Adi Armoni

Пікірлер

@patatje6974 Ай бұрын

Does that mean that if I could theoretically zoom in to way below the planck scale, I would discover a universe complete with galaxies, stars, planets and maybe life?

@adiarmoni9465 Ай бұрын

No, because time is still measured in units of the Planck length, so there is no complete symmetry between spacetime with R and spacetime with 1/R.

@patatje6974 Ай бұрын

@ okay. It is very hard to grasp for me.

@Quest_Ion_music Ай бұрын

@@adiarmoni9465 I have to admit I'd often had questions regarding the Planck scale. I recently looked it up and found that there isn't any evidence for the theory. With your view of time though, would you say that time exists in a somewhat similar way to how the pictures of a film projector create motion and animation to the screen? That there's a continual series of increments that create the illusion of smoothly connected events that flow into each other?

@patatje6974 Ай бұрын

@@adiarmoni9465 but could it mean that there is a hidden sub-Plankian world complete with mini-particles, mini-planets, mini-galaxies and mini-universes but that time within that realm runs at the same speed as our macroscopic universe.

@patatje6974 Ай бұрын

I think I get it. There is a size reversal at sub-Planckian scales. The larger strings at those tiny scales behave more “quantum” than the smaller strings. The tinier the string becomes below the Planck length, the more it behaves “macroscopically”, that is quantum effects become smaller. In our realm the exact opposite happens.

@disgracetologic Ай бұрын

שתי בעיות שיש או היו לשטוחיסטים אההבלים הללו בכנרת. 1) לא רואים את הבחור שמחזיק את המראה, או את המראה עצמה, רואים רק אור אבל לא את הבחור שגבוהה יותר מהמראה עצמה, איזה קטע. 2) הם העלימו וגנזו את כל הצילומים שמראים מה הם לא ראו במרחק של 17 קמ, איזה קטע שהם אומרים שם שהם יעשו את זה ולא מראים כלום מ 17 קמ... אופסי. נורא קל לרמות ולשקר, ככה הם פועלים, הם המיץ של הזבל של האינטלקט האנושי.

@Haimshmueli-g1w Ай бұрын

הי עדי, אני חושש שאי אפשר לנצח שטוחניקים באמצעות לוגיקה. זה נועד לכישלון בערך כמו הניסיון של חילוניים לשכנע דתיים בתפישתם. מה שכן, הייתי בוחר דוגמאות אחרות - למשל בהתקמרות המים הייתי מראה כוס מלאה עד שפתה וקצת מעבר לכך עקב נימיות. לדעתי זה דומה יותר לדוגמה של מים בים. (לא שהם ישתכנעו מזה או מזה, ובכל זאת). לגבי החישוב בכנרת, חזרתי על חישוביך - לא מצאתי שגיאה בנוסחה, זה בסה"כ טור טיילור - אבל קיבלתי קרוב ל-7 מטרים ולא 28 ס"מ. תוכל לבדוק שוב? אני מנחש שאם לא נראה קימור בכנרת זה בגלל אפקטים של עקמומיות קרני האור - חוק סנל - עקב שינויי צפיות של האוויר ולא בגלל שהתוצאה זעירה מדי. אחרי הכל גם ספינות בים נראות מוסתרות בהדרגה במרחק של 10-20 ק"מ (זה בכל מקרה טווח הראות ביום שיש בו ראות ממוצעת. נדמה לי שהראות המכסימלית היא עד 100 ק"מ). כלומר, במרחק 9ץ5 ק"מ אני מצפה לראות הסתרה של כמה מטרים.

@adiarmoni9465 Ай бұрын

תודה, חיים! אני חושב שמה שקורה זה שלמרחקים גדולים צריך לעשות חישוב בעזרת קוסינוס והקרוב למרחקים קצרים הוא לא טוב. עבור הכנרת אפשר לעשות פתוח טיילור, אבל אז יש עניין נוסף: הצופה לא נמצא ממש בגובה אפס, אלא הוא נמצא בגובה מסוים מעל האדמה. זה מאפשר לצופה צפייה למרחק רב יותר מבלי להבחין באפקט הקימור.

@fanicahriscu1769 3 ай бұрын

Very nice video and beautiful landscape! Enjoyed watching! Great drone footage 👏 Done myself few drone videos for my travel channel if you want to have a look at.....thank you!! New SUBSCRIBER

@pedroacampos 3 ай бұрын

Beautiful video.

