Quantum decision affects results of measurements taken earlier in time

reply to post by Cecilofs

When both the machine and scientist "knows" (i.e. it polarises the photon to see which slit it went through) the interference pattern collapses. When the machine "knows" but the scientist doesn't (the 2nd rotation happens), the interference pattern returns.

You are talking about polarisation, which makes me think you are talking about the Quantum Eraser exp.

en.wikipedia.org...

I am talking about the Delayed Choice Quantum Eraser exp.

en.wikipedia.org...

They are similar, but not quite the same.

It doesn't really matter though, what you said applies to the latter exp. too, only that one uses beam splitters to make the path indeterminable.

Originally posted by Astyanax


The experimental results can be explained in many different ways. Here are a few of them:

1. Information travelled back in time from Victor to Alice and Bob, changing the photons' spin to match what was done to them later in time (this is your interpretation, I believe);
   
   
2. The information only became specific when somebody looked at the results – before that it was kind of fuzzy and could have had any values at all, but when somebody looked at it, what that person already knew somehow forced the information to have certain values (this seems to be your New Age friend's interpretation);
   
   
3. Only particles that have the right spin states initially are capable of becoming entangled (this seems quite possible to me, though it suggests a hidden variable of some kind and thus goes against quantum dogma);
   
   
4. The probability function, constrained to have certain values at one point in space, automatically and instantaneously acquires different values or value ranges at other points.

The last is the standard quantum interpretation. It is agnostic about what is happening in time.

First of all, thank you for your objectively formulated answers.
I`m enjoying it too to talk with you about physics, I think you`re more educated than me in that stuff and so I`m learning from you.
Yes, you`re right, there are many possibilities how to explain whats going on in that kind of experiments.
And scientists know only so little about quantum physics.
My computer is a little bit flipping out at the moment, the connection isn`t always the same in the village, I`m living in, and now it`s working very much too slowly.
I`ve wished to give you some links, especially one at Wikipedia about the many possibilities how to explain why quantum information works the way it does, and a second one about the time to be looked at, quantum particles are acting in, in relation to our physical every-day-world.
There is nothing written about the velocity of light as a working factor within experiments with photons. But I think this could perhaps be one of many unknown variables.

About the right-spin-states as working factor I don`t know anything and it would be interesting to learn about that, could you please explain?

I think there are many hidden variables that need to be gained some knowledge about.
Otherwise there could be the danger, that we`d act like people in the dark ages did. They postulated: We see the sun moving in the heaven - therefore it has to be fact, that the earth stands still and that the sun moves.
Later, when they knew that the earth is a ball, they could even calculate, that the sun (as they thought) moves around the earth, with very complicated calculations - but they matched.

I`ll send the links later.

From the article in the OP,

As always with entanglement, it's important to note that no information is passing between Alice, Bob, and Victor: the settings on the detectors and the BiSA are set independently, and there's no way to communicate faster than the speed of light. Nevertheless, this experiment provides a realization of one of the fundamental paradoxes of quantum mechanics: that measurements taken at different points in space and time appear to affect each other, even though there is no mechanism that allows information to travel between them.

It is a simple fact that there is in fact one "mechanism" that allows the travel of information in this case.

The human observer. It is right here in our faces. There is no way these particles are directly communicating with each other with the way the exp. is setup.

The conscious observer is the only explanation we have. It is the only mechanism that is allowing the info to travel.

There is really no way around it.

The picture certainly looks like future events influence the past, a view any right-minded physicist would reject. The authors conclude with some strong statements about the nature of physical reality that I'm not willing to delve into (the nature of physical reality is a bit above my pay grade).

I wonder what they said, my guess is the same thing.

reply to post by aboriginee

First of all, thank you for your objectively formulated answers.

I'm glad you find them of interest. Writing things down helps me think more clearly about them, too.

I`m enjoying it too to talk with you about physics, I think you`re more educated than me in that stuff and so I`m learning from you.

I studied for a physics degree many years ago, but I've forgotten most of what I knew. It wasn't much anyway. However, I'm interested in these things, so I try to stay in touch.

I wished to give you some links, especially one at Wikipedia about the many possibilities how to explain why quantum information works the way it does, and a second one about the time to be looked at, quantum particles are acting in, in relation to our physical every-day-world.

