Everett day care: THE Top 10 Daycares in Everett, MA

THE Top 10 Daycares in Everett, MA

I selected LS Brighton because I trusted the people I met with during my tour, I loved the curriculum, the photo-sharing feature, and loved both their indoor and outdoor spaces. My child attended full-time forone year, from age 4m-15m. We had a positive experience for our first 6 months and then service somewhat declined over time with small issues here and there. Ultimately, we left due to the “cons” listed below as well as price which, at over $2,100/mo, was higher than other local daycares at the 15m+ age group.
Pros:
Qualified and Flexible: Teachers are highly qualified/certified for the role, and seem to really love the kids they work with. Flexible and understanding with parents schedules, pickup/dropoff, and will adhere to most special requests. Willing to follow a precise infant feeding schedule laid out by parents.
Learning, Development, and Comfort for younger infants: Encouraged my child to try new foods (always asked my permission), sign words, etc. On most days, a teacher was available to hold/hug my child if she was upset upon dropoff.
Communication: You can reach the director and/or your child’s classroom and check in whenever needed. Overall, school is excellent at communicating which was very important to me. Gave us ample notice of annual price increases, giving me time to make a change.
Cons:
Turnover: Incredibly rapid, to the point that once a new teacher begins to learn your child’s personality, habits, and get acclimated to their new job, they leave or are let go. At one point, a disgruntled employee expressed to me their concern that several good teachers were “written up” for unsubstantiated claims, and as a result, the good teachers left. This resonated with me as my child’s two favorite teachers were each only employed with LS for a couple of months. (We were so sad to see them go with no notice, and offered to them both to serve as a reference.)
Outdoor time: LS states that they take the children outside, weather permitting, but we also found this to be dependent on the teacher (again, affected by turnover and the teachers taking time getting acclimated to their new role). I was asked to provide sunscreen and weather-appropriate clothing, and while the infants were taken for many walks on warmer winter days, my child was taken outdoors approximately 4 times only from May-Oct. The one time she was taken outside during the summer was on a day when I called and specifically requested it, wondering why they hadn’t been going out much. They sent a photo that day.
Injuries: LS was very good at reporting injuries for a while, but became inconsistent with the heavy staff turnover; during a 3-week time period my child was bit twice and sustained a large bruise on her chin, none of which were reported to me proactively (I had to seek out info after noticing the injuries myself. The chin bruise was then represented to be a “food stain” but was not.)
Baby Schedule: Good with establishing a feeding/changing schedule, but unable to get my child on a nap schedule. Was initially told this would happen by 11m, but the person who stated it was long gone by then.
Photos: LS states that they send photos to parents/family throughout the day, but this turns out to be totally dependent on your child’s teacher (also, heavily affected by rapid turnover rate at LS). When we were new to LS, we got several photos/videos a day, which significantly declined over time. On avg got one photo per week for the last 6 months.
General service: Inconsistent. Ie. Sometimes I dropped my toddler off and had to heat and plate her breakfast myself, other times someone did it for me. Most days I received my child’s daily report upon pickup (via email/text) but some days it was not sent to me until the following morning. Most days diaper was changed regularly, some days child sat in a dirty diaper long enough to cause substantial/painful rash. Some teachers seem stressed/flustered while others seem to manage the job very well (however, all employees were always very very nice).
Older Infant curriculum: A baby doesn’t need much entertainment but once they are walking and engaging, they require a little more. LS was great from age 4m-10m, but once an older baby in the infant room (ages 11-15m), she appeared bored most days upon pickup….

Early Child Development Center in Everett, WA

We currently have nine oversized classrooms filled with educational materials and toys. Children are grouped primarily by developmental stages and age groups in each classroom. We often have up to a 2-year age-range in each classroom.

Little Dippers: 2-12 Months

Our state-of-the-art infant room enrolls up to eight babies from ages 2-12 months. Two teachers nurture and stimulate these precious infants with beautiful playscapes and early learning activities.  Colorful toys and soft elements permeate this wonderful environment.

There are two separate playscapes for both mobile and non-mobile infants so that our littlest ones are protected from their older, more active classmates. Blues and greens are the primary colors that soothe your infants and create a calm, relaxing atmosphere. You will be thrilled with the level of care and attention your baby will receive in this very special place for infants.

Sparkles: 12-24 Months

The Sparkles classroom meets the needs of our youngest group of toddlers. There will be a maximum of 14 children in the group, with 2-3 teachers. The ratio of teachers to children will range from 1-4 up to 1-5. These toddlers are learning to walk efficiently, drink from cups, sit at a table with their friends, and participate in fun individual and group music and art lessons. Children will be learning to verbalize their feelings and begin to develop basic speaking skills. This warm, nurturing environment will both comfort and stimulate your young toddler.

