Scientist say the wave function is a non physical reality

The answer is simple...

Both Alice and Bob are both apart of the One mind which is dreaming all of this. They don't need to send photons anywhere to communicate, because they are One object imagining itself as multiple objects.

Imagine you are dreaming... In your dream you create one instance of Alice, and one instance of Bob. In your dream, somehow both Alice and Bob are communicating, but they are not using a medium. This is because YOU are both Alice and Bob. Alice will instantly know Bobs decision because they are both One. We are all One.

Now in your dream, make Alice and Bob get into separate spaceships, and have Alice fly to one edge of the Universe, and Bob fly to the opposite edge of the Universe. Will they ever reach the edge? No, because your mind is infinite. As soon as they get near the edge of the Universe, your mind will create more Universe, ad infinitum. If Alice and Bob tried to communicate with the vast distance between them, it would be possible without a medium, because Alice, Bob, and the vast distance itself, are all imagined by One. There is no need to imagine a photon traveling the vast distance so Alice and Bob can communicate, because both Alice and Bob are the same object.

Same goes for the real Universe, it is infinite, because we are all a part of a giant dream. SomeOne is dreaming of us, and we are all a part of that One. Since we are all One, we are all connected. We all see the Sun, we all see the Earth, we all see the Stars, because we are all connected to the same mind that is thinking of all that.

Telepathy can exist, and happens in small amounts between people all the time. It is because those people are all being dreamt of by One. Although One is dreaming that they are two separate people, One is capable of dreaming they both share thoughts.

Psychics can and do exist too. It happens quite often. Not because they can see the future which hasn't happened, but because One thought of the event before One manifested it in the Universal dream, and that idea of the event was available to the psychic before it manifested.

It is all true.

a reply to: ImaFungi

Don't knock it till you try it and did you read the title of the thread?

Why are you dismissing something you have never looked into or tried?

Actually from a historical point of view the whole matter of the forehead has been referred to in every religion in the world.

In every context applied is a mystical referent.

In Ash Wednesday the symbolism offered is as a reminder that the body is a vessel.

a reply to: micpsi

yea what you said

originally posted by: Kashai
a reply to: ImaFungi

Don't knock it till you try it and did you read the title of the thread?

Why are you dismissing something you have never looked into or tried?

Actually from a historical point of view the whole matter of the forehead has been referred to in every religion in the world.

In every context applied is a mystical referent.

In Ash Wednesday the symbolism offered is as a reminder that the body is a vessel.

They are all slightly ~intelligent animals, and they are wrong. Yes the central intelligence agency may be located in our heads, yes maybe at the point of the forehead, yes maybe if you put a strong magnetic field there it will mess with the persons mind.

Depending on how you define the term physical (I define it as, 'that which exists'), there is no such thing as a non physical anything, because non physical means nothing, and there is no such thing as nothing.

Be more clear, always, with your definitions, and what your intentions are, what you think the universe is, how you think the universe, dont just say, non physical energy flow invisible between matter made of nothing, god essence telepathy mystical spirit dragon shaman god buddha angel heaven chakra non material soul beam made of god love light juice.

a reply to: ImaFungi

It sounds like you are trying to project your impressions of religion and mysticism upon another person you barely know.

What I have explained is that this sensation exist and throughout history has been applicable to mystical experience's.

As far as any particular perspective you wish to apply profoundly and by virtue take seriously. Also from what I have gathered that is really what really matters.

If the mechanics necessary for a mystical experience exist. Then the motivation of the individual could be any opinion the person relates to with profound respect. So to an individual that was born 50 thousand years ago that observable could be a sea turtle, coming up on shore to lay it eggs.

To us it is of course another story and would offer that such matters would be really specific to the individual.

Much more specific than the superficial elements of any religion in human existence.

Any thoughts?

ImaFungi:

so 12 dimensions would mean an object would have, length, depth, width, and then...what?

You are quite right to pose this question, because apart from the dimensions we already know of, any further dimensions above and beyond the three you state, and the 4th you don't state (i.e., volume), are simply abstract concepts imagined as aids to account for mathematical suppositions. They are just theories, opinions of interpretation. What they are not is facts. Just as there is no reality to the abstract conception of space-time, there is no reality to a 5th or 6th or 7th dimension. No experiment in our 4d world could ever reveal any dimensions existing beyond it.

bobs_uruncle:

Both "particles" on either end of the communication path, change state at the same time because they have the appearance of being, or are, the same particle. It appears information is tunneled through a Plank length "gateway" when two particles have exactly the same state, they "sync up" and distance is irrelevant, it can be a mm's to billions of light years.

