradoxes and Zenon's paradoxes, and I was dealing with GPS satellites, in particular with relativistic errors, such as the Seniac effect and the normal effects of relativity.

623. Miracles,

     True in this case you are right but don't jump it doesn't mean you are
     I understand what you are talking about. A broken watch also shows (in the same reference system)
     the right time twice a day.
     In any case since the rest frame (your frame of reference) is at rest
     The time difference in it is the longest. Unlike space, a straight path between two
     Time events gives the longest time difference. That's why the time difference in the system
     The accelerated clock will show that less than 2 seconds have passed.
     Unlike me, you did not answer my explicit question about whether you have ever taken a relationship course
     private or general (also the answer is either yes or no)?
     In any case, the time difference between the clocks depends not only on the acceleration but on everything
     The track in time is the space that the accelerated clock passes through.

624. ב
     Don't philosophize too much. Let's put a clock in a centrifuge that produces ten thousand G (not something unusual in my understanding). That way the fact that we are on earth has no meaning.
     Note - the average is still 0.
     Are you still claiming that there will be no lag in the clock??

625. ב

     I think you are right about the clock at the center of the earth and satellite clocks. In both cases, the acceleration is 0. On Earth, gravity creates a lag of 46 microseconds per day - not much at all.

626. another example:
     Suppose that instead of a gps satellite orbiting the earth there is a body identical in mass to the earth orbiting the earth.
     That is, there is ball A and ball B.
     Because of the symmetry, it is clear that ball clock A is the same as ball clock B.
     That is :
     If
     In the system of clock A clock B lags behind
     Then
     In the system of clock B clock A lags behind.
     but :
     The two balls rotate around each other at a fixed distance from each other and as we have already said above:
     If this occurs in space then it cannot be said that there is mutual movement between the spheres and therefore their clocks will show identical readings.

627. The case of a satellite orbiting the earth is similar to the case of the watch tied by a string to a peg.
     There should be no reading differences between the satellite clock and the clock located in the center of the Earth.
     but :
     The airport clock is not located at the center of the earth. It is located on the surface of the sphere.
     In this case there is an additional force and it is the normal force (the force perpendicular to the surface).
     The normal force works on the airport clock but does not work on the satellite.
     That is :
     The airport clock system is not symmetrical to the satellite system. (A force acts on it that does not act on the satellite).

628. Miracles:
     If
     Two measurement systems move in constant motion relative to each other
     Then
     There is a difference between reading the self-clock and reading the clock of the moving system.
     This is a situation of two symmetrical systems.
     In the example you gave:
     If we tie a watch to a string and tie the string to a peg then the clock will rotate around the peg.
     but:
     If
     We will put the stake in a distant point in space where there is no gravity
     Then
     It cannot be said that the clock turns around the clock.
     is also
     It cannot be said that the stake rotates around the clock.
     is also
     Because there is no reference point in space
     Something cannot be said to revolve around something.
     In such a case there is simply a clock and a peg tied by a string stretched between them.
     Why is the string taut?
     Because of the "anti-gravity" force (gravitational force that acts in the opposite direction from the center).

     The clock and the peg in space do not move relative to each other.
     so
     There will be no time differences between the clock system and the peg system.

629. sympathetic
     So you tell me: I speed up a clock for a second (in my reference system) and after that slow it down to 0 speed, also for a second (again, in my reference system). Isn't it true that the resulting time difference is at most 2 seconds? (The answer is yes or no)…
     According to what you say I am wrong, and I want to understand why.

630. Miracles

     Unfortunately I don't have the time to explain to you how wrong you are and what's more that you don't listen
     For arguments but you amaze me. You understand nothing about private and general relations
     And yet you pretend to explain it to people. To show that I
     brings one quote of your words even though there are several of them. You write
     "Imagine that the acceleration always lasts a second. So the resulting time difference is every time
     A second in the extreme case."
     You refuse to understand that the essence of special relativity is that time is not
     Absolute. There is no such thing as an old "second in a certain system" for any reference system
     Her time and these times cannot be linked unless the viewers meet again
     in the same reference system. There is no such thing as a "second" and there is no such thing as a "meter" these are defined
     A reference system, that is, an observational and non-absolute reference system.

631. ב
     So please explain to me the watch thing. There everything is symmetrical and yet there is a unilateral deceleration.

632. Miracles:
     All in all, I wanted to draw your attention to the fact that for an observer on Earth there is no symmetry between spacecraft A, which is consistent in the direction of its acceleration, and spacecraft B, which reverses the direction of acceleration and stops.
     All the other things you bring up are irrelevant.
     Symmetry is everything.

633. ב
     Yes …. And the Earth moves relative to the spacecraft.
     Maybe you will consider what I write? The example of turning the clock for example??

634. Not only is there a reading difference, but the difference is also increasing.
     incidentally:
     Reading difference is not retardation. Because everyone sees in their own system an accurate clock and not a backward clock.

635. Miracles:
     According to the theory of relativity:
     If
     A system is in constant motion relative to another system
     Then
     There is a difference between the reading on the clock of the assumption system (the observer's own system) compared to the clock of the moving system.

636. ב
     I explained to you that there is no lag due to moving away at a constant speed. Are you ignoring it?

     Let me give you a simple example. I have two watches. one on the left hand. The second is on a string and I spin it at high speed with my right hand. The two clocks have an average acceleration of 0, and the two clocks have an average speed of 0. But - the clock on the end of the wire lags behind the stationary clock. Did you understand that, Baruch? The average acceleration is 0 ….. how will you explain??

637. Miracles:
     It is only about symmetry. not anything else.
     This is a reading difference after the end of all accelerations.
     The time of the acceleration, the intensity of the acceleration, are not important at all.
     After finishing the accelerations:
     Spacecraft A moves in constant motion relative to the starting point.
     Spacecraft B does not move relative to the starting point.
     As a result :
     In the origin system:
     The reading difference between the clock of the starting point and the clock of spacecraft A is increasing. Because spaceship A continues to move in steady motion.
     The reading difference between the starting point clock and spacecraft clock B is constant. Because spaceship B has stopped.
     Regarding the starting point, there is no symmetry between spacecraft A and spacecraft B.
     Why is the symmetry broken?
     After we have finished with all the accelerations, we will mark a zero time point in the starting system.
     At time zero the observer in the origin system will receive some reading of spacecraft clock A.
     At time zero the observer in the origin system will receive some reading of a spacecraft clock b.
     After a certain period of time that will pass in the source system, the observer who is in the source system, will again measure the three clocks as they appear in the source system.
     The result will be an asymmetry of the spacecraft clocks.
     why?
     If there is no difference between the spaceships, why was the symmetry broken in their clocks?
     conclusion:
     A spacecraft that only accelerates in one direction is not symmetrical to a spacecraft that accelerates in one direction and then accelerates in the opposite direction until it stops.

638. ב
     Why do I feel like I'm only talking to myself? 🙂 I keep trying to clarify a very simple thing. try to listen, ok??

     Increase the acceleration without limit. what will you get that over time is getting shorter and shorter - the spacecraft clock is slowing down more and more. But – (pay attention!!!!) – the clock can stop at most! That is - for a very short time, the clock in the spaceship does not advance.
     Therefore, if there is a huge acceleration - and the spaceship accelerates up to the speed of light - there will be almost no lag! And if the spacecraft returns with the same flight profile? The exact same thing will happen!

     What happens after that, on the cruise, is like spaceship C.

     What exactly is not understood here? Or - where am I wrong? 🙂

639. Surely there is something to do with acceleration.
     Spacecraft C is not symmetrical to spaceships A or B and has nothing to do with the symmetry between spaceship A and spaceship B.
     In contrast, Spacecraft A and Spacecraft B are symmetrical in everything except for the fact that Spacecraft B reversed the direction of acceleration and stopped.
     And the result of changing the direction of the acceleration is the breaking of the symmetry between the clocks of the two spacecraft as measured from the Earth system.

640. ב
     Read what I wrote…….I explained to you about spacecraft C that passed by the Earth and is close to spacecraft A. Her clock is the same as A, so there is nothing to do with accelerations. Do you agree or not?

641. Miracles:
     An observer from Earth looks at the Earth clock and the clocks of the two spacecraft.
     At the end of the acceleration he sees:
     Spacecraft A moves away from him in steady motion. The difference between the reading on Earth's clock and the reading on Spacecraft A's clock is increasing.
     Spacecraft B has stopped and is maintaining a constant distance from the Earth. The difference between the reading on the Earth clock and the reading on the spacecraft clock is constant.
     And this contradicts the symmetry assumption.
     There is no symmetry between the spaceships because spaceship B changes the direction of its acceleration.
     Conclusion:
     The direction of the acceleration is significant.

642. ב
     No - the time difference between the spacecraft and the Earth does not increase. Each sees the other's clock as slower. The twin paradox is due to the shrinking of the distance and not to a lag in the clock.
     Think for a moment... the Earth is also moving away from the spacecraft. The situation in this case is symmetrical. Imagine spacecraft C passing the earth at the same speed that spacecraft A reaches it, and imagine that spacecraft A and spacecraft C are flying side by side. Obviously, the clocks and the two spacecraft look the same. And in terms of spacecraft C - the Earth passed it at high speed.

643. Miracles

     Since you got 4

     4. Spacecraft A and B now form an inertial system and the relative speed between them is 0.

     and the 5

     5. The distance between them in their reference system cannot exceed 10 light years, so I assume (this is also your answer). The time on their clocks immediately after reaching constant cruising speed is almost the same as the time of departure of both of them from the mother planets: 0

     Can you tell me what the difference is between the inertial system of spaceships A and B and the original state of the earth and the planet?