Twinkles: 21-33 Months

The Twinkles is our classroom for our older toddlers ranging from 21 months – 33 months in age. There will be 12-14 children in the group, with two teachers. They will be learning basic social skills as they develop appropriate language to express themselves. They need plenty of room to move and express their newfound determination to take control of their lives. Children in this group will be learning toileting skills necessary to move into the preschool program.

Star Gazers: Preschool I

Our Star Gazers room is for our youngest preschoolers who are mostly toilet trained. This room is perfect for young 3 year-olds, as well as some older two- year-olds who may be ready for preschool activities, but who have not quite completed their toileting skills. Our group size of 16-18 children features two teachers and 1-8 ratio, which is lower than state regulation. We feel that these young preschoolers still need a great deal of individual nurturing and attention as they are introduced to early preschool activities.

Moonbeams: Preschool II

The Moonbeam classroom has a group size of 18-20 children, with two teachers. Children in this group must be out of diapers. This rooms is geared towards three-year-olds and younger four-year-olds. Because they are still so young, these children receive extra attention and nurturing as they work on social skills and self-help activities. Rudimentary preschool activities are offered as these children learn how to follow simple directions and work in small groups.

Sun Rays: Preschool III

The Sun Rays classroom has a group size of 20 children, with two teachers. Children in this room are generally four years old, although some older three year olds who are ready to start interacting socially with each other may also be enrolled. By Sun Rays, children are ready to identify their emotions and solve problems with words. They like rules and are able to follow directions with increased skill.

Starlights: Prekindergarten

The Starlights classroom meets the needs of our oldest preschool children ranging from 4 to 5 years old. Children in this prekindergarten classroom are becoming more independent, interactive, and interested in teacher-directed activities. They are working in both small and large group activities, including music, movement, story-time, math, science, and language arts. Kindergarten readiness skills will prepare your children for their first year of school. Your children will be challenged to follow directions, interact with peers in educational games and group instruction, and become motivated to explore and discover new and exciting concepts in their world. Monthly field trips will introduce them to the arts, their community, and the people that make their world work.

Is the multiworld real?

Yuri Lebedev,
Candidate of Technical Sciences
“Science and Life” №4, 2010

Parallel, intersecting, branching and again converging worlds. What is it – an invention of science fiction writers or a reality that has not yet been realized? The theme of many worlds, developed by philosophers since ancient times, became the subject of discussion among physicists in the middle of the 20th century. Based on the principle of the interaction of the observer with quantum reality, a new interpretation of quantum mechanics has appeared, called the “Oxfordian”. Its author, the young physicist Hugh Everett, met with Niels Bohr, the founder of the “Copenhagen” interpretation of quantum mechanics that was generally accepted at that time. But they did not find a common language. Their worlds parted…

The idea of ​​a plurality of worlds originated in vast expanses from the mountains and plains of Hellas to Tibet and the Ganges valley in India about 2500 years ago. Reasoning about the many worlds can be found in the teachings of the Buddha, in the conversations of Leucippus and Democritus. The famous philosopher and historian of science Viktor Pavlovich Vizgin traced the evolution of this idea among ancient philosophers – Aurelius Augustine, Nicholas of Cusa, Giordano Bruno, Bernard Le Bovier de Fontenelle. At the end of the 19th – beginning of the 20th century, domestic thinkers also appeared in this row – Nikolai Fedorov with his “Philosophy of a Common Cause”, Daniil Andreev with “The Rose of the World”, Velimir Khlebnikov in “The Planks of Fate” and Konstantin Tsiolkovsky, whose ideas are still very little studied .

The 20th century in science is, admittedly, the “age of physics”. And physics could not pass over in silence the fundamental worldview question: do we live in a single Universe or are there many universes – worlds similar to ours or different from it?

In 1957, among the numerous philosophical varieties of the idea of ​​many worlds, the first strictly physical one appeared. Hugh Everett III’s article “ Relative State “Formulation of Quantum Mechanics ” (“Formulation of quantum mechanics through” correlated states “”), and a new direction in science arose: everetics, the doctrine of the physicality of the many worlds. In Russian, the term was formed on behalf of the author of the main physical idea; on

Why are not only physicists discussing these ideas today, and why does Everett hear the whole spectrum of assessments and emotions – from “brilliant physicist” to “abstract visionary”?0007

Everett suggested that the Copernican Universe is only one of the universes, and the basis of the universe is the physical many-worlds.