Can't accept this. To me these theories of explanation are simply nothing more than a convoluted admission to not knowing. How is one able to determine that a) a communication path actually exists, and b) that two distinct separate particles are in correspondence, and c) that one or both particle/s is affecting the other?

If you fire a photon in one direction and simultaneously fire another photon in the opposite direction, once each photon had travelled say for two seconds, any information they share about their states should take 4 seconds to traverse the distance even at the speed of light. Both photons will have travelled 372,000 miles, but the distance between them would be 744,000 miles. There could be no possibility of instantaneous communication between them. For such communication to occur, you are talking about energies many magnitudes above that of the so-called 'Big Bang'! The communication path between the two separate and distinct photons travelling at the speed of light in opposite directions would have to be energetically neutral and wholly non-interactive with the information being exchanged. Such a pathway would be intolerable to nature.

When you look into the night sky and observe the nearest star to our sun (Proxima Centauri), you are seeing light that has been travelling for 4.24 light years. Apparently, the photons that left Proxima Centauri never encountered anything on the way to the back of your retina in all that time, and across that vast distance. They never encountered dust or debris or planets. Our universe must be either very clean or very very sparse? However, once a photon from Proxima enters the iris of your eye and activates a rod or cone in your retina, does it somehow relay information about its fate to other photons from Proxima? The question I am asking is why would particles communicate with each other when there is no possibility of them interacting?

originally posted by: ImaFungi
Either their math is wrong or the universe is fake

Exactly. We're in a hologram. There's actually a study to validate this based upon the loss of resolution under magnification. In addition, a study came out of Cern concerning the discovery of a particle that can change states based upon the need of the atom.... sounds like a pixel on an LED TV.

So, let's say that we are in a hologram. What would be the purpose?

a reply to: elysiumfire
Spooky action at a distance implies a means.

Somehow matter despite distance is interconnected.

a reply to: neoholographic

Imagine a communication channel between Alice and Bob, across which, normally something has to pass for communication to occur. But suppose Alice releases a photon – through an array of beam-splitters and mirrors – that Bob can choose to either block or not block. What he does will rouse different detectors at Alice's end. In this way, Alice can infer Bob's action by checking her own detectors. But here is where it gets stranger: the photon didn't even have to leave Alice's side of the communication channel in order for her to know about Bob's choice.

Quantum entanglement is cool but don't you have to produce those and separate them first to get the spooky action at distant ??

a reply to: ImaFungi
Ima have you ever worn glasses in this case they sit about 4 cm from the forehead/brow.

Are you kidding?

Have you ever heard of electroshock therapy or stun guns. Last I heard they do not use number 2 pencil caps without doing anything to them.

Sounds like a potential Class Action. I have to stop now because my sides are starting to hurt from laughter.

Have you ever needed and MRI?

Any thoughts?

originally posted by: elysiumfire
ImaFungi:

so 12 dimensions would mean an object would have, length, depth, width, and then...what?

bobs_uruncle:

Both "particles" on either end of the communication path, change state at the same time because they have the appearance of being, or are, the same particle. It appears information is tunneled through a Plank length "gateway" when two particles have exactly the same state, they "sync up" and distance is irrelevant, it can be a mm's to billions of light years.

Can't accept this. To me these theories of explanation are simply nothing more than a convoluted admission to not knowing. How is one able to determine that a) a communication path actually exists, and b) that two distinct separate particles are in correspondence, and c) that one or both particle/s is affecting the other?

If you fire a photon in one direction and simultaneously fire another photon in the opposite direction, once each photon had travelled say for two seconds, any information they share about their states should take 4 seconds to traverse the distance even at the speed of light. Both photons will have travelled 372,000 miles, but the distance between them would be 744,000 miles. There could be no possibility of instantaneous communication between them. For such communication to occur, you are talking about energies many magnitudes above that of the so-called 'Big Bang'! The communication path between the two separate and distinct photons travelling at the speed of light in opposite directions would have to be energetically neutral and wholly non-interactive with the information being exchanged. Such a pathway would be intolerable to nature.

