Prof. Shai Ha'Meiri from the Department of Zoology at Tel Aviv University talks about the theory of evolution that changed the face of biology and greatly influenced science as a whole
About a month ago, on February 12, the birthday of Charles Darwin, "the father of the theory of evolution", was celebrated around the world. This biological theory holds that the process in which the different species evolved over millions of years from one common ancestor is through natural selection, and evolution is the one that caused the development of all existing life forms from ancient forms that were before on the earth, starting from the beginning of life. The theory of evolution changed the face of biology and greatly influenced science as a whole.
Around the world in five years
Prof. Shay Ha'Meiri from the Department of Zoology at Tel Aviv University says: Charles Darwin, who had a fresh bachelor's degree from Cambridge University and was the scion of an educated and wealthy family, set out on December 27, 1831 on a trip around the world aboard the Royal Navy ship "Beagle" as the captain's guest, With the intention of making scientific observations (he specialized in zoology, botany and geology) on various phenomena that came his way. During the five-year journey, Darwin visited the Azores, in Argentina, crossed the Straits of Magellan and sailed to the Galapagos, passed through New Zealand and Australia, and returned to his country consumed by homesickness and suffering from seasickness in October 1836. Darwin was exposed to many phenomena during his journey - fossils of extinct giant mammals, islands composed of coral, Volcanoes, giant tortoises in the Galapagos and songbirds have a diverse ecology, since in the Galapagos Islands each bird had its own ecological specialization (today we call it a "niche"). He returned to his home near London, married his cousin, who came from an even wealthier family than his own, and, freed from financial worries, turned to engage in independent research. He published a book about the journey of the "Beagle", researched the formation of the coral islands, the sorting of sessile crabs and more.
Consequence with change
Little by little, a doubt began to gnaw at Darwin - were all the species he saw on his journey, and all the animal and plant species in general, permanent and unchanging beings? The curator of the bird collection in the British Museum, to whom Darwin brought stuffed animals of the diverse birds he saw in the Galapagos, told him, for example, that they were all species of South American plovers, or of American birds called mockingbirds. Why, if each species was created in the place where it lives and hasn't changed since then, thought Darwin, why aren't there in the Galapagos birds of very different types and groups that will fulfill all the ecological functions, like those that happen in Britain for example? Why are they all related to each other? And why are they all close to American species - the continent closest to the Galapagos? The answer, Darwin surmised, is that species are not static. A parakeet or imitator who previously arrived in the Galapagos (from America - the closest continent) are those whose descendants changed and began to differ from each other in order to fill the multitude of possibilities that the empty islands of the Galapagos offered the birds to make a living from. There was evolution (Darwin called it "descent with modification").
What is the difference between economics, agriculture and evolution?
Here Darwin was influenced by the writings of the economist Malthus, who proposed that the human population grew in a geometric column (in multiples) while the amount of food only increased in an arithmetic column (in constant addition). If this is also the case in nature, Darwin surmised, a situation will soon come where not all the descendants of a certain species of animal or plant will have enough resources to exist. This means that most of the offspring are destined to die before they reach adulthood. Here Darwin made another breakthrough: he realized that while the offspring of the same pair of parents are similar to each other, there are nevertheless differences between them. Perhaps, he surmised, it is these differences that will determine who will live and multiply and who will die? If mortality is not random but depends on the characteristics of the individuals, maybe those whose color is more similar to that of the environment will be able to hide better from madmen? Maybe the small individuals consume less food and therefore better survive in places where resources are limited and the like? And this is how farmers also work, Darwin knew. They choose a certain trait (say, yield, or disease resistance, or ripening season) and will only use plants whose traits are the best to produce the next generation of agricultural growth. If there is artificial selection here, he thought, then in nature "natural selection" occurs, and this is the mechanism that drives the wheels of evolution.
The missing explanation
Darwin continued to think about it, collect data and perform experiments at home, publish scientific publications on other subjects, and did not reveal the details of his theory except to his narrowest circle of scientific acquaintances. Then, a few years later, an amazing thing happened, says Prof. Meiri, not many people know the following story: Alfred Russel Wallace was a young man without a university education who made a living (which Darwin, and perhaps most Victorian scientists never had to do) by visiting exotic countries (in South America and Southeast Asia), collected animals there and sold them to private collectors and nature museums in Europe. Wallace aspired to be a scientist, but lacked the means to do so. Furthermore, he sought to discover the origin of species. To him evolution was a fact. Only the explanation is missing. "Each species evolved" so he wrote in an article from 1855 "close in time and space to a closely existing species". But why? Wallace also read Malthus, and finally in 1858, came to a solution - exactly the solution that Darwin had come to more than ten years before. Wallace was lucky and he chose to tell Darwin about it. He wrote a short article (and incredibly modern, as if taken from the introduction to a contemporary evolution textbook), and sent it (at the time Wallace was in present-day Indonesia) to Darwin: For publication in the scientific press?"
Darwin hastened to prepare a summary of his theory, and sent it, along with Wallace's article, for publication at the same time. Both letters were read by Darwin's friends at a meeting of the Linnaean Society in July 1858. Evolution by way of natural selection was born. A year later, Darwin expanded the canvas and published his main book "The Origin of Species" (Wallace? He continued to collect, research, founded the science of biogeography, and the great evolution book he published a few years later called "Darwinism". Is it any wonder that he was forgotten?)
From then until today - the evolution of research
Darwin Wallace's theory of evolution is our theory of the formation and development of the animal world in the 21st century. Discoveries in genetics (which Darwin Wallace did not know), biochemistry, ecology, biogeography and practically every field of the life sciences, the evidence of the development of the AIDS virus, strains of bacteria resistant to antibiotics or strains of insects resistant to pesticides, confirm the theory of evolution day by day. We do not have a theory that can explain, so elegantly and so successfully, even a tiny fraction of the phenomena explained by the theory of Wallace and Darwin, as it is understood in the light of genetic and biological knowledge in general in the 21st century. The study of evolution - natural selection and mate selection (traits that are chosen not because they help survival but reproduction, or in other words responsibility for what the members of the other spouse find "sexy" in their daughters or partners), connection between animal traits and climate, connection between form and function , between evolutionary kinship and embryonic development, arms races between parasites and their hosts - and these are only a small part of the variety of fields of modern evolution research at Tel Aviv University.
450 תגובות
Hey nisim, what do you say about this? Doesn't it almost close the corner for us?
http://www.aimed-research.com/Options.php
Israel
There is nothing wrong with a scoop. I thought you were looking for another solution. In any case, you need to know the accuracy of the scope itself. Enter the same signal to both inputs and make sure the difference is zero.
how? Where in the receiver will we connect the meter? What's wrong with the scope, it measures the difference up to 10 pico.
Israel
Are your two receivers in the same place? If so, it is easier to measure time differences with a counter.
Miracles
According to my calculation, I need an accuracy of a nano for every 300 km distance from an electromagnetic wave source.
A simple experiment I conducted:
1. You transmit a signal on the radio, beep.
2. Receives the same signal in two receivers together.
3. Connects the headphone jack of each receiver to one channel of another oscilloscope.
4. The scope shows you the time difference between the arrival of the signal on each channel.
So far, great.
A problem:
The beep is at an audio frequency - a relatively wide bandwidth spread over about 20 microseconds. We need less of us.
To skip listening, you can connect directly to the resonant circuit in the radio, but I can't isolate the modulated frequency sufficiently. I tried with 10 different receivers, including a crystal radio, the most basic receiver available.
You can do the trick with a laser, and I do it. Still, because of the relatively short distance the deviation is too great.
GPS satellites are ideal for experimentation, because they are far away and send unique signals. The question is, how do I manage to isolate such a unique signal and manage to display it on the scope from two different receivers so that it shows the differences in the arrival time for each receiver?
(There is no need to tell Israel that they are supposed to arrive at that exact moment).
In the link you sent, they talk about an accuracy of 5 nanometers, but this is a weighted time of several satellites and I need a signal from a specific and unique source.
If I succeed, I believe I can do a slam dunk experiment.
The experiments I conducted support the idea, but do not prove it.
Israel
I will correct myself - something is happening at the same time, which seems to us to be happening in distant places.
You want to measure times relative to what?
Miracles
We have already agreed that as long as something passes - we will discuss it.
It's still Spooky Action at a Distance.
Help me measure a unique signal, such as the time of one GPS satellite from a distance of 30,000 km with an accuracy of 100 nanometers, and maybe we can solve the mystery.
Israel
You are right that the actual measurement "passes" in zero time, as I understand it, otherwise there are hidden variables. No information transfer yet.
A.P.
Remarks.
1. "Conclusion from the data: the mismatch as an amount depending on each pole separately will reach 50%".
Not necessarily. N.C. He will be able to bring us one and only example where the mismatch percentages will reach 75% by chance. Wookiee disclaimer.
True, the probability of this is so low that it cannot even be listed here, but it exists theoretically.
In practice, the percentage of mismatches should be less than 50%. A deviation on both sides will be recorded as a match, therefore it is also written in the article: must be less than 50%.
2. Therefore the locality assumption is false. Reality must be non-local.”
This conclusion is not warranted by the experiment as it is described in the article.
Since your slave is a fan of puzzles, who naively believes that everyone loves them as much as he does, I will leave the thinking challenge to the forum to show why the described experiment does not prove the worst of all: Spooky Action at a Distance. It is still possible to obtain the mismatch percentages described in the experiment without information passing between the polarizers faster than light.
Hint: The glitch was fixed in the advanced assembly experiments.
"If the dependency does not depend on time, then it does not depend on the passage of information. It takes place at once and without time.
If the dependence is on time, then there is a transfer of information."
It should be remembered that the experiment rules out the possibility that Chaim Fenissim put forward, namely that the correlation exists because of a common source that directs the particles to be in the same state (well, I was talking about coins, but I connected them to intertwined particles and called them accordingly: Schrödinger coins").
The reason is that although it is possible to say that the collapse of the wave function happens at 0 time in the whole space, still the reason for the collapse is the measurement of one or the other particle, and not at the source.
Therefore the transition is between the particles.
On the same weight it can be said that despite the zero time in the collapse, it undoubtedly started on one side or the other, and not both.
Moses
A nice song by Karlibach, we sang it yesterday in public singing (which, by the way, was dedicated to the songs of the tracker and the mythological bands).
Life
After all, this is what I claim all the time in the article! which is not on Russia.
Life
Russians know how to enjoy life...
Miracles
Something nice without quantums
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ZW9TSWegU60
Israel you have a summary that does not bind you:
Summary for proof of non-locality:
Assumption: entanglement creates a polarization match between two separate photons, regardless of the distance between them.
Given: the mismatch in the information that passes through the photons, in the interlacing, will reach 25%, if the angle between the polarizers is 30 degrees.
Given: the mismatch in information, in interlacing, will reach 75%, if the angle between the poles is 60 degrees.
—
Conclusion from the data: the mismatch as an amount depending on each individual polarizer will reach 50%.
Therefore, the mismatch calculated as the sum of polarizer with polarizer, is smaller than predicted by theory and measured experimentally.
It is written like this:
Thus, simple arithmetic and the assumption that Reality is Local leads one"
to confidently predict that the code mismatch at 60 degrees must be less
than 50%
However both theory and experiment show that the mismatch at 60 degrees is
75% The code mismatch is 25% greater than can be accounted for by
independent error generation in each detector.
Therefore the locality assumption is false. Reality must be non-local.”
Conclusion from everything:
There is a mutual dependence between the two photons that does not depend on the place and distance between them.
The question is, does interdependence depend on any transfer of information?
Hence possible confusion, because there are two possible answers: yes/no.
If the dependency does not depend on time, then it does not depend on the passage of information. It takes place at once and without time.
If the dependence is on time, then there is information transfer.
Bell's theorem and its experimental verification do not express a connection to time. The graph of the dependence of the error on the angle is also independent of time.
My conclusion was that it is not possible to transfer information.
This is a logical conclusion that emerges from all the quotes I brought. Which, in my opinion, should not be avoided.
As for the article itself, you are right, I did not find an explicit reference to the text: "it is not possible to transfer information".
You chose to call this interdependence an effect in zero time.
The concept of "effect" includes a verb and a verb... Well, I won't continue, after all we agreed.
Moses
Her name is Charley Bassey....
Israel Shapira
Shirley Basie is already at my house. Do you remember Whoopi Goldberg?
By the way, do you know what the initials of Maccabi are - who is like you in the gods of Israel. Guess in whose honor the evil duo sang the song "Israel Israel".
Kaddish, please recite..
Bruce has a new song: I was born in the USA and in Europe at the same time.
Israel
Why boss, and where does the "merciful" come from? Are you talking about Bruce Springsteen? It actually suits him...
So this fifth dimension - is it curled or folded?
With all due respect, Anu and Moshe's solution seems much better to me: a compassionate boss.
Moshe - Now that you know who the boss is, do you also remember that Moshe always does what he is told?
First instruction: Paul for 30 squats.
Second instruction: take the woman and go up to the mountain with her for 30 days to prophesy on Mount Sinai (not the bird, the negro. We want action).
I want there to be a class, and for all the people to see the votes!
rival
Beautiful! Now I've read this comment of yours, there are many very long comments on the way 🙂 I remembered a trick from childhood - how to draw on a page a circle inside a circle without picking up the pencil.
Interestingly, this image (of a flexible plane in space) has two more uses. One is the inflatable balloon that simulates the expansion of space. The second is distortions in the plane that simulate gravity.
Israel Shapira
I will go towards you in the beginning of the creation of Israel Shapira God and the spirit of Israel Shapira hovers over an abyss. I also understand that you wrote the Tablets of the Covenant at Mount Sinai, and the Sages said, "How wonderful are the deeds of Israel Shapira."
Miracles,
"Take a page and mark 2 points on it. Agree with me that there is no problem bending the page so that the two points touch each other.'
This is exactly the solution I suggested a few comments ago, I also think it can solve the problem.
Israel
Take a page and mark 2 points on it. You will agree with me that there is no problem to bend the page so that the two points are parallel.
I'm not saying that this is the solution - I'm saying that the fusion problem does not require information to be transferred at a speed above the speed of light.
OK, 3.
It is possible that in additional dimensions the points are not distant.
But which extra dimensions shouldn't be curled? little ones? Dimensions? From dondons?
So how did a distance of a billion light years suddenly become a distance of 0 in some kind of dimension - such an elf?
In air, the speed of information transmission is the speed of sound.
The interesting thing is that the air molecules that carry the sound information move on average faster than sound, and many of them many times faster than the speed of sound.
Israel
Let's be precise - distant in three of the dimensions....
A.P.
As long as we agreed that there is an effect in zero time between two distant points, it doesn't matter to me whether or not we use the loaded word "information".
Champagne for everyone, for us, for Nimis, for miracles, for wonders, for N.C. The friend, to the opponent's opponent..
Moses
Didn't you change the creator and the creator a little?
Public singing.
Israel Shapira
In the beginning God created the heavens and Israel Shapira
Israel.
"I believe that it is understandable that if you start from the assumption that non-locality is defined as the effect of one particle on another without the transfer of information between them, then this is also the conclusion you will eventually reach, isn't it? How does N.C. say? "Assuming the desired".
Please don't interrupt me.
I do not proceed from the assumption of non-locality but from the definition of interweaving and arrive at the conclusion of non-locality.
"Do you believe that information does not pass and that a polarizing state in Baltimore can affect a measurement in Anaheim without information being passed between them?"
Unread:
"So even though the facts are local–nothing we can measure at A changes when detector B is rotated–the nature of the strong correlations observed between A and B necessitate that the reality that underlies this experiment be non-local."
Did you mean the impact of a particle on a particle without anything passing between them?
"In other words, there is an effect in zero time between two distant points - we discussed it. Do we agree?'
agreed upon!
I will ask you one last question:
Is it written somewhere in the article or does it imply that something passes between particles in a state of entanglement?
What is written:
one particle could influence another distant particle without anything" passing between them, in an instantaneous manner"
Do you think that even though it says nothing passes, does information pass?
we
In our kibbutz, everyone shared everything equally, including electrons.
not seriously. AP, you claim that there are hidden variables in the interweaving process, yes?
A.P.
In the article we both rely on, it is written in the definitions, before the proof:
Non-locality", on the other hand, would mean that one particle could influence another distant particle without anything passing between them, in an instantaneous manner, faster-than-light.
It goes without saying, I believe, that if you start from the assumption that non-locality is defined as the effect of one particle on another without information passing between them, then this is also the conclusion you will eventually reach, isn't it? How does N.C. say? "Assuming the desired".
But my concern is not quantum philosophy or any other philosophy. Do you believe that information does not pass and that a polarizing state in Baltimore can affect a measurement in Anaheim without information being passed between them? Sahtain As I wrote:
"As long as we both agree on this conclusion in the article:
what happens at Miss A's SPOT detector–whether this particular photon registers as “1” or “0”–cannot depend on causes in Anaheim alone but must somehow depend also on the setting of Mr B's distant detector in Baltimore
That is, that there is an effect in zero time between two distant points - we discussed it. Do we agree?'
So do you agree?
Technical note - Bell's theorem. inequality.
Experiment - Shimoni, Aspa, Aspect, please accept.
A.P.
Oh, so "there is an eternal present Parmenides" is the answer.
OK.
Israel
First of all I don't understand why you thought I was in Uranus. I do not think so.
I am in Israel as well as my electron. And stop saying it's yours.
Second thing, it seems that AP found the answer, and it is: there is an eternal present of Paramandes.
Israel.
EPR did not know about the Bell experiment. To rely on their claim is not to understand the Bell experiment.
-
If you accept that mathematical is also logical:
The article is the logical proof you are looking for (that it is not possible to transfer information).
Your decision to interpret the article differently (your right), prevents you from grasping this.
-
My claims here and on previous pages are logical claims to prove that there is no transfer of information.
The feeling is that you did not understand or that you are ignoring.
In my last response I proved to you based on the article itself that it is not possible to transfer information.
If you answered the three questions there, you would understand that there is no other conclusion than that information cannot pass.
-
Proof I gave according to the article:
""How did you conclude that "nothing can pass, nor information"? Isn't it specifically written:
"What happens in Anaheim depends on what happens in Baltimore, meaning that what happens in Baltimore immediately affects what happens in Anaheim?"
Answer:
"Immediately effective" is not the same as "passing". On the contrary, if something has an immediate effect, it does not "pass"!
Therefore nothing passes, but as mentioned, this is the conclusion of the article itself as a result of proving non-locality."
-
The most direct proof I could give, which comes from the definition of the interweaving itself:
"In a logical formulation of non-locality:
If A depends on B and B depends on A, then A≡B.
That is, it is about one thing, whatever it may be.
When it comes to one thing, there is no room to talk about transition."
-
Here I give a simple logical proof:
"The complete sentence says: What happens in A depends on B and what happens in B depends on A.
If there is a passage of time, then this dependence cannot exist, because within the period of time required for the mutual influence to pass,
The dependency does not exist."
-
A mathematical proof I gave in a single sentence:
""how? And if the answer is that a common source sends information to both (gloves/coins)"
Unnecessary discount.
Two coins/gloves were from the beginning of the experiment in a defined and coordinated state.
"Do you claim that there are hidden variables in quantum particles before measurement?" (yes) ?? Explain, explain.”
I have explained many times.
If a magnitude that must be conserved is separated into two instead of one, the result must specifically conserve it."
Should I have written: "My words are not an arbitrary statement but a logical-mathematical argument?"
-
Arithmetic explanation:
"The interweaving creates a match in the same place, the interweaving does not depend on the distance, therefore there is no transfer of information.
The total polarization/spin should be preserved, and this happens at the place of the interweaving, and before starting the experiments to determine the spin/polarization.
It's simple arithmetic that shows that interweaving has nothing to do with distance and time."
-
Proof in relation to physical information:
"The interweaving is a mechanism that creates a match in the same place!. Therefore there is no need to assume a transfer of information.
definition:
Information transfer is the transfer of matter or energy between two places at a finite speed.
If information was passed according to conclusion A, it was carried out at some speed.
But interweaving does not depend on distance.
Therefore the information has to move at an infinite speed.
According to the definition, it is not possible to transmit information at an infinite speed, so conclusion A must be rejected."
-
Another argument I gave:
"It is not possible to know that something exists, if it is not observed. says the principle.
This principle is also valid in relation to the transfer of the information you claim. This transfer of information cannot be observed, therefore it does not exist.”
-
Missing proof I gave in my last response:
"So, how exactly does the mechanism that does this work?"
There is no mechanism.
A mechanism requires the passage of time, so there is no mechanism."
Here I should have added that if no mechanism is possible, then no information transfer is possible.
-
I have another simple and sharp proof. I won't bring her.
A.P.
"Does he accept that according to the article the transfer of information is not possible, because a local effect between two points is not possible?
(Answer yes, no)"
No.
It seems to me that we have reached what is called draw by repetition in chess.
As long as we both agree on this conclusion in the article:
what happens at Miss A's SPOT detector–whether this particular photon registers as “1” or “0”–cannot depend on causes in Anaheim alone but must somehow depend also on the setting of Mr B's distant detector in Baltimore
That is, that there is an effect in zero time between two distant points - we discussed it. do we agree
I will only note that according to the wiki article on EPR:
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
know, knowledge, information.
So if Erez Lebanon like Einstein talks about information, what will Izov Kir like me say?
But if you don't want to call it data transfer, that's fine. For me, you can call it Moses.
But there is a fundamental point. The whole issue was conjured up from the depths of history because of the claim that there is a mathematical proof that information does not pass between entangled particles. Do you know such a proof? Have you heard of her maybe? Can you prove it yourself?
Israel.
Do you accept that according to the article the transfer of information is not possible, because a local effect between two points is not possible?
(answer yes, no)
"If non-locality had been formulated to include something that does pass between them - information - wouldn't the proof in the article be just as compelling?"
Your question is not clear. The proof in the article is correct.
If your request was accepted, then the results of the experiment would not be able to be expressed using the language you chose.
The experiment tested information transfer. The result was that there was no information transfer. The result is given the name "non-locality".
Local describes location dependency. Non-locality describes independence from location. Information transfer depends on the location.
The information has to move from one place to another in order to describe it as information transfer.
If there is no information transfer, there is no talk of locality - therefore non-locality.
If you give non-locality the meaning of information transfer, you cannot use the term to describe the result of the experiment.
In addition, it will create confusion, since non-locality syntactically expresses the opposite of locality.
will produce a thought disorder.
Explanation of the experiment:
Key point: assumption that information goes from A to B and vice versa.
At point B (and A) the polarimeter is rotated by 30°. The rotation in both places is local.
Key point: only the rotation can affect the error in the transfer of the information. The rotation is a local effect.
The predicted error is 50%. The predicted error due to interlacing is 75%.
The predicted impact is greater than the predicted local impact.
Answer the following questions:
Is the conclusion that information passes or does not pass?
What is the conclusion of the article?
In light of the article's conclusion, is what is going on important?
"2. Do you accept that the comparison can be reduced to gloves, and that the proof in the article does not hold for them?" (yes)
"Is it even when A is in Anaheim and B is in Baltimore? In Andromeda?” (yes)
"Could plugging a crack in Anaheim have an immediate effect on a crack in Baltimore if the wave that hits them is a water wave? A sound wave? Electromagnetic wave?”
It has nothing to do with the type of wave but with the wave phenomenon itself. Sealing a crack is equivalent to the absence of space (A or B) or the absence of an inspection.
Therefore there is no point in the question.
"Would it have made a difference? Wouldn't the exact same experiment explain the new wording?"
The experiment disproves the very existence of information transfer!
"In other words, two objects in distant places are actually the same object by definition - so what happens in the entire space between those two objects?"
When it comes to a pair of gloves, nothing happens to the space between them.
The gloves as a pair form one abstract whole that consists of a right and a left side, which exists even when they are separated.
Overall:
It is not about the objects but their identity. That is, in two objects in distant places that have the same/opposite identity.
-
to anonymous:
"So, how exactly does the mechanism that does this work?"
There is no mechanism.
A mechanism requires a passage of time, so there is no mechanism.
"Passing" means passing time. "Immediate" is understood without time.
Hence, "immediate effect"≡effect without time lapse.
""There is no passage of time"? - What it means? There is no sense in your words."
It means there is a present. Eternal present. (Parmenides)
Most miracles, thanks!
I looked at your link - looks promising.
Let's just hope that it will also hold..
Sabri Maranan.
Where were we?
non-locality.
The article describes the following phenomenon: what happens in one place immediately affects what happens in another place and vice versa.
Many experiments were conducted that confirmed the amazing phenomenon.
The definition of non-locality in the article is:
Non-locality", on the other hand, would mean that one particle could influence another distant particle without anything passing between them
So let's go back to the question I asked earlier: if the wording (which is not completely unambiguous, it can also be interpreted as material or energy that does not pass, but not necessarily information) was different, allowing information to pass, and unambiguous (what we call a "slam dunk").
Would it have made a difference? Wouldn't the exact same experiment explain the new wording?
And "if A depends on B and B depends on A, then A≡B"
That is, two objects in distant places are actually the same object by definition - so what happens in the entire space between those two objects?
If my electron in Israel is actually also our electron in Uranus - then what happens to Mars in the lucky god that just passed in the middle between the two of us?
Of course, for mathematics, philosophy and logic it doesn't matter. But Yafim from the barn in Kolkhoz will say to Boris: Fizdat!
Israel
Why so?
You know I could dunk it in a row…
But I don't want to get into trouble with anyone so I will summarize the answer by saying that there is a God, there is a devil and there is a woman.
Good Shaabs
A.P.
The family is now going to celebrate Shabbat, in the meantime points to think about:
1. You write:
"Non-locality is defined as follows: the effect of a particle on a particle without anything passing between them".
Whereas non-locality was formulated to include something that does pass between them - information - wouldn't the proof in the article be just as compelling?