     "It is said that at a distance of almost 10 light years from the earth there is a planet that is stationary relative to the earth and whose clocks are synchronized with the earth"

644. Miracles:
     Both spacecraft leave the Earth's gravitational field.
     Then:
     Spacecraft A continues on its way.
     Spacecraft B activates reverse acceleration and stops at some fixed distance from the Earth.
     The two spacecraft are symmetrical in terms of the magnitude of the acceleration and the acceleration time.
     even though :
     In spaceship A: the time difference from Earth continues to grow.
     In spaceship B: the time difference from Earth remains constant.
     Meaning:
     The spacecraft are not symmetrical with respect to the Earth. And this is because of a change in the direction of acceleration of one of them.
     I can't explain it simpler than that.
     You are mixing up all sorts of unrelated factors.
     All this can happen far in space when instead of the earth there is a point in space where there is a clock and from which the spaceships take off. Gravity has nothing to do with it.

645. Israel Shapira
     So I will explain very slowly…. Also because I don't have Hebrew on my keyboard...
     1) Ok
     2) True. But the reason is not the acceleration but the contraction of the distance. Let's assume that spaceship A comes from a distance already at speed V and at the moment of the suit they synchronize their clocks. The twin paradox will still arise
     3) Ok. Note that during the acceleration the distance between the 2 spacecraft is less than 10 light years to something like a light year.
     4) True
     5) screens
     6) That is - the spaceship will stop at some distance from the Earth.
     7) Absolutely not 🙂 A sees the Earth a light year away after he finishes accelerating. B does see the planet at a light-year distance after it accelerated to V, but this distance increases back to 10 light-years after it stops.
     8) Ok
     9) True
     10) As I said again and again - no and no. "Drifting" time is a function of time and the age difference increases continuously for a year/10 years.
     11) No…. This is a wrong conclusion.
     12) This is not the mistake
     13) And maybe now you recognize the mistake? 🙂

646. In short, if the two clocks are lagging behind, then they are in parallel universes because they see a contradiction, argue until tomorrow, there is also a time reversal here

647. Shmulik Bracha

     Best regards.

     Which physicists do not define entanglement as the transfer of information? If I check a million pairs of entangled photons and find that their polarization is always the same, and if Bell's theorem ruled out the possibility of hidden variables, then what do we have here if not the transfer of information (the polarization of the photon)? Coincidence?

     And what kind of blind admiration do you find in those who claim that Einstein was wrong twice in the same paradox?

648. ב
     Yes but….
     After an hour both spaceships accumulated the same lag. And now notice: now the situation is symmetrical, because the 2 spacecraft are moving at a constant speed relative to each other. Each sees the other's watch as lagging behind.
     And let me tell you a secret……. Actually the clock in the spaceship is lagging! Why? Because spacecraft B is in a gravitational field.
     This has nothing to do with the twin paradox. If spacecraft A returns to Earth, then the paradox will be created, and there is no direct connection to accelerations.

649. Miracles:
     At the end of the acceleration period:
     Spacecraft A continues to move relative to the Earth, therefore the time difference between it and Earth's time is increasing.
     Spacecraft B is stopped relative to the Earth and therefore the time difference between it and Earth's time remains constant.
     We got two symmetric spacecraft: they are for a section of symmetric acceleration. (if we don't consider the direction of the acceleration).
     Even so, after the end of the acceleration section, we get reading differences in their clocks.

650. Nissim, I speak Hebrew, English, and a little Spanish.

     Please tell me in which language you would prefer me to ask you the question (sixth time):

     In which of the sections I posted is there a mistake??

     As mentioned, 10 is just a repetition of 2 and 7.

651. B and Israel Shapira
     Note….let's assume a very strong acceleration. At such an acceleration, time stands still. Therefore, the duration of the acceleration is equal to the difference between the clocks. Spacecraft A accelerated one hour, therefore a difference of one hour was created at this moment. Spacecraft B accelerated half an hour there and half an hour back, so here too there is an hour difference.
     that's it….

652. Israel,
     Relativity is not sacred but the facts are important so there is no problem with facts that contradict the relativity. So on with the relationship. But, from what I understand, physicists don't define entanglement as information transfer, so relativity is still with us. Undoubtedly, the language forces us to describe what the change of spin of one electron intertwined with another electron is, as the transfer of information, but this may not be the case. It is true that we do not receive a transmission at any frequency that we know how to measure when this change occurs, so it is simplistic to say that information is being transferred. not like that. It is definitely possible to have a broader theory, which would contain the interweaving while incorporating the relativity into it and explain what exactly is happening there and perhaps explain the second slot experiment. Since we are repeatedly dancing around this point, I would like to clarify the point that thinking that entanglement is the transmission of information above the speed of light, of the type that the theory of relativity intends, is not true. I mean, we don't understand what's going on there, but we're jumping to conclusions on the basis that it might be wrong.
     Here are two links that may help:
     http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/61126/does-entanglement-not-immediately-contradict-the-theory-of-special-relativity
     Check out point 4. It might interest you.

     http://answers.yahoo.com/question/index?qid=20090707060932AAStmUA

     I want to point out again that your faith in Einstein's abilities is impressive but reminds me of faith in rabbis. After he was done with relativity, he tried to produce a unified theory but failed, among other things, because he ignored smooth and strong force (which were indeed not well understood in his lifetime, but still, c'mon.) And that just means he's human, like the rest of us.
     http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Albert_Einstein – Look for Unified field theory
     So admiration, of course. Blind, no.

653. Miracles

     Section 10 is just a repetition of what was said in Sections 2 and 7.

654. Miracles:
     Two symmetrical spaceships.
     They leave the earth in the same direction with the same acceleration for the same period of time.
     The only difference between them is that one of them reverses the direction of acceleration and stops relative to the Earth.
     while the second continues to move away from the Earth.
     The time difference between the clock of spacecraft A, which continues to move in space, and the clock on Earth is increasing.
     However :
     The time difference between the clock of a spaceship that stopped. And Earth's clock is constant.
     conclusion:
     You can't ignore the direction of acceleration!
     The direction of acceleration is a very important factor!

655. Israel
     Again… your section 10 is wrong.
     Imagine that the acceleration always lasts a second. So the time difference created is every second time in the extreme case.
     Imagine that instead of 10 light years the distance is 100 light years. Now the time difference has increased from 9 years to 18 years.
     What's wrong here?

656. Miracles, I'm already old and tired and jetlagged and all - could you just say what the wrong section is and why. So we can close the deal?

     Telepathy is not what it used to be.

657. Israel Shapira
     I want to emphasize the last point: I can accelerate to any speed in a second. Therefore, the resulting time difference can be limited to one second. In the twin paradox, the difference can be years…….

658. ב
     "Spacecraft A is constantly moving away from the Earth. The reading difference between it and the local time is increasing" - there is a problem with this sentence. During the acceleration the clock in the spaceship slows down. The spacecraft feels the acceleration, so there is no symmetry here. This means that there is a time difference that both parties feel and agree on. For example: both the ISS pilots and the control personnel in Houston agree that the clocks on the station are moving faster.
     But - once there is a constant radial velocity, each sees the other's clock moving more slowly. Imagine that the spaceship accelerated to a speed close to c: each will see that the other's clock has almost stopped (imagine that each has a light flashing at a fixed and known frequency, each will see that the light moving away from it flashes more slowly). Therefore - it is not correct to say that the difference is increasing.

     The second case you describe is correct.

     Let's think about the following example. Suppose we have synchronized clocks on Earth and on a planet 10 light years away. To understand that this is possible, imagine an explosion that happens half the distance between us, and to which we synchronize.
     Launch a fast spaceship to the distant planet. Let's say the speed of the spaceship is 0.995*c. At such a speed, the distance shortens 10 times, so the spacecraft will see that the flight time is one year, while a terrestrial observer will see that about 10 years have passed.

     Note that acceleration doesn't matter that much. Let's assume that the acceleration is enormous and the spaceship reached its speed in one second - then at most there will be a time difference of one second. Do you understand why?

     Israel Shapira - for some reason you do not agree with me... I don't know why...

659. Miracles:
     I did not understand you !
     Spacecraft A keeps moving away from Earth. The reading difference between it and the local time is increasing.
     Spacecraft B stops at a fixed distance from Earth. She did not return to Earth. The reading difference between it and local time remains constant. If we assume that she returns to Earth then the reading difference will be the previous constant multiplied by 2. In any case remains constant.
     If you don't take into account the direction of acceleration, you get two spaceships that have undergone identical accelerations but their clocks are different.
     It has nothing to do with gravity because it will happen at any point in space from which two spaceships left, one of which returned to the starting point and the other continues on its way.
     Conclusion: The times depend on the direction of the acceleration. The direction of acceleration is important. It cannot be ignored.

660. ב
     In your example you are right. The difference is in speeds. A accelerated and reached a certain speed. B accelerated but reached 0 speed, back on Earth. All this lasted an hour. Ok - after 2 hours, the spacecraft will see it for an hour, and they will be relatively behind the clock on Earth. Spacecraft A will maintain a constant lag over time.
     The situation in spacecraft B is complex - as long as it moves away at a constant speed - each will see the other's clock moving more slowly. But note an important point: the spaceship can be flown to a certain point and then return. Regarding the spacecraft, the distance to this point is smaller than the distance from the Earth. Therefore, the spacecraft will reach the point and return in a time that seems shorter to it than the time it seems to an earthly observer. Hence the paradox.

     Einstein already noticed this paradox in his first paper on special relativity.

     I'll try to explain again: acceleration is equal to gravity, so it has nothing to do with direction.

661. for miracles:
     Although it is not clear to me what is happening with GPS watches, I am absolutely clear about what is happening in the example I gave:
     The measurement system of spacecraft B is separate from the Earth's measurement system.
     After that the systems return and coalesce.
     The time difference can be constant. It cannot continue to grow after the systems coalesce again.

662. Israel
     The response is delayed for some reason...

663. Israel Shapira...
     The formula I wrote earlier is from a small and unimportant article called On the Electrodynamics of Moving Bodies.
     In particular - Einstein writes:
     From this there follows the following peculiar consequence. If at the points A and B of K there are stationary clocks which, viewed in the stationary system, are synchronous; and if the clock at A is moved with the velocity v along the line AB to B, then on its arrival at B the two clocks no longer synchronize, but the clock moved from A to B lags behind the other which has remained at B by $\frac{1}{2}tv^2/c^2$(up to magnitudes of fourth and higher order), t being the time occupied in the journey from A to B.

