It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.

Thank you.

 

Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.

 

Quantum Mysticism and the Founders of Quantum Mechanics

page: 2
18
<< 1    3  4  5 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Jan, 23 2015 @ 03:57 PM
link   
a reply to: mbkennel

This is the problem with blind materialist. You make these blind blanket statements that sound like gobbledy gook. This because QM doesn't support materialism.

You said:

No, quantum mechanics does NOT say any of that BS. Quantum mechanics is a physical theory of natural phenomena.

Show me the evidence that shows the wave function is physical. Recently, Scientist are saying the wave function is a non physical reality that can transmit information.

The wave-function is real but nonphysical: A view from counterfactual quantum cryptography


Counterfactual quantum cryptography (CQC) is used here as a tool to assess the status of the quantum state: Is it real/ontic (an objective state of Nature) or epistemic (a state of the observer's knowledge)? In contrast to recent approaches to wave function ontology, that are based on realist models of quantum theory, here we recast the question as a problem of communication between a sender (Bob), who uses interaction-free measurements, and a receiver (Alice), who observes an interference pattern in a Mach-Zehnder set-up. An advantage of our approach is that it allows us to define the concept of "physical", apart from "real". In instances of counterfactual quantum communication, reality is ascribed to the interaction-freely measured wave function (ψ) because Alice deterministically infers Bob's measurement. On the other hand, ψ does not correspond to the physical transmission of a particle because it produced no detection on Bob's apparatus. We therefore conclude that the wave function in this case (and by extension, generally) is real, but not physical. Characteristically for classical phenomena, the reality and physicality of objects are equivalent, whereas for quantum phenomena, the former is strictly weaker. As a concrete application of this idea, the nonphysical reality of the wavefunction is shown to be the basic nonclassical phenomenon that underlies the security of CQC.


arxiv.org...

Here's a separate group of Scientist that reached a similar conclusion.


The quantum world can be quite a strange one. Particles at opposite ends of a galaxy can instantaneously react to each other, and can exist in more than one place simultaneously. It now seems this world may be even more complicated, allowing communication to occur without a physical medium.

It's called counter-factual communication, and a group of researchers from Saudi Arabia's King Abdulaziz City of Science and Technology (KACST) and Texas A&M University in the US, have just published a paper in Physical Review Letters demonstrating it – at least in principle.

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.

One of the authors of the paper, Hatim Salih, a physicist at KACST, notes that, "unlike most communication protocols, in ours it is Bob who sends a message to Alice, not the other way round."

"This is a bit like Alice and Bob using pigeons to communicate – except that the pigeons never have to leave," says Zhenghong Li, one of the paper's authors.

As Salih says: "I believe the question of how information gets from Bob to Alice is a deep one speaking to the heart of the debate about the reality of the quantum state: if physical particles did not carry information between sender and receiver, what did?"


Link

So materialist can stick their heads in the sand all day long but it doesn't matter. QM obliterates any hope of a physical reality being any more playdough that illuminates probable states of the wave function when an observer from a local "reality" chooses to make a measurement.

The Ancients knew it, many of the Founders of QM knew it, Einstein knew the implications and like I said materialist can bury their heads in the sand all they want but that doesn't change the truth.

A quote from Schrodinger whose called the father of QM:

“This life of yours which you are living is not merely a piece of this entire Existence, but in a certain sense the whole; only this whole is not so constituted that it can be surveyed in one single glance. This, as we know, is what the Brahmins (wise men or priests in the Vedic tradition) express in that sacred, mystic formula which is yet really so simple and so clear; Tat Tvam Asi, That Thou Art.”

Quotes from Neils Bohr:

Everything we call real is made of things that cannot be regarded as real.

“I go into the Upanishads to ask questions.”

Quotes from Werner Heisenberg:

“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.”

I think that modern physics has definitely decided in favor of Plato. In fact the smallest units of matter are not physical objects in the ordinary sense; they are forms, ideas which can be expressed unambiguously only in mathematical language.

Like I said, materialist can stick their heads in the sand all they want to but that doesn't change anything.




posted on Jan, 23 2015 @ 10:54 PM
link   

originally posted by: neoholographic
a reply to: mbkennel

This is the problem with blind materialist. You make these blind blanket statements that sound like gobbledy gook. This because QM doesn't support materialism.

You said:

No, quantum mechanics does NOT say any of that BS. Quantum mechanics is a physical theory of natural phenomena.

Show me the evidence that shows the wave function is physical.


The quoted authors are defining the word ``physical'' to mean something special in a quantum mechanical setting. This is a particular technical definition, call it QM-physical.



An advantage of our approach is that it allows us to define the concept of "physical", apart from "real". In instances of counterfactual quantum communication, reality is ascribed to the interaction-freely measured wave function (ψ) because Alice deterministically infers Bob's measurement. On the other hand, ψ does not correspond to the physical transmission of a particle because it produced no detection on Bob's apparatus.


Reality = wavefunction.

Transmission of a particle is a particular quantum mechanical outcome in that an eigenstate of particle creation operator had nearly 1 probability at some later time.

What this results is saying is repeating what we already know: the wave function is the fundamental element of state and the subject of the laws of physics, not 'particles'. Particle or not are projections/eigenstates/particular configurations which may or may not happen, and unlike Newtonian mechanics, particles are not the indivisible or fundamental object of the equations of motion. If the import of this is: "QM is a theory of wavefunctions in a Hilbert space, and not a theory of particles", then I agree 100%. It is experimentally convincing, and non-intuitive.