2. Do you accept that the comparison can be reduced to gloves, and that the proof in the article does not hold for them?
3. "In a logical formulation of non-locality:
If A depends on B and B depends on A, then A≡B.
I mean, it's about one thing, no matter what.'
Is it even when A is in Anaheim and B is in Baltimore? In Andromeda?
"Example: A wave hits two cracks. The same event happens at once in two different places.
Something happens in both cracks, but nothing passes between them.'
Could plugging a crack in Anaheim have an immediate effect on a crack in Baltimore if the wave that hits them is a water wave? A sound wave? Electromagnetic wave?
we
At Kiddush, when the bread is dipped in salt, there are those who give the first piece to the woman and there are those who throw it away and say it is for the devil.
Could it be that non-locality exists here as well and it is actually the same entity?
If you want, AP, in words you can understand:
It's not just about God.
It is also about the devil.
And both dreamed in one being.
You have the answers
And another thing, A.P
There is not one thing.
This is the problem we are facing. It turns out that it is not one thing, but rather, both one thing and another.
A.P.
If it affects "immediately" and not "immediately" - as you say - then, how exactly does the mechanism that does this work ("immediately effective")?
Does such a mechanism even exist?
What affects?
How does it affect?
And in general - what the hell is this blatantly unfounded claim supposed to express: "It has an immediate effect, it doesn't pass"?!
"There is no passage of time"? - What it means? Your words make no sense.
Movement of a body between points in space is calculated together with the time factor. Even if the effect is immediate, the time function still remains in the beacon. What changes is the value.
Israel.
Non-locality is defined as follows: the effect of a particle on a particle without anything passing between them.
The article puts it this way:
Non-locality", on the other hand, would mean that one particle could"
influence another distant particle without anything passing between them"
Nothing passes or can pass. And this according to the definition of non-locality.
The article then proves that non-locality exists, and the conclusion is up to you whether to accept the article's conclusion that nothing passes, or to reject it together with the proof
All of it.
"How did you conclude that "nothing can pass, nor information"? Isn't it specifically written:
"What happens in Anaheim depends on what happens in Baltimore, meaning that what happens in Baltimore immediately affects what happens in Anaheim?"
Answer:
"Immediately effective" is not the same as "passing". On the contrary, if something has an immediate effect, it does not "pass"!
Therefore nothing passes, but as mentioned, this is the conclusion of the article itself as a result of proving non-locality.
In addition, you brought half a sentence.
The complete sentence says: What happens in A depends on B and what happens in B depends on A.
If there is a passage of time, then this dependence cannot exist, because within the period of time required for the mutual influence to pass,
The dependency does not exist.
If there is no passage of time, then there is no passage at all.
In a logical formulation of non-locality:
If A depends on B and B depends on A, then A≡B.
That is, it is about one thing, whatever it may be.
When it comes to one thing, there is no room to talk about transition.
"And how can what happens in Anaheim depend on what happens in Baltimore without the transfer of information between the 2 places?"
If you don't assume in advance that "depends" only means "transition", you will understand that "depends" may be "without transition".
For example, a segment in geometry has two ends. The edges depend on each other, but nothing passes between them.
"Do you see the fundamental difference between the description here and the case of the gloves?" (yes)
In the case of the gloves - their particular identity (hidden variable) necessitates their matching, without any need for the assumption of information transfer or the assumption of non-locality.
"Can what happens to the glove in Anaheim be affected in any way by what happens to the glove in Baltimore?" (no)
Do you now agree that according to the article the transfer of information is not possible, because a local effect between two points is not possible?
Note:
The term "happens" instead of "passes" and "affects" is more suitable for the description of the matter.
For example, how does the same thing happen in two places at the same time?
Example: A wave hits two cracks. The same event happens at once in two different places.
Something happens in both cracks, but nothing passes between them.
Israel
I think it doesn't matter how much time has passed, what you call "information" passes instantly.
There is a clock standard called IRIG, and there are computer cards that support this standard. There are PCI cards in this standard, and GPS devices provide time in this standard. Here's a doubt I know: http://spectracom.com/products-services/precision-timing/tsync-timecode-processors
What is the problem with transferring information? After all, if you introduced an additional dimension, there is no longer any contradiction to relativity, so why not simply say that what looks like a duck, walks like a duck and misses like a duck - is a wookie?
You said that GPS watches are accurate up to 40 nanometers - do you have any idea where to get such watches? I need to measure and display the exact time of arrival of a certain nanos exact satellite clock time.
If we succeed, it might solve the mystery of the interweaving.
Israel
I think it is exactly the same point, that is, in the fifth dimension the distance between entangled particles is 0.
If you look at a particle as a spatial distribution function, then there is no need to talk about the transfer of information because the concept of "location" does not have the same meaning. That is, when the particle is measured, the distribution function changes throughout the universe instantly.
Miracles
And in that fifth dimension - doesn't information pass between those adjacent points?
Israel
I will ask again - what will happen if we assume that there is a fifth dimension, where points A and B are adjacent?
A.P.
There is no dispute about the text.
I disagree with you about the context.
One way of formulating the dilemma of entanglement is to invoke the notion of "locality" which holds that one particle influences another only by direct contact or via some intermediary field; and furthermore that this influence can travel no faster than light.
Definition of locality as an effect through direct contact in one place."
So far, so good.
"Non-locality", on the other hand, would mean that one particle could influence another distant particle without anything passing between them, in an instantaneous manner, faster-than-light.
"Here it is written explicitly: without anything passing through the distance".
Do not understand. Are we not yet at the stage of defining the problem as implied by the initial sentence One way of formulating the dilemma of entanglement?
There is no conclusion here yet, the article hasn't even started yet.
"No local reality can explain these facts. Therefore reality must be non-
local In this situation, a non-local reality means that what happens at Miss A's SPOT detector–whether this particular photon registers as “1” or “0”–cannot depend on causes in Anaheim alone but must somehow depend also on the setting of Mr B's distant detector in Baltimore. To explain results like these only a non-local reality will suffice.
Here it is written that in non-locality between two places something does not pass but a factor (cause) depends on both places at the same time.
That is, nothing can pass, nor information."
Nice, we have reached the conclusion stage from the article, but how did you conclude that "nothing can pass, nor information"? Isn't it specifically written:
what happens at Miss A's SPOT detector–whether this particular photon registers as “1” or “0”–cannot depend on causes in Anaheim alone but must somehow depend also on the setting of Mr B's distant detector in Baltimore
What happens in Anaheim depends on what happens in Baltimore, meaning that what happens in Baltimore immediately affects what happens in Anaheim?
And how can what happens in Anaheim depend on what happens in Baltimore without the transfer of information between the 2 places?
Do you see the fundamental difference between the description here and the glove case - if we use your glove example, can we write that:
what happens at Miss A's SPOT detector–whether this particular photon registers as “1” or “0”–cannot depend on causes in Anaheim alone but must somehow depend also on the setting of Mr B's distant detector in Baltimore
Could what happens to the glove in Anaheim be affected in any way by what happens to the glove in Baltimore?
??
Israel.
One way of formulating the dilemma of entanglement is to invoke the notion of "locality" which holds that one particle influences another only by direct contact or via some intermediary field; and furthermore that this influence can travel no faster than light.
Definition of locality as an effect through direct contact in one place.
"Non-locality", on the other hand, would mean that one particle could influence another distant particle without anything passing between them, in an instantaneous manner, faster-than-light.
Here it is explicitly written: without anything passing through the distance.
No local reality can explain these facts. Therefore reality must be non-
local In this situation, a non-local reality means that what happens at Miss A's SPOT detector–whether this particular photon registers as “1” or “0”–cannot depend on causes in Anaheim alone but must somehow depend also on the setting of Mr B's distant detector in Baltimore. To explain results like these only a non-local reality will suffice.
Here it is written that in non-locality between two places something does not pass but a factor (cause) depends on both places at the same time.
That is, nothing and no information can pass.
So even though the facts are local–nothing we can measure at A changes when detector B is rotated–the nature of the strong correlations observed between A and B necessitate that the reality that underlies this experiment be non-local.
Thus if someday quantum theory would fail or be supplanted by a more successful theory, Bell's Theorem would still survive quantum theory's demise.
-
N.C.
It has been said that I am trying to show that the axis of the Earth is tilted with respect to the Sun.
To do this, I use the following argument: in winter it rains more than in summer.
Can you find a single example to refute this claim? Yes.
Is the conclusion I develop from the claim, namely that the axis of the Earth is tilted relative to the sun, wrong? No.
This is the point.
A.P.
"In the proof in your link it is said that the transfer of information is not possible, because a local effect between two points is not possible."
Since this sentence exhausts the whole root of the dispute between us, between me and others, and in fact the whole discussion, could you bring the full quote with its connections?
Israel.
"how? And if the answer is that a common source sends information to both (gloves/coins)"
Unnecessary discount.
Two coins/gloves were from the beginning of the experiment in a defined and coordinated state.
"Do you claim that there are hidden variables in quantum particles before measurement?" (yes) ?? Explain, explain.”
I have explained many times.
If a size that must be preserved is separated into two instead of one, the result must specifically preserve it.
To remind you, your question and my answer (part of which is attached) were:
".."1. Can you do this without a communication channel passing information between the rooms?"
Can you do this without transferring information between the rooms?
Answer:
1. No.
2. Yes.
"2. Would you be able to do this through a communication channel that transmits information between the rooms?"
Unnecessary question. Same as question 1.
3. Can you do this using entangled particles?
Answer: Yes.
—
Conclusions:
A. The conclusion referring to assumption 1.1 is that information was transferred between the rooms.
B. The conclusion referring to assumption 1.2 is that there was no transfer of information between the rooms."
-
clarification:
There are 4 options with regards to entwined particles\coins\gloves.
1. A hidden variable exists from the beginning of the experiment to its end. (optional)
2. There is no hidden variable at any stage of the experiment. Information is being transferred at the moment of viewing. (your choice)
3. There is a hidden variable and there is information transfer.
4. There is no hidden variable and there is no transfer of information. (Physicists' choice)
Your choice will become necessary if you can prove that there is no possibility that a hidden variable exists.
But if it is proven that the transfer of information is not possible, then your choice will become illogical.
Note that:
A local effect is an effect through space and time.
In the proof in your link it is said that the transfer of information is not possible, because a local effect between two points is not possible.
The physicists chose option 4. So what exists? There is non-locality. A hidden world where things happen simultaneously, which equates to infinite speed.
-
Israel,
"Could you perhaps, as a friend, tell me what your only counter example is (I have several)."
Sure, but because I'm a friend, I won't tell you that but direct you to a place where you can find the answer on your own! Just scroll through this discussion, and look for a conversation of one floating point, and one you should know well (that's you from two days ago)
This exact question was asked there, and the answer was written.
Also (if you're interested), it says what logic says about rules that have counterexamples. There are also examples of other rules with a counter example!
Good luck, and have a nice weekend!
Can't believe Einstein would have wasted his time on his most important paper since general relativity on a non-existent contradiction.
As I said, in my opinion Shazira does not contradict relativity, but puts it to a difficult physical test, including the issue of the effect on the past from the present.
Good night.
Israel
I suppose so. There were other things he didn't like.
agree.
But it was also known in 1935.
So what then did Einstein accept in the EPR paper according to Wiki? Not about passing information faster than light?
Israel
The special theory of relativity forbids the transfer of information at speeds above the speed of light because of causality - the prohibition is not an assumption on which the Torah is based.
Interweaving does not harm the cosiness, so no problem arises.
Do you agree with that?
Israel
Call it what you will. I prefer to say I don't understand something when I don't understand something.
Israel Shapira
Water blows, in which direction it blows, on which it is said that conscience will open evil. As far as I know since he had a lobotomy he has become muddy water. By the way, would you like to sip this water? With their help, you can make ice cream from clara.
Miracles
No, it means there is an explanation but we don't know what it is.
But not to tell Israel that two coins can always fall on the same side without information passing between them. So far.
Moses
I have someone to introduce you to, I think you'll get along great.
It is called blowing water.
Israel Shapira
You don't happen to be from Kibbutz Aterat Kohanim next to Kibbutz Mazra. It seems to me that in your youth you were an active member and head of a tribe in Shomer HaTsa'ir together with Yaakov Hazan.
Israel
From the fact that we do not understand something follows that there is a God?
Indeed, master, and fair too.
Israel Shapira
You are the almighty boss. You are the burning bush and we do not eat. Thanks to you, the Israelites are God-fearing.
Miracles
"It's incomprehensible, it doesn't make sense, but it doesn't contradict the known"
So there is a much simpler explanation: everything will be in His word.
Or as we say: wonderful are the ways of the left.
Do you support Geri Tzedek?
(Please leave, just a new phrase I learned from Moshe Hemstol).
we
Am I being unfair? Please not fair!
Let him give one contradictory example and we will close the matter. I will give him 1000 contradictory examples that the Chinese are narrow-minded.
Israel (the ABG of science)
This is what happens when you:
Unfair to yourself (the argument against N.C.),
And when you discuss such topics with clowns.
Successfully.
Israel
Before we looked at them they were, in a sense, the same particle. It's incomprehensible and it doesn't make sense, but it doesn't mean that information is passing, and it doesn't contradict anything we know.
So how did they manage the opposite a thousand times without passing information?
Israel
We both looked at the electron and saw opposite things, so who gave information to whom?
right.
This something is called information.
Israel
You yourself said that they do not fall on the same side, but place them, depending on something that comes...
We are back from Afuta.
Afuta Alek.. they come, confuse the brains of the Boalim, take the money and go home. If I had a bull like me I would throw him away in a second.
They have been trying to get rid of me for years without success, there is a technical problem -
I am the boss!
N.C., friend.
After we part as friends, maybe you could, as a friend, tell me what your only counter example is (I have several).
friend.
rival
True, it is possible to show why reality is not local and what happens here affects what happens there in zero time in a few sentences. But why simplify if you can complicate?
If Siri does not succeed in the task of explanation, David Israel will be happy to try
Regarding the space question, do I know? Such questions are addressed to Albanzo.
A.P.
Copenhagen? Only the measurement determines? The moon doesn't exist if you don't look at it?
"Is your claim that the two coins can always fall on the same side even without the cable transmitting information between the rooms?" (yes)
how? And if the answer is that a common source sends information to both of them - then what is the maximum speed for passing the same information?
"Do you claim that there are hidden variables in quantum particles before measurement?" (yes) ?? Explain, explain.
we
what a question? With all the delays and waiting here, half of the questions are missed and become obsolete. Can you repeat it?
Did you maybe hear if there is another strike in Abarbanal? I saw that they started clearing beds and releasing harmless sleepwalkers like walkies.
Miracles
Israel is also Chinese.
Ching Chang Chung - Mao Zedong!
philosophy? Philosophy explains how two coins in different rooms always land on the same side?
If you claim that a common source is sending them information - how quickly?
Moses
From Moses to Moses he did not rise like Moses.
I admit, as a vessel full of words, that my only Torah training amounts to the fact that I once passed by a sukkah in a kibbutz (and it was also built on Yom Kippur, I don't find it)
But you sound wise and understanding, our tzaddik rabbi of Yeshivata D'Maala of Shigeyina Aytanima -
Lest it be of any use, in the first place, to give your opinion on an issue that has been bothering me for many years and does not give me rest -
Can the Almighty double the speed of light?
Is this allowed to ask? Shall I fly straight to ask? Will the boss forgive or punish for this - and in a big way?
Israel
Hopa - we're on a problem. In my opinion (that is, from what I learned in philosophy), knowledge means three things:
1) There is justification for your belief that this is true
2) This is really true
3) If the thing was not true, you would be aware of it.
Your "knowledge" falls in the third section.
I believe it's 3 in the afternoon for you, and there's a justification for that, because I know where you live (flow with me...) but, if it's not really 3 in your place...??
Israel.
Consider a cable. Just a cable. A hollow cable, for example a plastic pipe.
The term "cable" in itself does not include what it transmits but what it can transmit.
Can transmit water, sound waves, many things or can transmit nothing. "Cable" plus "information" and without "can" requires the transfer of information. You require the cable to transmit information.
Determine this in advance. But this is what they want to prove. To prove it, it cannot be used as a fact.
"Is your claim that the two coins can always fall on the same side even without the cable transmitting information between the rooms?" (yes)
This is the question, the answer to which will determine whether it is necessary for the cable to transmit information. Note: the emphasis is on necessity.
In my answer, as you remember, I argued that there are two possible answers.
-
"If you claim that two separated gloves do not constitute hidden variables?" (no)
"Do you claim that in the experiment you proposed with the gloves there are no hidden variables?" (yes and no)
"Do you claim that there are hidden variables in quantum particles before measurement?" (yes)
explanation:
There is a difference between the thing itself and the knowledge about it.
That the thing itself is defined, does not require that the knowledge about it is completely defined. and vice versa. that the knowledge about him is indefinite,
does not require that the thing itself is not defined.
The knowledge about the condition of gloves/particles is undefined, therefore in terms of knowledge there is no hidden variable.
But in terms of existence itself, the state of the gloves/particles is defined and therefore there is a hidden variable.
A glove in a bag has a certain identity.
How do I know this without checking a single bag?
By virtue of the meaning of a glove in reality. A glove in reality is always a certain thing.
The Bottom Line:
In terms of the information about the gloves in the bag, we can talk about an indeterminate situation that is considered the absence of a hidden variable (certain identity).
In terms of existence itself, the necessity for a certain identity (hidden variable) to exist in each bag, even without an observer.
In other words, the absence of specific knowledge does not require the absence of specific existence!
Israel Shapira
Abd is the initials of the father of the court. It means the rabbinical court. You disappointed me as the claimant to the crown of the rabbinate in Los Angeles I expected a little more from you.
Israel,
I read the proof article once (or rather I let Siri read it to me, much more convenient) I understood the general direction but I will have to listen to it at least one or two more times to understand what it is about, unless you have the patience to explain it to me here in simple terms . This is usually possible even with complicated subjects.
And meanwhile a question -
I understand that space itself can move faster than the speed of light (it seems to me that the big bang is actually what happened) Could it not be that the space between the two intertwined particles is the one that moves faster than the speed of light and synchronizes the information between them? (Something like a wormhole, or a folding of space, like a sheet of paper that is folded in half and then suddenly two points that were far from each other touch each other).
Just a thought that came to my mind.
Is.Rael, do you know the movie Memento? You have asked this question many times and I have answered you many times... what will happen? Let us part as friends.
---------
Floating point
Yes.Rael, to remove doubt on this claim (and I am quoting):
"1. It is not possible to win a prize without a channel to transfer information between the rooms."
she is wrong
March 9th, 2016
---------
Israel Shapira
N.C.
Claim 1: In order for a pair of coins in two different rooms to always fall on the same side, there must be a mechanism that transmits information between them.
Do you disagree with that?
March 9th, 2016
-------
Floating point
Yes. Ral, I disagree with that.
To show why the claim is wrong, it's enough for me to show a single counter example. agree?
---------
Israel Shapira
N.C.
You are right to disagree on this, because after that come many other restrictive conditions that are technical in nature (prohibition of hidden variables, obligation to receive instructions from the attached mechanism such as tarot cards or the New Testament, etc.).
But in essence, claim 1 is true I believe. Probably for a TV show without much philosophy.
No? Do you not accept that in order for a pair of coins in two different rooms to always fall on the same side, there must be a mechanism that transmits information between them?
March 9th, 2016
--------
Floating point
Israel, you did not answer my question. is a simple question. In fact, this is a very basic rule of logic.
To show that a general claim is wrong, it is enough to show one counterexample.
To show that the claim "in order for a pair of coins in two different rooms to always fall on the same side, there must be a mechanism that transmits information between them", it is enough to show one counter example.
agree?
March 9th, 2016
---------
Israel Shapira
N.C.
I don't need you for that, I can give an example and I did, Nissim Natan...
Just put the coins in each room 30 times on Peli.
But what is your example?
March 9th, 2016
-------
Floating point
Yes. Ral sorry, you still don't answer the simple question.
You have a claim: "In order for a pair of coins in two different rooms to always fall on the same side, there must be a mechanism* that transmits information between them." The * is the collection of all restrictive technical conditions: hidden variables are not allowed, etc., etc. These conditions are part of the claim.
Do you agree that one counterexample disproves this claim? Yes or No?
March 9th, 2016
-----
And so on and so forth.
Correction - I know what you got right away, but I didn't get confirmation from you about it right away.
Right
Israel
I mean, there is no way you would know what I got in the short time from what the theory of relativity says.
Israel.
Consider a cable. Just a cable. A hollow cable, for example a plastic pipe.
The term "cable" in itself does not include what it transmits but what it can transmit.
Can transmit water, sound waves, many things or can transmit nothing. "Cable" plus "information" and without "can" requires the transfer of information. You require the cable to transmit information.
Determine this in advance. But this is what they want to prove. To prove it, it cannot be used as a fact.
"Is your claim that the two coins can always fall on the same side even without the cable transmitting information between the rooms?" (yes)
This is the question, the answer to which will determine whether it is necessary for the cable to transmit information. Note: the emphasis is on necessity.
In my answer, as you remember, I argued that there are two possible answers.
-
"If you claim that two separated gloves do not constitute hidden variables?" (no)
"Do you claim that in the experiment you proposed with the gloves there are no hidden variables?" (yes and no)
"Do you claim that there are hidden variables in quantum particles before measurement?" (yes)
explanation:
There is a difference between the thing itself and the knowledge about it.
That the thing itself is defined, does not require that the knowledge about it is completely defined. and vice versa. That the knowledge about it is undefined does not require that the thing itself is undefined.
The knowledge about the condition of gloves/particles is undefined, therefore in terms of knowledge there is no hidden variable.
But in terms of existence itself, the state of the gloves/particles is defined and therefore there is a hidden variable.
A glove in a bag has a certain identity.
How do I know this without checking a single bag?
By virtue of the meaning of a glove in reality. A glove in reality is always a certain thing.
The Bottom Line:
In terms of the information about the gloves in the bag, we can talk about an indeterminate situation that is considered the absence of a hidden variable (certain identity).
In terms of existence itself, the necessity of existence of a certain identity (hidden variable) in every bag, even without an observer.
In other words, the absence of specific knowledge does not require the absence of specific existence!
N.C.
May I know if you get the following sentence?
1. In order for a pair of coins in two different rooms to always fall on the same side, there must be a mechanism that transmits information between them.
For convoluted logic explanations where A is actually B. Black is white and so on. He is even a rival, we have Wookiee.
Does anyone know what ABD is? Alon Ben David?
Miracles
Yes.
Moses
indeed.
Israel
I sent the comment at 09:16 EST.
Israel
I just received an email from Amazon. I checked and saw that his hand had a positive spin. Do I know that you also received a package, you opened it, there is an electron in it, this electron has a negative spin, and it is indeed intertwined with my electron?
Now, you know what I have, but would you agree with me that zero time passed from the time I clicked "add comment" to the time you read this comment?
Israel Shapira
At which yeshiva did you receive your rabbinical qualification. I understand that you are the ABD at the rabbinical offices on Sderot David Hamelech in Tel Aviv.
A.P.
"The mistake is not distinguishing between "a cable that transmits information" and "a cable that can transmit information".
Unclear claim. Is your claim that the two coins can always fall on the same side even without the cable transmitting information between the rooms?
"With the gloves, you already know by the separation whether the glove that went to Israel is right-handed or left-handed."
You don't know, because every glove is in a bag. No one in the experiment knows the identity of the gloves until they are tested.
The identity of the gloves is not defined until they are tested. This means there are no hidden variables in this experiment!'
Are you arguing that two separated gloves are not latent variables?
Are you claiming that in the experiment you proposed with the gloves there are no hidden variables?
Do you claim that in quantum particles before measurement there are hidden variables?
Good night.
Israel.
There is an error in your response to the opponent:
"The idea is logical: you take two mechanisms - one a cable that transmits only information and the other of interwoven particles."
The mistake is not distinguishing between "a cable that transmits information" and "a cable that can transmit information".
In the first claim you assume the requested.
The first claim requires you to conclude that there is information transfer.
But it is not obvious that a cable transmits information.
You presuppose what you want to prove. This is a logical fallacy.
-
"With the gloves, you already know by the separation whether the glove that went to Israel is right-handed or left-handed."
You don't know, because every glove is in a bag. No one in the experiment knows the identity of the gloves until they are tested.
The identity of the gloves is not defined until they are tested. This means there are no hidden variables in this experiment!
according to your requirement.
The description of the experiment I proposed:
"Instead of an interweaving mechanism I will place on earth a "glove handout". (Both mechanisms are equal)
The distributor hands me a glove in a bag each time and another glove to the representative on Tzedek.
After 30 pairs have been distributed and the order of distribution is recorded, the representative who is right opens each bag according to the order.
I open the matching bag. To my surprise and in front of the television, I manage to guess the result 30 times in a row."
Yes. Ral, my response is pending.
Israel,
First of all, don't waste precious hours of sleep on science 🙂 Your next sentence surprised me a bit...
"Therefore if N.C. Yoel can say what his contradiction is, we can see if it is substantial or an unnecessary bickering over details"
Are you implying that I did not write where the logical fallacy is? odd. I remember that I actually explained several times but you answered "small" or "I was deleted" or you were tired or you simply ignored. In my opinion, there is no point in continuing to chew on it. I suggest we part ways as friends, it's a waste of both of our precious time.
For those who are interested, my explanation is in the following comments
https://www.hayadan.org.il/what-is-evolution-0203168/comment-page-10/#comment-703584
https://www.hayadan.org.il/what-is-evolution-0203168/comment-page-11/#comment-703620
https://www.hayadan.org.il/what-is-evolution-0203168/comment-page-11/#comment-703627
https://www.hayadan.org.il/what-is-evolution-0203168/comment-page-12/#comment-703649
https://www.hayadan.org.il/what-is-evolution-0203168/comment-page-12/#comment-703650
https://www.hayadan.org.il/what-is-evolution-0203168/comment-page-12/#comment-703658
https://www.hayadan.org.il/what-is-evolution-0203168/comment-page-9/#comment-703536
Israel,
Of course not, what are we children?