     It is at once apparent that this result still holds good if the clock moves from A to B in any polygonal line, and also when the points A and B coincide.

     If we assume that the result proved for a polygonal line is also valid for a continuously curved line, we arrive at this result: If one of two synchronous clocks at A is moved in a closed curve with constant velocity until it returns to A, the journey lasting t seconds, then by the clock which has remained at rest the traveled clock on its arrival at A will be $\frac{1}{2}tv^2/c^2$ second slow.

     And yes - I showed you exactly the mistake. You said there were 2 spaceships. A leaves a distant planet and B leaves the Earth - and they accelerate in the same direction. And so the clocks of both of them start to develop a lag. After a short time B returns to Earth. B's watch will show a small lag when it arrives, as opposed to A's big lag, even though they both went through the same acceleration path.
     I understand that you disagree?

664. Miracles

     Since the twin paradox was first brought up in 1911, Einstein's description and treatment of it already in 1905, according to you, is a classic example of going back in time.

     What happened to you, did you join blowing water?

     Well let's get to the point. For the fifth time: can you show the exact step of all the steps I brought up in which the mistake was made, and also explain what it is?

     If so - a golden mask!

     But if not... then I will be disappointed, disappointed, disappointed...

665. Israel Shapira
     I don't know Ofer Maged - but he writes "each one sees himself from his rest system, the other speeding up and moving away" - which is completely wrong. After that, Ofer himself says that he is dealing with a different problem - that of constant acceleration.

     Einstein describes the paradox in an article published in 1905 - neither accelerations nor shoes. He describes there that the time difference is 1/2 * t * v^2 / c^2. (half t * speed squared divided by c squared) . Or are you also arguing with Einstein? 🙂

666. my father

     Apparently there was confusion in the location of the comments here which are not at all about Asimov...

667. You did give and you did, but you didn't address the counterargument and you didn't address it, which raises the sad thought that even if you read and read, you didn't necessarily understand either.

     To your question: yes.

     Parental leave.

668. Israel Shapira
     I gave you an explanation without acceleration, and I also showed that the magnitude of the acceleration does not affect the time difference.
     I have a question for you. Let's take your case - and increase the range 10 times. Don't you think the time difference will increase approximately 10 times?

669. Shmulik

     What does it matter if it is proven or not? APR experiment is a thought experiment. Einstein claimed that if the results are as claimed by quantum mechanics, then there is a contradiction to relativity, also within the framework of the thought experiment.

     The point is that even within the framework of the thought experiment there is no contradiction to relativity in any result of the experiment. He should have known that.

     Since it is Einstein, my opinion is that either he did know, and if he had seen Bell's theorem and aspect experiments, he would have rushed to make a revision to relativity, or he would have found another solution out of the tangle.

     Miracles

     I find it hard to believe that Ofer Maged is wrong. I'm also not sure you went through his mathematical development, from which it is clear that the symmetry breaker is the acceleration, which is only applicable to one twin, and not the range, which is the same for the two twins moving at the same speed relative to each other.

     Does this mean my question is solved? No. I hope that Ofer will give a factual answer soon.

670. ב
     If a spacecraft leaves the earth at a constant acceleration - a gap will open between the clocks. After that the spaceship slows down to a stop - here the acceleration changed direction but the time gap starts to grow. The same on the way back - as long as there is acceleration, the clock runs slower.

     According to what you describe - there should not have been a time gap in the GPS satellites. After all, there the average acceleration is 0. Still, a big gap is created...

671. Israel
     I read the article. In my understanding he is simply wrong. What you say is also wrong. Again - in your example - the distance traveled by the re-alignment is 10 light years. The coordination comes from a fixed star, which is 10 light years away. Light will also take 10 years ….. Understand, each sees the other approaching him at the same speed. The symmetry breaker is the range. In the theory of relativity, everyone is standing and everyone is moving relative to him. It seems really simple to me and I don't see any contradiction.

672. Israel,
     Because it was not proven at the time! After this was proven, the concept of "information" was refined, but only after it became clear that there was no way to do anything with this "information", and therefore, it is not really information, as the theory of relativity defines information.
     By the way, it's really not clear if anything goes through, after all we don't pick up any radiation when the information is "sent". In short, something strange is indeed happening here.

673. for miracles:
     I don't disagree with what you say.
     I'm just looking at it from a different angle.
     While the spacecraft is accelerating it is as if it is in a gravitational field.
     But the direction of acceleration has meaning.
     Otherwise, how do you explain what happens to spaceship B in the example I gave?
     After all, after accelerating in the opposite direction, the spacecraft system returns and merges with the Earth system, so the time difference is constant. It does not continue to grow.
     And this is different from what happens in spacecraft A which does not return to the Earth system and therefore the time difference continues to grow.

674. Waiting one more time?!

675. Shmulik

     You say"1. According to your words, I don't see where Einstein was wrong.'

     Here is the quote from Wikipedia:

     Einstein, Podolsky and Rosen asked how can the second particle "know" to have precisely defined momentum but uncertain position? Since this implies that one particle is communicating with the other instantaneously across space, ie faster than light, this is the
     "paradox

     You see then that according to Einstein, communication between the two interwoven particles faster than light leads to a paradox.

     In reality, this is exactly what happens, but there is no paradox here. This is what most physicists claim.

     So if Einstein claimed there is a paradox and most physicists claim there isn't, someone here is wrong, isn't he?

     In my understanding, most physicists claim that it was Einstein who was wrong. He was wrong in the small details: information does pass in 0 time, but this still does not contradict relativity.

     So what do they see that Einstein didn't?

     Nissim, did you get to read Ofer's article? He explains with formulas why the acceleration breaks the symmetry between the twins. For example: according to you, when the twin returns from his journey, his distance from the remaining twin shortens because of his movement, and therefore also the duration of the journey. In the same way, the remaining twin can claim that because the traveling twin is moving relative to him, the distance between them has shortened and the travel time is correspondingly less for him as well, right?

     You can see this in my spaceship example: spaceship A moves towards the earth, and its journey is one year according to the six seasons, and 10 years according to the earth's time. If we use your argument, Haaretz can claim that since it is the one that is moving relative to spacecraft A, the distance between them has shortened 10 times and therefore it will meet the spacecraft only after a year, right?

     In the meantime Prof. Granot gave a more detailed answer (which is wrong in my opinion). See:

     http://forum.openu.ac.il/opus/bin/en.jsp?enZone=Forum126655

676. Israel Shapira
     Show me where I'm wrong please, and I claim 2 things:

     The first is that the effect of acceleration on the twin paradox is negligible. The explanation is as follows: let's assume a very high acceleration. In the extreme case, time will stop, and that's only for a short time. And in any case, the result of the acceleration is a constant time difference between the 2 clocks. This is not what we know about the twin paradox - where the length of time affects the age differences.

     The second is that the twin paradox can be explained without any reference to accelerations. Let's take your example: for the terrestrial observer - the spaceship flies a distance of 10 light years, so it will take about 10 years until the spaceship arrives. As for the observer in the spaceship - the distance is only a light year, so the flight time is about a year. that's it….
     The symmetry is broken because the flight distance is different in the 2 axis systems.

     What is wrong with what I wrote here?

677. ב
     You are wrong. Acceleration is equal to gravity, and gravity always slows down time. Do you disagree with that?

678. for miracles:
     The direction of the acceleration is very important.
     For example:
     Spacecraft A leaves the Earth and accelerates for an hour in one direction.
     Spacecraft B leaves the Earth and accelerates for half an hour in one direction and then half an hour in the opposite direction.
     The time difference between the long ball and spacecraft A will increase.
     However:
     The time difference between the Earth and the spacecraft will be constant.

679. Israel,
     I think I conveyed the points that were important to me to say:
     1. According to you, I don't see where Einstein was wrong. According to the quotes you brought, Einstein and his friends (actually one of his friends was responsible for the article) asked how the entanglement is carried out, after all no radiation is observed when the spin balances etc. and this question still exists. A question is not a mistake.
     2. The theory of relativity is a theory (strong but with known points of failure and extreme points that are tested from time to time) and it has to bow to known facts. it's clear. If according to Einstein, because of the interweaving/the theory is incorrect, that is fine because he is actually saying that there is a deeper "truth", but without a doubt it is good enough to predict a great many events and as long as there is no other theory, this one remains. At this point I have to admit that I did not understand your question "Why change?" You need to replace/change/completely change a paradigm/whatever you want, because all sorts of things don't add up and with all due respect to Einstein, the theory is just a theory.

     I strengthen your hand in your Odysseus journey to solve the problem you present 

     How is the visit so far?

680. waiting

681. I found a link to an article here from 10 years ago,
     In this matter:

     https://www.hayadan.org.il/%D7%94%D7%9C%D7%9D-%D7%94%D7%A2%D7%AA%D7%99%D7%93-%E2%80%93-30-%D7%A9%D7%A0%D7%94-%D7%90%D7%97%D7%A8%D7%99-%D7%A8%D7%99%D7%90%D7%99%D7%95%D7%9F-%D7%A2%D7%9D-%D7%90%D7%9C%D7%95%D7%95%D7%99%D7%9F/

682. Alvin Toffler, of course.

683. Avi,

     I want to congratulate you on the instructive article.

     The book that claims to be more scientific "Future Shock"
     by Alvin Toplet, certainly deserves a similar article.

     with gratitude.

684. Miracles, you no doubt say over and over, and also get it wrong over and over again. See, for example, Ofer Maged's detailed article
     http://ofer-megged-phys-notes.blogspot.co.il/2013/12/blog-post.html

     "The Twin Paradox The Complete Solution"

     And note the summary of the article:

     It comes out where a state of acceleration is fundamentally different from a state of persistence and symmetry should not be attributed to the points of view between observers who are in systems that are not equivalent to each other. The case of the twins appears as a paradox only if it is mistakenly assumed that there is symmetry between the reference systems of the two brothers.

     Also note the correspondence below where my question also appears, so far unanswered.