I'll take a look. But you must understand that all such conceptions are to be regarded as speculative. What is not speculative is the mathematics that describes the behaviour of quantum systems. If we strictly follow the mathematics and ignore the apparent paradoxes, everything works just fine.

There is nothing written about the velocity of light as a working factor within experiments with photons. But I think this could perhaps be one of many unknown variables.

The velocity of light is taken to be constant, c in all physical interactions. That includes quantum interactions.

However, a lot of the mathematics of quantum mechanics is nonrelativistic – essentially Newtonian. There are relativistic quantum equations, like the Klein-Gordon equation, but they are, on the whole, less helpful than the nonrelativistic ones.

The equations of quantum mechanics are usually derived from simpler, well-known equations describing more or less well-understood physical phenomena. However, it is not always immediately clear what the derived equations describe. Often the equation comes first and physicists then look around to see what element of objective reality corresponds to it. The debate continues; the intellectual structure of quantum mechanics is far from complete. That's where the woo-woo salesmen see their opportunity.

About the right-spin-states as working factor I don`t know anything and it would be interesting to learn about that, could you please explain?

I'm sorry; I don't understand the question. Do you want to know about spin? When we first learnt about it at university we were told, 'Elementary particles have a property called spin. Don't ask what this property actually is, and whatever you do, don't think of particles spinning. Just do the mathematics.'

Spin is a property that resembles angular momentum in some ways, and gives rise to magnetic moment in the case of charged particles. But this is only a convenient halfway house to understanding, because there are characteristics of particle spin that are not at all like the rotation of macroscopic objects. We must never forget that particles aren't really tiny balls or bullets and don't really spin; it's just that they sometimes seem to behave in a way that bears some resemblance to bullets, and spinning, when we measure them.

Here is a very illuminating short article on spin for non-physicists. Perhaps reading it will answer some of your questions.

I think there are many hidden variables that need to be gained some knowledge about.

Are there any physical phenomena that suggest the existence of hidden variables? Variables are physical properties. Which physical properties do you believe are not described by the equations of quantum mechanics?

First of all, thank you for your objectively formulated answers. I`m enjoying it too to talk with you about physics, I think you`re more educated than me in that stuff and so I`m learning from you.

Those are not anwers, nor explanations.

1. Information travelled back in time from Victor to Alice and Bob, changing the photons' spin to match what was done to them later in time (this is your interpretation, I believe);

No it didn´t,

the settings on the detectors and the BiSA are set independently, and there's no way to communicate faster than the speed of light.

there is no mechanism that allows information to travel between them.

3. Only particles that have the right spin states initially are capable of becoming entangled (this seems quite possible to me, though it suggests a hidden variable of some kind and thus goes against quantum dogma);

And this explains the result how? It doesn't at all.

there is no mechanism that allows information to travel between them.

4. The probability function, constrained to have certain values at one point in space, automatically and instantaneously acquires different values or value ranges at other points.

there is no mechanism that allows information to travel between them.

Again, this is just a description of the results, not an explanation by any means. and it is not complete. It doesn't only change automatically and instanteniously, but it also always corresponds with the experimenters knowledge.

The experimental results can be explained in many different ways. Here are a few of them:

No Astyanax, those don't explain the result at all.

You see? Astyanax is not teaching at all, except maybe how to formulate things in a way that makes you look smart when you really aren't saying anything of substance at all.

The information only became specific when somebody looked at the results – before that it was kind of fuzzy and could have had any values at all, but when somebody looked at it, what that person already knew somehow forced the information to have certain values (this seems to be your New Age friend's interpretation);

This is the only one that actually explains the result, and the only one that provides a "mechanism" that would allow for the travel of the information.

You don't have to believe it, but you have to admit that it is the only one of those "answers" that actually explains it and provides a mechanism for info communication.

Are there any physical phenomena that suggest the existence of hidden variables? Variables are physical properties. Which physical properties do you believe are not described by the equations of quantum mechanics?

WTH are you talking about? The physical phenomena of this experiment can clearly not be explained. There is a hidden variable, how can you even argue with that?

Yes, they can be described, but not explained, so there obviously is a hidden variable.

reply to post by scarystuff


Btw, the article on ARS technica seems to have gone missing as of today.

reply to post by RandomEsotericScreenname


It's back up today, they did site maintenance or something.

reply to post by Astyanax

I think, quantum-physicists are too much relating on their calculations.