OK, Haim P also said this, but doesn't this require that all 3 parties are connected to each other through a communication channel that transmits information?
poker.
Israel
My answer is not necessarily. The information may have come from a third party - both parties received the same information.
Miracles
This is an interesting discussion, but before we get entertained let's finish the previous topic.
Do you accept assumption 1: in order for a pair of coins in two different rooms to always fall on the same side, there must be a mechanism that transmits information between them?
The answer does not have to be positive. Wookie, the man of pure logic, claimed at the time that there is no essential difference between a sequence of 5 or 1000 times, and that we may have stumbled upon a sequence of 1000 times where the coins fell on the same side. Ehud also claimed that the answer is negative, so maybe I'm missing something.
Israel
I think we understand the concept of information in a very different way. I will try to explain in two ways.
1. Let's suppose two distant people are looking at a lamp. Both lamps flash together but at random times. It's really strange and hard to grasp, but no information passes between these people. There is no way that any mechanism on one of the sides is causing this flickering.
If you don't agree with that, then I think you have a wrong understanding of the concept of information.
2. According to the Schrödinger equation + what I remember from school, an electron, until the moment of measurement, is everywhere, when there is a certain probability of finding it at any point in the universe.
At the moment of measurement - this probability changes - instantly, everywhere in the universe. It must, in my understanding, change immediately, so that the integral remains one. From what you say, the measurement information spreads at infinite speed. Is this the case in your opinion?
rival
When there is a correlation between the answers, but the correlator is not found... I wonder what Holmes would do? ?
Israel
Although you give the impression of an intelligent person, you simply did not understand the question (quite simple, I must say) that I asked.
But, let's go... talk to Shmulik.
Miracles
They don't know, but the currencies will be coordinated.
And assumption 1 states: in order for a pair of coins in two different rooms to always fall on the same side, there must be a mechanism that transmits information between them.
You can argue with assumption 1 as ref, but if you accepted it, winning the prize requires the transfer of information through the entangled particle mechanism.
A.P.
"The glove separator recorded in a small pad which glove went where."
This is a technical detail that does not change anything. Even in the original experiment it is known which particle was sent and in which direction. You can perform the glove experiment without writing anything down by distributing a pair each time and checking it.
There is a fundamental difference: with the gloves, the situation is already determined in the separation. For the particles, only in measurement. The fact that you know where a particle is sent tells you nothing about its quantum state, spin or polarization, and with the gloves you already know by separation whether the glove that landed is right or left handed.
Do you know the Aspa experiment that proved there are no hidden variables in particles?
Working.
Israel.
"The glove separator recorded in a small pad which glove went where."
This is a technical detail that does not change anything. Even in the original experiment it is known which particle was sent and in which direction. You can perform the glove experiment without writing anything down by distributing a pair each time and checking it.
Temporary summary:
I claimed:
There is hidden information (the identity of the gloves is maintained continuously from the beginning of the experiment to its end).
Hidden information negates the need for information transfer.
If there is a transfer of information, then it negates the need for hidden information, but contradicts T. relativity, and hence physical transfer of information is not possible in any case.
Passing physical information also contradicts what was said in the article in the link.
The example (the three questions) you gave does not contradict the existence of hidden information. Two conclusions are possible:
1. There is hidden information and there is no transfer of information.
2. There is an information transition.
The conclusions are contradictory, so more information is needed in order to choose one of them.
I ruled out the second one for physical reasons.
There are logical considerations that require the first and rule out the second.
Your claim arising from a scientific article is:
Do not use hidden information.
This is not a scientific truth but an interpretation based on an unproven premise:
"Imagine that each random sequence that comes out of the SPOT detectors is a coded message"
This assumption has not been proven possible. Therefore, the conclusion of the article cannot be accepted as proven.
In my opinion, it is not possible to transmit information through a completely random intermediary.
Finally:
The claim that there is no defined quantum state before the measurement (hidden variable) is equivalent to the claim: "The information about the quantum state before the measurement is not defined".
Therefore, the existence of a "hidden variable" does not contradict any of the claims.
Israel
Who got the information? Party A checked and saw '+', Party B checked and saw '-'. Which of them got information here?
How can you get matching in the coin states with unentangled electrons?
Israel
What would happen if we accidentally sent unpaired electrons? Now won't we get the prize?
Miracles
Let's stick with the 30 entangled electrons.
Check them one by one. up? Wood. down? Peli
As a reminder, the prize committee confirmed that even if all situations are in reversed coins the winning is confirmed.
do you like ferrari
Israel
That is, if photons arrive in the opposite state then they win. I don't understand what you have shown here.
Rival, only for the tenth time:
The proof is in the link from my name. Click on it, don't worry!
(I'm an entertainer, eh. Everyone laughs and grins at me..
It's just a shame that they are not able to confront any factual claim).
Israel,
"Any other mechanism will include hidden variables, i.e. information that is already in the rooms from before"
And who assures you that there are no hidden variables in the intertwined particles? Maybe right from the moment you wove them together, their value was already determined, similar to a right and left glove that are each put into a box, and when you measure them a month later, you only discover the value they contained all along?
(Albanzo must be grinning to himself)
What is the difference between newly married and old married?
The newlywed says to his wife: Yes, my dear, you are right.
The veteran tells her: Yes, my dear, you are right, as always.
Shmulik
We're not in a fight, are we?
It is allowed to disagree.
Rival, one more time.
No coins needed. I only used them because in the past we already used them in thought experiments.
The idea is logical: you take two mechanisms - one a cable that transmits only information and the other of interwoven particles.
You see that only by using two of these can the prize be won. Any other mechanism will include hidden variables, that is, information that is already in the rooms from before.
The logical conclusion is that the intertwined particles carry information with them, because that is the only thing that the cable transmits.
It is very possible that there is an error in the argument, but it should be substantive, not technical.
You are probably not familiar with the subject of transferring information faster than light, how fundamental it is in physics and how loaded the subject is here.
You can learn a lot from the link from my name.
walkie,
I understand, they have deteriorated a lot, but this is a quote from the old, comparable seasons, which made my childhood (this is the episode where they go to Itchy and Scratchy Land and find out how to function as a family thanks to an attack of murderous robots).
I didn't write that I won't talk to Israel anymore, but here we have reached a dead end (or we were at it all along) so I give up and use my right not to be an active part of the debate. The quote perfectly fits the situation, but it not only refers to Israel but also to me (I hope I didn't mislead Yariv...). The main thing is that Albantezo is entertained 🙂
Father, what else needs to happen before you pick up an article that reviews the latest developments in the field?
Wookie, Wookie, are you entering tilt too?
"Instead of wondering why, of all the commenters on the site, you are the only virtuous one who got to inaugurate the exclusive list of those with whom I must not correspond"
And why are you staying? The main thing is that you don't correspond, who cares why?
"You decided to lie and present the story in the invented and distorted way as it is in your damaged memory"
There is a problem with this argument: the thread. No memory needed, everything is written.
Didn't Feynman say what I said? Didn't you write that I am committing a logical fallacy when I say that maybe he meant what he said? Didn't you say you can't tell what he meant because he's dead? Isn't there a logical fallacy here?
"Considering your "flexible" game with Shmulik's words here" could you detail where the flexibility is? Do you even understand what this is about or did you, as always, jump in without understanding?
"I would not be surprised to find out that what you claim about Elbentzo's words - that he said there is a mathematical proof that information does not pass between entangled particles, also constitutes some kind of distortion of his words, or some kind of lie."
Be amazed, be amazed. There is no distortion. The liar here is you - the annoying and walking death.
"If there is anything that the discussion about Feynman shows (and the same for other discussions with you here) it is that your ability to understand what people write and say is extremely poor."
I understand very well, especially with what kind of people I am dealing with.
"Fortunately, I have people at home who are smarter than me, who sometimes know how to prevent me from doing nonsense, and who know how to spot trolls and people who are full of themselves, all they care about is hearing themselves talk and other people hearing them talk, and who completely ignore other people's opinions and things without bothering to try to understand them at all ". Did you mean avowedly confused like you?
"Come on, back to the instructions of the Defense Ministry. Maybe later I'll write a dictionary for the company who still don't understand your language, and continue to waste their time on you. (EA: We're done - you annoy me and I'm tired of talking about it with you because of that. We're moving forward - we'll ignore everything you've said so far and repeat what I want to say again.;...)"
It's good that you go back to the instructions of the General Staff, but oh my, just don't say anything else. Usually it's some nonsense about purple and green people.
Israel,
"You didn't understand correctly, read what I wrote, when you understand, respond. If you don't understand, I'm here to explain.'
The thread is already long and very difficult to follow, but I got the impression that your award-winning game came as a defiance or a mental challenge to those who claim that the intertwined particles manage to be synchronized with each other without any cable or communication connecting them.
In the revised experiment I offered you -
1. The coin that is randomly dropped in room A simulates the particle on Earth that collapses to a random value at the moment of measurement.
2. The man in room B who tries to synchronize himself to the random value of the coin, basically simulates the particle on Mars that always manages to be coordinated with the value that the particle on Earth has collapsed to.
I would appreciate it if you could explain to me what I misunderstood.
Shmulik
Honestly, I've been a fan of The Simpsons for about 20 years, but it's really entertaining.
A few days ago you said you were stopping talking to Israel, I wanted to tell you to join the club but then you wrote to him again so I didn't have time. But it seems to me that you have now joined again, so welcome.
Israel
1) "You're right, as always."
I know. Especially when I say I'm wrong and/or I don't know. Too bad you don't understand that.
2) Well done, instead of wondering why among all the commenters on the site you are the only virtuous one who got to inaugurate the exclusive list of those with whom I am not allowed to correspond (which in the meantime has expanded to the enormous amount of 2 people), you decided to lie and present the story in the invented and distorted way as it is in your memory The bad guy, and accusing me of claiming that you were committing a logical fallacy (which didn't happen), is the right way to go.
Fortunately for all readers, you recently linked there, and they can go through all the comments and see exactly where your memory is misleading them.
https://www.hayadan.org.il/issac-newton-bigraphy-1101152/comment-page-1/#comments
3) If this is how you remember the discussion we had about Feynman's words, and considering your "flexible" game with Shmulik's words here, I would not be surprised to find out that what you are claiming about Elbentzo's words - who said that there is a mathematical proof that information does not pass between entangled particles, also Yes, it constitutes some kind of distortion of his words, or some kind of lie.
Considering your ability to distort things and your memory, and since I don't remember (and I doubt if anyone does) and I don't have the strength to look for the source of this claim of yours, it seems to me that it is better for the commenters and readers not to rely on your claim without an appropriate link to back it up.
4) If there is anything that the discussion about Feynman shows (and the same for other discussions with you here) it is that your ability to understand what people write and say is extremely poor, and that once you have decided that they mean something, there is no such thing as changing your mind about it even if the person who wrote the words He himself will tell you that this is not what he meant.
5) Fortunately, I have people at home who are smarter than me, who sometimes know how to prevent me from doing nonsense, and who know how to recognize trolls and people who are full of themselves that all they care about is hearing themselves talk and that other people hear them talk, and who completely ignore other people's opinions and things without bothering to try to understand them rule.
Come on, back to the instructions of the Defense Ministry. Maybe later I'll write a dictionary for the company who still don't understand your language, and continue to waste their time on you. (EA: We're done - you annoy me and I'm tired of talking about it with you because of that. ; we're moving forward - we'll ignore everything you've said so far and repeat what I want to say again.;...)
Moses
"In one of your comments you mentioned that you are a rabbi. Where did you get your qualification?'
I was certified by the Rabbinical Council of Zaranoga Passage XNUMX, Haphonim neighborhood XNUMX.
Full disclosure - I was not only authorized as a rabbi, but for much more than that.
Every time I enter a synagogue, everyone as one says to me: Hear, Israel - you are our Lord God, one God!
So maybe you can bring the link with my quote where I say that I was certified as a rabbi?
rival
You did not understand correctly.
Read what I wrote, when you understand, respond. If you don't understand, I'm here to explain.
Capish?
So now you do want to have a twin cable?
Maybe you'll decide already?
Israel,
"If there is no cable and no particle mechanism - how will you win the prize?"
Wow... I thought to Tommy that this was the heart of the matter, to show that the man in room B manages to adjust himself to the random flips of the coin in room A, just as the particle on Mars manages to synchronize itself to the random value that the particle on Earth has collapsed into.
Israel Shapira
In one of your comments you mentioned that you are a rabbi. Where did you get your certification? Where do you sit as an ABD and if you support Geri Tzedek? Which stream in the Hasidic world do you belong to? Is it possible that you are an Epicurus?
Israel,
"I meant through the cable, if there is no cable and there is no particle mechanism - how will you win the prize?"
Wow, Israel, I thought this was exactly the essence of your televised game to show that, like interwoven particles, the man in room B also succeeds repeatedly in matching his coin to the random flips of the coin in room A!!
What am I missing here?
Thanks. Good luck on what? What quote? There are about 100 here, I need to remember which one?
Israel,
I realised. Good luck (not that I will bring the news anyway)
Shmulik
Can you remind me of a quote? The senility..
Israel,
It doesn't work that way. The quote you provided demonstrates the exact opposite of what you have written over and over again. You agree?
Miraculously, then there is an improvement to the game: even if you manage to arrange the coins in the opposite way to the other side, you will win a prize!
That way the instructions will be the same on both sides.
You could also use photons with the same polarization and solve the problem, no?
"As soon as an electron arrives - Peli. More simple, and completely symmetrical.'
Everything is Peli. hidden variables.
!!D'ohh……
Israel
"On one side up - a tree. On the other side up - Peli." !!D'ohh……
It's a different rule for everyone! If anything, my method is fairer: as soon as an electron arrives - Peli. More simple, and completely symmetrical.
rival
I meant via the cable.
If there is no cable and no particle mechanism - how will you win the prize?
Israel,
"With your method, information can be sent from room to room, and this is impossible"
I just can't understand you, how with the help of my method can information be sent from room to room without a cable and without twinning between the rooms?? how ?? If the man in room A flips his coin 20 times at random, how exactly will the man in room B manage to be coordinated with him? In telepathy??
I don't understand, I speak Chinese that it's so hard to understand me? I thought I was speaking clearly.
Shmulik
What is your problem with quotes and facts?
There is an essential question here, which you refuse to answer (ego?)
Is there a mathematical proof that information does not pass between entangled particles?
After all, this was the root of the dispute between me and Albanzo, because of which he called me every possible nickname.
Except that he also claimed that I claim that quantum mechanics is wrong, and this after I said that there is nothing true and accurate about it, and I have never claimed anything different (I, by the way, can always be quoted, if I was wrong, I would be happy to admit my mistake).
So Albanzo was probably wrong, as it turns out. Otherwise he would have brought the proof a long time ago, just to put me on the spot.
rival
With your method, information can be sent from room to room, and this is impossible.
"Who assures you that they didn't coordinate the results in advance? Who assures you that they didn't decide between themselves before the game that the first 5 times there will be a tree, the next 5 times there will be a pel, and then another 10 throws of tree-peli-tree-peli alternately??''
All the elements you mentioned are hidden variables, because the information - 5 wood, 5 pellets, etc. - is already in the room before the mechanism is tested.
This is prohibited by the terms of the game.
In the case of entangled particles, the information does not exist before the measurement, so it is permissible to use them.
walkie,
The quote from The Simpsons didn't do it for you?
Shmulik
Keep your word so I can take you seriously. Answer the questions, or say you don't have an answer.
If you do, you may see that there is something of substance to this discussion.
Israel,
"Your offer cannot be used, because the coins are not tossed. The toss creates an element of randomness, and there is no randomness here... The limiting conditions are what is important, especially that there must not be hidden variables, i.e. previous information.'
But my proposal solves exactly this constraint for you - of hidden variables! How can you not see this? Maybe you didn't understand me correctly, but only the man in room A flips the coin at random! The other one is not!
After all, if there was a cable connecting the two rooms, then if the man in room A tosses the coin at random, the man in room B can always coordinate his coin with the help of the cable.
But if you cut the cord and still the man in room B still manages to match his coin to the random toss of the coin in room A then he wins the prize! That's the heart of the matter, isn't it?
If you are not ready for my condition that the man in room A flips his coin randomly, then who assures you that they did not coordinate the results among themselves in advance? Who assures you that they didn't decide between themselves before the game that the first 5 times there will be a tree, the next 5 times there will be a ball, and then another 10 tosses of tree-ball-ball-ball alternately??
Please explain to me why the condition I proposed bothers you so much, I really couldn't understand the meaning of your objection. This thing accurately simulates what happens with the intertwined particles! The particle being measured falls on a random value, and the other miraculously manages to be correlated with it. So what's the difference? What is the problem here?
Wookie
You are right, as always.
And I - I, as always, commit a logical fallacy!
You are right, like when you claimed that if Feynman says that no one, including him, understands quantum mechanics then he did not mean it seriously and when he adds this us not a joke he must have meant this is yes a joke.
Even then you claimed that I was committing a logical fallacy when I claimed that there might be a possibility that he meant what he said.
True, then you added that it is impossible to know what he meant because he died and was buried, but nevertheless I am the one who commits the logical fallacy..
Did we mention a logical fallacy?
So maybe you should really continue not to comment, right?
Israel,
It's not bullshit, it's a method I'm not willing to be a part of
Here's the quote:
"What's more, he wrote exactly the absolute consensus on the subject. He explained that you are using the wrong term and that classical information does not pass between particles. It is clear that what exactly happens in entanglement is not understood, and therefore, for example, Maldesina and Susskind proposed a wormhole that connects any two entangled particles (or between a certain type of entangled particles)"
You understand that "the consensus in the field" is not "the entire field in consensus"
Do you think the sentence that came next implies that I think the field is closed or that it is open:
"Obviously when the exact same name happens in the interweaving it is incomprehensible"
Oh Albanzo, if you're already here..
Didn't you say that not passing information between entangled particles is not knowledge. Is there a mathematical proof?
Where is the proof?
Israel, which spreads anti-scientific propaganda.
elbentzo
The riddle I'm trying to solve is how to get Israel to stop spouting nonsense here about things he doesn't understand, and insists on not trying to understand, without writing him a response (because I'm not allowed), and not that it would help if I could.
Ideas?
Shmulik,
Believe me I'm trying - trying with all my might! – but just can't stop laughing. For several days now I have been updating the site every day (which I don't usually do) and every time, without exception, I leave with a huge smile on my face.
Good luck to everyone. I believe you are on the right path to crack the puzzles that all the physicists who wasted their time studying will never solve.
Shmulik
"In any case, is it true that this round you put words in my mouth that I didn't mean and you won't do it again?"
Enough with the rants.
I didn't put any words in your mouth, and the whole matter of transferring information between particles is very fundamental.
You wrote a few hours ago:
"Israel,
No. First show me what I asked for. If you bring a quote, please also bring a link.'
I brought you the link. It says there what I said it says.
So now answer the questions I asked, or it will be hard for me to take anything you write seriously.
https://www.youtube.com/user/LookingGlassUniverse/videos
Israel,
You're having a bit of a funny fight here because you're alluding to something I wrote (where's the link?) half a year ago(?) and there's probably a whole lot of content there that this sentence points to, and you're unable to refer to what I wrote now. I don't understand what you insist on. In any case, is it true that in this round you put words in my mouth that I didn't claim and you won't do it again?
Regarding the rest of the discussion,
https://mobile.twitter.com/simpsonsqotd/status/312190252833988608
Albantezo, stop laughing. It's all your fault
rival
Your offer cannot be used, because the coins are not levied. The toss creates an element of randomness, and there is no randomness here.
In fact, no coins are needed at all. You can simply write down on a page the results you got from the mechanism, and see that in the case of transferring information or intertwined particles, the results will be the same.
The limiting conditions are what is important, especially that there must not be hidden variables, i.e. previous information.
And hence it is the mechanism of the entangled particles or the wave function associated with them that transmits the information.
Because the essence is this:
Using the entangled particle mechanism, you can win a prize.
Unless there is some fundamental error, not that the coins are Hanukkah coins made of chocolate and the lighting in the studio will melt them..
5 million dollars.. isn't it worth investing a little thought?
Israel,
And what do you think about the condition I proposed to add to your coin experiment? will it help ?
(the message that starts with "offer")
Israel,
If you force the condition of sending a message by email to determine which of the two researchers caused the B-particle to crash, then clearly they cannot use this method to send messages between them at faster than the speed of light.
I was simply trying to find out if there is a way to know this without transmitting the message, since this is one of the strongest claims of quantum entanglement. I was very surprised to find out that it is not possible to verify in any practical experiment that this is really what is happening (that is, the distant particle collapses immediately when we measure our particle, one can only know in advance what its value will be).
And more:
If instead of writing "it is possible to know who caused particle B to collapse" I write "it is possible to know who caused the wave function to collapse" will that help? After all, I have already mentioned that from a practical point of view, that is, for the purpose of real thought experiments, there is no difference.
In short - how will you transmit information faster than light with your method?
opponent, essence.
First, we don't know if the particles have collapsed together or not.
But the essence is this: you cannot send information faster than light with your method, because in order to know who caused the collapse, assuming the particles collapsed together, you must receive a message from the other side.
Capish?
"I explained the past to you at least 3 times" =
I have already explained to you at least 3 times.
Israel,
What will ?
"A measurer of particle B can know if he is the one who caused particle B to collapse or if the measurer of particle A is the one who caused it to collapse, if measurer A sent him a message by conventional means that he measured particle A before measurer B measured his particle B'"
It's funny, we repeat this topic in a closed loop at least 3 times already. Every time you claim *that it is possible to know who caused particle B to collapse*, I correct you and explain to you that even through an email message it is impossible to know whether the particle collapsed when measurer A on Earth checked it at 1 o'clock, or when the tester in the distant galaxy checked it at 3, you agree with me and apologize for misleading me, a few hours pass and you repeat the same claim again!
Say, are you kidding me?
I explained to you in the past at least 3 times that the email message will only inform the tester in the distant galaxy what value he should expect, it does not allow him under any circumstances to know which of them caused the B particle to collapse and when!
For the last time, do you agree with me or not?
Proposal -
In order to have a good control over your experiment with the coins and the rooms that will prevent hidden variables or early matching between the parties, I suggest adding an important condition and that is that in the room that "broadcasts the message" the coins will be tossed randomly (meaning no one will be able to direct or coordinate in advance which side the coin will fall on) ).
For example, James Randi tests claims about telepathy, the person who is trying to "read his mind" chooses a random card from a bag that the medium is supposed to guess. This neutralizes the possibility that the parties coordinated the elections in advance.
Good Morning.
N.C. and an opponent.
The reason I was tired is that it was 2 am in Los Angeles.
At the beginning of my argument I mentioned that it is not technically perfect:
"This is not a mathematical proof and maybe not a proof at all, but logically it works well I believe.
If you or anyone has substantive, non-technical comments, I would be very happy to receive a review.
Essential comments can be like Albanzo's comment at the time that there are 4 states of bell.'
Therefore if N.C. Yoel can say what his contradiction is, we can see if it is essential or an unnecessary quibble over details.
rival
"If measurer B, who is in another galaxy, could know who caused the particle to collapse, him or the measurer on Earth, then it would be very, very practical, they could use this knowledge to communicate with each other (transmit messages) at a speed much higher than the speed of light ".
As I wrote you before:
"A measurer of particle B can know if he is the one who caused particle B to collapse or if the measurer of particle A is the one who caused it to collapse, if measurer A sent him a message by conventional means that he measured particle A before measurer B measured his particle B'".
So how can you transmit messages faster than light if in order to know who caused the particle to collapse you would have to receive a message from the second measurer at the speed of light?
"How do you actually know that the value of the pairs of entwined particles was not predetermined as soon as they were separated from each other (like the example with the pairs of gloves, right or left) and when you measure them in total, you discover the value they always had"
Explanation - from the link from my name.
A.P.
The glove separator recorded in a small pad which glove went where.
It cannot do this with particles.
Shmulik
"Understand that I never claimed what you decided on my behalf."
Didn't you claim that it is a fact that information does not pass between entangled particles? Remember mom and Marco?
Miracles
"Can you please explain to me how you win the prize with the help of entangled particles?
The contestants on both sides must act according to the exact same rules."
The rules are simple in both directions: look at your mechanism and follow the instructions you received from it.
In the case of electrons with reverse spin: on one side up - tree. On the other side up - Peli.
Won't they accept the same side of the coin?
Can you do the same trick with Talmud books?
Israel
Can you please explain to me how you win the prize with the help of entangled particles?
The contestants on both sides must act according to the exact same rules, otherwise there are hidden variables...
Israel.
"But even though they don't know, the condition of the gloves is already determined at the moment they are separated and sent, isn't it? In the spaceship that led them to justice, didn't they already have the right or left situation even before the viewers discovered it?"
The participants in this "experiment" can assume that the condition of the gloves is determined at the moment of separation, otherwise what is the meaning of "separation", "gloves", the same thing as its existence? Logic obliges them.
But they can assume the opposite:
To say, you cannot know the condition of the gloves until you see them.
Maybe someone put apples in bags instead of gloves? Maybe there was never an experiment, and it's all a hallucination?
Existence exists only when viewed they claim, an irrefutable metaphysical claim. Logic is also on their side.
Your claim that there is no hidden variable stands the test of refutation.
Note: this is exactly the claim of quantum theory, but here we are talking about gloves.
Was information passed during the experiment? As you can see, nothing was said about information, it is not about passing information at all.
Even if you strongly claim that there is a transfer of information, the claim does not meet the test of the quantum epistemological principle.
It is not possible to know that something exists, if it is not observed. says the principle.
This principle is also valid in relation to the transfer of the information you claim. This information transition cannot be observed, therefore it does not exist.