685. Israel Shapira
     I say again and again - there is no connection between accelerated systems and the twin paradox. I will try to explain briefly why: imagine that you increase the acceleration and thus decrease the acceleration time. Acceleration slows down the clock, so in the extreme case time will stop - but only for a short time! Now - there is a difference in the rate of progress of the clocks, which causes a difference in the displayed time that depends linearly on time.

     Now - let's assume that both spaceships are accelerating at a very high rate. They will reach the final speed and the 3 clocks will show approximately the same time. If time t has passed until B returns to Earth, then there will be a time difference that depends linearly on t (gamma * t). Spacecraft A arrives long after this whole event.
     Ignore A: B arrives very quickly, therefore with a small time difference.

686. Shmulik

     You write: "Currently the theory is tested and correctly predicts results (it is even in the use of technology, in GPS for example) and we know that interweaving exists and at the same time, physicists are constantly trying to replace it with a deeper explanation, that is what is beautiful about science."

     Newton's theory has also been tested and correctly predicts results. Lots of technologies are based on it. So why switch?

     But there is no need to go far. In the past I talked about the contradiction that may exist between the lengthening of time in relationships and the big bang theory. But here we have before us a living and breathing paradox in proper relations, without a bang and without a sheaf, and there is no solution yet. Since it has been tested by many authorities on the subject, it must be assumed that even if there is a solution, it is not trivial.

     Miracles, the testing of the airplanes and GPS systems was conducted in accelerated systems, the clocks are at a limit that can speed them up.

     And I don't understand your reservation. In stage 4, the spaceships form an inertial system, and the speed between them is 0. Therefore, if the distance between them does not exceed 10 light years (stage 5), then if spaceship B accelerates in the direction of A, it goes through the same process as the process that spaceship A went through in stage 1, when spaceship A takes the place of Earth , and since spacecraft A arrived in Israel within a year according to the season, then from the symmetry it follows that spacecraft B will reach A within a year according to the season, right?

687. ב
     again.... Are you aware that if you fly an atomic clock then there is a time difference between this clock and the clock on the ground?
     This has nothing to do with average speed...
     Don't get bogged down in complex patterns. The fact is that a clock that has flown and returned lags behind a clock that has not flown. do you agree to that

688. for miracles:
     Suppose:
     A point in space where a clock is located.
     B1, B2, C are satellites that leave point A and circle around it in the following way:
     In 1, in 2 holidays symmetrically in opposite directions to each other.
     C Holiday in the direction of B1.
     Regarding C: B1, B2 are not symmetrical and therefore differences develop between their clocks.
     After a certain period of time, everyone returns to the starting point a.
     A claims: B1, B2 are symmetrical and therefore their clocks are the same.
     C claims: there is a difference between clock b1 and clock b2 because they are not symmetrical.
     The only explanation that solves this is that after returning to the starting point there are no clock differences. That is, even if there were differences, they are reset.
     It can also be seen in another way:
     If a body has returned to its starting point, then its average speed over the measurement time is zero.
     If the speed is zero then there are no reading differences in the clocks.

689. Friend, I'm at Aunt Shuli's in Jerusalem, we'll discuss later.

690. ב
     I mean - do you completely rule out the twin paradox?? Come and explain 2 things.
     1) Accelerations in this case are not vectors. Regardless of the direction of acceleration - the time is short. We have evidence for this - for example the lower gravity at the height of the GPS satellites makes time run faster by 45 micros per day - quite a lot.
     2) The twin paradox is not related to accelerations but to speeds. That is - the time that passes has a large effect on the clock differences, while the effect of accelerations is negligible.

691. Israel, you had a great ranch, with Eisenber the rancher.

     So does the theory fly? So what? Currently the theory is tested and correctly predicts results (it is even in the use of technology, in GPS for example) and we know that interweaving exists and at the same time, physicists are constantly trying to replace it with a deeper explanation, that is what is beautiful about science.
     Although an arena, the theory of general relativity is not dust and dirt because it is a theory that perfectly predicts what is "under its responsibility" without competition (as far as I know) but collapses in the known places (at the nano level, in the center of a black hole, etc.) so that without a doubt it needs expansion /correction/change and maybe also quantum mechanics. Here on the site (if I'm not mistaken) there was an article that talked about how when we can test a few tens of orders of magnitude smaller, we might discover that quantum mechanics is nothing more than a statistical approximation.

     In the link you sent, I didn't see any mistake by the authors, but a wonderful question that is still being asked: "How does this transfer of information happen". What exactly is going on here? Dark energy, dark matter, gravity, entanglement, experiment The two slits show us again and again that we don't really understand what exactly is going on here. It's cool

692. In a closed orbit the change in position (Delta X) is equal to zero. And also the change in speed (delta v) is equal to zero.
     That is, the first and second derivatives of the position with respect to time are zeroed out.

693. Spacecraft B accelerates in one direction and then in the opposite direction.
     The average of its accelerations throughout the measurement time is zero.
     The average of its speed throughout the measurement time is also zero.
     Spacecraft B's clock shows the same time as Earth's clock.
     On the other hand, on average over the entire measurement time, the acceleration of spacecraft A is different from zero and its speed is also different from zero.
     In mathematical language:
     The integral of the time differences between the earth and spaceship B is zeroed out (or at most equal to a constant) because spaceship B is returning to earth (closed orbit).
     However :
     The integral of the time differences between the Earth and spacecraft A does not zero. (open route).

694. Israel Shapira
     From what I understood from your words - Spacecraft B left the Earth at the same time that Spacecraft A was launched. Spacecraft B stops after a very short time (your paragraph 6). Therefore its clock is very close to Earth's clock.

     In my understanding - you are confusing 2 things - the pace of time, and time on the clock. After B accelerated to the speed of A - the two clocks in the spacecraft show the same time and also show the same hour. After a short time what happens? Both spacecraft clocks are slightly ahead of the Earth clock. After B's stop - her hour lags slightly behind Earth's clock, and from now on - for 10 years they run at the same pace.

     I guess the solution is not that simple and I didn't understand something in your example...

695. ב

     If the time difference between spacecraft B and Israel is close to 0, and the time in Israel is close to 0, then the time in spacecraft B is also close to 0, especially when the order of magnitude between Israel and spacecraft A is 10 years.

     I didn't understand the average thing, maybe because of my less than average intelligence. The same goes for the example of your spaceships (eg Shamita, Sinai, Amayat).

     Miracles

     What's wrong with section 10? Are you claiming that spaceship B will not meet A after a year according to the season? So after how long will she meet her?

     in Venice miracles

     The paradox has been in circulation for almost a month and has been tested by 3 professors and other experts (see references). No one has raised your reservations, and unfortunately no one has yet been able to find the error, if it exists.

     water

     Water steps also consist of one step forward and two steps back, which nicely explains the matter of going back in time.

696. Shmulik.

     Let's start from the assumption that you are right, and a weaving experiment was not conducted before the APR article was published.

     So what?

     Since then, thousands of experiments have been conducted, with millions of entangled particles, and it has been proven that what the theory requires exists in reality: the spin is always reversed, and the polarization is always the same.

     Because what is a weave? If we have two identical coins with a spring between them, and the spring is released. So according to the law of conservation of momentum, if coin A moves with speed v to the right, then B moves with speed v- to the left. And if A rotates at an angular velocity omega, then according to the law of conservation of angular momentum B rotates at an angular velocity minus omega.

     Einstein did not claim that there was a possibility that information would not be recovered - he only claimed that, as in the case of the coins, the velocity or angular velocity was already determined as soon as the particles were separated (what we used to call "hidden variables" in the barn).

     But hidden variables contradict the uncertainty principle, which states that only the measurement forces the particle to choose a quantum state. Therefore, because no one seriously believed in non-locality, Einstein concluded that quantum theory was incomplete (what we used to call Farsch's barn).

     You say "Furthermore, give me evidence that they claimed that non-locality contradicts the prohibition of transferring information faster than light, and in any case, explain to me why Einstein could not have made an unreasonable mistake?" He is a person like the rest of us and fell in love with the speed of light and did not want to lose the most important principle of his theory.'

     You can get an answer to the first part in
     https://www.hayadan.org.il/ball-state-prez-intelligent-design-not-science-0408135/comment-page-35/#comment-452258

     (You should, you appear there).

     And Einstein didn't just fall in love with his theory - transferring information at a speed higher than the speed of light, even in centimeters per second, collapses the whole theory and turns it into dust and ashes (what they call a Harte farm).

     And my question: did he really make a mistake, such a fundamental mistake in his most important article since general relativity, the APR article?

     (And at our farm they didn't call it an APR article, but an APR article).

697. Israel Shapira
     Your section 10 is wrong. Spacecraft B's clock almost does not change because of the short time. The resulting time difference is a function of time - and because the flight time of spacecraft B is very short, there will hardly be any difference between the clocks.
     Completely ignore spaceship A and only care about spaceship B. Here's a numerical example and you'll see that the clock of spacecraft B changes but slightly.

698. Israel:
     A)
     in section 9.
     The time difference between Spacecraft B clock and Earth clock is close to zero.
     This is not the time in the spaceship b. It's just the time difference between her and the country.
     B)
     The average constant motion of spacecraft B is zero (or very close to zero).
     Thus the clock of spaceship B shows the same time as the clock on Earth (or very close to it).
     No, the average constant motion of a spacecraft.
     The key word is "average".
     And it should be averaged over the entire measurement from start to finish.
     Here is another example that will illustrate the matter:
     Two spaceships leave Earth together.
     Spacecraft A accelerates for an hour in the same direction and continues its journey in the same direction the whole time.
     Spacecraft B leaves the Earth and returns to it.
     Spacecraft B accelerates at the same rate as Spacecraft A. But in other directions. That is:
     A quarter of an hour in the same direction as spaceship A.
     Half an hour in the opposite direction to spaceship A.
     Another quarter of an hour in the direction of a spacecraft.
     Both spaceships have a full hour of acceleration.
     But spacecraft A is moving steadily and moving away from the Earth.
     while spacecraft B returned to Earth.
     The difference between Earth's clock and Spacecraft A's clock is increasing.
     Whereas the difference between Earth's clock and spacecraft B's clock remains constant from the moment spacecraft B returns to Earth.