When you look into the night sky and observe the nearest star to our sun (Proxima Centauri), you are seeing light that has been travelling for 4.24 light years. Apparently, the photons that left Proxima Centauri never encountered anything on the way to the back of your retina in all that time, and across that vast distance. They never encountered dust or debris or planets. Our universe must be either very clean or very very sparse? However, once a photon from Proxima enters the iris of your eye and activates a rod or cone in your retina, does it somehow relay information about its fate to other photons from Proxima? The question I am asking is why would particles communicate with each other when there is no possibility of them interacting?

Well, maybe you can't accept it now, but you probably will later when this kind of technology goes mainstream. I have been working with adiabatic reactors which produce BEC's since the first one I developed in 1992/93, it's actually a desktop particle decelerator and uses both a dynamic torus operating at just over C and secondary processes involving torsion mechanics. As well I have created geometrically modeled rare-earth magnetic monopoles to emulate quantum functions in classical spacetime, initially for gravity wave interferometry via temporal proxy and then for non-local communications. My work was backed by the NRC and has been licensed to universities (mid-late 90's), it's nice to see third party "action" and potentially, tertiary vindication of my initial theories.

The 2D embedding diagram does not do the theory justice, I will see if I can find a nice torsion vortex image to explain how this works a little better. The problem is that we are working with sphere shaped energy boundaries and not 2D discs in "Flatland."

On the subject of multi-dimensional space, see the short youtube video about the "Flatlanders." It gives a reasonable explanation of how 3 dimensional beings would interact with 2 dimensional beings in a comical kind of way.

Then you can imagine how an RF signal would relate in a 2D world, in that "information" would "magically" appear between points in 2D space with NO rational or scientific explanation, as the RF signal could not be measured between transceiver points in the 2D world. A couple of quotes concerning physics;

Gell-Mann's Totalitarian Principle states, "Everything not forbidden is compulsory."

Arthur C. Clarke's 3 laws,

1. When a distinguished but elderly scientist states that something is possible, he is almost certainly right. When he states that something is impossible, he is very probably wrong.
2. The only way of discovering the limits of the possible is to venture a little way past them into the impossible.
3. Any sufficiently advanced technology is indistinguishable from magic.

Robert Browning, "Ah, but a man's reach should exceed his grasp, or what's a heaven for?" or my twisted version of that quote "A man's goals should always exceed his reach."

You seem quite sure of yourself of the limited ability of humans to understand the virtual reality in which we exist.

Cheers - Dave

bobs_uruncle:

You seem quite sure of yourself of the limited ability of humans to understand the virtual reality in which we exist.

Thanks for your interesting reply. I am far from sure of myself with the opinion I stated. However, we do not live in a virtual reality, of that I am sure. Our experience of this world via our natural bodily sense organs provides the only reality we can know. Yes, we can invent ways and methods and instruments to act as extensions to our senses, bringing other energy wavelengths into our knowing, but not our actual experience. We know infra red and ultra violet wavelength energies are present around us, but our natural senses are not tuned to them, and it was only after we invented instruments that we brought them into our 'knowing'. However, in a natural sense, infra red and ultra violet don't play a part in our experience of reality. Knowing they are present simply informs us that reality has a wider extension than our senses tell us in our experience.

To suggest that we live in a 'virtual reality' is to claim evidence and experience of the actual 'reality' we must be separate from, as we cannot exist in both a virtual reality, and a non-virtual reality at the same time. So, how can you claim we are living in a 'virtual reality' when you can have no possible experience of the 'reality' we are separate from? How do you know what is virtual from what is real?

You mention torsional dynamics in your post, and to be fair, even you have to admit that anything dynamic in nature involves energy interaction, which means unitised energies providing physical effects when they interact. All physical effects place a filter on the interaction...it is called the conservation of energy, you know this. Instantaneous communication is filtered out of possibility, especially so at great distances, because it would violate energy conservation. RF transmissions always undergo a latent reception. Latency is inbuilt in nature due to conservation of energy.

Cheers

originally posted by: elysiumfire
bobs_uruncle:

You seem quite sure of yourself of the limited ability of humans to understand the virtual reality in which we exist.

...

To suggest that we live in a 'virtual reality' is to claim evidence and experience of the actual 'reality' we must be separate from, as we cannot exist in both a virtual reality, and a non-virtual reality at the same time. So, how can you claim we are living in a 'virtual reality' when you can have no possible experience of the 'reality' we are separate from? How do you know what is virtual from what is real?
...