-
In relation to the discussion with an opponent about determining the identity of the surveyor.
Information cannot travel faster than the speed of light, therefore none of the researchers can actually know that a measurement was made before they made it themselves, even if they decided among themselves who would be the first to measure.
General question for everyone.
How do you actually know that the value of the pairs of intertwined particles is not already predetermined as soon as they are separated from each other (like the example with the pairs of gloves, right or left) and when you measure them in total, you discover the value they always had?
I know that quantum theory claims that their value is determined only at the moment of measurement/collapse and not a moment before, but is there a way to check that this is indeed the case practically as well?
(I remind you that quantum theory also claims that as soon as particle A is measured, immediately also particle B that is intertwined with it collapses, but we have already seen that there is actually no practical way to verify that this is what is really happening in practice)
Israel,
I gave up on getting a simple 2 letter answer to my question. Is it really tiring to write a 2 letter answer: yes or no? As I said, your answer is not very important. Because according to logic, if a general claim has a (relevant) counterexample, then the general claim is disqualified. My feeling is that you simply ignore 90% of what I write simply because it is not convenient for you. The excuse that you are tired does not sound convincing.
I will explain the opposite example. Full disclosure: this is the third time the same explanation. It's just like the false proof that Jørgen Jørgenson is blonde, or that a balloon has wings. I estimate that you will get tired of reading this too, so I am writing it for the benefit of the readers.
To shorten my response, I briefly call a "mechanism that allows a pair of coins in two different rooms to always fall on the same side, without there being hidden variables or other cheating" the name "legitimate mechanism".
So your claim is: "Every legal mechanism must transmit information"
The opposite example is of course: entangled particles.
As long as you do not have a certain answer as to whether entangled particles transmit information - and you do not have a certain answer - you must not use the claim "any legal mechanism transmits information". Even if you bring a million other legal mechanisms that convey information, it is impossible to conclude that the general sentence is true. And it cannot be said that it follows from this that intertwined particles transmit information.
Israel,
"Technically you are right, it is impossible to know who caused particle B to collapse, but as I wrote, from all practical points of view there is no difference if it has already collapsed."
There is a huge difference! If surveyor B, who is in another galaxy, could know who caused the particle to collapse, him or the surveyor on Earth, then it would be very, very practical, they could use this knowledge to communicate with each other (pass messages) at a speed much higher than the speed of light.
(And I already explained how before, there's no point in me repeating it again)
Israel,
Absolutely not and this is not a discussion about whose opinion is more important. You keep missing the point that matters to me now. Understand that I never claimed what you decided on my behalf and the reason it is important is that in front of the entire forum you interpreted my quote in a completely opposite way to the writing, in a way that is opposite to the paragraph in which the quote is found and in complete incompatibility with everything I wrote before and after. the topic is closed? You understand that I enjoy the topic itself and look for articles on it even though my understanding is very limited, so please.
N.C.
I'm too tired to start talking about Swedes. When you get to Stockholm to receive the prize for logic, find out.
Thank you if you answer my question:
Do you not accept that in order for a pair of coins in two different rooms to always fall on the same side, there must be a mechanism that transmits information between them?
If not, bring your example and we'll see if it holds water.
Without the example, it is difficult to continue.
rival
If I have misled you, accept my apologies.
Here's what I wrote:
"But what you said is true. This does not guarantee us that it (particle B) has already collapsed, it is possible that it will collapse to this state only at 3 o'clock as soon as it is measured.
What did collapse at hour 1 when the measurement was performed on particle A is the wave function. But it does guarantee us that particle B will collapse at 3 o'clock into the quantum state intertwined with particle A, so from all practical points of view there is no difference if it has already collapsed, because we already know at 2 o'clock what state it will collapse into at 3 o'clock, or at any time in the late future."
So technically you are right, it is impossible to know who caused particle B to collapse, but as I wrote: "From all practical points of view it makes no difference if it has already collapsed, because we already know at hour 2 what state it will collapse into at hour 3, or at any later time in the future."
Good night.
Israel,
"River, you are right, did anyone claim otherwise?
Yes, you argued differently, you told me before that the measurer of particle B *can know* if he caused particle B to collapse, or that measurer A caused it to collapse:
"The measurer of particle B can tell if he is the one who caused particle B to collapse or the measurer of particle A is the one who caused it to collapse"
And we both saw together that this is not true, it is impossible to know in any way which of the two measurers caused the B particle to collapse, all that can be known is only what its value will be once it is measured.
Wait a minute,
If I understand correctly, then you are saying that the statement "Swedes are blue-eyed blondes" is true, even if there is a dark Swede?
And then you want to use this claim to prove that a specific Swede, say Jørgen Jørgensson, is blond and blue-eyed? very strange
Israel,
What are you answering me about the conditions again? I understand there are conditions. I understand there are conditions. I understand there are conditions! In R and R that a counter example must meet the conditions of the claim, otherwise it is not relevant at all. Can a scrambled egg be a counterexample? No, because a scrambled egg is not a mechanism that causes coins to fall on the same side. Can the example of miracles be a counter example? No, because she does not meet all the conditions.
A counterexample that fulfills all the conditions of the claim will disprove the claim. What I asked you is do you agree that a counterexample that fulfills all the conditions of the claim will disprove it.. it's a yes/no question. I expect a yes or no answer, just like I answered your yes/no question.
By the way - even if you disagree, according to the rules of logic, if there is a general claim, one counterexample (a relevant counterexample, of course, that meets all the conditions) is enough to overturn it.
N.C. I'm getting tired.
I have told you several times that there are other restrictive conditions, do you want me to say it again?
And as a logic lover. If my claim on a TV show is that Swedes are blue-eyed blondes, am I claiming that you won't find dark-skinned Swedes?
So again:
Do you not accept that in order for a pair of coins in two different rooms to always fall on the same side, there must be a mechanism that transmits information between them?
If not, bring your example and we'll see if it holds water.
Yes. Ral sorry, you still don't answer the simple question.
You have a claim: "In order for a pair of coins in two different rooms to always fall on the same side, there must be a mechanism* that transmits information between them." The * is the collection of all restrictive technical conditions: hidden variables are not allowed, etc., etc. These conditions are part of the claim.
Do you agree that one counterexample disproves this claim? Yes or No?
Shmulik
I fulfilled my part in the agreement, I brought the link.
I respect your right to think whose opinion is worth more.
Can I get an answer to what I asked now?
1. Is there a consensus that information does not pass between entangled particles? (Yes No).
2. Is there a mathematical proof that information does not pass between entangled particles? (Yes No).
Answer only that, because that's all I asked. Not about whether it is possible to send information through interleaving.
Israel,
And here is the whole quote:
"You have the right to think that he is wrong, but your opinion is not equal to his opinion on science issues. This is not democracy, what's more, he wrote exactly the absolute consensus on the subject. He explained that you are using the wrong term and that classical information does not pass between particles. It is clear that what exactly happens in entanglement is not understood, and therefore, for example, Maldesina and Susskind proposed a wormhole that connects any two entangled particles (or between a certain type of entangled particles)"
"Wrote exactly the absolute consensus on the subject" is not equal to/different from "there is an absolute consensus on the subject". From this sentence alone it is impossible to understand what you decided I claimed and in the following sentence I described that there is no complete understanding of what happens in the interweaving. I can't understand how you think and why you think it's necessary to keep bringing me professors and courtiers who will tell me that not everything is understandable.
From the second past, there is not a single professor you quoted who agrees with you that there is a transfer of information. The closest you got was that you use the word information in an unacceptable way, meaning not well defined.
There is a situation where you understand that I understand that the subject of interweaving is not completely understood, but that does not contradict that there are things we know about interweaving and are sure that it does not happen?
N.C.
I don't need you for that, I can give an example and I did, Nissim Natan...
Just put the coins in each room 30 times on Peli.
But what is your example?
Israel, you did not answer my question. is a simple question. In fact, this is a very basic rule of logic.
To show that a general claim is wrong, it is enough to show one counterexample.
To show that the claim "in order for a pair of coins in two different rooms to always fall on the same side, there must be a mechanism that transmits information between them", it is enough to show one counter example.
agree?
rival
You are right, did anyone claim otherwise?
N.C.
You are right to disagree on this, because after that come many other restrictive conditions that are technical in nature (prohibition of hidden variables, obligation to receive instructions from the attached mechanism such as tarot cards or the New Testament, etc.).
But in essence, claim 1 is true I believe. Probably for a TV show without much philosophy.
No? Do you not accept that in order for a pair of coins in two different rooms to always fall on the same side, there must be a mechanism that transmits information between them?
Israel,
"If measurer A sent him a message by conventional means that he measured particle A before measurer B measured particle B"
I don't understand how the email that surveyor A sends to surveyor B makes it possible to know which of them caused particle B to collapse? The message only makes it possible to know what the value of particle B will be as soon as it is measured, it does not make it possible to know in any way when it collapsed (at hour 1, at hour 2 or at hour 3) and which of the two researchers caused the collapse.
Yes. Ral, I disagree with that.
To show why the claim is wrong, it's enough for me to show a single counter example. agree?
N.C.
Claim 1: In order for a pair of coins in two different rooms to always fall on the same side, there must be a mechanism that transmits information between them.
Do you disagree with that?
rival
There is a continuation of the sentence:
"If measurer A sent him a message by conventional means that he measured particle A before measurer B measured particle B.
It is not possible to convey messages in this way.'
Conventional means are telephone or radio.
N.C.
Why?
Yes.Rael, to remove doubt on this claim (and I am quoting):
"1. It is not possible to win a prize without a channel to transfer information between the rooms."
she is wrong
There is no problem.
Your claim 1 is incorrect.
Now clear?
Israel,
It is very confusing that you are saying two different things that contradict each other:
1. "The measurer of particle B can know if he is the one who caused particle B to collapse or the measurer of particle A is the one who caused it to collapse"
2. "This does not guarantee us that it (particle B) has already collapsed, it is possible that it will only collapse to this state at 3 o'clock as soon as it is measured"
In section 1 you say that surveyor B can indeed know who caused the collapse - he or surveyor A, and in section 2 you say exactly the opposite, that it is not possible to know who caused the collapse of particle B.
You are saying two opposite things that contradict each other.
Shmulik
https://www.hayadan.org.il/black-ring-instabilities-and-the-weak-cosmic-censorship-conjecture-2202163/comment-page-4/#comment-703508
March 7th, 2016
Israel,
No. First show me what I asked for. If you bring a quote, please also bring a link
N.C.
again:
Claim 1 does not talk about quantum particles.
And in more detail:
Claim 1 only deals with coins.
yes. ral you dodge.
Claim 1 is a claim about a large and vague group that includes classical, quantum, relativistic, and voodoo-based mechanisms. You say it yourself.
I say that statement 1 is false for the subset of quantum mechanisms, and I mean that it may be false or true, but it certainly cannot be accepted as an axiom for that subset.
rival
And that's what I wrote to you:
But what you said is true. This does not guarantee us that it (particle B) has already collapsed, it is possible that it will collapse to this state only at 3 o'clock as soon as it is measured.
Israel,
"A measurer of particle B can know if he is the one who caused particle B to collapse or if the measurer of particle A is the one who caused it to collapse, if measurer A sent him a message by conventional means that he measured particle A before measurer B measured his particle B'"
Your conclusion is absolutely incorrect, the one who measures B already knows at 2 o'clock what the value of the particle in his possession will be, does not guarantee him that the particle has already collapsed, who told you that particle B will not collapse to the value listed in the email only at 3 o'clock when he measures?
Knowing the result in advance does not guarantee you that the particle has already collapsed.
Shmulik
Is there any way you can answer what I asked? (third and last time).
1. Is there a consensus that information does not pass between entangled particles? (Yes No).
2. Is there a mathematical proof that information does not pass between entangled particles? (Yes No).
Answer only that, because that's all I asked. Not about whether it is possible to send information through interleaving.
Israel,
It's really not just what you wrote. You also claimed to have a logical proof that no one understands and blah blah blah.
Quote war? Haven't I already written a thousand times that not everyone knows and I also backed up my words by providing two links that explain the phenomenon in a completely different way, which proves, categorically, that I don't think there is an absolute consensus?
What about my next quote:
" You are welcome to make fun of me, when I wonder about the existence of a mechanism, but then you are guilty of quotes from Feynman that you yourself brought. The requirement for a mechanism is the arrogance that Feynman spoke of. Maybe there is or maybe there isn't, I have no idea, but it is absolutely clear that there is a consensus that classical information does not pass between the particles and to date, as far as I know, no one has been able to demonstrate the opposite.'
Or this:
"I think there is really no consensus regarding what exactly happens in entanglement, so, for example, Maldesina and Susskind propose a mechanism that explains entanglement and the issue is investigated, but there is an absolute consensus that classical information does not pass between the entangled particles"
Regarding the (partial) quote you gave on my behalf, please write the link here. I want to remember the background and what's wrong with it? He wrote what the consensus in the field is: it is impossible to make a phone call. He didn't write that quantum gives a solution and there are no interpretations, etc.
But, let's assume for a moment that a hundred years ago I was wrong but since then I have been a good boy. Should I understand that no matter what I do, no matter how many more times I write the opposite, no matter how many times I bring links that support the opposite statement in practice, you will not be able to move forward and continue to send me quotes (that do not support your individual claim that there is a transfer of information) that tell me there is no consensus What is going on in the weaving?
In addition, do you understand that it is possible to say for sure that a certain event does not take place even though we do not fully know what is happening. There is no contradiction.
rival
A measurer of particle B can know if he is the one who caused particle B to collapse or if the measurer of particle A is the one who caused it to collapse, if measurer A sent him a message by conventional means that he measured particle A before measurer B measured particle B '.
It is not possible to send messages this way.
N.C.
Claim 1 does not talk about quantum particles.
Yes. Ral, it's not bad if you don't understand the fallacy, but it's there.
-----
If you assume claim 1 as an axiom, and Mulik agrees (!!) then everything is fine... but why make an axiom about such a complicated experiment? Here is a much more modest axiom:
1. Axiom: every quantum process transfers information
2. Entangled particles are a quantum phenomenon
3. Conclusion: entangled particles convey information.
And here is an even more modest axiom:
1. Axiom: entangled particles convey information.
2. Conclusion: entangled particles convey information.
If you use axioms then anything can be proved.
You asked me if I disagree with claim 1? So yes, I disagree that claim 1 is true about quantum phenomena. It is possible that she is and it is possible that she is not, and the fact that Shmulik agrees is really not convincing.
Israel,
The main point I wanted to find out is whether the measurer of particle B can know in some way whether he is the one who caused particle B to collapse, or whether the measurer of particle A is the one who caused it to collapse.
If he could know, we could use it to pass messages between surveyor A and surveyor B in the way I detailed earlier.
Nice, rival, but that's not the argument.
The measurer of particle A already knows the state of particle B at 2 o'clock. He can write down the situation and send an email to B's surveyor. When surveyor B checks the state of his particle at 3 o'clock, he will discover a state that was sent to him an hour earlier as evidenced by the time the email was sent.
It can't do the other way around, agree?
But what you said is true. This does not guarantee us that it (particle B) has already collapsed, it is possible that it will collapse to this state only at 3 o'clock as soon as it is measured.
What did collapse at hour 1 when the measurement was performed on particle A is the wave function. But it does guarantee us that particle B will collapse at 3 o'clock into the quantum state intertwined with particle A, so from all practical points of view it makes no difference if it has already collapsed, because we already know at 2 o'clock what state it will collapse into at 3 o'clock, or at any time in the late future.
This is the problem I am talking about when I say that in my opinion non-locality puts relativity to a severe physical test.
Shmulik,
Thanks, I'll read the link later, I looked for the entry yesterday on the Hebrew Wikipedia and couldn't find it.
Israel,
"You can tell who caused the collapse if you have synchronized clocks near the particles. If particle A is measured at hour 1 and particle B at hour 3 and both measurers know this, then at hour 2 the measurer of particle A already knows the state of the two particles, and the measurer of B knows that there is already a state over which he no longer has any influence, but he does not know what it is ... That's why particle A caused the collapse, not B."
The fact that at 2 o'clock the measurer of particle A already knows what state particle B will be in when he measures, does not guarantee us that it (particle B) has already collapsed, it may only collapse to this state at 3 o'clock as soon as it is measured.
So again, it appears that the claim that as soon as one of the entangled particles is measured the other one at the same moment collapses as well, is a completely theoretical claim and cannot be tested in any practical way.
Miracles
A record that keeps saying "Fli Fli Fli" is a hidden variable, meaning that the information is already in it, especially if the other side also has such a record.
Hidden variables are not allowed.
Shmulik
Who wrote: "What's more, he wrote exactly the absolute consensus on the subject"?
Let's close the next corner:
1. Is there a consensus that information does not pass between entangled particles? (Yes No).
2. Is there a mathematical proof that information does not pass between entangled particles? (Yes No).
Answer only that, because that's all I asked. Not about whether it is possible to send information through interleaving.
Israel
I got you.
Put a record on each side that keeps saying 'Fly Fly Fly……'.
For my part, let there be a photodiode that every time a photon arrives (interlaced or not) - and it activates a circuit that says 'Pelli'.
What I'm basically saying is that entangled particles don't convey any new information.
Israel,
It's really not just what you wrote, you didn't answer me. Where did I write that there is a full consensus on the subject? Answer me and then I will answer you, disappointing answers because I am not from the field but at most I know how to quote others. I wrote it in advance.
Regarding the links, you wrote that you saw Susskind's lectures on quantum mechanics. It's different and that's why I suggested you look. If you've already seen it, good for you. I wrote, without seeing, that he will not address what you are asking because it is not his person and he probably understands more than us what is his person and therefore I do not understand why you again pointed to the fact that he is not talking about the passage of "information" between the particles. Why should he talk?
Miracles
If I'm in the next room and yell at you "I measured" before you measured, do you have any reason not to believe me?
You miss the limiting conditions.
you cant:
1. Place the coins, in both rooms, always on the 'Pelli'.
2. Place the coins, in both rooms, always on the 'Pelli'.
3. Place the coins, in both rooms, always on the 'Pelli'.
You are only allowed to:
Watch your mechanism and act according to the instructions you will receive from it.
The mechanism can be:
1. Voodoo dolls.
2. A telephone line or any other means of transmitting information.
3. Tarot cards.
4. Tefillin.
5. Intertwined particles.
6. The US Constitution.
7. Books on weaving.
8. Books about poetry.
And again and again, means that do not include interwoven particles or means of communication.
Claim: Only through mechanisms 2 and 5 you can win the prize.
Shmulik
not responding!
Staam ..
1. Is there a consensus that information does not pass between entangled particles?
2. Is there a mathematical proof that information does not pass between entangled particles?
Answer only that, because that's all I asked. Not about whether it is possible to send information through interleaving.
Israel
1. I place the coins, in both rooms, always on 'Pelli'.
2. I place the coins, in both rooms, always on 'Pelli'.
3. I place the coins, in both rooms, always on 'Pelli'.
what am I missing?
Israel,
What did I write about repeatedly that there is a consensus??? On the fact that there is no passage of classical information. We won't be able to make a phone call with a braid.
What did I write about repeatedly that there is no consensus??? What exactly is going on there?
These two sayings live very well with each other. We know what is definitely not happening but we don't know how to explain what is happening.
I do not claim that I do not agree with the first statement and I do not claim that I convinced you to agree with the first statement but that is what I said.
I claim that I backed up my claim that I don't know what's going on by bringing up Maldesina and Susskind's cool suspension and even wrote that I'm not sure it's valid for this, a kind of interweaving, but that theoretically, if it's valid, it explains what's going on and it doesn't need your coins.
So why are you accusing me I claimed there was a consensus????
Additionally
I quit because you weren't willing to explain, other than in telegraphic form, your experiment. Nissim also doesn't understand what you want to say with the coins. I'm in good company.
The last professor you quoted didn't say anything about information transfer either. He is neutral about it at best (because you can still ask what was the trigger for the worlds to split) and the other names you think understand something have also written to you about the unacceptable sense you make of the word information.
In any case, when you react, and you will react, remember: I'm sure we don't know what's going on there exactly. There is no consensus, but we know that classical information does not pass.
And you quoted me about the coins (when I still thought I understood what you were trying to say), in my opinion you didn't quote me correctly or you didn't add that I also wrote that this is a reasonable assumption when it comes to coins, but I don't commit. I agreed to move on in order to move forward and not get stuck.
And remember, when you react, and you will react, remember: I'm sure we don't know what's going on there exactly. That's why I brought two different links. There is no consensus, but we know that classical information does not pass. You promise not to say more on my behalf that I think there is a full consensus on this subject of interweaving?????????
rival,
I went to bed and it seems to have worked out. I'm just making sure you went through that too
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/No-communication_theorem#Informal_overview
rival
From what little I understand - it's exactly like this: until you check, it doesn't make any sense to say that the wave function has collapsed. This means that there is no way to know that a measurement was made on the other side.
Miracles
The coins may be confusing because you think they should be tossed. You don't, you can just place them on the table in any way you choose, or even write on a piece of wood or paper.
You have two rooms, each with a coin and video cameras that record the entire event.
If you manage to arrange the coin in one of the rooms so that it shows the same side as the coin in the other room 30 times in a row - you will win 5 million dollars.
Questions:
1. Will you be able to do this without a communication channel transmitting information between the rooms?
2. Will you be able to do this through a communication channel that transmits information between the rooms?
3. Can you do this using entangled particles?
Yes or No?
rival
You can tell who caused the crash if you have synchronized clocks near the particles.
If particle A is measured at hour 1 and particle B at hour 3 and both measurers know this, then at hour 2 the measurer of particle A already knows the state of the two particles, and the measurer of B knows that there is already a state over which he no longer has any influence, but he does not know what it is .
Therefore particle A caused the collapse, not B.
Note that there is no "transmission" between the particles here - the wave function common to both (and other particles if they are intertwined with them, because many particles can be intertwined together) collapsed throughout the universe in zero time.
Thanks to the tortured,
That is, from your answers, I understand that it is not possible to practically test the claim that when one particle is measured, then the other particle that is intertwined with it also collapses at the exact same moment, this is only a theoretical claim that cannot be tested if it is true.
Because as soon as we measure the state of our particle it will appear to have collapsed, and we will not know in any way if it collapsed now following our measurement, or if it collapsed two hours ago following a measurement of the corresponding particle in another laboratory.
Israel
I couldn't understand the concept of the TV game. Can you please explain again?
A.P.
"This option is included in the sample on the 30 gloves. None of the participants in the experiment knows which side they are on until they are tested."
But even though they don't know, the condition of the gloves is already determined the moment they are separated and sent, isn't it? In the spaceship that led them to justice, didn't they already have the right or left situation even before the viewers discovered it? What is this, Copenhagen Red Core?
And this is in contrast to quantum particles that do not have a defined state until the moment of measurement. An electron on its way to Jupiter or the TV background is in a superposition of up and down. Only the measurement determines its condition, doesn't it?
Miracles
agree.
to the opponent
If you cannot determine whether the polarization of a particle is determined before you, then you cannot know that anyone else exists in reality besides you.
I mean, you may exist alone.
But to know that polarization is set before you, is to know that you are not alone. This information does not come only from the polarization.
If someone shows you that they knew your results without seeing them, then 3 options.
1. He determined the result.
2. You determined the outcome.
3. You and he determined the outcome.
How will you know that only he determined the result?
In the following interlacing experiment it was determined that all the photons that reach you will be polarized in the X direction by passing them through an X polarization filter.
You pass all the photons that reach you through a Y polarization filter and expect not to see any photons.
What do you think will be the result in the following situations:
1. You know that the photons that are supposed to arrive will be filtered in the X direction.
2. You know that the photons that are supposed to arrive will be filtered, but you don't know in which direction.
3. You know nothing.
Israel
Do you agree with me that the results of testing the polarization of two entangled photons are equivalent to flipping a coin?
Israel.
"If you can send gloves that only the test will show in what condition they are, and until then they can accept one side or the other - the prize committee will positively consider accepting them."
This option is included in the sample on the 30 gloves. None of the participants in the experiment knows which side they are on until they are tested.
"In my understanding, no particle has a defined quantum state before the measurement"
There is a difference between "no particle has a definite quantum state before the measurement" and "my knowledge about the particle does not contain definite information about it."
If you claim that both claims are valid, I will claim that the state of the particle requires its definition, under certain conditions, even when its state is unknown.
In relation to checking the superposition of coins. There are 4 possible modes. Side A, Side B, Neither Side A nor Side B, Side A and Side B.
Interlacing parallel to side A, side B options. What is the probability that the coins are in the specified state A or B?
2 out of 4. That is 50%. To be precise, then 2 out of 3, which is 66.6%, when you exclude the last possibility that expresses a contradiction.
"The experiment in which entangled photons are formed states that at the moment of their formation they are like a pair of gloves or the sides of a coin.
The result has been decided."
In my understanding, no particle has a defined quantum state before the measurement. This is required by the uncertainty principle.
Your gloves have a set position - right or left, no matter how much you turn them.
If you can send gloves that only the test will show in what condition they are, and until then they can accept one side or the other - the prize committee will positively consider accepting them.
Israel.
"When a coin falls, does it land on a tree or a field?"
When a coin falls it is neither this nor that. The question has no meaning.
Not so in weaving.
The experiment in which entangled photons are formed states that at the moment of their formation they are like a pair of gloves or the sides of a coin.
The result was decided.
To determine that an experiment creates entangled photons and this from the knowledge of the laws of physics, and to determine that they are not entangled until they are tested is meaningless. logical contradiction.
Regarding the article in the link, it will take some time for me to study it.
A.P.
This is the claim of quantum mechanics. It can be said that it has also been well demonstrated in countless experiments, so you can talk about it with quite a bit of certainty.
A classic experiment that demonstrates the claim - link from my name.
A classic example: when a coin falls, it lands on a tree or a field.
But in what state is he in when he is whirling in the air? Or a backgammon cube before it settled on a unique state out of 6 possible?