We know about the Newtonian equations, that they only match within calculations of more little distances, for example such as our solar system. When it goes about greater distances, the equations get fragile, the results get indefinte and wrong. Therefore Einstein created the relativity theorie. Indefinite results in equations show, that something doesn`t match to reality.
I`ve read about that in Stephen Hawking`s book "The grand design", which I only have in the German translation.
Therefore I can`t give any citations or ISBN number.

What about the results in quantum-physics-calculations, that are endless great numbers?
Oh, yes, they are being substracted or eleminated by a so-called renormalization number.
Within smaller spaces or entities in that way gained results work.
But those equitations cannot answer fundamental questions about the paradoxes or unknown variables within quantum physics. Explanations remain theoretical or even possibly wrong.

In Wikipedia en.wikipedia.org... you can read what Feynman and Dirac thought about the use of this renormalization number under point 5.- attitudes and interpretation.

Dirac's criticism was the most persistent.[2] As late as 1975, he was saying:[3]

Most physicists are very satisfied with the situation. They say: 'Quantum electrodynamics is a good theory and we do not have to worry about it any more.' I must say that I am very dissatisfied with the situation, because this so-called 'good theory' does involve neglecting infinities which appear in its equations, neglecting them in an arbitrary way. This is just not sensible mathematics. Sensible mathematics involves neglecting a quantity when it is small - not neglecting it just because it is infinitely great and you do not want it!

Another important critic was Feynman. Despite his crucial role in the development of quantum electrodynamics, he wrote the following in 1985:[4]

The shell game that we play ... is technically called 'renormalization'. But no matter how clever the word, it is still what I would call a dippy process! Having to resort to such hocus-pocus has prevented us from proving that the theory of quantum electrodynamics is mathematically self-consistent. It's surprising that the theory still hasn't been proved self-consistent one way or the other by now; I suspect that renormalization is not mathematically legitimate.

And there are woo-doos like Stephen Hawking, who challenge that philosophy is dead - only his mathematical philosophy remains: humanity created the universe retroactively.

www.psychologytoday.com...

He states, that humans are only biological machines, like computers.
And he underlines his claim with an experiment, that was done at a patient who was operated at his brain.

When the experimenters activated a region in the patient`s brain with electronics, he reacted in his wishes and feelings conform to the activated brain-area.

But I think, the experiment proofs quite the opposite:
If a doctor takes a little hammer and beats onto a knee of a patient with it, the under part of the leg will go upwards automatically.
So now he can proclaim: The movement of a leg isn`t activated from inside.

Now I will leave the bottom of natural science too, as Hawking does - with the difference, that I won`t tell people: Oh, what I`m saying now is natural science.

If we have a spirit, and I think we have, then our spirit is something like "entangled" with our body, especially our brain, and therefore information from the spirit can reach quantum-particles in our brain and our brain is used by our spirit somehow as a computer.
But our spirit can only interact through this "computer" into our physical reality, if there`s a malfunction in our brain, we can see how boardered we get.

And physicists should look at fundamental yet unsolved mysteries more practically.

It`s for example far away from reality to regard entangled particles being far away from each other as being only one particle - there`s space inbetween them. And the question remains - how is information "moving" inbetween them without needing space and time?

Originally posted by aborigineeIf we have a spirit, and I think we have, then our spirit is something like "entangled" with our body, especially our brain, and therefore information from the spirit can reach quantum-particles in our brain and our brain is used by our spirit somehow as a computer.
But our spirit can only interact through this "computer" into our physical reality, if there`s a malfunction in our brain, we can see how boardered we get.

I like this idea

Kind of like our bodies are actually remote-controlled from a different dimension.

What's that saying? "We are not physical entities having a spiritual experience, but spiritual beings having a physical experience"

reply to post by aboriginee

Indefinite results in equations show that something doesn`t match to reality.

What they really show is that the model from which the equations are derived is a poor predictor of what happens in reality. We must never forget this subtle but vital distinction. Science never says 'this is how the world is,' only 'this is how the world can be explained.'

I`ve read about that in Stephen Hawking`s book "The grand design", which I only have in the German translation. Therefore I can`t give any citations or ISBN number.

I know the book. Regarding Hawking's proclamations on philosophy or anything else other than physics: when a great scientist shares his thoughts about matters outside his field, he is speaking with the authority of his greatness but not with the solid support of his knowledge. What he says is merely his opinion. He doesn't have to be right and you don't have to agree with him.

