Hide the clearly experimentally observed correlation between entangled particles behind the concept mystical nonlocality is not necessary - the carrier of superluminal quantum information can be tachyon (quantino). Podolsky, sen: "Can quantum-mechanical description of physical reality be considered complete? "Bells theorem: the naive view of an experimentalist 2001, /papers/edu/aspect_bell. Zip (accessed on bell. S., "On the einstein Podolsky rosen paradox Physics Vol.1,.3,.198-200, 1964. V., "Faster than light - quantino" (rus 2012, /article/6630 (accessed on ) tml (accessed on putenikhin.
Image gallery if then hypothesis examples
A simple analysis of the nature of the transfer of information shows that if there is a dependence between the objects, then it is necessarily connected with the transfer of material substance. Consequently, the nonlocality must be based on the carrier of quantum information. As such a carrier, can choose "quantino" which year the first time, apparently referred to veinik. On the other hand in string theory as a logical phenomenon can be recognize the appearance of a tachyon. That is, quantino and tachyon are both the strictly logically justified substances, which is probably just two names to one the same entity. Thus, we have two apparent interrelated process. First, the phenomenon of nonlocality, which requires the carrier of the superluminal tell quantum information. Second, theoretical studies, which obtain a logical solution for the superluminal particle. Both processes are strictly objective and not dependent on the will of the researchers. Due to the use of a strictly scientific, universally accepted theoretical and experimental methods is obtained two complementary results: superluminal correlation, link - nonlocality and superluminal substance particle - tachyon (quantino). The aspiration artificial, deliberate to remove from the string theory this particle, is apparently erroneous.
A tachyon in the theory is arose against the will of daddy string-theorists, and he must move faster than light. Their appearance in the theory was seen as a problem that leads to instability of the theory and how it was thought to violate causality. String theory began to be modified, to appear more and more of its version, which managed to get rid of the tachyon. But was it necessary? In a strict quantum-mechanical experiment recorded superluminal correlations of entangled particles. At the same rigorous mathematical initial calculations is found a solution that admits superluminal transfer of information tachyon. Although it was assumed that tachyons can not transmit the information because of a possible violation of the principle of causality and Lorentz-invariances, but it is not too convincing objection.
30 years later (1965 john Bell, strictly mathematically refuted the arguments of Einstein, showing that the observed relationship between entangled particles can not be a statistical (probabilistic). At present, the arguments by john Bell is known as "Bell's inequalities". In the early 1980s, experimental physicist Alain Aspect has confirmed the arguments by john Bell's in the strict physical experiment. So, there is a system of two objects that behave as if between them is an information exchange with superluminal speed. The name of the phenomenon as "nonlocality" does not explain what is happening in this process. Simply is postulated "instantaneous correlation" of objects, which does not contradict the theory of relativity just because the information signal is not detected between them. But "not detected" does not mean "no". For the first time in rigorous mathematical expressions in the new theory - string theory was obtained solution describing a possible carrier of superluminal information - the tachyon. This was the initial version of string theory, which is based on work of Veneziano end of the 1960s.
Hypothesis and Null, hypothesis - video &
Non-locality - it is your a quantum phenomenon, consisting in the fact that two quantum object, such as photons, after the interaction and remove from each other continue to be a single quantum-mechanical system. If one of the objects subjected to the measurement, leading to the collapse of the wave function of the system, then the second object at once, instantly and goes into a certain state. If it is the photons about referred to earlier, then after measurement one of the them, as a result of the measurement he gets a definite polarization. Second photon immediately, instantly and at any distance is also gaining a definite polarization. This state of the photons when they as seemed to feel each other at a distance, has the name entanglement.
Synchronous, correlated behavior of entangled quantum particles at first sight contrary to the general theory of relativity. There is a apparent dependence of the quantum state of a second photon from the quantum state of the first photon. However, the data, signal transmission between the photons is not fixed. Therefore, not to say that observed "superluminal communication" between entangled quantum particles is equal the transfer of the information signal. However, this compromise does not eliminate the direct question: one of the particles measured here, the second is strictly according to the first dimension gets its own state instantly and at any distance from the first. In 1935 at the paradoxical nature of this phenomenon to note einstein and his colleagues 1, resulting in the phenomenon became known as the epr paradox, the main essence of which was the statement of the incompleteness of quantum mechanics. The paradox laid the foundation the so-called "local realism" Einstein's, which is not allowed superluminal communication between whatever the system.
Its that simple statement that is the key to science. It does not make any difference how beautiful your guess. It does not make any difference how smart you are, who made the guess, or what his name. If it disagrees with experiment it is wrong. None of the five tests above supports or agrees with the predictions implicit in the greenhouse hypothesis as stated above. Richard feynman is correct to advise us that therefore the hypothesis is invalid, and that many times over.