From the point of view of the most general cosmological theory of chaotic inflation, developed by many famous physicists, the universe is represented as a multiverse, a “tree of branches”, each of which has its own “rules of the game” – physical laws. And each branch of the multiverse has its own “players” – elements of nature, very different from our particles, atoms, planets and stars. They interact, giving rise to “spaces and times” specific to each branch. Therefore, most branches of the multiverse are absolute terra incognita for our perception and understanding. But among them there are those in which the conditions are favorable for the emergence of Reason of our type. We live in one of these universes.

Until recently, physicists studying the “rules of the game” in our branch of the multiverse paid attention to everything – from the strong interaction in the smallest particles of matter to gravity that controls metagalaxies – with the exception of consciousness – that phenomenon of reality, which determines the specifics of our Universe .

Virtually taboo in theoretical physics, consciousness is studied by sciences “borderline” with the humanities — psychology, psychiatry, sociology, etc. At the same time, consciousness is not clearly distinguished from the complex mental complex — the triad of consciousness, mind, intellect.

And in Everett’s pioneering article, the observer’s consciousness for the first time received the status of a “physical parameter”. And this is the second basis on which everetics developed.

From an Everetic point of view, “perceived reality” is a set of classical realizations of physical worlds (CRFM) and intelligently conscious worlds built on their basis, reflecting the interaction of the Observer with the only quantum reality of our universe. This set, at the suggestion of the leading researcher of FIAN, Doctor of Physical and Mathematical Sciences, Professor Mikhail Borisovich Mensky, was called “alterverse”.

The essence of the everetic interpretation of events in our branch of the multiverse is that none of the possible outcomes of the quantum interaction of the Observer and the Object remains unrealized, however, each of them is carried out in its own CRFM (“parallel universe”, as it is often called in popular literature ).

The branching of the CRFM generates Everett’s “correlated state” – the interacting unity of the Observer and the Object. According to Everett’s concept, the quantum-mechanical interaction of the Object and the Observer leads to the formation of a set of different worlds, and the number of branches is equal to the number of physically possible outcomes of this interaction. And all these worlds are real.

Based on such a physical foundation, today called the Oxford interpretation of quantum mechanics, everetics generalizes Everett’s postulate to the general case of any interaction. This statement is equivalent to the fact that the physical multi-world is recognized as real, which includes consciousness as an integral element.

The Oxford interpretation of quantum mechanics is now promoted by physicists, whose authority in the world of modern physics is undeniable, but it is also opposed by absolute authorities (for example, Roger Penrose). Their counter-arguments do not refute the physical correctness of Everett’s constructions (its mathematical impeccability has been repeatedly verified by extra-class specialists), but belong to the very area from which quantum mechanics has so far avoided recognizing the physicality – the role of the mental in the Universe. The main reason for denying recognition of Everett’s ideas is the assertion that these ideas are “experimentally unprovable. ” Indeed: one cannot seriously discuss a theory that is fundamentally impossible either to prove or disprove in an experiment or by observation. The convincing power of everetic postulates is not sufficient for universal recognition of everetics.

This, however, does not discredit Everetics, since it is impossible to prove something “to everyone and forever”, if only because before a proof is required, there must be a feeling of doubt about the validity of the statement under discussion. And doubt arises in the process of assimilation of the meaning of the subject of proof, which requires the expenditure of spiritual strength, and not everyone and not always ready for this.

Here is how Hermann von Helmholtz (1821–1894), one of the last universal scientists in the history of science, who was engaged in research linking medicine, physics and chemistry, defined this situation: “The author of a new concept, as a rule, is convinced that it is easier to discover a new truth than to find out why others do not understand it. ” So it was in the 19th century, and so it remains in the 21st century.

Everettika expanded the range of basic ideas for describing the physical many-worlds. Let’s note two of them. First, according to Mensky, the consciousness of the Observer is recognized as a factor separating different physical worlds. The second idea proposed by the author of this article is the presence of interaction of alterverse branches in the processes of so-called everetic gluings.

Gluings are the processes of interaction between the branches of the alterverse and the manifestation of their results in our reality. They can be both material of the most varied form – from the seemingly strange result of the interaction of two photons during interference to “suddenly found” glasses, and mental – from “prophetic dreams”, for example, to the materialization of “mysterious artifacts”.