As to your own spiritual views, whatever they might be, I have no wish to change them. But if I might be allowed a comment on what you wrote about them in your last post, I would say this: using analogies from science, in particular advanced physics, to explain or understand spiritual or philosophical matters is not very helpful and is more likely to lead you astray. You write:

If we have a spirit, and I think we have, then our spirit is something like "entangled" with our body, especially our brain, and therefore information from the spirit can reach quantum-particles in our brain and our brain is used by our spirit somehow as a computer.

Quantum entanglement is a very particular thing, with special attributes. Whatever your views on mind or spirit, there is no possible sense in which you can say such entities are 'entangled' with the body. Only identical entities can be entangled, and that entanglement implies not the exchange of information but a complementarity of physical characteristics that has no relationship with causality.

If you use the analogy of entanglement to describe the mind-body relationship, it will not be long before you start attributing characteristics and effects similar to those resulting from quantum entanglement to bodies and souls. And that, of course, would be absolute, total woo-woo nonsense – creating a poetic metaphor, pretending it is real and calling it science. I strongly advise a more appropriate and critical approach.

And physicists should look at fundamental yet unsolved mysteries more practically. It`s for example far away from reality to regard entangled particles being far away from each other as being only one particle - there`s space in between them. And the question remains - how is information "moving" inbetween them without needing space and time?

Well, you are entitled to your opinion. These things seem impractical or unreal to you because you are still clinging to the model of reality created by your brain from the information received by your sense organs. In that model, time only flows one way and objects separated in space and time cannot act in concordance without information passing between them. But these things are only the way you, as a living animal, have evolved to process and interpret the world around you. In reality the world is nothing like that. It is something we cannot see and do not understand.

Through science, we learn something about what the world might really be like, but neither science (nor, indeed, spirituality) can ever give us the full answer. That almost certainly lies beyond us; it may not, in fact, exist at all. I prefer not to comfort myself with superstitious fabrications, but your own inclinations may differ. Whatever they are, I wish you happiness and a satisfactory conclusion to your quest for understanding.

reply to post by Astyanax

Well, you are entitled to your opinion. These things seem impractical or unreal to you because you are still clinging to the model of reality created by your brain from the information received by your sense organs. In that model, time only flows one way and objects separated in space and time cannot act in concordance without information passing between them.

If realtiy is just there without us, then why do these variables always match what we know, even when they shouldn't? When there is no physical way for this info to travel, at all?

You act like it's all perfectly logical and explainable, yet refuse to do so.

But these things are only the way you, as a living animal, have evolved to process and interpret the world around you. In reality the world is nothing like that. It is something we cannot see and do not understand. Through science, we learn something about what the world might really be like, but neither science (nor, indeed, spirituality) can ever give us the full answer. That almost certainly lies beyond us; it may not, in fact, exist at all. I prefer not to comfort myself with superstitious fabrications,

Wth, we can see perfectly fine what is and what is not. We can repeat the exact same results every single time.

You are comforting yourself with your descriptions of what you see, yet you clearly refuse to step out of your comfort zone and recognise the implications.

You have been asked the same question over and over again and you go off on increasingly incoherent tangents in order to get away from acknowledging the implications.

how is information "moving" inbetween them without needing space and time?

This is your answer?

But these things are only the way you, as a living animal, have evolved to process and interpret the world around you. In reality the world is nothing like that.

So you are saying that we only see the world as we see it, and I mean see in the broadest sense of the word, and this includes the results of these quantum exp., but in reality it is much different?

That's funny cause we will never be able to prove that reality exists outside of our perception, so that statement is utter rubbish.

You refuse to respond to the question with antything of substance, and now you are even claiming that what we see, and can repeat, is not real, and that "realtity"is much different, just because you can't explain it.

Talking about comforting oneself with supstitious fabrications.

reply to post by RandomEsotericScreenname

I won't say this again. I stopped reading your posts pages and pages ago. You have nothing to say that I have not heard dozens of times before from people who have more subject knowledge, better writing skills and a better command of English than yourself.

Clearly nobody else is talking to you either; the last time anyone on this thread replied to one of your posts was the 7th of May, five whole days ago, and that post ended with the poster saying he wasn't interested in talking to you any more. You have nothing of substance to contribute to the discussion of a subject you know nothing about. Everybody is ignoring you. Why are you still here?