This means: in the superposition of all possible situations.
N.C.
Something else.
You write: "Your claim 1 is not proven."
It does not need to be proven, it is an axiomatic claim that Shmulik and I agreed on for the purpose of the discussion.
"Shmulik
please confirm:
In order for a coin in one room to fall 1000 times in a row on the same side as a coin in another room, there must be a physical mechanism that transmits information from room to room.'
After confirming:
Claim 1: In order for a pair of coins in two different rooms to always fall on the same side, there must be a mechanism that transmits information between them.
Now that clears up the logical fallacy?
And in the technical matter: do you disagree with claim 1?
Israel.
"An entangled particle is in the superposition of all possible states before the measurement, therefore it has no definite information before it"
Do not get.
Ambiguous wording.
Follow wording with exact meanings. Define a superposition of all possible states.
A.P.
"I do not accept this demand. I explained in my previous response why
For complaints, please come to the award committee. According to their definition, gloves are hidden variables in the sense that defined information is present even before the measurement (agree?), while an entangled particle is in the superposition of all possible states before the measurement and therefore does not have defined information before it (accepts?).
N.C.
If I was small before, now I have already been deleted.
Nothing to do with weaving. You could just as easily use Mickey Mouse pictures. If you can use them to win a prize, then it is the mechanism of the pictures that conveys the information.
rival
No.
rival
Good question! In my understanding, there is no way to know. You check in a certain axis and get a 'tree' or 'peli', with a 50% split.
AP, Israel, Nissim, Albenzo and anyone who is willing to answer -
To the best of your understanding, if I measured one of two entangled particles and found that it had collapsed into some state (no matter which, top spin or bottom spin, and no matter on which vertical horizontal axis) could I know if it collapsed at this moment following the measurement I made, or if it collapsed Even earlier because of a measurement made on the second corresponding particle?
Is there a way to know? Yes or No.
Israel
Your last comment sums up the idea nicely. But there is a logical fallacy in it 🙂 I will demonstrate this if I take claims 1, 2, 3 and replace the terms "reward" and "information". A logical argument with a structure very similar to yours is obtained:
1. You can't fly without wings
2. A flying balloon
3. Conclusion: The balloon has wings
what happened here? You have transferred the problem from a private case to a large and vague group that contains the private case. That is, instead of talking about weaving (or a balloon) you are talking about a mechanism that wins a prize (or things that fly). About a large and vague group you can say things that will sound good: you can't fly without wings, all Persians are stingy, all sheep are white, etc. But these things may be wrong in the individual case.
Your claim 1 is not proven. It sounds good because you gave classical examples (for example a cable) but it is impossible to prove something with many examples, and even worse, you cannot learn from classical examples about a quantum phenomenon. It's like I'll give examples of flying things with wings: bats, flies, parrots, etc., etc. Sounds good but doesn't advance me even a bit on the balloon thing.
"It is forbidden to use measures that include hidden variables"
I do not accept this requirement. I explained in my previous response why:
The interlacing creates a match at the same place, interlacing does not depend on distance, therefore there is no transfer of information.
The total polarization/spin should be preserved, and this happens at the place of the interweaving, and before starting the experiments to determine the spin/polarization.
It's simple arithmetic that shows that interweaving has nothing to do with distance and time.
If you assume that there is a transfer of information, the conclusion will be a speed that is greater than the speed of light.
For example, the speed of information between two entangled photons must be greater than the speed of light.
Interweaving information transfer, if it is not made of energy, contradicts the definition of physical information as made of energy.
In the case of physical information passing between photons, there will be a contradiction with respect to private relativity.
experience
Yes. The response is delayed. The last time this happened it took her two days to get free
Yes. Ral, your argument is logically identical to the following argument:
Your 1st claim = you can't fly without wings
Your 2nd claim = flying balloon
Your claim 3 = therefore the balloon has wings
What happens is that instead of referring to a particular case (interlacing particles or a balloon in my example) you refer to a general and vague group (in your case "a method to win a prize"). About a general and vague group you can make generalizations that sound good, for example: you can't fly without wings, all Persians are stingy, all sheep are white, etc. But these vague generalizations may be wrong in the individual case.
You did not prove your claim 1. It sounds good because you gave many examples from the classical world and in the classical world there is no interweaving, no half-alive and half-dead cats and no particles that appear out of nowhere. Everything is pleasant and familiar. But giving many classical examples of claim 1 does not make it true for the quantum world. It's like I will give many examples of flying things with wings: flies, storks, airplanes, etc. It doesn't advance me to understand if the balloon has wings.
Zahara
N.C. - minor. I don't understand where the logical fallacy is.
The idea was simple:
1. It is not possible to win a prize without a channel to transfer information between the rooms. getting?
2. There is a possibility to win a prize using the interlaced particle mechanism. getting?
3. Conclusion: The interlaced particle mechanism transmits information between the chambers. getting?
how? This is another question. Shmulik's wormholes or the wave function that exists throughout the universe and collapses into one, or whatever.
In the previous discussion you asked if I remember correctly what is the difference between the twins in the paradox. If you followed, my claim was that it was a matter of clock synchronization.
A.P.
With your permission, I will only refer to the end of your response because it seems to me that it sums up the entire response:
"Instead of an interweaving mechanism, I will place on Earth a "glove dispenser". (Both mechanisms are equal)
The distributor hands me a glove in a bag each time and another glove to the representative on Tzedek.
After 30 pairs have been distributed and the order of distribution is recorded, the representative who is right opens each bag according to the order.
I open the matching bag. To my surprise and to the eyes of the television, I manage to guess the result 30 times in a row.'
The following condition can be added to the conditions for winning the prize: it is forbidden to use measures that include hidden variables.
Since the gloves you described are undoubtedly hidden variables, meaning that the information was there all along and the measurement only revealed it, they are invalid for use.
If any of the commenters are interested in knowing the difference between hidden variables and quantum variables that only the measurement creates and do not exist before it, and how it was decided in the experiment in favor of the latter - a link from my name.
Shmulik
You will not slander. I spend half my time on the site reading your links. I also saw Susskind's lecture from your link as I already wrote to you, and it is the development of the idea of the article you brought a year ago: ER=EPR.
Still, there is no mathematical proof in it that there is no transition between the entangled particles, or I missed something.
Just to be sure, I posed the following question yesterday on Besher's blog:
no-communication theorems prohibit the transmission of information through interleaving, but
Is there a mathematical proof that information does not pass between the interwoven particles themselves? Is there a consensus in academia on this?
The answer I got:
Interweaving between states of two bodies is done when they are together in one place. Only then do they separate. In the case of maximal entanglement between two photons, the label of each of the photons is undefined. Only measuring the inscription of one photon defines the inscription of the other. Non-locality of this process is a cause of disagreement among researchers. I and a minority of other researchers advocate the interpretation of the multiple worlds. According to this interpretation, after measuring an inscription, two worlds are created with the two possible results. Thus in the physical universe that includes all worlds the inscription remains undefined both for the measured particle and for the particle intertwined with it.
Prof. Lev Weidman
School of Physics and Astronomy
Tel Aviv University
It seems as if there is no proof, no consensus and no plaster.
I am interested in a question that I have been trying to find an answer to for a long time and this is what is the first thing that was burned by a person please help me find out I have searched everywhere
faster than the speed of air.
That is, if at the moment of the measurement he can tell if the particles that are with him have now collapsed following his measurement, or collapsed even earlier, this means that any message and any text can be transmitted using this method!
Shmulik,
"The astronaut on the distant planet decides to measure, but how does he know if they measured here on Earth or not?" And even if he knew, all he sees is a random series of 1's and 0's.
You're completely missing the point, if he checks the particles and knows they collapsed already an hour ago (you yourself said he can tell this statistically clearly!) that means he knows for sure that the researcher on Earth already measured them an hour ago, otherwise they There were no courses an hour ago!
And since they agreed in advance even before the trip, that if the researcher on Earth wants to convey the message "yes" he will check the particles at 15:00 p.m., then if the researcher in the distant galaxy checks the particles at 16:00 p.m. and sees that they collapsed already an hour ago, he He immediately knows that the other researcher answered him "yes", and if he sees that they collapsed just now, that is at 16:00 PM (and it doesn't matter at all what values they collapsed to!!!!) then he knows that the answer is "no".
Obviously ?
rival,
I think not. The astronaut on the distant planet decides to measure, but how does he know if they measured here on Earth or not? And even if he knew, all he sees is a random series of 1's and 0's and he knows that with us, there is the opposite, but how can he send information using this effect? The discussion held here is whether there is synchronization between the two particles by some signal moving from one particle to another, at infinite speed, and not whether it is possible to talk on the phone
Shmulik,
So you are contradicting yourself, because earlier you said: "Since there is absolute statistical significance to the theory, we know that the particles did not collapse an hour ago."
That is, you yourself said that it is possible to tell statistically whether the particles we have collapsed now following the measurement, or collapsed an hour ago (following a measurement by another scientist located in a remote location).
rival,
No. The fact that he measures a certain value does not tell him that the other party also measured, but only what the result will be and since he does not control the result, he will not transmit information with the help of this effect.
Shmulik,
Even if it is only statistical, it still follows from the fact that information can be transmitted faster than the speed of light, because an astronaut who is on another planet in a galaxy a light year away from us can test a thousand particles that are interwoven into a laboratory on Earth, and if statistically he concludes that they collapsed an hour ago and not now, then He knew *immediately* that the scientist on Earth had given him the "yes" message.
rival,
I must again point out that it is almost a joke that I will write my opinion about your concrete question but if I have to speculate then I will say that when you do an entanglement experiment, you don't really do it on two particles but you do Monte Carlo, that is, you run the test over and over and then, since there Absolute statistical significance for the theory, we know that the particles did not collapse an hour ago. As for the real answer to your question, hopefully someone more knowledgeable than me will answer
Regarding what you wrote about quantum mechanics versus evolution, I think the answer is twofold. First of all, you can't argue with the fantastic predictions of quantum mechanics. Its adaptation to reality is wonderful. The other aspect is that there is really no perceived threat from quantum mechanics to God. Quantum mechanics does not contradict the claim that God created the world and is actually quite neutral in front of the Holy Scriptures. Then there is quantum mechanics. How many are your works, O God. No?
By the way, if I may add a side note (and I may), it's quite funny that even though the quantum theory sounds so crazy, the creationists have not a single word of criticism against it, but they attack the theory of evolution from all directions (just because it contradicts their belief).
Shmulik,
I read it is interesting.
"The transition of the result between one photon and another happens instantly regardless of the distance between the two photons"
According to what you told me earlier, if I measure one of the two entangled particles and see that it is, for example, in a higher spin state, I have no way of knowing whether it collapsed at this moment due to the measurement I made, or whether it collapsed already an hour ago following a measurement by another scientist on the other side of the world ( or on Mars) performed on the second particle.
do you agree ?
rival,
Look what else they managed to demonstrate
https://hwzone.co.il/פיזיקאים-ישראלים-מוכיחים-שזמן-אינו-מש/
rival,
I'm not sure. This follows from the theory and I'm pretty sure that the samples are synchronized, but the point is that the result is always the state and its inverse, so that even if you translate the first particle and wait a certain time until the second particle is sampled while ensuring that nothing else affects it, you will get the correct state.
Shmulik,
I understood, thank you.
That is, practically speaking it is not possible to know if really the moment we measured one particle then the other particle that was immediately interwoven with it also collapsed, we only guess (in theory) that it collapsed at the same moment.
I'm right ?
rival,
You measure one particle and find out its spin value after the measurement. The second particle does not tell you that it has collapsed but, if you measure it, you will find that the value is the opposite of that of the first particle. Since you do not control the output value, it is not clear to me what information you can transfer using this method
Continued…
That is to say, we will not be able to transfer to the other side information of the type of - whether the particle on our side collapsed on an upper spin or a lower spin, but we can determine *the time* when the particle collapsed. And it is of course possible to set shorter times, thousandths of a second instead of half an hour.
what do you think ?
"They explained to me" = "They explained to me"
Thanks for the answers, I'll delve into them later, I'm a bit busy at the moment, but in the meantime I've come up with a nice idea (I have almost no doubt that they've already thought of it) and I'd be happy to hear from you.
Take a look at the following article:
http://davidson.weizmann.ac.il/online/askexpert/physics/במכניקת-הקוואנטים-חלקיקים-שזורים-מושפעים-זה-מזה-ללא-תלות-במרחק-למה-אין-זה-נחשב-מידע-שעובר-מה
According to what I understand from a quick reading, as soon as we measured one particle, a collapse of the wave in the other particle immediately occurs. So what if we decide in advance that if we measure the particle in Israel between the hours of 14:00 and 14:30 the answer is "yes", and if we measure the particle between the hours of 14:31 and 15:00 the answer is "no". Won't the person who is near the second particle be able to tell if our answer is "yes" or "no" according to the time when the wave function collapsed?
And if we do this using 24 interwoven particles, we can actually transfer to the other side a binary sequence of zeros and ones that represent a number or letter, right?
I would love to hear what you think about this idea, and if not please explain why it won't work.
Thanks.
rival,
In advance, me talking about it is like giving people medical advice. Dangerous and not really effective, but, I don't think anyone doubts that there is a connection, on the contrary. From what I understand, Maldesina and Susskind offer a shaky hypothesis about the bond between two entangled particles (I have no idea if for any type of entanglement or just a specific type)
Here is an attempt to translate a slide by Maldesina on a topic I wrote in another thread. Pay attention to point 3.
1. Entanglement patterns are an important feature of quantum field theory
2. Interlacing patterns encoded in the geometry of time-space
3. A geometric connection can emerge from weaving itself, but the horizon will prevent the passage of information
4. The formalism of the tensor network (Chinese to me) seems to have a connection to Balk geometry (also Chinese) including the ability to connect distant areas
5. The last point is written in an alien
Rival, first of all there is no doubt that there is a connection between the particles, that is a given - they are intertwined particles, they were created together in a very specific way.
In my opinion, the problem is not the analogy, but the attempt to draw logical conclusions from it. This is exactly the "wrong parallel": an analogy that works in one feature does not require that there be a similarity in another feature as well.
There is some way that entangled particles behave like coins (in your example or Israel's, it doesn't matter).
Is it permissible to conclude that it is possible to buy with woven particles in the grocery store?
Is it permissible to conclude that entangled particles are in the shape of a flat circle?
No, it is not binding. Intertwined particles may or may not be in the shape of a flat circle, information may or may not pass, but the coin analogy does not require this. Many times inference through analogy is ultimately correct - but many times not!
Again I mention what Shmulik quoted from Feynman:
We have no business trying to explain the quantum world using analogies from the classical world
We have no business trying to explain the quantum world using analogies from the classical world
We have no business trying to explain the quantum world using analogies from the classical world
Israel Shapira.
Good and useful question, conclusion at the end.
"Arrange the coin in one of the rooms so that it shows the same side as the coin in the other room 30 times in a row."
Note:
A communication channel by itself is meaningless unless it is used.
I will change it to "transfer of information."
"1. Can you do this without a communication channel passing information between the rooms?"
Can you do this without transferring information between the rooms?
Answer:
1. No.
2. Yes.
"2. Would you be able to do this through a communication channel that transmits information between the rooms?"
Unnecessary question. Same as question 1.
3. Can you do this using entangled particles?
Answer: Yes.
—
Conclusions:
A. The conclusion referring to assumption 1.1 is that information was transferred between the rooms.
B. The conclusion referring to assumption 1.2 is that no information was transferred between the rooms.
Conclusion A eliminates the need for hidden variables.
Conclusion B requires a hidden variable in every interlacing, and therefore does not require the transfer of information.
What seems impossible according to B is correctly guessing 30 consecutive results without reason/information.
But there is no certainty here.
An identical arrangement is created in each braid.
The interweaving is like a rod on each side of which is glued a coin whose sides are opposite in relation to each other.
(The bar is equal to infinite transmission speed)
Each weave determines which side of the rod will be in each room. In the guessing room there will be an order that will reverse the result that the rod shows. (For the purpose of the example you gave)
The interweaving is a mechanism that creates a match in the same place!. Therefore there is no need to assume a transfer of information.
definition:
Information transfer is the transfer of matter or energy between two places at a finite speed.
If information was passed according to conclusion A, it was carried out at some speed.
But interweaving does not depend on distance.
Therefore the information has to move at an infinite speed.
According to the definition, it is not possible to transmit information at an infinite speed, so conclusion A must be rejected.
Conclusion B remains.
See how I will win $5 million:
Instead of an interweaving mechanism I will place on earth a "glove handout". (Both mechanisms are equal)
The distributor hands me a glove in a bag each time and another glove to the representative on Tzedek.
After 30 pairs have been distributed and the order of distribution is recorded, the representative who is right opens each bag according to the order.
I open the matching bag. To my surprise and in front of the TV, I manage to guess the result 30 times in a row.
Shmulik,
I haven't had a chance to watch the lecture yet, but on a principle level, isn't the example I gave a good analogy for entangled particles?
(Again, the experiment only works if the currency in Israel falls randomly, this method cannot be used to proactively transfer information from Israel to Australia)
rival,
And I told Israel about ideas in the field, but Israel is not interested in hearing what Susskind and Maldesina have to say on the subject
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=jZDt_j3wZ-Q
Israel,
I feel that my response was quite clear and explained exactly where the logical fallacy was.
"Wrong acceptance" and "assuming the requested" are private cases of logical fallacy. For those who don't know: I suggest (without condescension) to read these entries in Wikipedia and maybe also the related entries. I also gave examples of such failures, examples that are relevant to this site. The simple examples demonstrate where in your quotations there is "wrong acceptance" and "requested assumption".
I disappeared at the time because your comments felt too aggressive and I lost the desire to answer. I have no intention of expanding beyond that.
Israel,
In the example I gave, there is no transfer of information between the rooms, let's assume that this experiment only works if the coin is tossed in Israel randomly, that is, it is not possible to control the side on which it will fall.
I thought you would like this pattern 🙂
(When I have some time I will check what you suggested to read on Wikipedia)
Rival, it's a little more complex.
Do you know Paradox AP? If you read the wiki entry, you will see that according to Einstein, non-locality contradicts relativity, because information travels between particles faster than light.
Full disclosure - he did not use those words in the original article.
The point is that entanglement and non-locality do not contradict relativity, because it is impossible to send information through entanglement (what, Einstein didn't know that?).
What the company is trying to say is that what passes between the particles is not information, but that there is a "non-local correlation" (perhaps someone will finally explain how it exists without the transfer of information? Wormholes and black holes?)
By the way, my logical proof, if you can call it that, shows by way of elimination that information passes between the particles themselves. She doesn't even try to explain the weaving mechanism.
Neko doesn't know if you noticed, but at an early stage in the discussion we agreed that in order for a pair of coins in two different rooms to always fall on the same side, there must be a mechanism that transmits information between them.
2 in the morning in LA - Good night.
(And with Yafim and Boris of the Kolkhoz they didn't call it the APR paradox but the APR paradox).
After all, this is exactly how James Randi conducts experiments that try to test whether telepathy exists between people.
Everyone,
The analogy that Israel presents here seems to me so clear, simple and intuitive that I don't understand why you all have such a hard time understanding it:
Let's say we have two rooms, one in Israel and the other in Australia, in the room in Israel a coin is tossed a million times in a row (it falls randomly sometimes on a tree and sometimes on a straw) and surprisingly *always* as soon as it lands on one side - at that moment the coin in Australia shows the opposite side .
Doesn't this prove with almost absolute certainty that there is some connection between the currencies? Because if not, how does the currency in Australia always "know" to fall on the opposite side?
clean up
I didn't warm to you, suddenly you disappear.
I have no problem with criticism of my ideas.
Where is the logical fallacy?
Yes.Rael's logical move is a logical fallacy (full disclosure, Yes.Rael warmed to me a few weeks ago):
In one version it is a wrong interpretation. Here is an example of a wrong parallel:
1. The universe is complex
2. A watch is complex
3. Therefore the universe is like a clock - someone created it.
If you found an analogy between a clock and the universe, it does not mean that every feature of the clock can be attributed to the universe.
And here is Israel's version (exact quote):
"Only through the cable or the interwoven particles will you be able to win the prize. And the cable, as we mentioned, transmits neither water nor beer, but information. Therefore, logically, this is what the intertwined particles convey."
In another version, it's simply "assuming the desired":
1. If there is something complex, it must have a creator
2. The universe is complex
3. Therefore someone created the universe
The first claim is simply an assumption.
Here is Israel's version:
"1. In order for a pair of coins in two different rooms to always fall on the same side, there must be a mechanism that transmits information between them.
2. If we attach intertwined particles to coins, we can by measuring the particles make the coins fall on the same side.
3. Intertwined particles are a mechanism, and so are we, or a machine that will make the link between the particles and the Schrödinger coins.
4. Therefore from 1, the information passes through the interwoven particles."
Shmulik
We are the phantom of science.
Anonymous, r.fa?
Even I who do not understand physics (and usually admit it) know how to read about gravitational waves and understand that they are classical waves (!) that travel at the speed of light. How does it solve the issue, you the solutions
Anu, I just see your name and I'm already rolling with laughter..
I thought you would appear now as Regret - Bertha.
I spoke with Yuval yesterday, his remains are shrinking.
I know how braiding works, do I? As I mentioned, the proof is logical, like in algebra: reduction and summation.
You reduce and subtract all the common terms on both sides of the equation in the numerator and denominator, and what is left?
information.
Israel
Could it be that the information is carried on the gravitational waves?
What is their role in this whole process of interweaving?
Don't have miracles for me, Jackie.
Jackie always tortures me with poker puzzles and I torture him with calculus and physics puzzles. He always screamed that I didn't mention that friction is negligible, that the loss of fuel mass is not important and other nonsense, instead of looking at the essence: momentum, energy, speed.
I already said that in all 3 possibilities the answer can be positive, and this also includes the possibility that we simply put the coin 30 times on a tree, we don't even need photons.
Do you want us to add restrictions? For the instructor to announce that there must not be hidden information in the particles, that there must not be a pre-coordinated arrangement, that every instruction must come only from the particles, and whatever you choose? break up
In the end you will reach the same basic set-up: only by using the cable or the interwoven particles will you be able to win the prize.
And the cable, as we mentioned, transmits neither water nor beer, but information.
And so, logically, this is what the entangled particles convey.
This is not a mathematical proof and maybe not a proof at all, but logically it works well I believe.
If you or anyone has substantive, non-technical comments, I would be very happy to receive a review.
Essential comments can be like Albanzo's comment at the time that there are 4 bell states.
I still don't understand what the point is about the coins, they are a translation of the measurement result, so why do we need them and Israel continues to send telegrams instead of describing, step by step, like a three-year-old child (I took two years off my previous request) exactly what he wants, I can't help .
Miracles, good luck 🙂
Israel
In my understanding, the fact that I know I received a '+' and therefore the other side necessarily has a '-' is not a transfer of information.
Israel
Why not put a 'tree' every time a photon arrives? Doesn't solve the problem?
Well, what's the story?
With the cable you can always coordinate and put the coins on the same side as in the other room, right?
With the interlaced particles, you measured yours, you know what's on the other side, don't you? Place yours accordingly.
The money is in the bank.
Israel.
I retired I could not understand, what to do, and you were not willing to provide a more detailed description.
Good luck
We will wait for A.P. And Shmolik, they will bring us support...
Israel
I don't know a way to make money.
Miracles
Mechanism - me (and you too if you volunteer...)
Try to answer the problem of the TV show, it is quite focused and makes it easier to understand the concept.
Hint: in all 3 options the answer can be positive, but in 3 there is a fundamental difference.
Israel
You wrote "2. If we attach intertwined particles to coins, we can, by measuring the particles, make the coins fall on the same side."
Right here, in my opinion, she is wrong. You need such a mechanism: on side A you say "If the particle is measured in the '+' position then the coin will be 'wood', and if the particle is measured in the '-' position then the coin will be 'Pel'." And on the B side you say the opposite.
Where did the information go?
Shmulik
See the problem definition below.
No more philosophy, 5 million dollars..
A.P.
Instead of going into endless definitions and proofs, I'd appreciate it if you could focus on the hypothetical TV show I suggested.
You have two rooms, each with a coin and video cameras that record the entire event.
If you manage to arrange the coin in one of the rooms so that it shows the same side as the coin in the other room 30 times in a row - you will win 5 million dollars.
Questions:
1. Will you be able to do this without a communication channel transmitting information between the rooms?
2. Will you be able to do this through a communication channel that transmits information between the rooms?
3. Can you do this using entangled particles?
Yes or No?
Israel.
"If I take a pair of gloves and give you the right one, I give you the following information: I have the left one."
The information was always there. To the left side there is a right side and vice versa. No information was transmitted.
Example, suppose you pass the right glove to a child who doesn't know what gloves are. He didn't know there was a left glove.
Example, suppose you burn your right glove. It shows that I can't claim that you gave me information that you have the left one.
"It has been proven, theoretically and experimentally, that they do not exist". I assumed they existed.
Read my previous response slowly:
"Assumption 2 is correct". This is one sentence that the following is not related to. The physical mechanism you suggested is feasible. That's what I mean.
-
I created the definition for passing information for the purpose of clarifying the confusion in the discussions here.
A thing moves if it moves from place to place. If a thing "moves" at infinite speed, it is not "passing", it is in at least two places at the same time.
What passes physically is matter or energy. That is why matter and energy appear in the definition.
If a thing is not physical, but moves at a finite speed, it fits the definition of transition, but not physical.
Suppose a photon hits the target and two photons are emitted in opposite directions with lower energy and the same polarization. This is an example that shows you that interweaving is not related to information transfer.
Israel,
Have you seen YouTube? This is how the elders discuss weaving, what to do? You don't invent what an interweaving is, what information is, what particles are, build theories on them and expect reality to follow.
information
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Physical_information#Physical_information_and_entropy
או
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Quantum_information#Quantum_information_theory
Does it agree with your definition of information?
