" Mi smo oduvek znali da teorija relativnosti ima nedostataka..bla, bla.."

Dakle, ti si upotrebio rec da se nesto prenosi. A voleo bih da pokusas da upotrebis neku drugu rec, da vidimo kako ce ti ici.


Znaci ako ja zagolicam elektron ovde, onog drugog ce da zasvrbi, onog sto je udaljen nekoliko svetlosnih godina, ali zasvrbece ga odma`.

Tako da, slobodno pokusaj da upotrebis neku drugu rec.

Evo malo da cujemo njega:

"Quantum mechanics is certainly imposing. But an inner voice tells me that it is not yet the real thing. Quantum theory says a lot, but does not really bring us any closer to the secret of the Old One. I, at any rate, am convinced that He (God) does not throw dice. (Albert Einstein, On Quantum Physics, Letter to Max Born, December 12, 1926)

Einstein thinks he has a continuous field theory that avoids 'spooky action at a distance', but the calculation difficulties are very great. He is quite convinced that some day a theory that does not depend on probabilities will be found.
(Albert Einstein to Max Born, 1947, 'The Born-Einstein Letters' Max Born, translated by Irene Born, Macmillan 1971)"





Ja znam da si ti priklonjen strani, koja govori da paradoks ne postoji u prirodi, matematici, ili fizici, i da postoji samo u nasim glavama. Ja ne razumem takav stav. Mislim da to vec zalazi u domene vere u klasicnu fiziku i u percepciju stvarnosti koje ces se tesko osloboditi.





A ovo je kljuc svega. Razumem poklonjenje eksperimentalnoj fizici kao jedinoj opciji i pouzdanosti. Gde je filozofija skup pausalnosti. Ali taj put ne vodi nigde.

Mozda nekog zbunjuje sto ja nemam nista protiv Ajnstajna. Ja samo kriticki sagledavam stvari.

Dakle na ovo sam mislio:

"I think that matter must have a separate reality independent of the measurements. That is an electron has spin, location and so forth even when it is not being measured. I like to think that the moon is there even if I am not looking at it. (Albert Einstein)

All my attempts to adapt the theoretical foundation of physics to this new type of knowledge (Quantum Theory) failed completely. It was as if the ground had been pulled out from under one, with no firm foundation to be seen anywhere, upon which one could have built.
(P. A Schlipp, Albert Einstein: Philosopher – Scientist, On Quantum Theory, 1949)

The quanta really are a hopeless mess.
(Albert Einstein, On doing Quantum Theory calculations with Pauli, 'The Born-Einstein Letters' Max Born, translated by Irene Born, Macmillan 1971)"

Dakle ovo je princip:

Under the theory, if two particles, say electrons, are created together, some of their attributes will become "entangled." If the two are then separated, doing something to one instantly affects the other. This would happen whether they were next to each other or across the universe.

For instance, electrons act as if they have tiny bar magnets that point up or down, described by an attribute called "spin." If the two electrons are entangled through their spins -- up or down -- and a scientist measures the spin of one, the spin of the other will react even if one is on a lab table in Oxford and the other were on a planet near the star Antares, 1,000 light years away. Instantly.

This would mean that the information about the change traveled faster than the speed of light -- which Einstein said was impossible -- or that long distances are some kind of illusion.

Ja mislim da hoce. Ima bas taj direktni uticaj. Zato novinari i koriste termin "informacija", iako imaju vrhunsko obrazovanje iz oblasti fizike. Nasa percepcija fizicke realnosti je nesposobna za drugaciju logicku konstrukciju i semantiku.

Dakle reaguje cak i na merenje samo. Ako ima reakcije na merenje, imace reakcije na bilo koji drugi podsticaj. Teorijski.


"Under the theory, if two particles, say electrons, are created together, some of their attributes will become "entangled." If the two are then separated, doing something to one instantly affects the other."