The range of gluing scales covers all the “realms of physics” — the microcosm, the macrocosm and the megaworld. And the realization that gluings of various scales serve as a mechanism that counteracts the “monstrous growth in the number of alterverse branches” also removes those objections to everetics that are based on emotional rejection of the huge number of branches.

According to science of science, any scientific statement, firstly, must be proven (verification criterion) and, secondly, any scientific statement can be refuted (falsification criterion).

“The decisive experiment” in science is considered to be an experiment, according to the results of which one can unequivocally choose between competing theories that explain a certain set of facts in different ways.

At the same time, one should not think that such a choice leads to the truth. True – even in the understanding of truth that the scientific paradigm adheres to today – may turn out to be some kind of “third theory” for which this experiment has no meaning.

From this we can conclude: the concept of a “decisive experiment”, like the concept of truth in general, does not mean that its conduct will exclude disputes, doubts, hesitations, and even a decisive proof of the truth by this experiment.

Everettika is essentially a worldview complex. Its experimental field is just being formed (but it is being actively formed, and everetics already has proposals for setting up verification experiments), but now it is difficult to predict the point where the efforts of researchers will lead to “decisive success”. Only one thing is clear – in the decisive experiment of everetics there must be a “conscious element”.

Another thing is the concrete-physical side of everetics. Opponents of the “many-world concept” believe that Everett’s theory does not satisfy the verification criterion and, therefore, cannot be recognized as a true natural science theory. The maximum that the opponents of everetics agree to is the assignment of the status of a “philosophical concept” to it.

But despite the sharp denial of the very idea of ​​many worlds by many physicists of the middle and older generations, it interested young, but experienced and qualified experimenters who wanted to test it.

In 1994, an international group of physicists led by P. Kvyat carried out an experiment, which is proposed to be considered as a verification for physical everettism ^* .

The very idea of ​​the experiment, based on the assumption of the physical reality of “parallel worlds”, was proposed by Israeli physicists A. Elitzur and L. Vaidman in 1993 ^** .

These experiments are called “interaction-free measurements”. They demonstrated the physical reality of solving a paradoxical problem, which the authors deliberately sharpened by formulating it in the form of a scientific-detective problem of “testing especially sensitive bombs.”

Let’s assume that the terrorists have seized a warehouse where “superbombs” are stored, the fuse of which is so sensitive that it is triggered by interaction with a single photon. Part of the fuses during the capture was damaged. The task is to evaluate the possibility of finding at least a few serviceable bombs with an absolute guarantee using optical methods. The question, the answer to which is vital for the terrorists, and for the special forces that surrounded them, and for the population of the nearest cities…

This conditional task should show the possibility of quantum interactions, in which in our alterverse branch the interaction event itself is not observed, but other observable “here and now” events occur.

In the event of a successful solution of this problem, the worldview dilemma boils down to the fact that from the point of view of the Copenhagen interpretation of quantum mechanics, the “objective possibility of an explosion” did not come true, but from the point of view of the Oxford one, the bomb will still explode, but in a “parallel world” .

Later, the field of experimental physics that developed from the solution of this problem was named with the Russian abbreviation BIEV (Elitzur–Vaidman Non-Contact Measurements). It corresponds to the English EVIFM ( Elitzur-Vaidman Interaction-Free Measurement ).

The paradox of A. Elitzur and L. Vaidman’s task is that the choice must be made optically, and the fuse of a serviceable bomb is so sensitive that it is triggered by interaction with a single photon that hit its sensor element. Of course, in a real experiment, instead of a “supersensitive bomb”, a simple sensor was used, the signal from which did not go to the bomb detonator, but to a recording physical device. The conditions of the problem are illustrated in Fig. 1a.

And its solution, proposed by Elitzur and Vaidman, can be obtained using the installation, the scheme of which is shown in fig. 1b.

The essence of the decisive experiment is that a “test bomb” is placed as one of the mirrors in the Mach-Zehnder interferometer (Fig. 1b). Elitzur and Vaidman predicted that in 25% of the cases when the bomb is “healthy”, detector B will go off and no “explosion” will occur.

The mere fact that detector B went off without an explosion is enough reason to say that the bomb is operational.

To see this, let us consider the many-world interpretation of the operation of the interferometer without a bomb and when solving the Elitzur–Vaidman problem.

Figure 2 shows the alterverse branching scheme when a single interferometer quantum passes through the interferometer without a bomb.

As a result of the passage of a quantum through an equal-arm interferometer, detector A always fires. From the multi-world point of view, this is explained as follows.