699. Honorable Mr. Israel, if you have come to the conclusion that information travels in time zero, you will also continue back from time zero, and the part where I (in rehearsals) weave things back while they are larger than a few atoms and information travels back, with respect and experience

700. Israel,
     When you say a known phenomenon, you must understand that it is a phenomenon that emerges from the equations and not from an experiment that will confirm the explanation and this only happened after Einstein's death. As long as something is not proven, logical structures can be built on the possibility that an explanation will not be recovered. In our case, advocacy was confirmed.
     The EPR article is intended to tell us that quantum mechanics is incomplete, under the definition of the authors of the article of what constitutes a complete theory (one that does not need non-locality). Apart from them, no one is committed to this definition and that's the whole story.

     Beyond that, give me evidence that they claimed that non-locality contradicts the prohibition of transferring information faster than light, and in any case, explain to me why Einstein could not have made an unreasonable mistake? He is a person like all of us and fell in love with the speed of light and did not want to lose the most important principle for his theory.

701. Shmulik

     A distinction must be made between:

     Quantum entanglement - a well-known phenomenon from the 20s that requires the conservation of spin.

     Non-locality - a result arising from the uncertainty principle, the fundamental principle of quantum mechanics.

     At the time the article was written in 1935 - almost no one, including Nilos Bohr, believed in non-locality. Therefore, Einstein's assumption that entanglement originates from "hidden variables" is reasonable and logical on any scale.

     He was wrong, but his mistake is reasonable and logical.

     What is improbable and logical is his second mistake: non-locality contradicts the prohibition of transmitting information faster than light.

     There is a distinction here in the small details: information undoubtedly travels in zero time (or less than Planck size, as you wish) - but this does not mean that we can send any information through interleaving. And only this is forbidden by relativity.

     And Einstein had to know that.

     See also:

     https://www.hayadan.org.il/free-speach-20100800/comment-page-36/#comment-356737

702. Israel,
     At the time he and his fellow essayists wrote it, was it a fact? are you convinced
     The article was written in 1935 and there were no more experiments that confirmed or disproved the article until the day of his death. Here is according to Wiki: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Quantum_entanglement
     The EPR paper generated significant interest among physicists and inspired much discussion about the foundations of quantum mechanics (perhaps most famously Bohm's interpretation of quantum mechanics), but relatively little other published work. So, despite the interest, the flaw in EPR's argument was not discovered until 1964, when John Stewart Bell proved that one of their key assumptions, the principle of locality, was not consistent with the hidden variables interpretation of quantum theory that EPR purported to establish . Specifically, he demonstrated an upper limit, seen in Bell's inequality, regarding the strength of correlations that can be produced in any theory obeying local realism, and he showed that quantum theory predicts violations of this limit for certain entangled systems.[20] His inequality is experimentally testable, and there have been numerous relevant experiments, starting with the pioneering work of Freedman and Clauser in 1972[21] and Aspect's experiments in 1982.[22] They have all shown agreement with quantum mechanics rather than the principle of local realism. However, the issue is not finally settled, for each of these experimental tests has left open at least one loophole through which it is possible to question the validity of the results.
     In fact, until his death he claimed that quantum mechanics was incomplete:
     http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/EPR_paradox#Measurements_on_an_entangled_state

     In the EPR paper (1935) the authors realized that quantum mechanics was inconsistent with their assumptions, but Einstein nevertheless thought that quantum mechanics might simply be augmented by hidden variables (ie variables which were, at that point, still obscure to him), without any other change, to achieve an acceptable theory. He pursued these ideas for over twenty years until the end of his life, in 1955

     My argument therefore stands.

     In any case, when you say logic, I hope you mean logic that was based on the knowledge that existed in his time. The fact is that information travels faster than the speed of light and it becomes logic and everything else becomes nonsensical. By the way, I have no idea if it's really in zero time. Maybe the information that passes, does so in a time smaller than the Planck time?
     Happily, he was wrong. Just wrong. permitted. It seems as if you are trying to argue that because Einstein is Einstein, he cannot be wrong and is actually right because he knows something we don't. It doesn't work that way.

     Ofer,
     I strongly agree with what you wrote, my father, you are doing holy work.
     It is not clear why Rafaim continues to enter this "leftist" website, especially now that the ace (???) is gone. It sounds masochistic to me to enter a website that only annoys him. On the other hand, what can you expect from someone who likes to go in with his head against the wall.

703. So that's it, no. Even in Einstein's time, the ring was an existing fact. The problem is not the interweaving, but the non-locality. Einstein very logically argued that it is impossible for the spin information to pass by itself in zero time from one electron to its brother, and justified this by prohibiting the transfer of information faster than light. He was wrong - and twice.

     We are in Israel once a year, but this is the first time in winter. Really nice.

704. Is this a visit after a long time I haven't been here?
     It is hard to assume that I will be able to update what the experts said, but something nevertheless (which we have already discussed): with Einstein, the interweaving was only on a theoretical level and after his death (or something like that) it turned out to be a fact. Since in his time the interweaving was only an idea designed to refine what is Physical Reality, the term "information" did not have to be refined because it was not challenged enough. After the interweaving became known as fact, the term "information" was challenged and had to be refined. In this era, Einstein was no longer alive and because the information (that entanglement is a fact) was not in his possession, your "I believe" is not based on solid information.
     Remember that interweaving is a fact while "information" and "relativity" and co. are words/theories that must be subject to facts

705. So far, everyone is pulling in a different direction, as is perhaps evident from the answers of Ofer Maged and Prof. Granot.

     I also asked on the Weizmann expert website, so far without an answer (two weeks). Prof. Yigal Meir claims that the problem is symmetrical, meaning that each spacecraft sees time as slower than the second (so what is the twin paradox? Not that time in the accelerating spacecraft moves slower as Ofer also showed mathematically?).

     If Kraus doesn't answer himself, and as you may be aware right now there are no answers from the experts to the questions about Rachel the daughter, it might be better to wait for Ofer.

     Regarding Einstein, we do perhaps understand relativity better than him, but not in a fundamental point such as a contradiction to relativity by transferring the spin or polarization information at speed 0 in quantum entanglement. I believe so.

     If I remember correctly, Ehud also claims that the attempt to save relativity from the results of an aspect experiment is narrow.

     So maybe you or someone will try to solve the paradox of the paradox?

     "The Twin Paradox Paradox"

     It is said that at a distance of almost 10 light years from the earth there is a planet that is stationary relative to the earth and whose clocks are synchronized with the earth.

     1. At time 0, spaceship A (whose clocks have been reset to planet time) accelerates from the planet towards Earth and in a short time reaches a speed V close to the speed of light so that the gamma factor is slightly greater than 10.

     2. According to the twins' paradox, the spaceship arrives in Israel after 10 years according to local time and after one year according to the spaceship's time.

     3. As soon as spaceship A leaves the planet, spaceship B leaves the earth in the opposite direction from the planet and accelerates to the same extent until it reaches the same velocity V of spaceship A.

     4. Spacecraft A and B now form an inertial system and the relative speed between them is 0.

     5. The distance between them in their reference system cannot exceed 10 light years, I assume. The time on their clocks immediately after reaching constant cruising speed is almost the same as the time of departure of both of their mother planets: 0

     6. Shortly after reaching cruising speed, spaceship B accelerates in the direction of the earth until it reaches 0 speed relative to it.

     7. Because of the symmetry with phase 2, it will meet spacecraft A after a little over a year according to season.

     The problem:

     8. From the point of view of the country, spacecraft B accelerated in a short time and immediately slowed down and stopped. From a practical point of view, if we reduce the acceleration time as we wish, we can say that spaceship B is currently standing not far from the place from which it took off.

     9. From the same consideration, the time shown by Spacecraft B's clock is almost no different from Earth time: 0.

     10. According to the data, Haaretz will meet Spacecraft A after 10 years according to Haaretz's time and a year (or less) according to Spacecraft B's time.

     11. The paradox: it therefore follows that Spacecraft B's clock rotates at least 10 times slower than the Earth's clock which is identical to it and is located next to it.

     12. Unless that is the case, my assumption in step 5 that the distance between the spaceships before S turned around cannot exceed 10 light years is incorrect, and in fact the distance between them is now 100 light years for some unknown reason.

     13. Or I have another mistake that I do not recognize now.

     If you find an error in the analysis and conclusions, please point to the step where the error occurred.

     Let's hope it was successful, I'm in Israel and writing from the iPad.

706. Thank you, Ofer.

707. Well, then this is really the place to say thank you to my father, for the site.
     Although I am religious - and will remain so all my days. And my father is secular - and will remain so all his days.

     Ofer, on behalf of (in my estimation) thousands of religious surfers.

708. Israel,
     something short In one of the forums you ask:
     If the product of APR does not contradict relativity - why did Einstein claim in the article that there is a contradiction? What, we understand relativity better than Einstein?

     This question was repeated over and over again. The answer is yes, today we understand relativity better than Einstein. Why does it bother you?

709. It doesn't seem to me that he has been replying himself lately, but his forum might be able to help and it might be that he needs to approve you to be a member there, I don't remember:
     https://www.facebook.com/groups/14627823295/

     I will happily read the discussions in front of the other professors. By the way, do they converge on similar answers or does each pull in a different direction?

710. See:

     http://forum.openu.ac.il/opus/bin/en.jsp?enZone=Forum126655

     http://aleph.weizmann.ac.il/Index.asp?CategoryID=854&Page=1&Flag=1

     Can you direct me to the link where Kraus replies himself? Do you have to be his friend to see his comments?

711. Israel,
     entertaining. Kraus, on which Facebook page did you post the question? Where are the other links? Nice to read.

712. Ineal Dracom this iPad, emits responses ahead of time.

     My father - do not be alarmed by the loss of the ace and the princes. We have already read Sergio Constanza in the tract Givat Halfon Shana "Kara takes Paul", so sometimes it is better to stay only with the little ones, as long as they are many.