Carter goes on to talk about why the failure of the agw theory is so little understood by the general public. Here we enter the realm of politics, and also high finance, as billions of dollars have been spent to enlist scientists in the cause, and to convince naive voters that dangerous anthropogenic global warming is something other than a failed and politically-motivated theory. w;.65.Ud;.90.t;.90.b, abstract, string theorists delete forcibly any mention of tachyons from the equations of string theory. It is believed that the tachyon in string theory - wrong decision, the strings can not move faster than light. However, quantum mechanics for describe the phenomenon of entanglement requires a essence (particle which moves faster than the speed of light. A tachyon (and a graviton) arose in string theory consistently, against the wishes of the researchers, as a mathematical consequence. The tachyon suggested a possible description of the mechanism of quantum correlations. Theory of everything cannot escape the description of nonlocality.
How Should you formulate a, hypothesis?
(iv) The ipccs computer general circulation models, which factor in the effect of increasing carbon dioxide, project that global warming should be occurring at a rate.0O C/century. In fact, no warming at all has occurred in either the atmosphere or the ocean for more than the last decade. The models are clearly faulty, and allocate too great a warming effect for the extra carbon dioxide (technically, they are said to lined overestimate the climate sensitivity). (v) The same computer models predict that a fingerprint of greenhouse-gas-induced warming will be the creation of an atmospheric hot spot at heights of 8-10 km in equatorial regions, and enhanced warming also near both poles. Given that we already know that the models are faulty, it shouldnt surprise us to discover that direct measurements by both weather balloon radiosondes and satellite sensors show the absence of surface warming in Antarctica, and a complete absence of the predicted low latitude atmospheric. One of the 20th centurys greatest physicists, richard feynman, observed about science that: In general we look for a new law by the following process. First we guess. Then we compute the consequences of the guess to see what would be implied if this law that we guessed is right. Then we compare the result of the computation to nature, with experiment or experience; compare it directly with observation, to see if it works.
Consider the following tests: (i) over the last 16 years, global average temperature, as measured by both thermometers and satellite sensors, has displayed no statistically significant warming; over the same period, atmospheric carbon dioxide has increased. Large increases in carbon dioxide have therefore not only failed to produce dangerous warming, but failed to produce any warming at all. (ii) During the 20th century, a global warming of between.4o c and.7o c occurred, at a maximum rate, in the early decades of the century, of about.7O C/century. In comparison, our best regional climate records show that over the last 10,000 years natural climate cycling has resulted in temperature highs up to at least 1o c warmer than today, at rates of warming up.5O C/century. In other words, both the rate and magnitude of 20th century warming falls well within the envelope of natural climate change. (iii) If global temperature is controlled primarily by atmospheric carbon dioxide levels, then changes in carbon dioxide should precede parallel changes in temperature. In fact, the opposite relationship applies at all time scales. Temperature change precedes carbon dioxide change by about 5 months during the annual seasonal cycle, homework and by about years during ice age climatic cycling.
climate changes are presumed. It is one of the more extraordinary facts about the ipcc that the research studies it favours mostly proceed using an (unjustified) inversion of the null hypothesis namely that global climate changes are presumed to be due to human-related carbon dioxide emissions, unless and until. So, what are the tests to which we can subject the anthropogenic global warming theory to determine whether it has more explanatory power than the null hypothesis? The dagw hypothesis that I want to test here is precisely and only that dangerous global warming is being caused, or will be, by human-related carbon dioxide emissions. To be dangerous, at a minimum the change must exceed the magnitude or rate of warmings that are known to be associated with normal weather and climatic variability. What evidence can we use to test the dagw hypothesis? Many different lines of evidence can be used to test the dagw hypothesis. Here i have space to present just five, all of which are based upon real world empirical data. For more information, please read both. Hayhoes and my book.
William of Occam, which brings us to the matter of Occams razor and the null hypothesis. William of Occam (1285-1347) was an English Franciscan monk and philosopher to whom is attributed the saying. Pluralitas non est ponenda sine necessitate, which translates as Plurality should not be posited without necessity. This is a succinct statement of the principle of simplicity, or parsimony, that was first developed by Aristotle and which has today come to underlie all scientific endeavour. The phrase Occams razor is now generally used as shorthand to represent the fundamental scientific assumption of simplicity. To explain any given set of observations of the natural world, scientific method proceeds by erecting, first, the simplest possible explanation (hypothesis) that can explain the known facts. This simple explanation, thesis termed the null hypothesis, then becomes the assumed interpretation until additional facts emerge that require modification of the initial hypothesis, or perhaps even invalidate it altogether.
Ind and Dep variables plus hypothesis
For a sophisticated yet understandable introduction to the book global warming debate, it is hard to beat this article by Professor Robert Carter at the. American Institute for Technology and Science Education site. Carter notes that there is considerable common ground between the climate alarmists and the climate realists: I would add one more: that the amount of warming attributable to increased CO2 in the atmosphere based on scientific experiment is trivial, and one can argue for. Involving clouds, that magnify the otherwise-harmless impact of increased atmospheric CO2. Carter continues: I would add that there is also disagreement over whether the net effect of significant global warming would be good or bad. In framing these disagreements,. Carter starts with first scientific principles: Science deals with facts, experiments and numerical representations of the natural world around. Science does not deal with emotions, beliefs or politics, but rather strives to analyse matters dispassionately and in an objective way, such that in consideration of a given set of facts two different practitioners might come to the same interpretation.