In real life, do you enjoy gatecrashing parties and annoying the invited guests?

reply to post by Astyanax

I won't say this again. I stopped reading your posts pages and pages ago. You have nothing to say that I have not heard dozens of times before from people who have more subject knowledge, better writing skills and a better command of English than yourself.

Oh, I´m pretty sure you are reading my posts. Obviously. Get it all of your chest big boy, but I bet my English is better than your Dutch.

Clearly nobody else is talking to you either; the last time anyone on this thread replied to one of your posts was the 7th of May, five whole days ago, and that post ended with the poster saying he wasn't interested in talking to you any more.

Jeah, and now that poster is asking you the same question I was, and you are also still ignoring it. The other poster that was in the discussion said that he probably had to agree with my point.

In fact, it seems you are the only one that seems to be content with your non explanations.

You have nothing of substance to contribute to the discussion of a subject you know nothing about.

I have added to the op with other experiments and have been totally on topic the the whole time, qouting the article from the op and talking about the experiment, all you have done is beat around the bush and ignored the important issues.

Everybody is ignoring you. Why are you still here?

Lol, and you are king because one guy was talking to you? I see no reason to not be here, it's a free country. As long as you are keeping up the act, why shouldn't I be here. I am free to respond to every post I read.

In real life, do you enjoy gatecrashing parties and annoying the invited guests?

Lol, I didn't know you, or anybody else was invited, or that invitations were needed. Off course, you are such an authority that you have a special right to be here. Might wanna get that arrogance checked out, you been having that problem for years now.

I am glad that you are annoyed though, but too bad you still don't have an answer or even a little bit of recognition for the obvious questions the exp. in the OP brings up.

Originally posted by Cecilofs


I like this idea

Kind of like our bodies are actually remote-controlled from a different dimension.

What's that saying? "We are not physical entities having a spiritual experience, but spiritual beings having a physical experience"

Yes, I see it like that too. And by my opinion our spirit and body are a unity acting upon each other and taking influence upon each other.

But natural-scientifically spoken, that`s speculation.
On the other hand, doesn`t speculation belong to natural-scientific work?
I think, yes, as long as we know and say, that we`re spectaculating.

But in natural-science there are boarders for speculations. I can say, that like in the situation of the doctor beating with a little hammer on a patient`s knee, if our brain can be activated from outside, then it also can be activated from inside. That`s a statement, that perhaps could be proved or falsified.

When I´m talking about us having a spirit, I`m leaving the bottom of science, this lies within the nature of the "stuff".

It can`t be proved, because we don`t have natural-scientifical access upon higher dimensions. Perhaps science will be able to prove one day, that there is something within us acting upon the brain, that comes from a higher dimension. But they will never be able to determine, what that "something" is.

We can see quantum-particles acting in ways, that don`t match with the laws of our physics, for example with the law that nothing, even no information, can move faster than light.
And I think it`s important to ask, why they do such things, and quantum physicists are starting to ask those questions.

www.sciencemag.org...

There are 3 possibilities:
1. Information-transfer between entangled particles happens only within our dimension.
2. The transfer happens within another dimension.
3. Information as a whole is another dimension or part of another dimension.

They will never find out, how things work in a higher dimension, but I think, perhaps actions within quantum-particles could be determined as not originated from our dimension but acting into it, that would be possible, if it was like this.

If god exists, then he exists in a dimension above space and time, where natural-science doesn`t have access upon.
Therefore there`s a boarder between that kind of science and religion. They have no common intersection, but they touch each other.
When scientists act like Werner Heisenberg did, then it`s really only a touch:
togodandjesuschrist.tripod.com...

¨

Heisenberg wrote: “The first gulp from the glass of natural sciences will turn you into an atheist, but at the bottom of the glass God is waiting for you.”

And scientists, who don`t believe in god, find in science an affirmation to their "believe".

That`s okay, as long as both, believers in god and non-believers, do their researches and calculations within scientifical rules.
Until the 19th century in the western world the church bore down science.
Nowadays science bears down faith or the ability, especially of young people, to gain faith.