     Quantity is allowed over quality.

713. Shmulik - so this is where you are hiding.

     Kraus does not answer emails, and I have not seen any comments from him on the Facebook page.

     In the meantime, the "twin paradox" without a solution, 5 blogs, four professors and more commenters. See:

     http://ofer-megged-phys-notes.blogspot.co.il/2013/12/blog-post.html

714. Is it not in the web version?
     Anyway thank you.

     I just wanted to make it clear that in the case of the anonymous commenter who is angry about the 'anti-religious' bias (which has actually been part of science for 400 years) everyone only sees their own 'hump'. I need to see the whole picture, and all the limitations of the other sites do not apply to me, because of which there is no proper science in any site - of giving equal rights to truth and lies. In the comments, anyone can write whatever nonsense they want, the only place where I intervened for a certain period was the call for opposition to vaccines, because I am not ready to give my hand to the murder of children, all other opinions, with the exception of a few who were blocked due to their behavior as trolls, are presented without censorship. After that snoozer for years personally harassed commenters who have a scientific background (Michael, Nissim) under the nickname of a ghost, he was blocked and now he comes anonymously so that they think there are a million like him.

     I have to stand on the guard of science, and instead of thanking me, there are arrogant people who think that their private faith is better than the science that is done collectively by smarter people all over the world.
     post Scriptum. And he must also like it when I write against boycotts of the Israeli academy, so I suggest he take a blindfold from his eyes.

715. http://simania.co.il/bookdetails.php?item_id=366303

716. To my father:
     Regarding world hunger:
     I recommend the book "Geography of Hunger".
     The author's name is Jose de Castro. (I don't know if he has a family connection to Fidel Castro).
     Workmen's library / science for all.
     Published by the national Kibbutz HaShomer Hatzair Merhavia.
     Printed in Israel (in Hebrew) in 1954.

717. A site that combines science and religion would simply be a walking joke. example: http://www.odyeda.com/JewishTimelineChartHe/home.html

     And by the way, all politics causes science to be biased. Among the Shamalans there are many who oppose genetic engineering in plants, animal experiments and the extreme ones are the vegans from Yurofsky's seminary. A combination of these trends will cause mass hunger in the world, therefore the fact that I am loyal to science and not to any anti-scientific ideology is the only right way.
     Ah. And we are talking about 120 thousand unique surfers per month. Someone who deals with science is not a person at the level of the commenters of the mass websites, but I don't know many news websites, even bigger ones than me, whose surfers are active.

718. Spring.
     "Breast"?! - If someone named "Hazi" threatens you and your website, your situation and the state of your website are probably in trouble.
     You lost the ace. You lost the princes. And you are left with fishers (in the form of miracles and miracles) in your hand.
     The fact that out of 120 unique surfers a year on your site, only a few respond, and of those, most of the responses are condemning the site - recycled articles, spelling errors, translation of articles from science websites from abroad and in Israel, political articles instead of science-related articles, articles against the Jews and much more.. Proof that this site is more of a blog than a science site.
     I take my words back. If earlier I thanked you for the work, now I regret that I thanked you for your non-scientific work.
     Soon a science website - real - will be established in the State of Israel, which will swallow your blog.
     Your "scientific" blog will end its course.
     I'm sorry, but you probably don't know what science is.
     You may have studied a little economics, but you didn't study history.
     Big fish eat small fish, and big fish are eaten by even bigger fish.
     So it was and so it will be and there is nothing new under the sun.
     The new site will have scientific content.
     And there will be a place for the religious as well. There will be no place for creatures like the "leftists" and other "beautiful souls" who appropriate science for themselves, and they will seize hard and block if necessary.
     So that the website will present pure science and not politics of science under the guise of scientific news.
     As long as this site (blog) enjoyed exclusivity, there was no need to establish an Israeli science site.
     After the users of this site realized that this site (blog) was not fulfilling its role properly, the need arose for a site that would provide the citizens of the State of Israel with science news without any politics and political biases at the expense of science.

719. to understand….

720. Dear Anonymous
     Let me explain to you again: the balanced force felt by people on the space station is zero - it is a balance of two forces - gravity and centrifugal force.
     Therefore - gravity is not 0…..
     Is it really hard for you to fatten?

721. lie in any way? really really? How old are you?
     The gravity there is not zero. They also fall into the same way. If you continue reading the link I gave, you will see how NASA writes it themselves. Regarding gravity, from the NASA website:
     The space station orbits Earth at about 200 to 250 miles high. At that height, Earth's gravity is still very strong. In fact, a person who weighs 100 pounds on the ground would weigh 90 pounds there

     If Q (the one from Startrack) takes hold of the station and stops it completely, but only it, and then leaves, what will happen to the station and the astronauts there (not to the ghosts, he's not there, he's somewhere else)? The astronauts will crash into the walls of the station and it will fall to the ground.

722. Anonymous Chezi, if you build a tower 400 kilometers high, the man launched at the same height as the space station will feel 90% gravity.

723. Shmulik
     You are really willing to lie in any way just to not admit you were wrong just like miracles. Even though the doctor explained to you at the moment, you still don't want to admit that you were wrong like Nissim.
     Nissim wrote: "The gravity on the space station is far from 0".
     And this is of course a serious mistake.
     Gravity inside the space station is almost zero.
     Because the force of gravity in the space station is almost zero - the astronauts can carry out research about microgravity there (while floating inside the station).
     Do you know the phrase two wrongs don't make a right? So the fact that there are two jerks like you doesn't make you right. what did not you understand?

724. "There is no connection between body weight and the feeling of weightlessness" - just don't say that in your next job interview……

725. I said I don't see where Nissim went wrong. He didn't say they don't float but said there is gravity there.
     Again, from the NASA website:
     The space station orbits Earth at about 200 to 250 miles high. At that height, Earth's gravity is still very strong. In fact, a person who weighs 100 pounds on the ground would weigh 90 pounds there

726. Shmulik
     It seems that Keith has a syndrome, what's the point of going to Mount Sinai? In the Skylab space laboratory there was a special device that allowed the astronauts to weigh themselves and the lack of gravity was well felt.. There is no connection between body weight and the feeling of weightlessness. You are confusing two different concepts. Go to Wikipedia and read about zero gravity.

727. Hey ghost, the wall you ran into is very hard so you're not thinking clearly.
     From the NASA website:
     http://www.nasa.gov/audience/forstudents/k-4/stories/what-is-microgravity-k4.html#.UtEIlXnA1cR

     The space station orbits Earth at about 200 to 250 miles high. At that height, Earth's gravity is still very strong. In fact, a person who weighs 100 pounds on the ground would weigh 90 pounds there

     That means there is gravity there. gravitation. What is not understood?
     That is, according to the theory of general relativity, the space there is curved by a cadence and the speed of the station and all its comers that have the same speed is the one that makes the astronauts float. Nissim never wrote that they don't float.
     Go, something else makes you hover.

728. Well Shmulik... I was waiting for you to pop up.
     You don't see where he went wrong because you don't want to see the facts.

     For you, I will explain again:
     Nissim wrote: "The gravity on the space station is far from 0." - which is not true of course.
     To this, Dr. responded to him: "In quite a few television broadcasts from the space station, the astronauts are seen floating inside it. If you think the gravity only drops by 10%, it's still a strong enough gravity that won't allow them to float." – which is of course true.
     Then Nissim tried to involve the force of gravity on Earth to justify - unsuccessfully - his mistake.
     After that I joined and wrote that the force of gravity inside the spaceship is almost zero.

     After all these things Nissim realized that he was wrong. And tried to justify himself by adopting the facts we wrote to him, but in the process presenting them as if he were the one who wrote them.

     And in between all kinds of trolls jump in trying to protect him. (Of course they will not defend the facts because they do not recognize the facts).

     So if you, Shmulik, don't want to acknowledge the facts either, then you can at least not interfere. (And you are also welcome to return back to your hole).

729. I don't see where Nissim went wrong. In his first response, he said that gravity is 90% of that of Penny's surface and then he was asked (mockingly) how the astronauts float in space, to which he replied that the centrifugal force eliminates the effects of gravity. The fact that there is a force that cancels gravity does not mean that gravity is 0.
     The only one who was wrong, and admitted it, was R. H. Rafaim.
     NASA simply explains levitation by saying that the astronauts are falling, with the space station in free fall and therefore they are floating relative to it. Falling around the Earth due to the speed of the space station (just as Nissim wrote)
     http://www.nasa.gov/audience/forstudents/k-4/stories/what-is-microgravity-k4.html#.UtBdSnnA1cQ

730. Newton
     It seems to me that Nissim has already realized that he was wrong. No need to come down on him so hard. The problem is not that he was wrong, it's his right to be wrong. The real problem is more serious. And that comments like his encourage delusional people to raise their heads and spread nonsense and lies under the guise of legitimate comments. And when it comes to a site whose purpose is to promote science, false and delusional comments only harm the goal and at the same time foster delusional commenters (like the jerk who commented before your last comment, and like commenter B and like several other regular commenters whose whole purpose is to spread their distorted views because they have no other place where they can do this because they know they will be hit hard).

731. Miracles
     Yesterday I met with my friend and colleague Livnitz. I showed him your writings. What he said in a phonetic transliteration into Hebrew "Dust is Omeiglich." Har wist nicht gornicht, a liedka kap?

732. Nissim, don't you see that with the exception of B, all the other commenters are the same "ghost" troll who develops severe schizophrenia and argues with himself and chases you for every comment you make? do not feed the troll.

733. fangs
     Maybe you'll get sober. They explain and explain to you and you and it doesn't work. Your stubbornness surpasses Fred's. In the conversation I had with the Creator of the world, he told me that he was ashamed of you.

734. On a second reading and for full disclosure: when I wrote "90 percent lower than Earth's gravity" it was because my thoughts were running too fast and my fingers were running too slow. 🙂 Of course the correct one is 10 percent. (And only here you said something right, Nissim) Of course, this does not change the fact that inside the spaceship the value of gravity is almost zero.