@adiarmoni9465 3 ай бұрын

Thank you very much!

@charlesmarquis-lorber1159 4 ай бұрын

Machine (learning)

@lazerlabbz867 4 ай бұрын

beast

@HilalAbass Жыл бұрын

Dear prof. Adi Armoni I am really into this topic, I have already done a six month project on it HOLOGRAPHY TECHNIQUE ( ADS/CFT) it completely resonates with my research interest area. i would love to work under your esteemed supervision. best regards

@koreanature Жыл бұрын

!!! My best friend, Great Good... !!! I wish you every day of your development.

@foxfire7518 Жыл бұрын

Is this real?

@jakemccool1495 Жыл бұрын

Where is this little area? I can’t find it at cern

@rohaandeb7904 Жыл бұрын

Installation sportive extérieur, 1217 Meyrin, Switzerland

@الرياضياتالعظيمة-ز6ك Жыл бұрын

على افتراض صحة كروية الارض يمكن القيام بهذه التجربة على برج خليفة و ستكون النتيجة افضل بكثير ! من جهة أخرى اذا ارتفعت عن سطح مستو فإن مدى الرؤية سيزيد اكثر و بالتالي هذه التجربة لا تثبت شكل الأرض. هناك امر اخر مهم جدا و هو ان هناك من صور الشمس و هي تغرب بالنسبة للعين البشرية و لكن بعد التقريب بالكاميرا تبين انها فقط لم تختفي بل اختفت عن أفق العين البشرية فحسب . هذه حقائق للأسف الشديد.

@ЛьвівЛьвів1-у7ч 2 жыл бұрын

Thank you for clear explanation.

@Odin_Borson 2 жыл бұрын

Sorry but why do we assume the two spins are related

@adiarmoni9465 2 жыл бұрын

They are entangled due to a measurement.

@airi6591 2 жыл бұрын

A brilliant piece of content. Thank you for the explanation!

@Sloppyjoey1 2 жыл бұрын

What are your opinions of the vast disagreements on this measurement / entanglement debate?? It's not lost on me why this would *appear* that the universe is probabilistic. But my intuition tells me that this experiment rather reveals that a "constant" or, The Universe, is intrinsically aware of quantum effect outcomes, in a way that disregards the speed of light, and that the wave function rather acts as an approximation of what's perhaps an unknown constant. To me, I feel particle physicists are incorrectly seasoning this observation with "multiverse" theories and "faster than light communication" because they can not reconcile the these observations. In my mind, what's being "observed" is that two entangled particles seem to know where to go, in a way that is congruent regardless of speed. That also does not violate the other constants which have been very well proven at this point. Also I give you big credit for pointing out that Quantum Mechanics is moreso an apparatus for approximating reality, and that Bells inequality only points out that the characteristics are not yet well confirmed. I feel it's important to note that Theorists may using math to reconcile our observations rather than using math to make a prediction. I tend to agree with Einstein in that there is no 'spooky action' *between* particles, but rather that the experiment is revealing that there is a chosen outcome preordained by nature or an unknown constant. In my mind, these experiments and observations seem to verify deterministic nature, and I feel that the wave function equation has unfortunately become reliable enough for Physicists to believe that it's how nature functions. It is actually somewhat frustrating that we observe 1 outcome when measuring, and a universe full of matter, yet Quantum Theory predicts undefined characteristics & 50/50 matter/antimatter ratio but they resist not admitting that there is a degree of both inaccuracy, and incompleteness, in Quantum Theory. Sorry for all the venting, I hope you see this but if it's too much to reply to I can't blame you! Happy holidays!

@renedekker9806 2 жыл бұрын

_"The Universe, is intrinsically aware of quantum effect outcomes, in a way that disregards the speed of light"_ - so there is faster-than-light communication according to you... _"particle physicists are incorrectly seasoning this observation ... "faster than light communication""_ - then why do you feel it is incorrect if physicists state the same? _"two entangled particles seem to know where to go"_ - the point is not that they know where to go, but that they seem to know how the _other_ particle is being measured. _"Bells inequality only points out that the characteristics are not yet well confirmed"_ - they are very well confirmed and very well tested. The Nobel prize was awarded for the first of those measurements, and many subsequent experiments have confirmed the results. They break Bell's inequality. _"the experiment is revealing that there is a chosen outcome preordained by nature or an unknown constant."_ - that chosen outcome would necessarily have to include which measurements are going to be made by the scientists (that is, there is no randomness at all, and no free choice). That is a philosophical point of view called "super-determinism". _"Quantum Theory predicts undefined characteristics & 50/50 matter/antimatter ratio"_ - Quantum Theory does NOT predict undefined characteristics, and does NOT predict 50/50 matter/antimatter ratio. Each measurement will always yield a definitive outcome. And the apparent matter/antimatter symmetry seems odd, but is not ruled out by Quantum theory. We simply don't know enough about how the universe started.