They create their pseudo-scientifical theories, for example about endless numbers of parallel universes (higher or other dimensions are possible, but it`s not proved, that their number is endless) or an evolutiontheorie, which I think is true, but where everything is initiated randomly, which they can`t prove, because they don`t know, why information in quantum particles exists and where it comes from. And they don`t know, why our universe seems to be so fine-tuned in order to produce life and this life seems to be very rare. But there is there phantasie of endless multiverses, so they don`t need to worry about such things.

en.wikipedia.org...
zeenews.india.com...


In quantum physics they calculate with wrong calculations (renormalization number, by substrating it only at one side of the equations) or they postulate some particles, although their existence isn`t proved, for example the Higgs Boson, oh yes, they`ve always been short before finding it, since twenty years.

www.independent.co.uk...

They`ve ruled out now 95% of possibilities where to find it, so it doesn`t look hopefully for them.

I don`t want to prove the existence of god, this isn`t possible, but scientists should be honest enough to state, that there can`t be found any evidence for the existence of god nor for his non-existence, because the action-radius of natural science is too small for such stuff.

reply to post by aboriginee

A star for your post, though I disagree with you that quantum calculations involving renormalization are 'wrong'. I agree it seems a bit of a fiddle, avoiding solutions that go to infinity by picking and choosing the values to solve for, but it really isn't.

Initially viewed as a suspicious provisional procedure by some of its originators, renormalization eventually was embraced as an important and self-consistent tool in several fields of physics and mathematics. Source

If an adjustment – a 'fiddle' – makes a mathematical model conform better to reality, it isn't a fiddle. What is required, in such a case, is an understanding of what the adjustment means in terms of the reality being modelled. Such an understanding usually emerges from close inspection of the equations.

Quantum mechanics shows us that the universe does not resolve itself into fundamental phenomena that are explicable by common intuition. This confuses or offends people who insist that it should, but there is absolutely no reason why it should. The universe is not obliged to conform to our prejudices – nor, indeed, to our wishes and demands.

scientists should be honest enough to state, that there can`t be found any evidence for the existence of god nor for his non-existence.

I think most scientists would be happy to confirm this, though they are likely to add that if there is no evidence for the existence of something there is no reason to believe in it.

reply to post by Astyanax

The universe is not obliged to conform to our prejudices –

The experiment in the OP and others, prove that at least particles are in fact obliged to do so indeed, the results clearly adapt to the info that is available.

If they didn't conform to our prejudice you wouldn't see an interference pattern every single time the which path info is unknown, or a non interference pattern every single time the path is known, and this even goes for results that happened in the past that somwehow correspond with information gained in the present, like the OP shows.

Again, you are spreading false information and ignoring the evidence of the topic at hand.

Originally posted by scarystuff
As if entangled particles and spooky action at a distance is not already weird enough, it now turns out they can see the future also!

Article on Ars technica

I don't know what to say other than the universe will never stop to amaze me

Maybe this will lead to some way to predict the future and also to explain how some people say they can already see what is going to happen (although they are mostly wrong).

there are are there watcher? that have a watch
eclipse.gsfc.nasa.gov...

China, Japan, US to witness 'ring' solar eclipse


phys.org...

rodin in
Dimensions

Re Quantum physics.

You are all being fooled by language. What is a quantum? It is an indivisible state. A discrete.. something. It can be an 'energy level' or a 'spin' (whatever that is). You all think quanta are something magical. Let me disabuse you.

Notes on a piano are quantised frequencies that form a harmonic scale. Each note has a discrete value, The frequencies are determined by harmonic relationships.

Take a single string. There are harmonics, and you can find them by simply damping the string in the correct place. Plenty guitarists here know that. These harmonics are 'quantised' too.

Take charge. Charge is quantised into positive and negative, depending on whether an ion (say) has a surfiet or deficit of electrons.

Quantum is everywhere - the number of apples on a tree is quantized
As for the weird stuff - that's all ..............................Text

en.wikipedia.org...
Text................Measure (physics), a way to integrate over all possible histories of a system in quantum field theory.

now siriosly..someone may get a question, though, put it in a wider perspective, like --
is the main (or)and the only real povver as that driving force of (a pre)formed judgment
and where that judgment and alike.. www.thefreedictionary.com...
are coming from?
balance ? or...............................The history of the
star: Zuben Elgenubi
(re-)nam(e-)ing in www.constellationsofwords.com...
Constellations of Words
? while ..its in the constellation - scorpio nssdc.gsfc.nasa.gov...
Longitude 1900: 13SCO41 Longitude 2000: 15SCO05

.
Alpha (α)1 and alpha (α)2, Zuben Elgenubi, is a widely double star; 3 and 6 magnitude, pale yellow and light gray, in the southern Claw of the Scorpion in constellation of Libra.