735. Newton
     You're right. I agree with you.

     Miracles
     You are the one who opposed it.
     And you are the one who tried - unsuccessfully - to mix two things.

     The doctor claimed that inside the spaceship there is an existence of weightlessness. I claimed that inside the spaceship the value of gravity decreases to almost zero.
     And you are the one who claimed that the gravity inside the spaceship is far from zero. And as proof of this, you involved the force of gravity on the earth.
     Do you object to these (historical) facts?

736. Miracles

     I understand that you have started to think about it again. You also sound a bit conciliatory. My door is still open to enrich your world of physics even a little. If you have difficulties in knowing formulas, I would highly recommend you to Gauss. If necessary, Alan Turing can also help you

737. Friends
     We are mixing two things. At the height at which the ISS rotates, the force of gravity is 90% of the force of gravity on the surface of the Earth. The speed of the ISS produces a centrifugal force that is equal to the force of gravity - therefore those who are inside the ISS do not feel gravity.
     Does anyone object to this?

738. Anonymous (unidentified) user

     The problem with people like Nissim and B. is that if they have learned 2 or 3 formulas they think they know physics and are ignorant of it.

739. ב
     You are rambling indiscriminately.
     The facts are that the gravitational force felt inside the ISS spacecraft is almost zero.
     (Your attempt to show that you are not wrong, by bringing into the discussion things that have nothing to do with the discussion, is complete bullshit. It's good that you didn't talk about toads from South Australia to prove the force of gravity on Neptune and thus show that the force of gravity inside the ISS spaceship is very far from being zero.)

740. Newton
     There is no need to continue referring to miracles.
     He confirms, time after time in every article, that all he knows is to make mistakes and mislead.
     Your desire to teach him facts and the way of life, unfortunately, will not succeed.

741. ב
     There is nothing to refer to Anonymous, he has not yet learned to count to 3.

     Now I understand what you mean - and I completely agree.

742. Miracles
     In my youth I studied both Latin and Hebrew, so I can answer you in Hebrew. I worked for many years on the development of the formulas and here you come and in vain try to improve them, what will I say and what will I say? How would the Creator of the world, blessed be His name forever, say about this, how wonderful are the acts of creation. I invite you to my home to study these minors in physics. I live in London Westminster. The flight and the lessons on me and as a token of appreciation for your monumental work you will also receive free meals in the royal palace. Bon Appetite.

743. Anonymous you are wrong!
     Think of a stone instead of a spaceship. The stone surrounds the earth. It is at a certain distance from the earth.
     The earth pulls the stone with a force that is inversely proportional to the square of the distance.
     Now double the distance between the stone and the earth. The force pulling the stone will decrease fourfold.
     Miracles:
     It is clear that in terms of energy there is no gain. The energy will be the same regardless of the path.
     But from a logistical point of view there is a huge difference between organizing a trip to Mars that will take place in space and such organizing that will take place on Earth.

744. Miracles
     As usual, you are wrong. and misleading.
     Reporter:
     "B
     The gravity on the space station is far from 0. At the height of the ISS, the gravity drops only about 10%…”

     The force of gravity, at the height where the station is located, is 90 percent lower than the force of gravity on Earth.
     With the addition of the acceleration of the space station - the force of gravity inside the space station decreases to (very close to) 0.

     This is what the doctor explained to you.
     And you, as usual, divert the discussion and talk about the force of acceleration and the force of gravity on the earth. Something that has nothing to do with the doctor's words.
     Do you understand that dumbass?

745. ב
     You are right, but it seems to me that the investment of energy to reach your station is basically the same as the investment of energy to reach Mars.

746. In a space station orbiting the Earth, the centripetal force is the Earth's gravity.
     The person inside the station does not feel the normal force (the force vertical to the surface of the floor) because the whole system is accelerated together.
     That is, both the people and the station accelerate at the same speed, so the people float inside the station.
     But in order to take off from the station and break free from the Earth's gravity, energy must be invested.
     Nissim is not wrong.
     but:
     I meant a very distant space station. An order of magnitude of several times the distance to the moon. From such a station (or from the moon) it would be easier to take off in the direction of Mars.

747. Dr. Gaon
     Read here...on Wikipedia.
     The following formula approximates the Earth's gravity variation with altitude:
     g_h=g_0\left(\frac{r_e}{r_e+h}\right)^2
     Where
     gh is the gravitational acceleration at height h\, above sea level.
     re is the Earth's mean radius.
     g0 is the standard gravitational acceleration.
     This formula treats the Earth as a perfect sphere with a radially symmetric distribution of mass; a more accurate mathematical treatment is discussed below.

     I will explain to you in Hebrew... the reduction of gravity is according to the square of the radius ratio. The radius of the earth is 6371 km. The ISS orbits at an average altitude of 380 km, i.e. with a radius of 6751 km. We will divide and get 0.94371
     We will square it and get 0.89059. That means 89% of the value in your home.

     Did you understand that bro??

748. Miracles

     It is not clear how you arrived at this formula, give full details. There is an old textbook called Mechanics by two authors called Sears and Zymansky, if you read this book carefully you will see that there is no similarity between your formula and what is written in this book. I'll give you an example

     The expression gh refers to potential energy. Maybe you will explain to all the people of Israel what is the connection between potential energy and gravity in a space station. If you happened to watch television broadcasts of the astronauts, you will see that when they want to move from place to place, they let go inside the space of the station. If you put an object in the "air" they can float in the lab. It can only be in a state of weightlessness. If Newton and the authors of the book had read your mathematical logic they would have turned over in their graves several times. If you see if I'm right or you're right, contact any professor of physics or astronomy and explain your physics theory to them. I hope they don't have a heart attack. And again I repeat my words. Join one of the space flights to the space station and see what happens there when you put an object "in the air". Maybe if we move to another universe your formulas will maybe get some kind of aphiric validity. I guess if you studied physics at university you would get a failing grade.

749. ב
     The space station does not rotate around an axis. It revolves around the earth.
     Again - in the space station, the force of rotation is equal to the force of gravity. But - at this height there is indeed still gravity...

     The launches to the moon were also carried out similar to what you suggest - the launch vehicles were in a circle around the earth and from there they went towards the moon. The rocket circled the Earth once/twice and only then set off.

750. for miracles:
     In a space station that rotates around the axis, the force acts from the direction of the axis outwards and not towards the center.
     Therefore it will be much easier to take off from a space station than to take off from Earth.

751. Nissim, stop whining like a little girl.
     (Besides, if I wrote down the nickname, like now - although I don't need it - you wouldn't have anything to catch) 🙂

752. Anonymous (unidentified) user
     It's not just that you're anonymous 🙂

753. Dr. Haizarski
     You were not wrong. Both B and Nissim are geniuses. And they have an extreme knowledge of the mechanics of physics and mathematics. They know things that even professors don't know.

754. Dr. Haizarki
     The space station rotates at an enormous speed, so the centrifugal force is high - and it is equal to the force of gravity.
     I understand that you are a mathematical genius so I will give you some formulas. If it's difficult - you can ask the kindergarten teacher tomorrow...

     Approximately:
     Radius of the earth - 6370 km
     The average height of the ISS is 380 km.
     According to the formula we learned in kindergarten (those who listened): gh = g0 * (6370 / (6370 + 380))^2

     And it comes out - 0.89. That is 89%. Wow - what a shame - I estimated 90%. You're right!!!!!! You are a real genius!!!!

755. The recipient's mistake should be miracles and not b

756. A mistake in the recipient of the CEL to be Nissim and not b.

757. ב
     Assuming you weigh 80 kg, then on the space station you will weigh 72 kg. To verify this, join the next flight and report it. Quite a few TV broadcasts from the space station show the astronauts floating inside it. If you think the gravity only drops by 10%, it's still a strong enough gravity that won't allow them to float. I wonder what calculations you used to reach this conclusion? Perhaps you will report it and we will learn from your extreme knowledge of the secrets of physics. If you did discover something new, it is likely that next year we will be blessed by God, may his name be blessed, receive a Nobel Prize and come to Zion Goel

758. ב
     The gravity on the space station is far from 0. At the height of the ISS, the gravity drops only about 10%…

759. Even if my financial situation had allowed me to travel to New York in 1964, it was still difficult for me to be impressed by the exhibition, because I was 3 years old.

760. The expedition to Mars is dangerous but possible.
     Need a total of 4 people.
     They can start the journey from the moon where there is less gravity or even from a space station where there is no gravity at all.
     They will have supplies for the initial period of time in a spacecraft that will bring them to Mars.
     Additional supply spacecraft will then be sent.
     Of course there will be a phone call and they will say on the phone what they need and then send them by spacecraft.
     They will of course have to build themselves a shelter from the elements. However, the spaceship itself will be a shelter for the first period of time until they build something.
     If they are in the vicinity of glaciers they will be able to build an igloo just like the Eskimos on Earth.
     You can build an igloo in one day. It is possible even after construction to enlarge the igloo with the help of additional igloos that will be connected to each other in tunnels.
     If they have water but no ice then they can build a mud shelter. It will take a few days for the mud to harden but it is quite possible to build mud bricks and stack them on top of each other to build an igloo-like shelter.
     Inside the shelter and maybe even outside it they will be able to grow fresh food.
     The main problem is to land them in a place where there is water.
     They will be able to produce oxygen from the water.

761. I was at the New York 1964 exhibition, and I remember that there were two booths with television phones so I could talk on the phone and see who was in the other booth, which sounds ridiculous now but was very impressive back then. So Asimov didn't predict the future, he talked about something he saw there.

     The Chinese are talking about establishing a colony for ballistic missiles on the moon.

     And the Mars expedition is a real fiasco or a scam. It is hard to believe that humans will last two years in radio active radiation, and what economic interest does anyone have in setting up such a thing there other than income from television advertisements?