@Sloppyjoey1 2 жыл бұрын

@@renedekker9806 1.) "Intrinsic awareness", or otherwise, preordained outcome and communication are not the same thing. I'm already confident you know this.. The sun will rise tomorrow. Knowing in advance does not prove that something communicated faster than light. Correlation is not causation, again, you know this. 2.) "Particle physicists are seasoning observation with faster than light communication" - I should've said "theorists". But like I said, correlation /= causation. Entangled particles *correlate*, not communicate. 3.) " The point is not that they know where to go, but that they seem to know how the other particle is being measured." NO. This statement is blatantly false. You can send a pair of anything, anywhere in the universe, once you know the 1st you will know the 2nd faster than light. This in no way proves "communication" between shoes. PROOF would require us to observe this.. adjustment? But these traits are "unknowable" via the same theory, however once you know 1, you know the other. They openly admit that there is no experiment to verify a causal link. 4.) "That chosen outcome would necessarily have to include which measurements are going to be made by the scientists" Observing a particle requires interaction with the particle. There are physical consequences to observation that ignore "philosophy". 5.) I WANT YOU TO AT LEAST READ THIS ONE. "Quantum Theory does NOT predict undefined characteristics, and does NOT predict 50/50 matter/antimatter ratio. Each measurement will always yield a definitive outcome." I said """predicts""", not MEASURES.. Quantum Momentum is absolutely undefined (per the theory) however what we MEASURE is absolute. Please do not change words to construct a strawman. This is literally what "wavefunction collapse" is.. It's "undefined" until you measure it. That is why they say it's probabilistic... until you measure it lol Furthermore antimatter absolutely is predicted by quantum theory. Do you not know Paul Dirac? He got a Nobel peace prize for this and his Dirac equation became a QT staple.

@StarDustGamming 2 жыл бұрын

Really interesting result! It seems like you have found the so called "natural frequency" of the earth. The fact that the scales cancel out and we get the same travel time for any tunnel makes one wonder what would happen if we take it to the smallest possible tunnel. Should we get always 42 min? I assume that the infinitesimal case seems to be a body that falls a meter or so through an inclined path. Then, however, we surely don't get a 42 min fall. What resolves this issue in your opinion? Maybe it's the perfect sphere assumption that no longer holds in that case.

@RoboticusMusic 2 жыл бұрын

It sounds like to me spin isn't something that happens like rotating the hand of a clock, rather the clock is more like a potato chip shape. This explains the nonlinearity "S" curve, no?

@RoboticusMusic 2 жыл бұрын

And that the warp in the clock is correlated between particles, or they're both on the same warped wall.

@Odin_Borson 2 жыл бұрын

I don't know if you said chip shape intentionally or not but that chip shape is actually very interesting mathematical structure called hyperbolic paraboloid famous amoung civil engineers as well

@Blackbeard2003 2 жыл бұрын

This is kind of like what I have been suggesting, only that the warped clock you describe might be due to warped space rather than a warped clock, possibly warped due to locations or dimensions described by imaginary numbers.

@joeldujsik 2 жыл бұрын

there are of course 11 dimensions. to talk x and y, is of course crazy

@stanislawpalka9015 2 жыл бұрын

Quantum entanglement is Hoax. Bell inequality does not apply to entanglement. Alain Aspect did mesurément correct, but was not able to explains the results.

@tomedward8652 2 жыл бұрын

Little suggestion for viewers - run video at 1.5 x speed, talking was too slow for me.