Alterverses 1 and 2 are formed with an equal probability of 50% after the quantum enters the interferometer. They differ in the direction of quantum motion after its interaction with the first semitransparent mirror. In alterverse 1 quantum goes to the right, and in alterverse 2 quantum goes up.

Further reflection occurs on opaque mirrors, and alterverse 1 is transformed into alterverse 3, and alterverse 2 into alterverse 4.

Alterverse 3 with a probability of 50% generates alterverses 5 and 6, differing in which detector (B or A, respectively) fixes the quantum at the output of the interferometer.

Alterverse 4 (also with a probability of 50%) generates alterverses 7 and 8, which differ in which detector (B or A, respectively) detects a quantum at the output of the interferometer.

Of particular interest are alterverses 6 and 7. They form a gluing in which the physical configurations of both alterverses are absolutely identical. The difference between them lies in the history of their emergence, that is, in the difference in the paths along which the quantum came.

The traditional quantum-mechanical formalism in this case describes a quantum as a wave and predicts the occurrence of “destructive interference” of the split wave functions of a quantum with the probability of detecting it in this state equal to zero.

The meaning of the description is as follows. A photon (single!) in the form of a wave splits on the first mirror and then passes through the interferometer in the form of two half-waves (“split wave functions”), while remaining the only particle! The Copenhagen interpretation is silent about how he succeeds and what a “photon half-wave” is. At the output, the half-waves interfere and combine again into a “full-fledged photon”, and it turns out that it can only move to the right.

The many-world interpretation proceeds from the corpuscular description of the quantum and shows that in this gluing, due to the law of conservation of momentum, the total momentum transmitted to the mirror by alterverses 6 and 7 must be equal to zero. In this case, the momentum of the quantum must also become zero, which is impossible in our branch of the multiverse, and therefore such gluing cannot be realized in any branch of the CMRF. After all, according to the Oxford interpretation, not everything is realized, but only physically possible results of interaction.

It follows that in this scheme, when a photon passes through, only alterverses 5 and 8 can be realized. Whichever of them becomes “our” alterverse, we will find that detector A has triggered with a probability of 100%.

Let us now consider the many-world interpretation of the Elitzur–Vaidman problem.

Figure 3 shows the scheme of branching alterverses during the implementation of an experiment demonstrating the possibility of solving the Elitzur–Vaidman problem.

Configuration of the elements that make up the alterverses in fig. 3 differs from the configuration of the elements in Fig. 2 by the fact that a bomb with an ultrasensitive fuse is attached to the opaque mirror in the lower right corner of the figure, triggered by a single contact with a light quantum.

Just as in a classical quantum interferometer, alterverses 1 and 2 are formed with an equal probability of 50% after a quantum is admitted into the modified interferometer. They differ in the direction of quantum motion after its interaction with the first semitransparent mirror. In alterverse 1 quantum goes to the right, and in alterverse 2 quantum goes up.

As a result, a bomb explodes in alterverse 1. This, however, does not mean the end of the experiment in alterverse 1. The quantum moves at the speed of light, and the secondary quanta generated by the explosion (and even more so the explosive wave) always lag behind it. Therefore, we can continue to follow the fate of the quantum in this alterverse even after the bomb explosion, ignoring the catastrophic consequences that will destroy the installation in alterverse 1 a moment after the end of our thought experiment.

Further reflection occurs on opaque mirrors, and alterverse 1 is transformed into alterverse 3, and alterverse 2 into alterverse 4.

Alterverse 3 with a probability of 50% generates alterverses 5 and 6, differing in which detector (B or A, respectively) fixes the quantum at the output of the interferometer. However, the results of this fixation are completely useless – the installation in both of these alterverses is destroyed by the explosion.

Alterverse 4 (also with a probability of 50%) generates alterverses 7 and 8, which also differ in which detector (B or A, respectively) detects a quantum at the output of the interferometer.

Alterverse 8 is of no interest, since the operation of detector A in it is no different from the operation of the detector in the case of interference considered earlier without a bomb fuse and therefore cannot give information about whether the fuse is working.

Alterverse 7 is of particular interest. Detector B went off in it, which could not have happened if there had not been a working bomb in the interferometer. At the same time, the quantum did not touch the mirror of the fuse and the bomb did not explode! This result became possible because gluing between alterverses 6 and 7 is impossible – their physical configurations are completely different. (In a “parallel world” that could provide “destructive interference”, a bomb explosion destroyed the mirror needed for gluing.)

As a result, out of four alterverses, we will get a successful result for the purposes of the experiment only in one, that is, with a probability of 25%, which was shown by the experiments. Today, after improvements in BIEV methods, it has been possible to increase the share of successful detection of objects by a non-contact method from 25 to 88%.