I now have a problem because I find that I do not understand what you want to do with the coins and particles but I understand that you will explain it as if you were sending a telegraph. A word and a period and I will continue not to understand. Are you able to give a clear explanation of your experiment?
You have (say) 6 coins in two rooms and three pairs of interlaced particles. You measured one particle in chamber 1 and decided Peli. What's going on in the other room? Peli too? If you got the opposite result, would you set a tree? If that's the case, Sue Wat? What is the purpose of the coins?
As mentioned, you will explain like a 5-year-old child and I will continue to follow despite my disbelief that it will lead to something, among other things, because you continue to insist on logical proof as one that requires reality and I explain to you that there is no such thing. Einstein also had to be tested in a solar eclipse. You know how many physicists have found logical proofs over the years for all sorts of things only to find that reality decided not to flow with them?
A.P.
If I take a pair of gloves and give you the right one, I give you the following information: I have the left one.
But the gloves, like the back-to-back coins, are hidden variables. It has been proven, theoretically and experimentally, that they do not exist.
You write:
"Assumption 2 is correct.
Intertwined particles are not necessarily a mechanism that transmits information.'
That was not the assumption, the assumption was that they were a physical mechanism.
Do they not? Do you know anything that is not a physical mechanism?
You can refer to metaphysics, a higher power and more, but that is outside the scope of the current discussion.
"Conclusion 4 which is based on 1 is incorrect. The information does not necessarily pass. He is there all the time.'
You can argue about that. According to the quants, it did not exist, the measurement created it.
"Definition for passing information:
The transfer of information is the transfer of matter or energy between two places at a finite speed.'
It is difficult for me, even very difficult, to accept this definition. Can I have an explanatory link?
"Knowledge transferred within a finite time demonstrates information transfer. Knowledge that passed at once, in zero time, is not a transfer of information.'
Likewise, although I see the context as a combination of private relativity and the violation of causality.
Shmulik
Is there any connection between YouTube and the discussion?
The definition of information was discussed here already years ago. "Relationship between signifier and signified" and more.
I prefer the simple description: bits of one and zero, through which any desired information can be transmitted. But if you or someone has a particularly successful definition, I'd love to hear it.
And I can write to you with the same degree of inexplicable seriousness: honestly, it does work.
You write: "Who said you can do what you wrote? How do you know that you can attach an entangled particle to a classical system (a coin) and it will not actually perform a measurement on your particle and destroy the entanglement?'
What is the problem? I, a mechanism, perform the measurement, find what the spin or polarization is, and arrange the coin accordingly.
(And don't tell Israel that he's not a mechanism. Maybe you're not, I am. Ask my wife).
Haim F, you are even more right than you think, if you read Shmulik's link on the connection between interweaving and hydrodynamics.
Indeed, it is possible to send information from a certain source that will direct the two coins to fall on the same side.
Does it change anything? No. The two currencies are still connected by a channel for the transmission of information - a cable in the example I gave, a radio, mail boxes, stupid drums, or runners in brown and fast tracks.
What's more, we still haven't touched the other side of non-locality, zero-time effect or infinite speed. This will be the case even if both receive "instruction" (=information) from a third source.
But mate, I think you're missing the point. The proof is not technical, it is logical.
Remember the experiment performed live on television. There is no room for philosophy here, it is about millions of dollars.
Will you be able to arrange the coins on the same side without a channel for transmitting information? your money
And I ask: will you be able to do this using interwoven particles without any communication channel?
Yes or No?
Israel.
1. Not necessarily.
For example, 2 coins that are next to each other on the line that separates the rooms, and a machine separates them in such a way that they fall on the same side. There is no transfer of information.
This is the same case as a pair of gloves that were separated, which you wrote "carries information".
There is a difference between "carrying information" and "passing information". A pair of gloves does not convey information. she exists
right side and left side. She is not pregnant. The gloves carry information, but do not transmit it. The subject does not necessarily convey information.
Therefore assumption 1 is not true.
Assumption 2 is correct.
Entangled particles are not necessarily a mechanism that transmits information. It is possible otherwise, as in the case of the gloves that carry information.
Therefore assumption 3 is not true.
Conclusion 4 which is based on 1 is incorrect. The information does not necessarily pass. He is there all the time.
-
It is tempting to think that there is a transfer of information in the case of the cities. but information was not transferred.
Once they decided to go to work at sunrise. Information passed (sunrise time) between the sun and each employee. This information did not pass from one person to another.
When two people decide to travel in 1000 cities according to the results of the interweaving, they do not determine the order of the trip. The order does not pass from one to another. The interweaving determines for them. They just agree on the outcome. It's like flipping a coin 1000 times and then agreeing with the result.
There are 2 different options for arranging a trip between the cities. The two travelers agreed to accept whatever order the interweaving chose.
The interlacing creates information, but does not transmit it. From the point of view of the travelers, it seems as if information is passing, but from the point of view of an onlooker, no information is passing. The information is the same.
Definition for passing information:
Information transfer is the transfer of matter or energy between two places at a finite speed.
For example, suppose two people decide to meet during a lunar eclipse, not knowing when it will happen.
When the eclipse happens, they do not exchange information among themselves, but the time of the eclipse (the information) is known to each of them separately.
Another example, suppose a device was invented that could transfer knowledge from books directly to a person's mind.
Knowledge transferred within a finite time demonstrates information transfer. Knowledge that passed at once, in zero time, is not a transfer of information.
To Israel
Your claim number 1 is not necessary.
"There must be a mechanism that transfers information between them" - this is only a possibility. not necessary.
Another possibility is that they both receive "instruction" (= information) from a third source. Then there is no information transfer between them. They don't even "know" about each other's existence.
(There is another interesting possibility that occurs to me, and I will not mention it here)
Although in the example you gave you define the conditions, and there is no third source. But, ultimately, you are seeking to make an analogy to the quantum world. In this case the analogy must be perfect. And it's hard.
Israel,
And one last thing. Can you please define for me what information is?
Israel,
A few more things. First of all, you cannot prove anything in nature by logical proof. You can come to the conclusion that nature should work in a certain way but then, you have to perform an experiment to prove it.
Second thing, regarding your point 2. Who said you can do what you wrote? How do you know that you can attach an entangled particle to a classical system (a coin) and it will not actually perform a measurement on your particle and destroy the entanglement?
Israel,
Honestly, it doesn't work.
There was once an episode of The Simpsons where Homer and Marge see the inside of a robot (flashing lights and whatnot) and then Marge says: You see Homer, the lights and electronics that it has but your robot doesn't, is why the robot you built didn't work.
Look, here's Juan Maldesina talking about weaving.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=W5vbJQDmQ5o
I did not understand a word of the lecture and this is to be expected because I am not from the field and the field is alive, bustling and working on the subject. Do you see any similarity between the discussion here and the discussion he is having? It's not serious. It's just like I'll argue about rules without my friends with the gun bullets. It's nice but not worth much, sorry. Maybe that's why I didn't make money when I tried to persuade people to accept me as a lawyer and he did (and a lot)? You are welcome to mock me, when I wonder about the existence of a mechanism, but then you are guilty of quoting from Feynman that you yourself brought. The requirement for a mechanism is the arrogance that Feynman spoke of. Maybe there is and maybe there isn't, I have no idea but it is absolutely clear that there is a consensus that classical information does not pass between the particles and to date, as far as I know, no one has been able to demonstrate the opposite.
A.P.
If people manage to meet in the same city 1000 times in a row by measuring the spin of intertwined electrons - my head says that the electrons carry information.
It can be through hidden variables as an APR claim or in any other form, but there must still be a transfer of information between the electrons.
Come on.
Maybe there is no mechanism, maybe the reason for the correlation between quantum particles is little green sprites.
It doesn't really matter because as I mentioned at the beginning, the proof is logical.
And it goes like this:
1. In order for a pair of coins in two different rooms to always fall on the same side, there must be a mechanism that transmits information between them.
2. If we attach intertwined particles to coins, we can by measuring the particles make the coins fall on the same side.
3. Intertwined particles are a mechanism, and so are we, or a machine that will make the link between the particles and the Schrödinger coins.
4. Therefore from 1, the information passes through the interlaced particles.
It is true that the trick also works with a pair of gloves that has been separated, hidden variables.
But even a pair of gloves that has been separated carries information with it, and the quantum state of a particle is determined only with the measurement.
Therefore, the conclusion is that in the mechanism of the intertwined particles, the information passes between them.
how? Not relevant to the proof. Maybe the fifth dimension of miracles, maybe Eno's boss, maybe the eddies in the link brought by Shmulik.
Does it contradict relativity? No. The contradiction was if it was possible to send information through interweaving. this is not happening.
But does this put relativity to a severe physical test? My opinion is yes.
Israel Shapira.
You are talking about a thousand tosses on the same side, the chance of them lying is extremely small.
This has nothing to do with interweaving but with the chance that something will happen.
In physics, there is no interweaving experiment whose result was 1000 consecutive times of the same spin direction. But quantum physics does not rule out such a result.
Any result, no matter how small, whose probability is greater than zero, is possible, because in quantum physics there is no need for there to always be a cause.
Every result requires a cause (not necessarily physical), assuming that causality is a metaphysical logical principle according to which "nothing exists from nothing", that "nothing is not", that there can be no result without a cause. (Not to be confused with the principle of causality
the philosophical).
There are physicists who reject this principle. In fact most physicists.
The case is the absence of a cause. that the physicists accept that it exists, that its existence is self-evident. But the absence of a cause is the absence of a cause is the absence of non-existence - therefore the case does not exist.
If 1000 consecutive identical coin tosses are received in the experiment, there is no problem for them - it happened by chance, they will say, and the chance does not need a reason.
The universe was created out of nothing, they will say, and if not out of nothing, then by chance countless universes were created. These two claims are fundamentally identical and contradictory.
A true physicist will argue that a thousand identical assumptions require a cause. Every casting result requires a reason.
But when you only talk about probabilities, you don't talk about reasons, and when you don't talk about reasons, you don't understand what you're talking about.
-
PS: Apparently there is a transfer of information here, what do you think?
A and B decide to meet in Tel Aviv or Jerusalem. In TAA if the spin is in the upward direction and in Jerusalem if the opposite.
50% chance without interweaving to meet vs. 100% chance to meet with interweaving.
Repeating this experiment with 1000 pairs of cities would give a 1 in 2 chance to the power of 1000 of missing all meetings compared to 100% certainty.
Israel,
Something else. You control the terms you write. You have an image in your mind associated with a physical mechanism but I have no idea what you mean by a physical mechanism. Sorry. Maybe there is no mechanism. Maybe all there is is just the particles. I do not know.
Israel,
Let's say this is what Maldesina and Susskind described. move forward
wrong.
I am not asking if information passes between the coins, why not between the particles?
If 1000 pairs of entwined particles are not a physical mechanism - then what mechanism are they? metaphysical? Supernatural? divine? dreamlike? enchanted?
Good night.
Israel,
Regarding the first paragraph, I already wrote that this is a reasonable assumption, but, in the interpretation, there is no preventing it from happening by chance.
Regarding the second part of your statement. Do not know. It has already been explained to you that what you call a particle is not just a small ball. The rules are completely different. I also don't know what a physical mechanism is, a thread that connects them. of course not. They are intertwined, why isn't that enough?
Your explanation is progressing exactly the way I thought it would progress. Then you will ask: Well, if information passes between the coins, why not between the particles?
You often quote Feynman. Feynman, in his series of 7 wonderful lectures (the second or third) tells us that we have no business trying to explain the quantum world using analogies from the classical world, but, that's exactly what you're trying to do and therefore risk drawing wrong conclusions (unless I'm mistaken and that's not where you're aiming) And so I hope you understand why I doubt this whole line of explanation.
I think there really isn't a consensus about what exactly happens in entanglement, so, for example, Maldesina and Susskind propose a mechanism that explains entanglement and the subject is investigated but there is absolute consensus that classical information does not pass between the entangled particles
Shmulik
please confirm:
In order for a coin in one room to fall 1000 times in a row on the same side as a coin in another room, there must be a physical mechanism that transmits information from room to room.
And please confirm:
1000 pairs of entangled particles is a physical mechanism.
Israel,
move forward It's a shame that I'll just write a text that will create side arguments
became obsolete.
Where were we?
You are in a TV studio in two separate rooms, each of you has a coin and a connecting cable between the rooms. The facilitator asks you to arrange the coins so that they fall on the same side 20 times. Everything is broadcast live.
You do it and.. the audience and the viewers at home snort with contempt. what's the trick After all, it is clear that the cable transmits the information of the side on which the coin fell from room to room.
But here's the twist: the moderator cuts the cable and asks you to repeat the trick.
If you succeed, Randy will immediately write a check for a million dollars, and you will receive another hundred in royalties.
Millions of real dollars, not virtual, not in the fifth dimension, not in superposition with negative dollars.
Will this convince you that the cable is the one that transmits the information?
Shmulik bar..
I'm going to put the boy to sleep, but in the meantime, maybe you can write in which direction you think it's going?
Nissim Hadar
What particle are you talking about?
From the definition of the experiment:
There is no need to remind me that quantum particles are not coins, to talk about one particle being in two places at the same time (miracles), the almighty creator who links them (we are the kind), non-local correlation, quantum philosophy, information definition, a collapsing wave function, or the moon that is not It exists if you don't look at it.
Simply coins, rooms, wood or wood, cable, and information. that's it.
Israel and miracles,
When it comes to coins, if I see an experiment in which a thousand times coins will fall in a synchronized manner, I will assume that there is a transfer of information when I use the term information as it is used in everyday life.
We have been at this point several times already and so far, there has never been a disagreement. I understand where this is going, but I will let Israel continue at its own pace and I will not advance the discussion myself.
Israel Shapira
I don't accept your assumption. There's something going on here that I don't understand, but I don't conclude that there is necessarily a transfer of information. Maybe the coins touch a fifth dimension that we don't usually feel?
My understanding is that information does not pass between the points because the information in this case is "internal" to the particle. That is - you and I receive information from the particle, and no information passes between you and me.
OK, moving forward.
You can skip all the intermediate steps and go straight to the following discount:
In order for a coin in one room to fall 1000 times in a row on the same side as a coin in another room, there must be a physical mechanism that transmits information from room to room.
(This is on the assumption that we give up the Wookie reservation, that is, that we have fallen into a unique sequence. It happens.).
Get the discount?
Israel,
No regrets Bertha. When I buy an apartment, I use my friend's help, chew the bullet and when I come to litigate about interweaving, I need the expert. I admit in advance that I have no original thought to contribute to the discussion. I don't have the appropriate knowledge. When we get to the interweaving, I'm afraid it won't matter what you say to me, I won't forget what I've already heard over and over again, and not just here: I shouldn't think of an electron as a small ball. Information has a precise definition...
Here is an example of what lack of knowledge does
http://www.upi.com/Science_News/2016/03/04/German-scientists-successfully-teleport-an-object/8341457118688/?ref=yfp
The article claims that they conveyed classical information through interweaving. I really can't understand whether there is a theoretical innovation or technological progress here. Be enthusiastic about the article or shrug your shoulders and wait for Google or Intel to make money from it
Concretely, I really did not understand what you wrote in the last post, especially in the last three paragraphs. Anyway, by and large, I understood the three coin options (ie your penultimate post). move forward
Shmulik
Although it is not essential, the problem with your new presentation is this: you write: In 3, information that we know was passed.
Now pay attention: let's say you want to convey the message to Nissim in the other room: put 2 teaspoons of sugar in my coffee.
2 in binary is 10. You can assign it 1 and 0, but that doesn't mean which positions your coin fell on.
Therefore, in order for there to be a match between the states of the coins in both rooms, you must be able to control the state of the currency in yours.
Note that you can send information in this way - you will get what you asked for, 2 teaspoons of sugar - and that's without defining at all what information is!
So before you sign, when you ask the lawyer for the exact scientific definition of what it is 2, what is sugar, what is coffee, what is shmulik and what is nisim - could you also ask him what is the definition of regret - barta?
Ready to move forward?
rival.
In a super nova there is radiation of such intensity that it can disintegrate atomic nuclei and uranium into lighter elements.
There is another possibility that the uranium nucleus will absorb gamma radiation and move to a higher energy state. And there is a possibility that the uranium nucleus will collide with the nucleus of another element and move to a higher energy state. In a destabilized state radioactive decay can occur more quickly.
The amount of lead will increase at a faster rate compared to decomposition at STP.
All uranium in nature originates from a supernova, but the lead and uranium will not stay together because of the huge explosion. Therefore, the lead that is found together with uranium originates from lead that was created after the super nova. Therefore the dating is correct (it does not depend on the lead created in the supernova).
The effect of an energetic photon absorbed by the nucleus on the radioactivity is an assumption that has not been tested experimentally. This is a hypothesis. That's why the whole issue is speculative from the beginning and you can't draw real conclusions based on it, and as mentioned above, it doesn't change the result either.
rival
1. Decomposition does not depend on temperature. Albenzo also already explained to you that the article does not support this at all.
2. Even so, the fact that uranium decays in plasma does not affect the accuracy of the radiometric clock at all. The mechanism of a radiometric clock requires a solid state, so that there is no migration of the atoms, in both directions.
Do you agree with me?
Israel,
Regarding the articles: Google search, some Facebook groups that update my feed with interesting articles. Standard, isn't it?
Here is my problem with the current discussion. I can't really give you effective feedback on the subject, because I don't understand it enough. In quantum mechanics, there is a very precise definition of the concept of information, what a particle is (as you have probably read here, a particle is not a small sphere but a peak of a field...) This may not be critical for this stage of the discussion, we are only dealing with coins, but it will be critical soon. When we move to Thachels, it will not be possible to talk about information in its everyday meaning as you do now. It will not be possible to cast from coins to trivially entangled electrons. Right?
One of my good friends is a lawyer (one of those who eat gun bullets for breakfast). Sometimes my friends and I argue about an article in the newspaper that talks about one or another law, without it, and then when it comes (to poker. Meanwhile Hold'em and maybe someday Omaha), we find out that we were talking nonsense. We talked nonsense because we didn't know all the facts, the small details, the latest ruling, the theory, the ugly practice, etc. and therefore every time there is a discussion like this without him, I have a huge doubt about everything that was said. I am not ready to accept any conclusion even if I fail to contradict what was said, as long as my lawyer does not give his stamp that everything is in order. They will answer, there is no peer review by a professional, I am always in doubt. I am almost always right in my skepticism in these cases.
After writing all this, regarding coins, what you wrote sounds reasonable to me. The difference between 2 and 3 is that in 3 information that we know was passed and in 2 information unknown to us was passed. Isn't it clearer to write this way?
Miracles,
"In my understanding, only in the solid state are the atoms relatively fixed and therefore a radiometric clock can be built"
If your assessment is correct then there is no problem, I need to check the article again but the commenter who brought the same article insisted that experiments showed that the radiometric clock also works in the plasma state, and at a higher speed than usual.
So that's the question, who is right, you or him.
rival
In nature, uranium is not found in an alloy, but in a compound. In any case, as far as I understand, only in the solid state are the atoms relatively fixed and therefore it is possible to "build" a radiometric clock. What is important is that there is an event from which time can be measured. Lava solidification, or death, for example.
Miracles,
At no point have I doubted the reliability of radiometric dating, but sometimes I hear claims that I would like to know the answers to.
A claim was heard here (with a link to an article that is Chinese for me, it is not related to a lack of integrity) according to which at a plasma temperature that exists for example in a supernova, materials can undergo a decay process much faster than usual. Albanzo said that even if this really happened, by the time material A and material B reach the earth and become solid rock there, they will be separated from each other and the radiometric clock will be reset.
So right now I would like to understand what are the processes that separate the original material (say uranium) and the material it decayed into (lead) because if I look at a metallic alloy for example, I see that the materials of which it is composed remain mixed together uniformly even after the process of cooling from a liquid state to a solid state .
rival
Do you now accept that radiometric dating is reliable enough?
anonymous
Did you say anything?
Shmulik,
Thank you for what you wrote, I really appreciate it, the truth is that in the current round of conversations I didn't actually feel much or unusual aggression on his part (everything is relative as Einstein said) but in general it really bothers me to see his a lot of aggression towards other commenters here. His messages are interwoven too many times with phrases like "dishonesty", "lousy liar", "I'm sick", "I want to throw up", "zero" and other unpleasant phrases that only cloud the atmosphere and discussions here and it's a shame that he doesn't understand this.
It's a real shame that people don't know how to hold a cultural discussion, and yes, it's possible even if the other side is talking nonsense and if you don't agree with them.
Hi Shmulik
Cool article. Where do you find all those articles?
On the other hand, more than two years have already passed since the study, and we have not heard of a breakthrough on the relationship between hydrodynamics and quantum (remember Maxwell?) We will wait to see what the developments are in the near future.
Let's try to see if and where we have progressed. We have not received proof that information does not pass between entangled particles, despite the claim that there is a mathematical proof for this, and apparently we will not receive either. I don't believe it exists, otherwise I wouldn't have gotten the same answers I got to the question I posed that claims there is no agreement in the academy on the transfer of information, some of them from well-known and well-known professors.
Let's first see what the difference is between "information can be sent" and "information has passed".
If you have coins in two unrelated rooms, throwing a coin in one room will not affect the coin in the other room. agree?
If, on the other hand, a cable connects the rooms, you can arrange for the two coins to always fall on the same side. agree?
The cable does not transfer water nor beer, but information. agree?
But can we send information through the same cable? Can we send bits of 1 or 0?
It depends on the arrangement of the experiment. If we can determine what the first one fell on, a tree or a pellet, and send the same known information to the second room, then the experimenter in the other room will be able to use the same bits of wood or pellet, one or zero, to get any information from us that we want. agree?
But what if we can't determine what the coin landed on in the first room? What if it fell randomly on a tree or a piece of paper like the way coins do, and the same information of a tree or piece of paper unknown in advance passed through the cable to the experimenter in the other room and all he could do was put the second coin on the same side as the first? Can we send any information this way?
My answer is negative. If you see any possibility of sending information this way, find out.
We see that there are therefore 3 situations:
1. There is no cable that transmits information - the coins fall randomly without any correlation between them.
2. The cable transmits the information between the currencies, but the information is not known in advance and is beyond our control - the information has passed and the currencies are correlated, but it is not possible to send all the information this way.
3. The information is given to our control and is known to us - any information can be transferred in this way.
The difference between 2 and 3 is the difference between "passed information" and "information can be sent".
so far accept? If not, state where.
There is no need to remind me that quantum particles are not coins, to talk about one particle being in two places at the same time (miracles), the almighty creator who links them (we are the kind), non-local correlation, quantum philosophy, information definition, a collapsing wave function, or the moon that is not It exists if you don't look at it.
Simply coins, rooms, wood or wood, cable, and information. that's it.
The fact that something is going on between them... is the point, miracles.
You can call it information or whatever you want, but you can't ignore the fact that they are connected.
How can a particle split and travel a distance (even a considerable one) in space?
How does this information move from place to place?
Capish?
Shmulik
The same "link" from Wikipedia that my opponent wanted me to answer - links to another article. In the other article it is written explicitly
"We observed the bound-state β-decay of fully ionized 187Re nuclei circulating in a storage ring. With two independent methods the time dependent growth of hydrogenlike 187Os ions has been measured and a half-life of 32.9+/-2.0 yr for bare 187Re nuclei could be determined, to be compared with 42 Gyr for neutral 187Re atoms. With the resulting logft value of 7.87+/-0.03 the half-life of 187Re ions in any ionization state can be calculated. Thus one can correct the 187Re-187Os galactic chronometer calibration, by taking into account the β-decay enhancement in stellar interiors, which will lead to a more accurate estimate of the galactic age.”
That is - there is no error in the clock here - on the contrary: there is a method to improve the accuracy of the clock 🙂 And as I submitted 20 seconds of searching to understand, anyone who really wants to understand could invest those 20 seconds, right?
Miracles,
We have quite a few who come, in the mitzvot rabbi, as part of their 12 steps, to pollute the site. Yariv really isn't one of those, but you're a big boy and I'm not a moral authority, who knows what to say and yet, if we talk about the issue, it just seems excessive to me.
Come on, science. Look how beautiful:
http://www.iflscience.com/physics/latest-cern-results-indicates-there-something-wrong-particle-physics
Shmulik
Sorry if I sounded aggressive. I am irritated by the attempts of certain people to turn scientists into a collection of idiots.
In particular, the topic of radioactive decay is very annoying to these people: not only does it show that the world is very old, it also shows that there is no causality. A real disaster...
Israel
And that's exactly the point, I think. The meaning of information is the transfer from place to place. In the case of an arena we have one "particle" that is in two places at the same time. What passes "between them" is not information.
Israel,
It is clear that the descent into personal lines is two-sided and a pity. Our friend Nissan is also, for some reason, a little too aggressive for the opponent (why like this Nissan?). Let's calm down and get back to discussing science.
You are more than welcome to tell about your ideas. I don't know what kind of criticism I can give, but I will read and I will read.
By the way, here is another article on the subject which at the end pours cold water on its central theme (see the words of Frank Wilchek)
http://www.wired.com/2014/06/the-new-quantum-reality/
I must have exaggerated, they are waiting for me.
Miracles
Not only will you not be able to send information to the mother this way faster than light - you will also not be able to send it to her faster than the queue.
Not from the bull either.
You will not be able to send her any information through interweaving - this is exactly what the no-communication theorems are talking about.
But that's not what it's about. It is about information passing between the interlaced particles, not that information can be sent through interlacing.
We've talked about the difference five or six times already, but if there's demand I'd be happy to try to explain it the sixth or seventh time.
we
Shall I leave them? When did I even turn to this psychopath? It is he who does not leave me.
Shana is just that, there were no problems. Yesterday Jura opened, snatched back.