@ultimateseeker65 2 жыл бұрын

Thanks sir🙏🙏

@karissad7382 2 жыл бұрын

Very nice video too💓~~~>💓°•○☆💕

@karissad7382 2 жыл бұрын

Random : Who remembers that episode of Criminal Minds with the Rosen Bridge joke?! Huh,??huh??~~~~>💓°•○☆💕Rubberbabybuggybumpers~

@Fossilized-cryptid 2 жыл бұрын

and thus nature is probabilistic

@Footprints1111 2 жыл бұрын

69 likes. That makes sense. Ya know, yin/yang. 🤷‍♀️😊

@Blackbeard2003 2 жыл бұрын

EPR was not disproven by Bell. J.S.Bell made a mistaken assumption. Here is why: In the video at 17:04, P(2*) is NOT EQUAL to 2P*, (*=theta), this assumes 2 dimensional thinking, and our world is NOT 2 dimensional. Actually, P(*) is the probability of the axis of spin being oriented such that it falls into the angle * when observed in the direction of travel. In other words, the 2 dimensional derivative of a multi-dimensional vector. None of this has anything to do with "hidden variables" or "superposition". It is simple multi- dimensional math, and misunderstanding by people thinking in 2 dimensions. Bad assumptions, not "spooky action". Bell did not disprove EPR, he just mistakenly misled the physic community. Bell's Inequality Debunked!

@Blackbeard2003 2 жыл бұрын

Our perception of 3 dimensional reality is not the whole picture. The 4th dimension of time is quite different than our natural perception tells us. Many processes require the use of complex number calculations in order to accurately represent what really happens. This shows us that there are "imaginary" dimensions in our reality. I believe that this is what is being witnessed with Bell's Inequality, not any proof of undefined states.

@adiarmoni9465 2 жыл бұрын

Seriously? this is trivial calculation in QM. It is easy to see that if the angle between two vectors is theta than P(theta) is indeed sin square theta/2. I did it my QM course when I was an undergrad.

@cipherxen2 2 жыл бұрын

@@adiarmoni9465 what I don't understand is, how Bell's inequality disproves EPR?

@adiarmoni9465 2 жыл бұрын

@@cipherxen2 Bell inequality, under the assumption of locality, implies that hidden variables do not exist.

@cipherxen2 2 жыл бұрын

@@adiarmoni9465 that's the part I quite don't understand

@sumanglakapoor9048 2 жыл бұрын

Thank you so much!

@hasanalatrash3750 2 жыл бұрын

Great video.. but What about the communication in between two particles at a distance? does that mean the information do spread faster than the speed of light?

@adiarmoni9465 2 жыл бұрын

There is no communication and no transfer of information!

@vanhsati 2 жыл бұрын

I think the 2 particles linked to each other in a hidden dimension.

@nayanhoonmai 2 жыл бұрын

EPR = ER , Entanglement = worm hole

@renedekker9806 2 жыл бұрын

@@adiarmoni9465 The spin becomes well-defined at the moment of measurement. But it becomes well defined and opposite for both particles at the same time. Each particles needs to "know" what the defined spin of the other particle is at the moment of its measurement, in order to adopt the same spin. Therefore there must be some non-local form of interaction between the two particles.

@Blackbeard2003 2 жыл бұрын

@@renedekker9806 Wrong. There is no proof that orientation is "defined" upon measurement, so no proof of "communication".

@chiuhungwong4460 2 жыл бұрын

Thank you sir. After many days of self learning I finally grasp the idea with help of this video. Thank you so much.

@crazieeez 2 жыл бұрын

Communication is faster than the speed of light. It is the intricate correlation between the entangled particles that has faster than light communication. There is a physical process that goes on. We all know space time is subjected to bending, curving, twisting, and all sort of geometric configuration. I think Suskind is working on a paper describing how wormhole work at subatomic level. Saying Einstein is wrong is like saying Newton is wrong. Whatever new theory that comes out will need to satisfy Einstein General Relativity as a special case for large scale object and satisfy quantum mechanics at the small scale object.

@Sloppyjoey1 2 жыл бұрын

No, the 'communication' is not faster than light. What's occurring in the double slit experiment is that the universe knows where the particle will go before it's reached it's destination regardless of speed. That's not the same as communication because it does not require interaction between two elemental objects. "Entanglement" is used for the experiment because one particle can be used as the control, and the other can be used as the variable to see if something, be it a constant of nature or an unknown variable, is adjusting the outcome prior to the particle reaching the destination. This affect disregards the speed of light, because it is seemingly known in advance. This does not mean that the entangled particles communicate with each other faster than light, but rather, something bizarre in the cosmos, seems to already know this will happen and make an adjustment. A better analogy would be beaming a laser to the moon. We'd know regardless of the speed, where & when it hits the moon It does not mean that you can act within the universe faster than light - It just means that you knew the outcome before it landed. The universe appears to have this same 'knowledge' in the outcome of wave functions, but not mean that they propagate faster than light. The wavefunction calculation is simply a mathematical apparatus to estimate this unknown constant or variable. The wave function "collapse" is just a calculation that determines probability of outcomes because we do not know the without the complete information. Einstein was not "wrong" because this doesn't violate the speed of light. His disposition was that it was "spooky' revelation implies the impossible, and that Quantum Physicists will make the incorrect assumptions when rather, the the Universe acts as a third party and a "brain" of sorts. He was adamant that Quantum Theorists were incorrect to believe that this brain like function of Nature means that we could violate the laws of nature - he is still very much correct.