From the foregoing, it is clear what role the concept of gluing introduced in everetics plays in explaining the phenomenon of interference.

What does the new “physical technology” predicted on the basis of Everett’s works give mankind? This is how the authors of the discovery themselves see the prospects of BIEV — P. Kvyat,
H. Weinfurter and A. Zeilinger – in a report on him in the journal “ Scientific American “:

“What’s good about all these quantum tricks? It seems to us that this situation is reminiscent of the one that was in the early days of the laser, when scientists knew that it would be an ideal solution to many unknown problems.

For example, a new method of non-contact measurements can be used as a rather unusual medium for photography. With this method, the object is depicted without being exposed to light… Imagine being able to take an x-ray of someone without exposing that person to x-rays. Such imaging techniques will be less risky for patients than using any radiation…

An area of ​​faster application will be the imaging of clouds of ultracold atoms that have recently been obtained in several laboratories – Bose-Einstein condensates, in which many atoms act collectively as one. In this cloud, each atom is so cold, that is, moving so slowly, that a single photon can remove the atom from the cloud. At first it seemed that there was no way to get an image without destroying the cloud. Non-contact measurement methods may be the only way to obtain images of such atomic assemblies.

In addition to imaging quantum objects, contactless procedures can also create certain types of such objects. For example, it turns out to be technically possible to create a “Schrödinger’s cat”, that beloved theoretical entity in quantum mechanics. A quantum being from the cat family is created in such a way that it exists in two states at once: it is both alive and dead at the same time, being a superposition of these two states… Employees of the National Institute of Standards and Technology managed to create its preliminary form – a “kitten” from a beryllium ion. They used a combination of lasers and electromagnetic fields to make an ion exist in two places at the same time, separated by 83 nanometers—an enormous distance on a quantum scale. If such an ion is found by non-contact measurements, the photon that detects it can also have a superposition…

Far beyond the boundaries of routine experimentation, the concept of non-contact measurement seems strange, if not even meaningless. The key ideas for this art of quantum magic, the wave and particle properties of light, and the nature of quantum measurements, have been known since the 1930s. But only recently have physicists begun to apply these ideas to discover new phenomena in the quantum information process, including the ability to see in the dark.”

But as a result of this amazing success of physical Everettism, a new paradox arose. It consists in the fact that the authors of such a convincing experiment do not believe that their experiment proved the validity of Everett’s theory!

However, this paradox is not new in physics. Both Max Planck and Albert Einstein, until the end of their days, did not believe in the truth of quantum mechanics, which also arose as a result of their works (the introduction of the quantization of radiation and the quantum explanation of the photoelectric effect), considering it a very useful, but temporary mathematical construction.

As for everetics as a new philosophical ideological picture of the world, its recognition will probably be associated with the emergence of new humanities such as everetic history and everetic psychology, the contours of which are so far only outlined in the works of enthusiastic researchers and far-sighted science fiction writers.

A vivid example is Pavel Amnuel’s story “I remember how I killed Josh”. What of the future achievements of “humanitarian everetics” can already be seen in this story today? Let’s try to isolate the whole grain of scientific foresight from the artistic whole.

First of all, this short everyday history rethinks the course and meaning of world history. One of the favorite expressions of the famous historian Natan Yakovlevich Eidelman was: “Chance is unreliable, but generous.” But, I think, Eidelman himself did not suspect how generous chance, or, in the language of physics, probability, could turn out to be in the methodology of his beloved science. Natan Yakovlevich, both “in a narrow circle” and in crowded audiences, often talked about his “accidental” discoveries of new historical facts. But, recalling some unexpected discovery in the archive of an important document among papers repeatedly reviewed by other researchers, he, of course, did not realize that a fundamental regularity of quantum mechanics could manifest itself in the role of a happy accident. Listening to his exciting stories, I had no idea about it either. And only much later, considering the Everetic interpretation of time, I saw that the Everetic ramifications of reality should manifest themselves not only when moving into the future, but also when returning to the past. Not only the future is branching, but also the past! This statement changes the worldview picture much more strongly than the statement about branching into the future. And not only worldview “in general”, but also specific historical, ethical, legal and, of course, psychological …

This is very well understood by Amnuel, who believes that with the Everettian view of reality, “the whole historical paradigm changes – from “. .. history does not know the subjunctive mood” to “there is nothing in history but the subjunctive mood””.