Cheers

I agree !

How they come to this statement is really quite misleading and confusing.
Simply to say... reality is created in our minds from the sensor information we get

what about an single proton travelling in space ? It makes no decisions and do not think.
Is the Universe not there for the proton ?
Sure the Universe exists also for the proton and the proton is a part of Universe.

This term "virtual reality" has to do only with the computer where it came from.
Our reality is reality and not any virtual thing!

originally posted by: ImaFungi
a reply to: micpsi

Can you explain what is meant by more then 3 spatial dimensions existing 'within' the general 3 spatial dimensional universe we exist in? Are the extra dimensions, for example I think you mention, 15, and 10, ill just pick 15 for example; so the 3 dimensions we exist in are at the bottom of 15, meaning 12 dimensions are larger, beyond the closed universe, or are these 3 at the top of the 15, and the rest of the 12 are within, or deeper in and smaller then the 3 we exist in, or are they somewhere in the middle?

So we agree maybe electrons and quarks exist? Do we agree that these objects are 3d objects? That is to say they have an area, length, depth, and width? so 12 dimensions would mean an object would have, length, depth, width, and then... what?

The 15 dimensions beyond the 10 spatial dimensions predicted by M-theory are "compactified", i.e., extend over distances of the order of the Planck scale of 10^(-33) cm (or perhaps a few orders of magnitude larger). As different states of the superstring, electrons and quarks exist as particles in 11-d space-time, not just in 4-d space-time. They extend into six hidden dimensions of space. However, like an iceberg, their REAL, pre-quantum geometry extends "below the surface", so to speak, into a 15-dimensional space outside 11-d space-time whose symmetries would generate supersymmetry and the distinction between fermions and bosons (something which M-theory accepts as a given and so cannot explain). Theoretical physicist Dr Stephen Phillips has proposed this in his explanation of the amazing remote-viewing of subatomic particles carried out by two well-known Theosophists at the end of the 19th century (see here). See his website here that analyzes these observations and proves that they have the revolutionary implication that quarks are not fundamental, as currently conceived, but are composite bound states of three basic particles as yet undiscovered whose hyper-dimensional structure he claims to have proved is encoded in the isomorphic sacred geometries of various religions.

a reply to: micpsi

Ok so like I thought, the 'compactafied' dimensions are pseudo dimensions. There are only 3 dimensions (plus time) but within the 3 dimensional manifold, there are very small things, which can be referred to as a pseudo dimension, or a dimension, because they are so inaccessible to classically built up conglomerates of matter.

originally posted by: micpsi
The quantum wave function behaves as a wave, exhibiting both constructive and destructive interference. But there is no known physical medium for its oscillations - the aether having been long banished by Einstein's Special Theory. So physicists learned to regard the wave function as real, yet at the same time non-physical in the sense that it conveyed information as a wave-like disturbance not in some medium filling space but in a purely mathematical space (the n-dimensional Hilbert state vector space). Then along came quantum entanglement, in which the quantum wave function of a particle that is entangled with a given particle instantaneously collapses from a supposition of all possible eigen states into a discrete eigen state whose associated eigenvalue correlates with that of the particle measured a million light years away. Despite having wave-like properties, the wave function has a mysterious non-local character that is NOT caused by hidden variables conjectured by Einstein and supporters of his contention that quantum mechanics is an incomplete theory that does not take into account stochastic processes due to hidden variables. Even if there WERE such variables, they would not be local ones (as Einstein wanted) because experiments on Bell's Inequality have now ruled them out. Therefore, if they exist at all, hidden variables have to be non-local ones that are not simply functions of the distance separating them - which merely perpetuates the counter-intuitive mystery at the centre of quantum mechanics posed by the phenomenon of quantum entanglement.

The unusual part is that our intuition can't remotely 'visualize' function spaces and functionals on them.

Unlike what Einstein believed, physics cannot describe quantum reality; it describes only how it responds to our interaction with it with measuring instruments that operate in the large-scale, four-dimensional space-time continuum.

Measuring instruments operate in the same Hilbert space as the quantum mechanics of things that aren't measuring instruments. What else are they made out of?

I think the 'collapse' is an emergent statistical-mechanical process which is an excellent approximation for most practical circumstances which have a separation of thermodynamic number scales between small and large (just as fluid mechanics is the outcome of thermodynamical local equilibrium to kinetic theory), but at the core, there's the damn Bohr/Heisenberg equation of motion always.