@crazieeez 2 жыл бұрын

@@Sloppyjoey1 Your observation is based on flat space time. It is like hearing a sonic boom 5 secs after you saw a rocket blasting off to the sky. If there is such a traversal wormhole, the communication between two particles travels faster than the speed of light from an observer in flat space time.

@Sloppyjoey1 2 жыл бұрын

@@crazieeez @crazieeez "Your observation is based on flat space time".. Huh? What does that even mean lol? And then to make matters worse, you used a awful analogy.. HEARING a sonic boom *after* SEEING a rocket is 2 observations, that have 2 causes and 2 outcomes that operate independently. The Double slit experiment is not 2 observations. We are measuring 1 particle entangled to another. Once we measure the 1st, we then know about the second because of the information we knew before that particle is sent. And to make that awful analogy cringe.. are you implying that the Rocket and it's Sonic boom are communicating faster than light?? Because that's as ridiculous as saying "The Rooster crowing made the sun rise". Just because you heard 1, and learned about the other, doesn't mean that the Rooster is communicating with the sun faster than light LOL. My friend, you have been watching too many KZbin videos. Quantum entanglement does not mean 'faster than light'.. it means that if you learn something about 1 of the entangled particles, you can then know something about the other faster than light, because the sum of their spins is 0. They do not "communicate" they simply correlate. They correlate the same way your shoes do.. if you put your left shoe on, you know the other shoe is your right shoe even if you sent it through a wormhole. Deriving info faster than the speed of light does not violate physics, it simply means you aren't a fool who thinks your shoe's are communicating faster than light.

@crazieeez 2 жыл бұрын

@@Sloppyjoey1 lolz. I guess the sonic boom analogy is not good. The way humans measure distance is assuming distance is static. If you were to send “hello world” from earth to mars using the speed of light, it would take some minutes. With a wormhole, you can send “hello world” to mars in nanoseconds. From our current observation the effect suggests that the wormhole communication created is faster than light travel.

@Sloppyjoey1 2 жыл бұрын

@@crazieeez Yes but you are conflating a lot of thing in physics that are unrelated. 1.) You are conflating motion with location. Wormholes have nothing to do with motion. Wormholes are 2 causally linked locations in space, due to space itself being distorted. Wormholes do not speed up motion 'faster than light'. Wormholes work by reducing distance, not increasing speed. They don't make anything "faster than light", they simply reduce the distance light would need to travel. 2.) Humans do not "measure distance assuming distance is static". Measuring is static because the concept of 1 mile does not change lol 3.) Wormholes have not been observed. There is no "from our observation". Wormholes are theoretical and ironically, Wormholes come from the very same theory you're claiming is wrong by saying communication is faster than light. Wormholes do not make communication faster than light, they reduce distance. Signals still travel the speed of light, just a shorter distance. Entanglement does not make communication faster than light, because they do not communicate.

@petereirich6502 2 жыл бұрын

This is a brilliant presentation. The handwriting, however, is first grade level.

@bryan3dguitar 2 жыл бұрын

I agree. It's very distracting. We're not taking notes in classroom and waiting to be spoon-fed the next handwritten idea....

@ptanisaro 2 жыл бұрын

Thank you sir. I got a better idea of Bell Inequality and its contradiction now.

@explainingphysicsandmathematic 2 жыл бұрын

kzbin.info/www/bejne/nYrPoqydr65ogqM

@TheWiseApe 2 жыл бұрын

Amazingly clear explanation- it was only through this video, after watching and reading up on this for the past 2 days, that I feel like I'm getting a grasp on what was going on with the science behind this Nobel Prize. I never thought that my semester of gen chem learning about filling in electron orbitals would help me understand this years later!

@adiarmoni9465 2 жыл бұрын

Thanks :)