But history is an abstract concept. This was subtly noted by the famous American philosopher and poet Ralph Waldo Emerson: “Strictly speaking, there is no history; there is only a biography. And every story begins with a story about it, with the interpretation of events through the feelings and memory of the narrator. A full perception of the meaning of this interpretation is the subject of everetic psychology.

Of course, in Amnuel’s story, all this “hidden architecture of reality”, as it should be in a good literary work, is not visible to the reader. In the foreground are people, their feelings and experiences connected by a fascinating plot.

But good literature is always “multilayered”. And the better the literature, the more significant the “after-reading effect” is the disclosure of the multi-layered work as a result of the reader’s spiritual work.

Back in the “pre-Everetic times”, the concept of branching was anticipated by Jorge Luis Borges, and not only into the future (“The Garden of Branching Paths”), but partly also into the past (“Another Death”).

Today everetics introduces consciousness and mind into physics on an equal footing with space and time. Amnuel’s story is “classic” science fiction, in which there is a powerful and fruitful scientific idea behind the vicissitudes of the criminal plot.

… Is the Everettian multiworld real? Or is it a theoretical phantom? Decide for yourself or believe M.A. Bulgakov: “However, after all, all theories stand one another. There is also one among them, according to which each will be given according to his faith. May it come true!”

^* Kwiat Paul, Weifurter Harald, Herzog Thomas, Zeilinger Anton, Kasevich Marc A . Interaction-Free Measurement, Physical Review Letters, v. 74, No. 24, 12 June 1995, pp. 4763–4766.
^** Elitzur A.C. and Vaidman L . Quantum Mechanical Interaction-Free Measurements, submitted on May 5, 1993, arXiv:hep-th/9305002v2.

food prices, real estate, apartment rentals, average salaries, crime, population — I want to leave!

Temperature

12°C

June

Travel time

16h 20 min

Moscow-Istanbul-Washington

Population: 111. 48 thousand

Time: 09:21

Currency: US dollar

USA

• Postal codes
• All cities
• Useful links and channels crime
• Kindergartens
• Secondary and higher education
• Medicine
• Job search
• Cost of living
• Mobile communications
• Business
• Taxes
• Banks
• Digest

City for comparison

MoscowSaint PetersburgNovosibirskEkaterinburgNizhny NovgorodSamaraOmskRostov-on-DonKazanChelyabinskUfaVolgogradPermKrasnoyarskSaratovVoronezhTolyattiKrasnodarUlyanovskIzhevskYaroslavlBarna stVladivostokIrkutskKhabarovskOrenburgNovokuznetskRyazanTyumenLipetskPenzaAstrakhanMakhachkalaTomskKemerovoTulaKirovBalashikhaCheboksaryUlan- UdeKaliningradStavropolBryanskIvanovoMagnitogorskKurskTverNizhny TagilArkhangelskBelgorodKurganSevastopolKalugaSimferopolSochiVolzhskySmolenskMurmanskVladikavkazCherepovetsVologdaVladimirChitaYakutskSaranskOrelSurgutPodolskGroznyTambovSterlitamakTaganrogPetroza vodskKostromaNizhnevartovskNovorossiyskNalchikSyktyvkarKhimkiNizhnekamskMinesDzerzhinskBratskNoginskAngarskBlagoveshchenskNovgorod (Veliky)PskovMytishchiBiyskLyubertsyYuzhno-SakhalinskBalakovoSeverodvinskAbakanKrasnogorskNovocherkasskZlatoustPetropavlovsk-KamchatskyNakhodkaPyatigorsk KolomnaMaikopOdintsovoKislovodskDomodedovoNefteyuganskSerpukhovNovomoskovskPervouralskKyzylObninskZhukovskyMuromNovy UrengoyAchinskSergiev PosadArzamasSarapulUkhtaMezhdurechenskLeninsk-KuznetskySolikamskGatchinaGlazovMagadanVeliky LukiLobnyaKineshmaAnapaKlinGelendzhikYal taDubnaTuapseFryazinoLytkarinoSolnechnogorskKirishiNadymGoryachy KlyuchKandalakshaBakhchisarayKholmskMaloyaroslavetsSegezhaBakaliAlupkaInnopolis

Standard of living

cost of living

little data

safety

by 57%

more dangerous

crime

by 46% 900 07

higher

quality of life

little data

climate

by 37%

more comfortable

ecology

by 159%

better

traffic congestion

by 16%

higher

medicine 9000 7

by 20%

better

internet

little data

apartment rent

65% higher

more expensive

real estate

same

mortgage 90 007

89%

cheaper

Prices

Restaurants

Everett

Moscow

Inexpensive restaurant, lunch

1. 39 thousand rubles

800 rubles

Mid-range restaurant, for two, 3 courses each

4.33 thousand rubles

9000 2 4 thousand ₽

Lunch at McDonalds or similar fast food

693₽

410₽

Local draft beer, 0.5 l.