He could have spared himself the zobor if he had left me out of the circle. He could give an important lecture on black holes, XNUMXth dimensions and string theory, and maybe even sell an amulet or spell on occasion.
Shmulik
"When you get into a futile argument that includes personal insults"?
Were you here when real scientists were here?
Has anyone ever insulted Zvi? are you ofer (Only Eyal and Bambi are missing..).
Even Ehud, who was a bit more prickly, was treated with reverence by everyone, including me. Once Camila tried to relieve his dignity, and I stood on my hind legs to protect him.
Even the whipping Michael was screened and respected by most of us.
Are you comparing them to this cursing, cursing beast, Al-Benzo?
Everyone gets the treatment they deserve. Even Albanzo, if he forgives his honor and apologizes for his tainted speech, will be able to return to the family of enlightened nations.
Regarding the question - I presented it in several blogs, and showed you the answers. There is no consensus in the academy on the subject.
If you want, I will show you a logical proof (my own) of why I think information does pass between the interwoven particles, and why this puts relativity to a difficult physical test.
Israel,
I find it hard to believe that there will be progress in your case against Albantezo. I wouldn't answer someone if I had a conflict with them, even if they called me a chicken.
Regarding your question, have you tried to post it on Reddit?
Here is an example of a discussion on the subject
https://www.reddit.com/r/askscience/comments/3tyev6/could_quantum_entanglement_be_used_for/
albentezo,
Of course, this activity can be a time trap and quite a mental strain when you get into a fruitless argument that includes personal insults. On the other hand, I find it hard to believe that there is anything different in this forum. Don't most of the involved forums occasionally create fruitless discussions? In any case, it's a shame that so few Hebrew-speaking scientists comment here. If the situation had been different, there would have been a burden sharing... (I write this and feel bad. It shouldn't be a burden)
Israel
I don't understand why you are excited about them? Do you remember the wise man who said: great minds think… blah blah blah…?
So you are in good company that does not agree with Albanzo and his friends (who can be counted on both hands).
Leave them to their own devices. Let them teach each other gossip - in a pleasant way.
Nobody buys from them anyway.
How to say: there are those who do... and there are those who talk.
There are those who build walls... and there are those who talk about them (like Albenzo)
Israel
I have one electron from a twisted pair in my hand, and my mom in Sydney has the other electron. Can you please explain to me how I transfer one bit of information to her at a speed higher than the speed of light? Skype's lag is driving me crazy...
Albanzo
These professionals you are talking about - are they also violent and rude hotheads like you, who get angry when they don't have an answer and start cursing right away?
Because then maybe it's really better that they stay in the academic ivory tower.
Why don't you answer my question?
You said that information does not pass between entangled particles, this is not knowledge. There is a mathematical proof.
Where is the proof?
Why do you allow Shmulik to believe that such proof exists, and that the fact that no information is passed is a fact and not an opinion?
Where is the proof?
Or maybe it doesn't exist, and you made a mistake once again in understanding the no-communication theorems, and that your inflated ego doesn't allow you to admit your mistake?
Where is the proof?
Where is the proof?
Israel, the stupid shameless liar.
Yuri
"Does heating to high temperatures affect the half-life of the substance in a cold state?" - The answer is that there are no studies that say yes.
ALBANZO You're evasive.
1. You didn't answer my question at all.
2. The topic is not electron capture that can be understood in 2 minutes. The physicist has already addressed this and explained it.
3. The link I'm asking for should explain whether high temperatures affect the half-life of the substance in a cold state.
You can write that "the physicist was wrong, just wrong" as much as you want, it doesn't mean that he was wrong. Read my previous response.
He was wrong only about the number of isotopes that participate in the electron capture process. A marginal figure.
Most elements and isotopes have nuclear radioactivity.
Nuclear radioactivity is not affected by temperature and electron capture at a very high temperature means destruction of the radioactive material.
Again, to remind you, the discussion is not about decay processes at high temperatures, but about the effect of high temperatures on the radioactive process at low temperatures.
Let me fix you.
The term "decay" refers only to nuclear radioactivity, because the nucleus emits a particle and does not absorb it.
The radioactivity you insist on only talking about is called electron capture.
The other one you insist on not mentioning, as if it doesn't exist and is the most important and common among the elements of nature, is called nuclear radioactivity.
If you understand that radioactivity is not tested at high temperatures, then you can answer my question.
Does heating to high temperatures affect the half-life of the material in a cold state?
Shmulik,
Are you following the comments in the last two days? It is still not clear to you why professionals do not want any part in the discussions that take place on the site?
Irrelevant?
I sent you to an article that explains in detail what electron capture is and how the electronic structure may affect radioactive decay processes. Why does the 1938 article - well, well - really need to be explained to you? The topic is old. If you ask me about quantum mechanics, you may get a reference to an article from the 20s, and if you ask about classical mechanics, then maybe also to the 19th century.
The discussion was about decomposition processes at high temperatures. High temperatures mean that the atoms are ionized. The "physicist" was also wrong, and you can see explicitly that he writes that the process exists only in the potassium isotope.
"There is an isotope of potassium K40 whose inner electron falls into the nucleus while emitting γ radiation. The noble gas argon is formed. The half-life of the radioactive isotope is a billion and a quarter years.
In the rest of the elements and their isotopes, there is no such phenomenon." And also - "in any case (apart from K40) ionization has no effect on radioactivity."
What is checked and what is not? Well, if you bother to read a few comments back then you will see that this is exactly what I wrote. that do not test samples with full ionization.
You are as clear as water. Enough.
For anyone who is too lazy to search for five minutes:
The accuracy of radiometric dating is better than 10%. What needs to be understood is that such dating is only used when the method has a useful precision!
Dating based on tree rings reaches an accuracy of 0.01%.
Maybe it's enough to grind this nonsense?
to Albantezo.
You wrote what was written in Wikipedia and that the physicist said that a radioactive element of the electron capture type that is completely ionized should not have any radioactivity. This is simply due to the very definition of electron capture.
I understood that the physicist was referring to nuclear radioactive materials in general and to the specific case of K40 being heated and cooled, so it doesn't seem like he was wrong.
Thus he wrote:
"The radioactivity of the isotope will return to it as it was, after it returns to a gaseous state. The half-life should not increase."
You are only referring to materials of the electron capture type in a state of full ionization.
The decay of rhenium is of the electron capture type.
Absolute ionization by definition (without electrons, electron capture is not possible) eliminates any possibility of radioactivity.
This is obvious. Samples are not tested in a state of full ionization.
Radioactivity is defined for substances at room temperature.
I will clarify my question:
Does ionization / heating of a substance affect its radioactivity (half-life) after it cools (this is about heated and cooled samples) in the case of electron capture and in the case of nuclear radioactive decay.
That's the interesting question.
PS: You sent me to an article from 1938 that has nothing to do with Einin.
elbentzo,
Thanks for the answer, and you understood perfectly the point that was not clear to me.
"It is not necessary for the source and the product to separate into different layers for this not to happen, it is enough that there is nothing to force them to stay close together, and this happens until solidification.... In the processes in which rocks, lead, and other things that we age are formed, there are many interactions that can definitely separate material A and material B."
Okay, this is a central and interesting point that I would like to delve into a bit and understand it in more depth, including a research basis (if not here, I will ask in a more appropriate forum), that is, you claim that even if during the supernova, material A, such as uranium, was created and began to rapidly decay into lead, and both are mixed together there in a form uniform like the gases that exist in the air - still in the process of their solidification into rock there will be processes that will cause them to separate from each other.
I wonder what the processes are that make them separate. By the way, it seems to me that in metallic mixtures of the alloy type, for example, the various materials in the mixture remain mixed together uniformly even in a solid state, meaning that they were originally a liquid and solidified in the process of cooling, but they have not yet separated from each other.
Yaniv,
No. I've never been in the field and I don't know much about its application. I am a theoretical physicist from the field of particle physics, so I understand quite well the principles behind the methods, but I have no empirical experience with them and have never been particularly interested in the field. I think Nissim wrote here several times that he knows the practical aspects of dating, but maybe I'm confused.
elbentzo
Do you know the frequency of error in radiometric dates, the common orders of magnitude of this error, and what
Are the possible causes of such an error?
Thanks,
Yaniv
rival,
Yes, but they don't stay glued together. The whole so-called danger, which I understand you were trying to understand, is what happens if a certain atom is at a high temperature, becomes ionized as a result, undergoes a different decay (for the sake of it, faster) than what we usually attribute to it, and then the original atom and the product of the decay remain close together, enter For some structure we are trying to date and then we think that it took X years to reach the measured ratio of product versus original, but in fact it took Y. The original and the product do not need to separate into different layers for this not to happen, it is enough that there is nothing to force them to stay close together, and this happens until solidification.
In addition, we should not forget that almost everything is free in the air. In the processes in which rocks, lead, and other things that we age are formed, there are many interactions that can definitely separate material A and material B. Here it should be clarified that I really do not understand geology or geophysics, I am speaking from a general understanding of solid state processes (a field I know better).
Hope everything is clearer now.
elbentzo,
"Even in the sun or a supernova, the materials are not stuck together. Only in the solid state do the original nucleus and the material it split into stay together in the same structure.
Thanks for the answer, on the one hand it really makes sense that in the state of plasma or gas the different materials that are created will separate from each other according to their properties, but on the other hand when I think about it the air also includes different gases (nitrogen, oxygen, argon, carbon dioxide) And yet they remain mixed together uniformly and do not form separate layers.
And some clarifications:
1. I didn't "decide" anything.
2. "Physicist" is not a physicist. Just so you know. Not that it changes his claims, or the way I treated them.
3. At first he said that there is no dependence or anything like that, as soon as I mentioned the electron capture process he suddenly changed his mind and said that it happens but only in one particular isotope (which is easy to disprove by a 2 minute internet search).
4. You don't work for anyone.
Yuri,
Yes, I'm sure that the temperature affects the ionization (and therefore the electronic structure) and that there are decay processes that depend dominantly on the electronic structure (the example I've already given several times is electron capture). An example of a scientific article that proves this is the article brought by the bio-reactor - which shows in black and white the big difference between the half-life of neutral rhenium (that is, which has the same number of electrons as the number of protons) and that of fully ionized rhenium (which has no electrons). You can read about the electron capture process in many internet sources - I am attaching one for reference.
As I already said, I do not claim that the whole decomposition process depends on the temperature. For example, beta decay does not depend on temp at all (as far as I know) because of the nature of the intranuclear interaction. I can't tell you how common electron-dependent radioactive versus intranuclear procedures are, but that's beside the point.
http://journals.aps.org/pr/abstract/10.1103/PhysRev.54.486
rival,
Even in the sun or a supernova, the materials are not stuck together. Only in the solid state do the original nucleus and the material it split into stay together in the same structure.
ALBANTAZO Are you absolutely sure your claim that half-life changes due to temp is not completely wrong?
(which a physicist explained to you is not true)
Here is a link to a scientific article that supports your position.
rival
The same commenter brought in a study that doesn't say what it claims it says. Albenzo also explained what I was saying.
I suggest you show some integrity and read the same article yourself.
Miracles,
I'm focused, it's a shame that without a break you bring up many points that I already explained to you before that I agree with, and then tell me that I don't understand.
Try to be focused for once, I explained to you earlier that the main point that is not clear to me is the study that one of the commenters brought here which proves according to his claim that the radiometric clock *does work in a plasma state*, and not only in a solid state.
I would appreciate it if you would refer to this point for a change without scattering in all directions.
rival,
Where did you get the nonsense that: "rocks are formed only after cooling"
The calcium (and other) rocks form as sediments at the bottom of bodies of water
regardless of "cooling down"...
And this is just one example of the collection of nonsense that the "experts" write here...
rival
I see you still don't get it. Try to concentrate, okay? I will tell you a number of sentences, and you say which nail is not clear to you.
1) In stars, the main process is fusion, which is the opposite of radioactive decay.
2) The process starts with hydrogen, and helium is mainly formed.
3) Therefore, there are almost no atoms of heavier elements.
4) Active stars are made of plasma, which is a very energetic state of aggregation and therefore you will not find stable concentrations of isotopes, in a way suitable for a radiometric clock.
5) In the supernova process, heavy atoms are created, but of course in this situation there are no concentrations of isotopes!
6) A radiometric clock starts ticking in stable physical states, when a solid is formed, such as when a living being dies.
7) Therefore, temperature has no practical effect on the rate of radiometric clocks.
Before you answer, try to learn a bit, even from Wikipedia.
elbentzo,
1. No need to get upset, I just saw that you were answering at the same time to other people so I didn't know why to attribute it, obviously you don't have to answer.
2. "In other words, even if in the sun substance A decayed into substance B at a high rate because of the temperature, it is not that A and B fly in space and settle on Earth as one unit. In the process of cruising through space and the formation of rocks A and B are not stuck together, therefore what you measure in dating is the time that has passed since material A "settled" in the state it is in today.
If in the sun they were stuck together, what actually causes them to separate from each other and reach the earth as two separate substances? Is this research-based information or just some kind of "gut feeling"?
To Albanzo:
Are you absolutely sure that the half-life changes due to temp? (which a physicist explained to you is not true)
If so, here is a link to a scientific article that supports your position.
physicist,
I just noticed that in your last comment you signed AP. Is this a coincidence or are you the same AP who commented on the article about black holes in 5 dimensions? Because if you are that person, I don't think you can call yourself a physicist. You're clearly not a physicist, so why lie? If it is indeed the same person, it would also explain why your comment (which at first glance undermined my self-confidence) turns out to be completely wrong the more I investigate the matter more deeply.
physicist,
No, the process is not unique to the isotope of potassium. Again, I don't want to misrepresent that I'm an expert on the subject, but a fifteen minute search of professional sources revealed a good few dozen isotopes that undergo electron capture and in which the dominant effect on the radioactive decay comes from the electronic structure and is definitely different between different isotopes of the same element.
Even Wikipedia has a huge list of such (I know that Wikipedia is not a scientific source, but I am not in Israel time, so I am now at home and here I do not have access to the scientific journals. I did the more comprehensive check in the office at the university).
rival,
First of all, I think you should remember that answering questions from commenters on the site is not my job. It is possible that for 12 hours (!!!) I will not respond to a question and this does not mean that I am "for some reason ignoring your questions, it is not clear why". I answer questions because I enjoy talking to people about physics and the things I deal with, not because I owe anyone anything. So please, come on - if you have questions, you are welcome to ask, but please give me the "right" to answer them at a time and in a way that suits me, and I would appreciate it if you didn't post every hour "Why is Albanzo ignoring me?", "For some reason Albenzo is not ready to answer me" etc.
The answer to your question is more or less what Nissim said. The radioactive decay does occur in all states of aggregation and not only in the solid, but the rocks, minerals and lead that we find in DHA are formed in DHA from the elements that originate from suns. That is, even if in the sun substance A decayed into substance B at a high rate due to the temperature, it is not that A and B fly in space and settle on Earth as one unit. In the process of cruising in space and the formation of rocks A and B are not stuck together, therefore what you measure in dating is the time that has passed since material A "settled" in the state it is in today. That is, in practice - only starting from solidification. In other words, sample contamination originating from the Sun is cleaned up long, long before the annealing process begins.
Miracles,
"Only in a solid state does the clock start. In other words, the ratio between the isotopes begins to change."
A few pages ago, one of the commenters provided a link that proves his claim that already in the state of plasma the material begins to fade, and not only that, but also at an accelerated speed than usual.
If this is true, it means that there are radioactive materials that do begin to decay even before they harden.
I saw that they tried to answer him but I didn't fully understand the answers.
rival
After a supernova, there is plasma, which cools to a gas, which cools to a liquid, which cools to a solid.
Only in the solid state does the clock start. That is, the ratio between the isotopes begins to change.
I don't know the lead-uranium mechanism well, but I explained the potassium-argon and carbon-nitrogen mechanisms. There are several other radiometric clocks, and they all work on the idea that there is a correlation between the ratio between the isotopes and the age of the find.
now it's clear?
On the face of it, you seem to be right, I didn't really open the Gemara to check
Nevertheless, there were many inaccuracies in what you wrote. I can't find your comment so I won't say more things that weren't accurate. In any case, I am not saying that there are no scientifically incorrect things in the Gemara, I just said that it was true to the scientific knowledge of that time. and that they had extensive scientific knowledge (especially in astronomy). And they didn't say they knew him because God told them these are the ones they went to learn. And underestimating them is really out of place. Not everything in the Gemara is pure genius, but that doesn't mean there isn't a lot of wisdom there.
I'm really not trying to convince you to believe or be religious, there's just no reason to be so dismissive.
The last section 4 should of course be 5...
(in a message for miracles)
A',
Did you read the quote I gave, do you now agree with me that they claimed that bats lay eggs?
Miracles,
1. "The heavy elements are created in a supernova"
I already agreed with this, meaning that uranium can be created during a supernova.
2. "I already explained that rocks are formed only after cooling"
I know that, you didn't update me on anything and I didn't argue with you about that either.
3. "What is important is the ratio between the isotopes"
I agreed with you on that too, not half a word that contradicts it.
4. "This ratio begins to change only after some process stops... In potassium-argon, the clock starts only when the rock stops being liquid"
You didn't say that before, it's not that I didn't understand you, you're just saying it now for the first time.
4. That is, you claim that the uranium that was created during a supernova, could not start fading into lead there? Why, because it was still in a liquid state (or plasma)? Are you claiming that it begins to fade to lead *only after* it hardens?
It's interesting, I'm hearing this for the first time, I would also like to hear Alberzo's opinion on the subject, but for some reason he completely ignores my questions, it's not clear why.
But don't be mistaken, carbon 14 does not measure the age of the fossils. The amount of carbon 14 in the atmosphere is constant, the fossilized carbon adsorbed during must. After his death, the amount of carbon 14 decreases, so you can tell how long ago he died. Of course, if you find an animal that died 20000 years ago, for example, the world probably didn't exist for only 6000 years.
It cannot be that the plant/animal was in a plasma state after they died because then there would be no fossil left. You can argue that the carbon-14 concentration was different in the past, but there is no evidence of that
And according to the laws of physics we know, this is not possible.
to the opponent
When I study Gemara I study for their philosophy
(It's like saying not to study Plato) I also don't have to agree if everything is in the Gemara, I'm a religious believer
ד
rival
I'll say it again... The heavy elements are created in a supernova. Before that there are no heavy elements in the stars (almost none...). I already explained that rocks are formed only after cooling and I explained that what is important is the ratio between the isotopes, and this ratio begins to change only after some process has stopped. Another example is the potassium-argon side, when the clock "starts" only when the rock stops being liquid (because by then the argon escapes).
Is there a chance that you understand now?
Spring',
"Heavy iron elements are created only in events where huge stars collapse, including supernovae"
And in the same supernova you are talking about, where uranium was created, was it not exposed to plasma temperatures? And if so, isn't it likely to fade there at an accelerated speed to lead?
Albanzo, why don't you address my question?
Iron-heavy elements are created only in events where huge stars collapse, including supernovae.
Miracles,
"Uranium and lead in an ancient sun? Please read what a supernova is.'
From Wikipedia: "A supernova is a phenomenon in which a massive star explodes"
Isn't this about an ancient sun that explodes at the end of its days? And aren't heavy elements like uranium, for example, formed in the sun?
There is an isotope of potassium K40 whose inner electron falls into the nucleus while emitting γ radiation. The noble gas argon is formed. The half-life of the radioactive isotope is a billion and a quarter years.
In other elements and their isotopes, such a phenomenon does not exist.
In fundamentals on theoretical weights there is a possibility of relativistic quantum effects because the speed of the innermost electron is close to the speed of light.
The ionization of all the electrons of the potassium (19) will prevent any radioactivity. It is a plasma state at a temperature of millions of degrees. The radioactivity of the isotope will return to it as it was, after it returns to a gaseous state. The half-life should not increase.
In any case (apart from K40) ionization has no effect on radioactivity. Only temperatures that can cause collisions between nuclei can affect radioactivity. hundreds of millions of degrees Celsius and more.
A.P.
rival
Uranium and lead in an ancient sun? Please read what is supernova……
A',
"Once upon a time, unlike today, the sages of the Torah studied the scientific knowledge of their time in depth. None of the scholars of the Gemara said he was a prophet.
Strange, so how can you trust that what they claim about the Torah and about God is true? If they were wrong about much simpler things ??
A',
"Everyone who gives birth nurses and everyone who lays eggs gathers. Except for the bat, which, although it lays eggs, nurses." (Babylonian Talmud, Genesis XNUMX XNUMX). And Rashi interpreted, in order to remove any doubt as to which animal it is: "A bat - .. looks like a mouse and has wings."
What do you think about this ?
Miracles,
"The rocks were not formed in a supernova. The rocks are formed when a planet cools enough.'
But how do you know that the uranium that exists today in the rock, and some of it has faded to lead, was not formed in the distant past in the core of an ancient sun (and even then it began to fade to lead!!!) from the remains of which the earth was formed?
to the opponent
Regarding what you wrote about the Tanakh and the Gemara
First of all, I am the last one to try to convince you to believe in God
Secondly, what you wrote is full of inaccuracies (it is not written anywhere that a bat lays eggs, you just come off as a fool when you are not accurate)
All the scientific facts in the Gemara are accurate to the scientific knowledge of the time, some of them surprise me at least with their accuracy. Of course, there are things that today are known to be untrue, such as, for example, that lice do not come from sand. But those who really know the history of science know that only in modern times has it been proven that life is created only from other life. Once, unlike today, the Torah sages studied the scientific knowledge of their time in depth. None of the scholars of the Gemara said he was a prophet.
They also believed in astrology like most of the scholars of the time (it's hard to call it scientists in this period) all this does not mean that you should underestimate them, they were serious and very smart people.
rival
The rocks were not formed in a supernova. The rocks form when a planet cools enough to have rocks on it. Once the stone is formed, say from precipitation or lava cooling, then the atoms of the two elements are trapped and stay together.
For example, carbon 14 - as long as the creature is alive, it absorbs carbon from the environment. The source of the carbon is in the plants that have absorbed carbon dioxide from the air, and the source (part) of the carbon in this carbon dioxide is from the effect of cosmic radiation on nitrogen molecules. Therefore, the ratio between carbon 14 and nitrogen 14 is maintained as long as the creature lives (due to the exchange of carbon with the environment). As soon as the creature stops eating (or breathing in the case of a plant) the carbon 14/nitrogen 14 ratio starts to change.
That's why I say that distant history is not interesting in this case.
Out of the box,
Too bad you told me you would read the book, you let me down!
"You agree that scientists don't know how life even began"
Yes I agree, so what?? We used to not even know what causes earthquakes! Even if we don't know how life was created, we know for sure that after it was already created it gradually developed and slowly created all the variety of life that you see in front of you today including us!
Ok, I'm pretty sure I didn't say nonsense, but maybe the effect will be very small or significant only in very specific cases.
Physicist - if you are from the field and can expand (for example on the possibility of electron capture in heavy elements and why you think it can be ignored), I would be happy to listen.
elbentzo,
If you are already here, I would appreciate it if you could answer the question I asked here just a moment ago.
rival
Although I admit that I did not have time to read, I was simply busy watching how the Creator of the world makes seventy wolves devour each other in the world around me. How the demographic map of the world is changing exactly as the Sages and the prophets prophesied would happen before the redemption.. So I put evolution to the moment as an idea of flesh and blood.. in the face of apocalyptic phenomena happening around us.. but you agree that scientists do not know how life even began.
for a physicist,
I need to think about it for a moment, but I wanted to hurry up and write a comment that would clarify that what you are saying makes sense and I may have really said nonsense in the previous comment. The reason you need to think about it a bit is that not all decay processes are so simple - there may be certain ions that decay through electron capture and some that don't, and it should definitely depend on the electronic structure of the atom.
But as I said, I am not from the field, so it is appropriate that I qualify my words and clarify that it is very possible that I was wrong.
Miracles,
"Another example is uranium 235 for lead 210"
Theoretically, is it not possible that the original material (say uranium) was exposed in the very distant past to a plasma temperature, say in the core of some sun, where it decayed at an accelerated speed into lead, and then that sun exploded into a supernova from the remnants of which the earth was formed, and then it actually already contains In it the same uranium that underwent accelerated decay to lead?
I'm just asking, I'm just not good at it, I'd be happy if Albenzo would also explain.
Maya
I enjoyed reading your comment
Maya
I enjoyed reading your comment.
The way Xi solved the problem is obviously not scientific because the problem was not scientific, it was a faith problem. I am not coming to say that it is perfect, just saying that it allows him to learn science without changing it. And it doesn't matter how logical it is or not because it's not a scientific thing. I have no problem with questions of faith that everyone will solve for themselves, not even in a logical way. I understand that many here think that in an ideal world everyone would believe and think exactly like them, there are even some here who, if it were up to them, would remove religion from the law. I think in an ideal world everyone has the freedom to believe what they want as long as it's not a belief that hurts another (it's not legitimate to be a racist for example even if that's what you believe in)
I think you failed to understand the religious not because you asked aggressively, but because everything they said you thought whether you agreed with it or not. Try for once not to think if he is right, just try to understand the line of thought. Assuming you are asking to understand and not because you are considering conversion, it is less important if you agree. Like when I talk to Arabs about the conflict, I don't think about whether I agree with their opinions and even at the end of the conversation my opinions don't change but I feel that I do understand what they are thinking. (By the way, I personally do not understand what the problem is with saying that the story of creation is a parable, especially when some sages have already said about every book of Job for example that it is a parable and did not really happen)
for the rest
Saying it's fine that you believe in something but I don't believe it is not lying.
rival
That's not how radioactive dating works! You don't care what the source of the materials is. What is being looked at is the ratio between the concentrations of two substances. One example is carbon 14 versus nitrogen 14. Another example is uranium 235 to lead 210.
In carbon 14, the half-life is 5,730 years, and the test is reliable for about 50-70 thousand years. I don't care what happened before that!