Ovde mogu da se slozim sa tobom. Mi ne znamo sta je to. Ne mozemo da definisemo jos uvek. A definicija nije stvar naseg dogovora.

A u prilog tome pozvao bih se na reci Skota Aaronsona:


Q: What's the definition of the cosmological constant?
Scott: It's the vacuum energy. Again, this is physics. People don't define things, they observe them. They don't actually know what this vacuum energy is, they just know it's there. It's an energy of empty space, and could have many different possible origins.


http://www.scottaaronson.com/democritus/lec20.html

Ti si veliki ljubitelj eksperimenata. Neke filozofske permise nisu podlozne eksperimentima. Ali su tu. Nije direktno odgovor na tvoju konstataciju, ali ako nekog ne mrzi, zanimljivo je da se procita.



Q: Can two galaxies move towards each other faster than the speed of light?

Scott: In a collapse, yes.

Q: How do we avoid all the old paradoxes that come with allowing objects to move faster than the speed of light?


Scott: In other words, why doesn't faster-than-light expansion or contraction cause causality problems?

See, this is where I start having to defer to people who actually understand GR. But let me take a shot: there are certainly possible geometries of spacetime–for example, those involving wormholes, or Gödel's rotating universe–that do have causality problems. But what about the actual geometry we live in?

Here, things are just receding away from each other, which is not something you can actually use to sendsignals faster than light. What you can get, in our geometry, are objects that are so far away from each other that naïvely they should "never have been in causal contact," but nevertheless seem like they must have been.

So, the hypothesis is that there was a period of rapid inflation in the extremely early universe, so that objects could reach equilibrium with each other and only then be causally separated by inflation.

http://www.scottaaronson.com/democritus/lec20.html

Uf. Nisi razumeo princip. Reaguje i na najmanji podsticaj kao sto je merenje. Dakle obrati paznju na princip. Sve ostalo je u domenu teorije.

Nisam mislio na sve novinare, vec na specificno jednog, koji je upotrebio rec informacija. A slozices se on i ima neke kvalifikacije. Ne znam dal` je bas za podsmeh. Pogotovo sto ga citira Americki institut za fiziku.


By Joel N. Shurkin, ISNS Contributor
Inside Science News Service

All material on the site copyright © 2012 American Institute of Physics. News & media organizations seeking permission to use, republish, reprint or redistribute original ISNS content must fully credit Inside Science News


Joel Shurkin is a freelance writer based in Baltimore. He is the author of nine books on science and the history of science, and has taught science journalism at Stanford University, UC Santa Cruz and the University of Alaska Fairbanks.


http://www.aip.org/

http://www.insidescience.org/research/1-2376

Gde tamo da postavljas, banovace te Bojan Basic odma. Bolje nastavi ovde. Ovo su ionako ultra ludi fenomeni...

Ovu recenicu sam uzeo kao argument i dokaz teorije hijerarhije zakona, ili teorije harmonije zakona. Stoji napisana na wikipediji pre nekoliko godina.


Ivane, postavljas mi pitanje, a znas da ne mogu da ti odgovorim zbog toga sto ste me banovali. Godinama vec razmenjujemo misljenja oko neke teme, nekad ostrije, nekad umerenije, ali bar je uvek bio fer plej.

Ljudi svasta izgovaraju na ovom forumu, i ne bivaju banovani. Ja se drzim foruma Ultra MadZone, i ucestvujem uglavnom na temama koje se bave nekim zanimljivostima iz sveta nauke. Ne razumem da to nekome toliko smeta.

Da nisam banovan, i da mogu da pisem postove, svasta bih ti odgovorio sad. Al` dobro.






Ova recenica je dobra. Pa onda je i teorija relativnosti - relativna. Kuda to vodi? Lol

Urusila se sama u sebe. Kao sto je dovela do saznanja o crnoj rupi, ali sa potpunim uverenjem da tako nesto ne postoji u prirodi. Kad ono, stvarno postoji. I srusila se u nju.