312₽

250₽

Imported beer, 0.33 l., bottle glass

344₽

206₽

Cola/Pepsi, 0.33 l. , bottle

152₽

81₽

Water, 0.33 l, bottle

119₽

45₽

Shops and supermarkets

Milk, 1 l.

67₽

88₽

Loaf of bread, 0.5 kg.

220₽

52₽

White rice, 1 kg.

231₽

118₽

Eggs, 12 pcs.

138₽

116₽

Cheese, local, 1 kg.

807₽

824₽

Chicken fillet, 1 kg.

921₽

355₽

Beef thigh, 1 kg.

1.36 thousand rubles

702 rubles

Apples, 1 kg.

325₽

103₽

Bananas, 1 kg.

136₽

84₽

Oranges, 1 kg.

231₽

128₽

Tomatoes, 1 kg.

305₽

186₽

Potato, 1 kg.

116₽

48₽

Onion, 1 kg.

144₽

42₽

Lettuce leaves, 1 bunch 07

111₽

53₽

Bottle of wine (medium price level)

1.04 thousand rubles

700 rubles

Local beer, 0.5 l., bottle

127 rubles

72 rubles

Cigarettes , 1 pack, Malbro

693₽

200₽

Transport

One-way ticket (local transport)

190 ₽

52 ₽

Transport card (regular price)

6.93 thousand ₽

2.4 thousand ₽

Taxi, pickup fee

173₽

180₽

Taxi 1 km. (regular rate)

99₽

15₽

Petrol, 1 liter

$80

$53

Volkswagen Golf 1.4 90 KW new model (or equivalent)

$1.51m

$2.2m

9 0002 Toyota Corolla sedan 1.6l 97kW comfort (or similar)

1.58 mln ₽

2. 41 mln ₽

Utilities

Housing and communal services (electricity, heating, cooling, water, garbage) for an apartment of 85m2

7.01 thousand ₽ 90 007

9.13 thousand rubles

Internet unlimited, >60 Mbps

4.73 thousand rubles

515 rubles

Sports and leisure

Fitness club, per month for 1 adult

3.67 thousand ₽

3.29 thousand ₽

Rent of a tennis court (1 hour on weekends)

0₽

2.01 thousand ₽ 9 0007

Movie ticket

970 ₽

500₽

Childcare

Private kindergarten, full day, 1 child per month.

96.95 thousand rubles

38.6 thousand rubles

Clothing and footwear

Jeans (Levis 501 or similar)

3.11 thousand rubles

7.42 thousand rubles

Summer dress in a chain store (Zara, H&M, etc.)

4 .5 thousand ₽

3.82 thousand ₽

Nike sneakers (mid price category)

5.54 thousand ₽

8. 54 thousand ₽

Male business shoes

11.08 thousand ₽

9.52 thousand ₽

Rental housing

1 room apartment in the city center

122.92 thousand rubles

70.04 thousand rubles

1 room apartment not in the central area

115.42 thousand rubles

40.37 thousand rubles

Apartment 3 rooms. in the city center

177.75 thousand rubles

135.58 thousand rubles

Apartment 3 rooms. not in the central area

170.82 thousand rubles

72.74 thousand rubles

Real estate prices

Price 1 sq.m. in the central region

298.17 thousand rubles

519.39 thousand rubles

Price 1 sq.m. not in the central area

283.26 thousand ₽

269.87 thousand ₽

Indices

Crime and security

Everett

Moscow

Crime rate

68.18

36.14

Increase in the crime rate over the last 3 years

82. 07

40.62

Fear of breaking into an apartment and robbery

54.29

27.57

Fear of robbery

55.68

31.08

Car theft

55.68

32.31

Theft of things from the car

68.18

38.4

Attackers aggressiveness level

51.51

37.08

Fear of being offended

44.12

37.67

Fear of being physically attacked because of skin color, ethnicity, gender or religion.

27.94

29.6

Rate of drug use and trafficking

76.47

37.43

Vandalism and theft (crimes against property)

75.12

42.57

Armed attacks and violent crimes

66.79

29.81

Corruption and bribery

47.06

72.94

Safety of a day walk alone

61.23

81.87

Safety of a night walk alone

27.9

55.22

Quality of life

Safety index

39.