Of course - when you try to convince with a lie, you must base it on lies....
The decay time of an atom has nothing to do with being ionized or not. The decay time is a property of a radioactive atomic nucleus that has nothing to do with the electrons around it. Radioactivity is not affected at all by the electromagnetic force but only by the weak force that operates inside the atomic nucleus. The decay times of a neutral atom and an ionized atom of the same element are the same.
In other words, to your question, he claims that the dating of the Earth may be wrong because the materials from which the Earth was formed may have been stored in the distant past (before its formation) at a plasma temperature.
rival
If this is his claim, then he is more stupid than I thought, and it's really hard 🙂
How exactly does a rock get here from a distance of light years in 3500 years?
Leave it - how does he manage to date trees that are accurate to the point of one year, up to about 12,000 years ago?
Miracles,
What he claims is that if you take a rock dated say 700 million years ago, that dating may be wrong because it came from a supernova that occurred in the distant past at plasma temperature, so it may actually only be 3500 years old.
Bio
So you agree that dating objects on Earth, say the last 4 billion years, is indeed valid?
Albenzo, I'm not talking about decay on earth but long before it was formed. Therefore, in such a situation no seal is visible in the vicinity of the rock. If you can refute this claim there will indeed be a case for your claim.
Bio
If you didn't understand the hint - temperature does not affect radioactive decay. I'm not talking about millions of degrees, but that's certainly true for any temperature the Earth has had in the last four billion years.
Radiometric dating does not rely on pure faith, and I explained to you why. Repeating the same mantra again and again will not make you righteous, it will only shine you in a ridiculous light.
The temperature can ionize materials and change their properties completely, and can also affect the decay. But that effect will leave a mark on the material, and if you know what you're dating, you know if it's been traumatized in the past. In addition, when extending something, always always always always take several samples and extend them parallel to each other, and always always always extend them in several different ways. The different modes have different sensitivities. In addition, there are no "miracles" in nature - if you date a piece of gold that sits in ore at a depth of a hundred meters below the ground, then it was not exposed to a temperature of 7000 degrees for two years. And if it was - by some freak occurrence - then you will know it by Its chemical composition and that of its environment, and you will see that it behaves and dates completely differently from the other pieces of gold.
To say that this is pure belief is like saying that the saying "If you push a fork into a stacker, then you get electrocuted" relies on pure belief, because yesterday I pushed a plastic fork into a stacker and I didn't get electrocuted. It's stupid - there's no need to drop the fact that I don't understand how conduction of an electric current works on the electromagnetic theory, just as there's no point in trying to drop your lack of understanding of radioactive physics and the way things are dated about dating methods.
rival
So it turns out that cancer can be contagious...
Albenzo, I'm not a physicist (and I guess this also answers your question about my knowledge on the above subject) but from what I understand the decay is indeed affected by temp. And if this is so, and you yourself agreed that it is possible in the history of the universe, then all radiometric dating is based on pure faith.
"But dating methods are not used blindly. When you prolong something, you know what you are prolonging, and you know what its ionic composition is"-
But you don't know what conditions it has been exposed to in the past. External pollution, a change in the decay rate, and more, may be significant factors. And more than once we find ridiculous results.
Haim,
I see you are a new guest with us. Again, I would suggest you read some more comments I posted here.
Miracles,
Cancer is not contagious but the risk of getting cancer may be inherited from parents to their children, is this what you are talking about?
Miracles
I don't think Rival was joking.
rival
If God forbid one of your loved ones gets or gets cancer, even then will you say that the souls of people who have sinned in the past have reincarnated in them? Try to be honest in your answer and without theological twists.
Haim,
"From your answer to miracles in relation to cancer, I understand that Amnon Yitzchak is grinding your mind beyond repair. Both you and Amnon Yitzchak have no understanding of the sciences."
If this is what you understood from my words then this is probably my only comment you read here, I suggest you read some of my previous comments and maybe you will understand that I wrote the things sarcastically.
What is "such a process"? Are you asking if it is possible that there were once ionized rhenium atoms that decayed to osmium? I don't know, probably yes. But dating methods are not used blindly. When you prolong something, you know what you're prolonging, and you know its ionic composition. It's just like the stupid arguments about carbon-14 dating not working on seals. The problem is not with the dating method, it's with the idiot who tried to date seals with carbon-14.
Can't understand what makes a person (who clearly doesn't understand what he's talking about. Rabak, even the abstract of the article should have been explained to you) think that the entire scientific community is a bunch of idiots and that only he outdid you to date fake rhenium-osmium by nine orders of magnitude!
Bio
"It is known that a high temperature definitely has a significant effect on reactive decay". Besides a king - who else knows this?
Life
A rival joked….
Bio
In scientific research, when it becomes clear that certain observations do not correspond to a model, any model is investigated and, if necessary, the model is replaced. When it became clear that carbon-14 dating was valid for a short period of time, in geological terms, new models were developed for measuring longer periods of time. I say things in the most simplistic way, so that you understand how science works. With your hand on your heart, have you ever studied science or read any science book?
For starters, Carl Sagan's books.
rival
From your answer to miracles in relation to cancer, I understand that Amnon Yitzchak is grinding your mind beyond repair. Both you and Amnon Yitzhak have no understanding of science.
Albenzo, and why do you think such a process cannot occur at plasma temperatures in the history of the universe? It is known that a high temperature definitely has a significant effect on reactive decay. And if this is so, how sure are you that those atoms were not exposed even for a few minutes to these temperatures?
rival
Knowledge puzzle - can cancer be contagious?
Miracles,
"Animals also have cancer"
I know, it's because souls of people who have sinned in the past have reincarnated in them, it's part of their correction.
I see that you are not practiced enough in arguments with religious people, really you must improve.
That's *exactly* what it says there. In the line that appears immediately before your quote (which you "forgot" to put in the quote...) it says that the decay from the isotope rhenium 187 to osmium 187 has a half-life of 41.6 giga-years, but the number is reduced to 33 years when fully ionized rhenium atoms are used. That is, that all electrons were removed from them. These are completely different materials.
Albanzo, that's not what it says here:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rhenium-osmium_dating
This normally occurs with a half-life of 41.6 × 109 y,[1] but studies using fully ionized 187Re atoms have found that this can decrease to only 33 y.
Albanzo
I didn't see your comment...
Bio
Clown 🙂 Did you even read what you wrote?
Write on one type of atom: 32.9±2.0yr, which means an error of up to 6.1%
On another type of atom (!!!!!!!!!!) it says 7.87±0.03, that is, an error of up to 3.8% 🙂
Say - are you able to walk and breathe at the same time?
rival
Animals also have cancer, and it also existed in the distant past. What is true is that damn science has tripled our life expectancy, so there seem to be a lot more cancers.
Wait, how about reading the article?
He does not say at all what he claims in his bio. This is a comparison between the half-lives of two different things - one is the bare nucleus (that is, all the electrons have been stripped from it and it is highly ionized) and the other is the neutral nucleus (which has the same number of protons and electrons). Two completely different substances, which are expected to have different decay times. What they measured with two different methods was the increase in the amount of osmium, to which the hernium decayed. In the abstract there is no indication of significant differences between different measurement methods.
Rival, what about the processes in which stars are formed or even the processes that took place near the big bang? After all, the origin of all atoms on the surface of the earth is in the processes that existed before it.
bio,
Earth and the solar system have never been at plasma temperature!
Aren't you tired?
Maya,
I understand what you are saying.
Nissim, I am happy to inform you that radiometric dating can be wrong by a billion times the real age:
http://journals.aps.org/prl/abstract/10.1103/PhysRevLett.77.5190
With two independent methods the time dependent growth of hydrogenlike 187Os ions has been measured and a half-life of 32.9±2.0yr for bare 187Re nuclei could be determined, to be compared with 42 Gyr for neutral 187Re atoms
A half-life of about 42 billion years is reduced to 33 years at a plasma temperature using the rhenium-osmium method.
And here Bio is back to explain to us again why we should stop wasting our time and grind water.
rival,
I agree with that, of course. But what I keep hearing from religious people is that "the Bible should not be taken literally" so I'm willing to accept that the entire Bible with its clearly incorrect facts comes with some huge explanatory booklet attached that explains why these facts are irrelevant. And again, a person who wants to believe that he should live his life according to a certain way that he thinks fits with what is written in the Bible that will be his perfume. A person who wants to believe that there is a higher power in the world and wants to call him God, may he be healthy. I think he is wrong, but I fully accept his right to think what he wants. I qualify what was said above with what I said in my previous response: as long as he manages, in the ways reserved with him, to reconcile the basic contradiction between science and faith. That is, as long as he does not ignore the reality, accepts the facts on the ground as they are and says something like: "But in my life I have to separate the meat from the milk because that's how it is". And of course as long as he doesn't force his beliefs on others, as you did demonstrate in your previous comment.
I do understand A's response and that's why I responded to it. It really seems (and I sin in the same matter) that atheist people have a tendency to assume that everyone who believes in God is a fool and they come to him with the attitude of "you are a fool, there is no God, learn science" and this really defeats the purpose because the purpose is, in my opinion at least, to expose these people For science, really teach evolution in schools, as said by A. And apparently not everyone needs to be an atheist to get this positive and very desirable result. I think that she This means that, on the contrary, if you come to people and tell them: "No problem, believe in God, it's not contradictory, but come and see how cool science is" you will achieve much more than if you tell them they are stupid for believing in the first place. I, personally, am a complete atheist and really can't understand how a person with a bit of logic can think that there is a God, but factually, I know very logical people who do believe that there is a God, so the problem is probably me that I can't understand how they do it. It also doesn't matter how they do it, the fact is that it is possible. It is more important to me that there are no people who try to justify findings with stupid claims to justify their belief and that they really care to understand the findings. If they are able to do it while believing in God, it still serves the purpose, to me. If they are able to do that and remain religious and observant people again, there is no problem. As long as the conditions of accepting reality as it is and not forcing your belief on the other are met, I flow.
I'm not sure I managed to make my intention clear to the end. I hope so.
Bio
Today's dating methods are accurate to better than 10%. And I'm Larj with you….
Haim, do you think that a dating method cannot be wrong by several orders of magnitude?
A.
The world is not millions of years old, but 4.5 billion years
Maya,
When the Torah and the Gemara tell us that the world was created 6000 years ago, that humans and animals were created as they are, that rabbits and hares raise gizzards, that bats lay eggs and that the trachea splits into the heart and liver, then they are already pretending to be scientific books that tell us (unfortunately incorrect) facts about our world.
That's not how to build a wall.
Life
How many times do I have to say that I think the world is between millions
rival
To the best of my knowledge, in the examination of mummies from ancient Egypt, cancer was found in one of the bodies. There is a claim, and I'm not sure how true it is, that the Egyptians knew how to handle one of his types of film. From everywhere to think.
א
I understand what you are saying and also partially agree with it. Antagonism and attack never work. This is true. Telling someone they're stupid won't help them see your argument. I will be the first to admit that I do not understand religion enough, but from the little that I do understand, I do think that there is a contradiction between science and religion. It is a fact that people try to bridge this contradiction all the time.
I very much agree with what you said, that it should be understood that the Bible is not a science book and I think that this is definitely the first step. I think that once people realize that the Bible is not really supposed to say things about how the world runs physically and leave it and stop trying to reconcile it with science, they will be more open to scientific thinking. Many people, by the way, really only see it as a guideline for how to live life (not that I understand how anyone thinks it's right to live by this rather terrible guideline, but again, I accept that it might be because I don't know him well).
I accept that people believe in different things than I do. I think they're wrong, but that's okay, they think I'm wrong too. The problem for me with faith in God (and I am generalizing here, although it is clear to me that the generalization is out of place, so I apologize in advance) is that it is usually a blind faith. I mean, it doesn't matter what the evidence and what reality says, the "truth" will remain the same. And here lies, in my opinion, the contradiction between science and religion. Science relies solely on evidence. Religion relies on faith. And faith, any faith, that does not depend on reality is problematic, precisely because it does not depend on reality.
Now, of course there are many people (and I personally know some of them) who believe in God and are even very religious but they are, for example, successful scientists or in general people who accept reality as it is. I've never been able to understand how they reconcile this contradiction (and by the way, I think that one of the reasons why I've never been able to understand is that usually when I ask, despite my attempts, I seem aggressive and antagonistic, which makes them not want to explain to me like which is necessary and it brings me back to the point with which I started) but if they do it and are at peace with themselves then fine, good luck to them.
The problem is not with these people. The problem is with the people who fail to reconcile the contradiction and therefore insist that reality be ignored. Shay's solution is such a solution and it is indeed a problematic solution. I can't wholeheartedly come and say to such a person: "It's great that you managed to solve the problem, now come and study some science" because he didn't solve the problem, and besides, the way he thinks he solved the problem is by definition non-scientific, so what kind of science is this ? Do you understand the problematic of this matter?
A.
Maybe read some material on geological dating methods and start to understand that the creation of the world was 6000 years ago is one of the dumbest ideas ever invented. In order to make your search easier, I will give you two concepts from which you will start to find material on the subject. One concept is half life and the other is the ratio between rubidium and strontium.
Miracles,
There is an argument that cancer is a consequence of the modern lifestyle and that there used to be no such disease, and in any case you can always make the excuse that it is a punishment from God for not keeping Shabbat well enough or not praying hard enough.
rival
I wonder when he created cancer?
Miracles,
just like that! And he also created the animals to look "as if" they had evolved over millions of years.
What sense of humor does this god have? 🙂
rival
So God put the coal in the ground after he created the earth?
א
Is the method used to estimate when the script was invented acceptable to you?
Miracles,
Shay's claim is that the world was created 6000 years ago, the creation itself took 6 days, and at the end of it the world looked "as if" it was 4.5 billion years old, do you understand?
gift
The idea that the world was created 6000 years ago in an "advanced" state requires that it was all created in one moment. Otherwise, we would see signs that it was created in stages.
For example, if the Earth existed before the Moon, then we would not see signs on Earth that the Moon was once a part of it.
If the Earth existed before the sun, then we would see signs of that as well.
But all this does not contradict what I asked - who said that the God you believe in created the world?
A',
I think this belief is definitely harmful, can you explain to me why a person without means who does not own a car cannot, for example, use public transportation on Shabbat to go visit his parents?
It has nothing to do with faith, right?
rival
You speak as if science has proven there is no God. This is not true, God cannot be proven or disproved. Because God is not a scientific theory but a belief (in the same way I do not "believe" in the theory of evolution, I think it is true based on the scientific findings)
It shouldn't change what he believes as long as his belief is not harmful to the general (for example if he opposes studying science)
Personally, I tell Shay that it's okay that it's your belief as long as you don't say that something needs to be changed in science and as long as you accept that my belief is different. At all. Or are you really already religious in an "atheistic" religion)
It is really so strange for you to accept that someone believes differently than you.
A',
This is your right, but I do not agree with this approach, in my opinion it is only harmful and keeps people away from science and reality, it only makes them dig even deeper in their beliefs, which in my opinion certainly contradict all scientific findings.
I didn't ask you to adopt him and I don't adopt him either.
Read what I wrote again. I said it was a harmless solution and if he is a religious person it is a much better solution than saying that there was no evolution or intelligent design. I also said that religion does not slap science because it is possible to reinterpret religion as Xi does. (If you don't accept that religion is built on the fact that the Bible is not understood literally but interpreted, you can not be religious and that's fine) I also said that insisting on presenting science as opposed to religion alienates people from science
Scientists should tell the truth and not adopt foolish ideas just to make believers feel good about their beliefs.
A',
I'm beginning to think that my apology may have been premature. First you said that you don't believe that the world is 6000 years old, and a second later you propose to adopt Shay's "solution" according to which the world is 6000 years old but only looks ancient?!
Sorry, but this is not a solution to me, it's just an excuse designed to justify blind faith against all the evidence.
Is evolution consistent with findings in biology and biochemistry? come on…
A. Intelligent planning does not necessarily adopt the evolutionary approach.
for life
I remembered minus 4000 that it comes out before 6000 in length. In any case, what is important is when a reporter was in the area. And in any case, I did not mean that they set the creation of the world to the moment when writing was invented. The earliest known events could not have been before writing, so it was logical to set the creation of the world a few hundred years before. But again this is just a guess
Creationists!!!!!! that's scary!!!
Now seriously, scientists should not engage in missionary work, shouting the mantra "There is no God, there is no God" will not really advance the world and will certainly only make more people fight against the study of evolution theories. On the other hand, encouraging ideas like Shay's that enable theological solutions will advance the world. If the next time you talk about whether a person is religious, instead of saying there is no God there is no God, say "evolution does not disparage religion" and present an example of what Shay said, even say that you do not believe in it. So there is a good chance that one day natural selection will be taught in Israel in schools. (Today we only mention it in passing, it depends on the teacher and it is the most important theory in biology) I'm not saying to lie for a moment, I'm just saying not to constantly present science as opposed to religion, if what really interests you is that everyone will be atheists and not science, and science is just something to establish On him the atheistic "religion". If so then you are no better than just a missionary who believes that everyone should think like him and see "the light"
Assuming that you are not like that, I recommend not just attacking people like Shay who offer a solution that allows religious people to accept science without changing it (like the real creationists do who invented a scientifically lost theory of intelligent planning, that is, there was evolution but it was not random but planned. This is bad, unlike Shay, according to His solution is that evolution is exactly as science says, only it was supposedly so real that it's like saying it really was)
A.
The earliest known written evidence is preserved 4000 years ago. You can read about this in Shmuel Noah Kramer's book - "History begins in Shumer". I have the impression that writing was invented long before that. I'll give you an example about 30 years ago in Okinawa, at a depth of 40 meters under water, structures the size of the pyramids were found. Estimated to be at least 12,000 years old. Obviously, no one has built such structures under water. Apparently the sea level at that time was lower and due to flooding the sea level rose and covered these buildings. To build such buildings, planning is necessary and without a document it is impossible to plan any building. Attached is a link to this interesting and fascinating archaeological find.
http://www.bibliotecapleyades.net/arqueologia/esp_ruinas_yonaguni_6.htm
Gentlemen of the debaters,
- It is useful to internalize the difference between a debate which is an argument between convinced people
and a discussion that is an exchange of opinions,
- What is happening here is an argument when some of the debaters lack reading comprehension,
- For example, Mr. A. should read over and over the article about the variety of farm animal species,
And then he will tell me and others where it is written that "man must eat meat"?
Or Serogin, where did he see the term "disgruntled"?
This is just one example of what is happening here as it has already been said that
"End of response in reading comprehension"...
A',
If so, then I apologize, I thought for a moment that you were trying to justify a 6000-year-old world, at least that's the impression I got from reading some of your words (you're right, I didn't read everything).
You know there are quite a few creationists here that is exactly what they claim.
rival
I think you are confused, and just being aggressive. I have not "justified any legend" and I do think that the world has existed for millions of years
Haim hypothesized why the "myth" of Barch 6000 for the creation of the world was created
And I proposed another hypothesis. Again this is just a hypothesis and I wrote it explicitly. Your aggressive fervor only proves what I said about turning atheists into a religion.
I recommend that you re-read from the beginning what I have written so far in the comments.
A',
What you are doing is trying to forcefully justify a nonsensical legend that you believe in. No finding and no scientific research matches what is written in the Torah, human beings have been found that date hundreds of thousands of years ago, there are endless findings that show that our world is at least millions of years old.
Why is it so hard to accept reality?
for life
An interesting point 6000 is somewhat close to the beginning of the script.
Secondly, the exact date does not appear in the Torah, these were written in the Gemara in the Middle Ages. It was created by adding the ages of people in the book of Genesis and midrashim that fill in the missing parts (that's why Christians have a slightly different time for the world)
I don't know if there is a connection between the time the script was invented and the time it more or less turns out that the world exists according to the Torah (again, the Torah does not indicate an exact time) in any case it sounds interesting
It is not surprising that the same approach to opinions different from your own appears not only on religion. A few days ago, one of the writers on the site wrote, for example, that anyone who disagrees with one of the paragraphs in the article (which in short says that man must eat meat)
He is ignorant, stupid, and disgruntled (don't know what disgruntled has to do with)
It is not important that there are many scientists if opinions are on both sides.
Lasaf Varez b
The title is "What is the theory of evolution and how did it all begin?" Therefore it is strange that an article with such a title does not mention at all the theories of evolution that preceded Darwin. It may be a natural tendency to look for "heroes" and to attribute achievements mainly to one person. (Similar to Eliezer Ben Yehuda who is considered to be the innovator of Hebrew even though many people took a large part of his own in the process)
To all those who answered Shay
I'm personally a person of faith and don't think I need explanations like Shay's. On the other hand, I think that from a practical point of view it is a good explanation, it allows religious people to accept scientific theories (evolution is a theory, admittedly very well-founded and accepted, but a theory, meaning a scientist's explanation of observations) and even to research and become scientists. If I understand Shay correctly, when he says that it gives nothing to say that the world was created yesterday, he means that it does not solve any theological idea. In any case it is better than religious people who say there was no evolution. Shay is basically saying that the scientists are not wrong. (It's just a bit of a shame that he wrote it so decisively as if it was a fact that God explained to him yesterday) In any case, I think there is no need for this kind of explanation. Because what is written in Genesis is not meant to tell us history or to teach science, it is meant to teach an important idea, God created the world, the world was not created out of a struggle between forces (contrary to all the myths around, at least), there is only one god in the world, etc...
One last thing.
Really some people on the site have turned atheists into a religion. At least in the missionary sense and the belief that everyone must think like them, and the only explanation for someone not agreeing with them is ignorance or being less intelligent. They even back up their views with pseudo-scientific studies that religious people are less intelligent.
gift
The idea that the world was created nearly 6000 years ago is fundamentally evil, and even if the religious make eights in the air, it will never be possible to give it scientific backing. What is possible is that there was some kind of natural disaster on a global scale or some kind of extreme political event from which point a recount started. For those who invented this dating, for them the world was recreated. I'm not sure this explanation is correct. In all this it is worth asking why they started with this count.
Out of the box,
Everything is fine? Gone for a long time!
The last time we spoke, I recommended you read the book "Why evolution is right", and you told me that in a few days you would go and buy it, did you read it in the end?
I see you remain as stubborn as before. It's a bit funny that you go against science because it still doesn't know how life began, do you already know how the wonderful God you believe in so much was created?
In any case, even if we do not yet know how life began, the many evidences for evolution and development completely contradict the biblical story.
Maya,
waiting
Among us there is no answer to science as to exactly where and how life itself began. Only recently did they find a narrow solution that it came from space... come on... and where in space was it actually? How did it start.. It reminds me of the story with those sages who still haven't found the solution. How the locomotive itself moves
My dear father, you are indeed right, the world could have shown as you wrote.. This is not a novelty, Sages discuss this already in the chapters of Avot on the question that the whole world could have shown in one article.. Although it is not what you are interested in, the answer is also given there..
for miracles,
Who said or where is it written that the world was created at once?
Hi Maya,
Here is a lecture by Shawn Carroll in favor of the subject
http://youtu.be/Y350oOiunf4
Here is a lecture by Roger Penrose on this subject. It's fascinating because it takes the death of the universe one step further. I don't want to make a spoiler so I suggest you watch
http://youtu.be/sM47acQ7pEQ
As for what else could destroy the universe, read what Stephen Hawking has to say about the Higgs field (things Albentezo didn't tell us so we could sleep at night)
https://www.rt.com/news/185876-universe-elimination-higgs-boson/
To Mr. Blizovsky,
True, it could, but what's the point?
Look
Thank you very much for the video. I enjoyed. Is this really true? That the universe is expected to end when the distribution of energy will be uniform in this illusory number of years? Is it expected to end before then for other reasons?
A gift to Shay
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=O2jkV4BsN6U
Response to Shay.
The world was created in the last six days by the great god Zeus, when you Xi, the tiara of creation, were created five minutes ago with all the memories in your mind, exactly the way it should have been as if it existed close to the number of years written on your ID card or whatever time your parents (born together with you in a similar situation) will decide on it.
gift
Let's assume that's true. So what? Who told you that the one who created the world is the same God you believe in?
Consider that if the world was created all at once as you said, then the story of Genesis is not true!
In the same way, the world could have been created five minutes ago with all our history and personal memory.
This cannot be a scientific claim.
Someone on the site has a problem with opinions that don't line up with their own.
א
Darwin wrote a whole book explaining what man finds. In the first book he is really careful.
I really don't know if there is a unique idea, concept or theory that has grown inside the mind of a single person. In my opinion, knowledge is also an evolutionary mechanism that goes through the same processes as the process of species development. In this context, there is no single "father" of anything, but a succession of fathers. Mark was not mentioned at all in the article and he also talked about evolutionism.
Darwin's father advocated the theory of evolution so the idea was not new to Darwin. He is the one who formulated it into a complete idea.
According to the article, it sounds like Darwin invented evolution. This is not true. Various evolutionary theories were accepted before him. and were based on transferring changes created from the environment to the next generation. (If an animal stretches its neck, it will produce an offspring with a long neck). Darwin is, if anything, the father of natural selection and not the father of evolution (by the way, Darwin refrained from mentioning in his books what man finds), another interesting thing is that new studies indicate that there is also truth in the theory that preceded natural selection by epigenetics. This means that evolutionary pressures affect the next generation even not in the way of natural selection.
The world was created 5776 years ago exactly as it should have been as if it had existed for close to fourteen billion years or whatever time scientists decide on.
In order not to give an opening here to creationists and their ilk
It is worth emphasizing that evolution is a process that takes place and is happening,
A process not a theory or Torah,
The "theory of evolution" tries to explain the process,
To mention the forgotten - Patrick Mathew, a Scottish arborist, published a book at the end of which he described evolution with the help of natural selection - in 1831. When this was revealed to Darwin (years after the publication of "The Origin of Species") he immediately wrote about it, and even added a suitable note in the later editions More of his book.
Darwin's modesty and honesty deserve no less mention than his genius!