762. I have a friend who graduated from 669 who secures the rigs and as far as I know he receives the slip from the company that operates the rig and not from the State of Israel, it is true that the state has equipped itself with new ships to protect the rigs but if the revenue for the state is as they say then it is a drop in the ocean what is more that the strengthening of the navy could be used Also for other state security activities. It is certainly not close to the subsidy levels that renewable energy producers receive, which, as we have already mentioned here, are not Ricky Cohen from Hadera, but people who are already swimming in money and we pay them more luxury cars and luxury hotels through our electricity bill

763. And oil and gas are really not subsidized. Who guards the wells?

764. The subsidies for solar energy led to the development of the industry in an amazing way and today it is no longer science fiction that solar energy will replace fossil fuels and for this the global warming religion Poo deserves. But we are a Jewish country, so it's only natural that through companies like SolarAdge we will get rich at the expense of the believers in Europe and subsidize Torah learning, isn't that right, father? (-:

765. Hello my father,
     The economic miracle that happened to us in the form of finding the world's largest offshore gas reservoirs in the first decade of the 21st century with the "Tamar" "Leviathan" and "Shark" discoveries (in the second decade larger reservoirs were discovered in Mozambique), he and no one else caused the cessation of subsidies on Solar energy, from pure economic considerations. There is no argument that using gas is much better than petroleum distillates and is almost non-polluting. The discovered gas, even if part of it is destined for export, will be enough for about 50 years, this without taking into account that more gas will be found (not only Yitzhak Tshuva is lucky). Solar energy, unfortunately, is still much more expensive than other energy substitutes and it is true that Israel does not lack sun, but it turns out that there is no shortage of gas either. In this context, it is also worth noting that the results of the solar energy fields that have been deployed in Germany, a country almost devoid of sun, are nothing less than one big economic fiasco. The state subsidized this industry to a huge extent on the assumption that the manufacturers of the solar surfaces would be German. In practice, this entire industry has moved to China and it is the one that sells the surfaces to the Germans. It also turns out that it was not worthwhile in terms of energy and the output is lower than expected. There were also corruptions. Yes, Germany also has corruption and even black capital. Besides, anyone who thinks tycoons can't take over the solar energy industry is naive at best. Who exactly owns the current solar energy farms? Sarah from her room? Are Yossi restrained? Oh, no, because you have to invest a lot of money in it and who are the banks willing to give money to? For example, their name is the German Siemens, which specializes in locating and finding prairie countries that provide subsidies for solar energy, and it is involved in partnerships and the establishment of such huge farms, and also one Saul Elovitz, one of the owners of Enlight, who is one of the quieter tycoons, who is also one of the owners of Bezeq and Eurocom, among others...

766. You are exaggerating. The change in the atmosphere will not be so extreme by burning fuels. In other eras when life thrived on the globe everywhere and not only under water as was the case before the oxygen catastrophe, the amounts of carbon dioxide were many times greater. So it's true, there was much less ice at the poles, but the damage that humanity causes to the other species on the planet is almost never due to warming, but to other things, and first and foremost the occupation of living space for human needs, whether it's for agriculture and the creation of forests for the wood industry, industrial areas, and more
     So to add billions of dunams of wind farms / solar farms and huge fields for biodiesel production doesn't seem like the right thing to do

767. This is a change that creates one biological species and causes distress to all the other millions of species. Last time it was the archaea - what were once called blue algae that filled the air with oxygen.

768. Avi. Look around you!!! In Israel there are solar systems on almost every corner. A solar farm is being established in Ashlim with a capacity of more than 70 megawatts, as well as a wind farm in the Golan with a capacity of more than XNUMX megawatts. The price they will receive per kWh is more or less XNUMX cents, which is more than the price to the consumer, and they do not participate in the costs of the transmission network, the losses due to resistance, the costs of maintaining fuel reserves for emergencies and the costs of providing free electricity to the PA. There are tycoons who want to bury the climate change debate, but they are losing to the environmental organizations that have already made the world invest trillions in renewable energy subsidies. You are not "a lone prophet in his city" you are all we hear. And speaking of climate change, the truth is that of all the catastrophes that can come to this planet, global warming is not as terrible as an ice age, a meteor crash, a volcanic winter. The climate on our planet changed all the time, it was a huge desert, a snowball, a tropical forest almost from pole to pole and life survived and the climate will continue to change and with the help of God life will continue to survive

769. It's not the Republican majority that just prevents, but the Democratic president who probably knows things we don't, such as for example that fort knox is empty of gold, and that spending a trillion dollars on foreign policy impoverishes the USA in vain. He stopped the plan to travel to Mars and the development of suitable rockets. If it is big for one country then it could be divided among 15 countries like the space station, but there are many disputes and the desire to prevent such knowledge from others.

770. Emissions are not decreasing precisely because of the tycoon lobby - they spend no less than a billion dollars a year to prevent any action against global warming. http://www.theguardian.com/environment/2013/dec/20/conservative-groups-1bn-against-climate-change

771. Avi,

     There was someone who said "it is difficult to make predictions, especially about the future". It was difficult for Asimov at the time
     To predict the future in fifty years but I think it is not justified to make claims
     Unfounded about the present, such as "only because there are 'climate skeptics' at the Electricity Authority." if they were there
     People with a vision, they would make sure to produce all the energy needed by the State of Israel on farms
     Solar or rather thermosolar in the Negev". There are countless problems with solar energy
     And most technologies, how do you take care of electricity consumption at night? How do you store the energy produced during the day?
     How do you transfer electricity from the Negev to the center of the country? This is in addition to the low efficiency of electricity generation
     from the sun So not all the evils that befall us are the fault of the tycoons and global warming deniers
     the global
     The attempt to see all evils as a result of corrupt politics is also unfounded
     "There is nothing to talk about a power plant in space, investment in space in the US has deteriorated
     to an all-time low and the Republican majority that always sleeps in one of the houses of Congress,
     Prevents any progress in the field". The real reason for the downturn in the space race is the end
     The cold war. When the powers had a survival motivation they invested resources
     Great in the production of space stations and space missions. Today with the global economic crisis USA
     is rightly interested in taking care of the well-being of its citizens first. This concern has nothing to do with the ideological faction
     between Republicans and Democrats.

     to the guide of the universe

     The field of futurism is absolute nonsense as it requires an in-depth understanding of a huge number of fields.
     Determining something about the future needs to be well understood in science and technology, world economy, political science, sociology
     and more. In addition, the noise and randomness are so great that predictions are mostly unfounded. An interesting experience indeed
     Skin and sinew is a test of correlations. Correlations allow for short-term prediction such as given drought
     In Asia, what will be the effect on iPhone prices, etc.. Clear correlations allow a short prediction
     range

772. "Holocaust deniers", "Republican greed"
     The cleric cannot control himself

773. And anyway.
     Money makes the world go round.
     And this round starts from the government and goes through the banks.
     After all, the tycoons are not freaked out into the wild on one clear day.
     The problem begins with the bank giving a person or a group of people (usually a single number of people), the money of its customers.
     Then that person or group invests the money back in the same bank when the money - which was previously the customers' - becomes their private money.
     And then the banks and tycoons in the making can play with this money as much and as they want.
     And this is the strongest lobby. It's actually the tycoon's lobby and that's where the money is buried.
     (Everything else: the oil, the gas... are just their playgrounds).

774. Father, we pay in taxes and in our electricity bill for solar power plants whose coupon is determined by tycoons. Have you seen the solar systems above the gas stations of Paz? They earn on each such system one hundred and fifty thousand shekels a year when one refueling is equal to the amount of energy the system produces per day. Solar energy has a very strong economic lobby today even without blind believers like you, we have already paid too much for this joke. Maybe solar power will be practical soon but carbon emissions won't stop so maybe we should throw our money away on other things

775. You are very right in your words, but it is important to direct criticism to the person's body and interest. Even in the local swamp we suffer from automatic right/left labeling and it's a shame. It defeats the purpose itself.
     Yes, we have a long way to go in education to preserve natural resources and energy. You can at least boast of a tremendous contribution as the editor of this newspaper (respect!!!).
     I can only hope that the solutions for producing alternative energy will be cheaper than gas and oil and will not require a subsidy at all.

776. Asimov was not a futurist but a science fiction writer who brought the love of science closer to the youth of my time.
     I am happy that today there are futurists, and their work methods are getting better and better, and the levels of accuracy are getting higher and higher.
     In the near future, I hope, we will be able to examine forecasts given by futurists and give them a score, as they give a score to stock market analysts today.

777. The picture of Asimov advertising the TRS-80 reminds me that this computer was called TRASH-80...

778. In the Senate, not in Congress. And this method causes neutering (an example not from the energy sector - the state of California approved a high-speed train between San Francisco and Los Angeles, the Republican Congress whose people hate any public project whatsoever, simply makes sure not to budget the money required by law and thus buries the legitimate decision) and the criticism It is because what is happening in the US affects the investment in alternative energy all over the world, even in Israel and I say this from personal information - from a conversation with a man who was the head of the Electricity Authority and cut subsidies for solar collectors because he does not believe in the nonsense of global warming. And by the way, for once an explanation of why the tycoons (and the politicians who follow their word) hate alternative energy so much is that it cannot be mined or pumped and it does not have an expensive supply chain like oil refining, and it is impossible to take control of its wells - the sun is everywhere and it is free, then from the moment of absorption It's all COMMODITY and the tycoons are only used to resources they can control and cut coupons.

779. It is wonderful to read Asimov's predictions.
     Father, just as we dislike foreigners who understand what is good for us in the Land of Israel, so I would expect the criticism of the American Republican administration to remain in your stomach. For your information, a democratic president has lived in the White House for 5 years and for several years he had a majority in Congress. Your words do not align with logic, fairness and reality.

780. Regarding the forecast for underground cities, it makes the most sense. For example, subways, sealed reactors, and also agricultural crops (experiments in the Netherlands, also gardens in tunnels), also the underwater minefield. The trend is still negligible. In places with a harsh climate, this is required

781. There is no doubt :
     As culture develops, the weight shifts from the production to the distribution of the produce.
     It is already clear today that the earth can produce enough for every person to live comfortably.
     However, the situation today is that one percent of the population is getting rich at the expense of the others.
     In my opinion, the issue of the distribution of resources and produce will become more and more significant in the coming years.

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