Suppose that quantum properties like spin and supersymmetry were emergent properties of some higher-dimensional space - like the 15 spatial dimensions predicted by bosonic string theory to exist beyond the 10 spatial dimensions required by M-theory. Could it be that the spatial separateness of entangled quantum particles is an illusion, created by the fact that measurements take place only in three of the 25 spatial dimensions predicted by the quantum mechanics of spinless strings?

Well, more specifically, that's the conceptual problem of trying to impose assumptions of a 3+1 D spatial field theory with only differential operators idea (where "locality" matters and no integral operators), but back in the core, QM is an evolution on an insane Hilbert space, and always was. "local" means something odd in that space that we can't easily grok but it's not always what we think it is. Us being 'Here" vs "there" and having those not be able to talk is another large N emergent property.

Perhaps it is NOT that the result of observation of one entangled particle is transmitted faster than light in this hidden, higher-dimensional space to the particle entangled with it but rather that there is still only one entity, despite its parts being perhaps separated by light years, so that the problem of causality is an illusion created by our incomplete knowledge of the complete entangled system, which ALWAYS behaves as a single, indivisible whole but which does not manifest as a whole in just the four-dimensional space-time that our brains are programmed to operate in? When only the lower-dimensional parts can be measured, they will always seem to be magically connected....

Yup. I think people are unwilling to accept what is plainly in front of them and justified by the experimental observations. Microscopic quantum mechanics isn't classically local, because it's not classical physics. OK. Get over it, it is a fact just as non-commuting operators. Relativistic locality is an emergent property necessary on classical field theories, but relativity at the core means imposing certain continuous transformation axioms. There's never been a problem with that part of relativity, and there's never been a problem with the equations of motion of quantum mechanics. It was right in 1926 and still is.

a reply to: mbkennel
Have you ever heard of David Bohm?

Further

math.bu.edu...

Did he not have to help Einstein, Podolsky and Rosen with a problem they had with some spooky bridge

youngsubyoon.com...

This may be tangential, hopefully not off-topic.

This reminds me of the time I had a vision of my grandmother. I visualized her greeting a small dog my mother (her daughter) had to have put down - I did not know that at the time I had the vision, but that moment was the very moment the dog died, I am sure. Anyway, when I had this vision, there was communication between my grandmother and me, and I asked her to take care of this dog, and she responded. But since the vision was being put in my head, I found it really strange that it was phrased as ME asking HER.

In the context of this research... maybe there is something to it.

a reply to: elysiumfire

I'm going to try and offer a bit of theoretical-abstract-scienfitic knowledge I have to help answer your 2 questions at the end of your reply, hope it helps increase your understanding.

What I've gathered from M-theory is that yes, the particle that entered your retina could potentially communicate with other particles from another star because in higher dimensions particles are connected. To better explain here you see a particle, in a higher dimension you see that that particle is actually 2 (or 100) particles, there was (were) another (other) particle(s) behind the one you saw in this dimension. Both of those particles are connected by a 'line' and in that dimension they would be perceived as 1 particle, in ours we would perceive them as two separate particles, possibly exhibiting Einsteins' "spooky action at a distance". So in our dimension we see 1 particle, in a higher dimension we see 1 particle but if we break that particle down we see that it is composed of 2 particles, if we go down to our dimension we see 1 particle and no evidence that it is connected to another particle. So these 2 connected particles could be light years apart from each other so communication between the two is feasible but I can't imagine how we would measure their correlation. On the highest dimension all you have is one singularity which is all the particles locked together. So essentially the highest and lowest dimensions are the same, that means the smallest particles are basically hologram-duplicates of that super-massive singularity, the way these singularities are organized in-between dimensions makes our universe what it is to us. It's like the singularity existing before the big bang still exists un-banged as the most basic unit which constructed all sub-atomic particles which were created after the big-bang. This would mean that all the particles are connected, some particles more obviously than others, they are all composed of the same singularity and they all compose the same singularity. But realistically this is only a breakdown for our understanding of matter, granted the truth about physical material is much more vast than such a simple explanation which is just a root detail.

originally posted by: mbkennel
Microscopic quantum mechanics isn't classically local, because it's not classical physics.

Its not classically local, but its still local in relation to the quantum scale right? If not, how could any physical/material/energetic/non nothing system express non local activities? What would that mean and entail?