This star alpha (α), Zuben Elgenubi, is the Southern Scale of Libra (beta β, Zubenelschemali, is the Northern Scale.)

The early Greeks did not associate Libra's stars with a "Balance" or "Scales", to them it was the Chelae; the Claws of the Scorpion. In Greek astronomy alpha (α)1 and alpha (α)2 were Chele notios, the Southern Claw (of the Scorpion, Scorpius), from the name of the whole division now our Southern Scale.

Our Zubenelgenubi is from Al Zuban al Janubiyyah, the exact Arabian equivalent of the second-century Greek astronomer Ptolemy's term; but Zubenelgubi and Janib are both wrong, and Zubeneschamali is worse, for it plainly belongs to beta (β Zubenelschemali).

English writer on globes John Chilmead (circa 1639) called it Mizan Aliemin from an Arabian title for the constellation of Libra; .....................Text

Aliem-in ?
Mizan is 'Scales'.

Sirius
www.constellationsofwords.com/stars/Sirius.html - ... Tables the original is changed to Asceher and Aschere Aliemini; while Bayer ... Although the identification of Euphratean stellar titles is by no means settled, ...

सिरा

sirA

f.

vein



सिरा

sirA

f.

artery

सिरा

sirA

f.
nerve



शिर

zira

m. n.

head

spokensanskrit.de...

anyway


As per the old muhurta names Vijaya is the 11th day muhurta. As per the modern muhurta names Indragni (Visakha) is the 11th day muhurta. Thus clearly 'Vijaya Muhurta = Visakha Nakshatra Muhurta'. Any good muhurta related astrology classic that lists old muhurta names can be the reference - e.g. Madhaveeya. As per the ancient system 1.Roudram, 2.Swetam, 3.Maitram, 4.Arabhagam, 5.Savitram, 6.Vairajam, 7.Gandharvam, 8.Abhijit, 9.Rouhinam, 10.Balam, 11.Vijayam, 12.Nairitam, 13.Sakram, 14.Varunam, 15.Bhagam are the 15 day muhurtas.
Sreenadh

so...there was
Abhijit Nakshatra

Sreenadh:

www.ancientindianastrology.com...:abhijit-nakshatra

Abhijit Nakshatra WAS important when the Nakshatra division based on the path of moon was done in Vedic period. It is possible that in that period that kind of division (assigning moon path to 28 Nakshatras) was done, Abhijit was taken as the anchor point.


www.ancientindianastrology.com/cmsa/index.php?...abhijit...


– So Abhijit is Victorious; Visakha is Victorious; it seems that these two Nakshatras has some special connection to Victory. But Abhijit lost the ...'


link

ujjaji

Universal Time, a standard time scale
UT and Ujjain
Unit Testing, a software verification and validation method in which a programmer tests if individual units of source code are fit for use.
----ain
The Arabic 'ain ﻉ is an extension of the Hamza.
haMsa spokensanskrit.de...

m.

horse

हंस

haMsa

m.

spiritual preceptor


m.

gander

m.

mystical name of the letter h


m.

swan


m.

kind of mantra or mystical text


soul or spirit

Stop. Everybody's getting their panties tied up, because they are unwilling to believe, fully, in actual orthodox quantum mechanics and the experimental evidence for it in front of them.

The state evolution of the Universe happens in a functional Hilbert space. This is very weird and hard to understand intuitively but it appears to be true and it's been the core of QM since the 1920's and 1930's and hasn't ever changed.

Strong Einsteinian locality, that the only true physics happens in a purely local differential equation (and not a global functional equation) only is so is an emergent, not fundamental, property for classical sized (large N) objects so it seems.

Non-local 'something' does have an effect in quantum mechanics, presumably because of the nature of the functional space. Straight up 'information transmission' (sending a telegram) across non-local regions isn't possible, but other things are.

Get over it, it's the truth.

The real core of relativity is the assertion of the continuous symmetry properties in the dynamical equations of motion and regular quantum mechanics obeys this just fine.

It's like people in the Newtonian world still getting upset about the fact that a dense cannonball and a fluffy pillow *really* will fall in gravity at exactly the same rate in a vacuum. Get over it.