Explain specifically, how the results of the quoted article support a "non-materialist" outlook.

In particular answer: are there any objectively repeatable and observable phenomena not explained by the laws of quantum mechanics of Heisenberg & Bohr 1926?

I say "no". I say also that quantum mechanics is a 100% "materialist" (in the philosophical sense) theory.




“I go into the Upanishads to ask questions.”


I go into Landau + Lif#z, Misner/Thorne/Wheeler and Feynman to find answers.


edit on 23-1-2015 by mbkennel because: (no reason given)

edit on 23-1-2015 by mbkennel because: (no reason given)

edit on 23-1-2015 by mbkennel because: (no reason given)

edit on 23-1-2015 by mbkennel because: (no reason given)



posted on Jan, 23 2015 @ 11:11 PM
link   
Well there is evidence the ancients had thier own forms of technology and had developed thier minds far beyond what our current earthly public society.




posted on Jan, 24 2015 @ 01:30 PM
link   
a reply to: neoholographic

Agreed, great series of posts. Although I don't understand the science coming more from the other side of the perspective of studying mystical systems, I still find them illuminating.

Just a little point though, from the other side of the coin if you will. Viewing things through the mystic lens the Moon is independent of us, it is in fact an entity in and of itself(I would call it a god as would others), this is also the understanding that I have aquired doing what I do.

It is quite enchanting the Moon.



posted on Jan, 27 2015 @ 11:10 AM
link   
There is still alot to learn, but from what I know of the universe its infinate and ever expanding both outside and inside of atoms.



posted on Jan, 27 2015 @ 11:36 AM
link   
a reply to: Soylent Green Is People




The wave-particle duality of electrons or photons does not collapse because we consciously consider that duality -- it collapses only after mechanical measurement, with the mechanical measurement causing the waveform to collapse (with "collapsing waveform" being a purely rhetorical way of describing it, considering it is more complicated than that).


This ignorant notion keeps being put forth by people that are skeptical of the role of consciousness in QM.

There have been lots of experiments that prove that it is not the mechanical act of measuring that causes the wave funtion to collapse, it is wether or not the information of such a measurement is available to the conscious observer.

Quantum eraser experiments prove this, most "skeptics" are simply unable to grasp the implications.


edit on 27-1-2015 by FunkyContents because: (no reason given)



posted on Jan, 27 2015 @ 11:50 AM
link   
a reply to: mbkennel

What??? QM physical??? LOL

That makes no sense. It isn't physical and this is why the Scientist titled his paper:

The wave-function is real but nonphysical: A view from counterfactual quantum cryptography

The quote you posted supports exactly what I'm saying. The reason he put physical and real in quotations is because he's defining the wave function apart from being real in the physical sense. This is why he called the paper:

The wave-function is real but nonphysical: A view from counterfactual quantum cryptography

If you would have took the the time and read what you quoted you would see it ends with this:

On the other hand, ψ does not correspond to the physical transmission of a particle because it produced no detection on Bob's apparatus.

This is the bread and butter. This is because information was transmitted from point A to point B without any particle transmission. It's the same thing the other Scientist said:

As Salih says: "I believe the question of how information gets from Bob to Alice is a deep one speaking to the heart of the debate about the reality of the quantum state: if physical particles did not carry information between sender and receiver, what did?"

This goes to what Bohr and Heisenberg said:


Everything we call real is made of things that cannot be regarded as real.

I think that modern physics has definitely decided in favor of Plato. In fact the smallest units of matter are not physical objects in the ordinary sense; they are forms, ideas which can be expressed unambiguously only in mathematical language.


So of course these things are non physical because you have things like entanglement, non locality, superposition, tunneling and teleportation. These are not thins you associate with materialism or a an objective physical reality.

Here's a great talk from Rupert Sheldrake about the Dogma of Materialism.



Sadly, Materialism has become an ism of faith, dogma and absurdity.



posted on Jan, 27 2015 @ 11:53 AM
link   

The observer is never entirely replaced by instruments; for if he were, he could obviously obtain no knowledge whatsoever.... Many helpful devices can facilitate this work...But they must be read! The observer’s senses have to step in eventually. The most careful record, when not inspected, tells us nothing.


This is such a simple and true notion that it is amazing to see how educated people are simply unable to compute it and its implications.

There is always some "scientific" guy yelling about how the measuring device is not a conscious observer.



posted on Jan, 27 2015 @ 11:58 AM
link   

“This life of yours which you are living is not merely a piece of this entire Existence, but in a certain sense the whole; only this whole is not so constituted that it can be surveyed in one single glance. This, as we know, is what the Brahmins (wise men or priests in the Vedic tradition) express in that sacred, mystic formula which is yet really so simple and so clear; Tat Tvam Asi, That Thou Art.”


What you are actually is beyond words, but it would be not untrue to say you are nothing whatsoever other than pure, infinite, disembodied consciousness/intelligence; a field of miraculous infinite light; God dreaming itself; an infinite point of pure potential; or the infinite implications of nothing whatsoever.

The immediate presentation of this unspeakable actuality is the field of your experience, which is an instantaneously appearing virtual field of Radiant Presence as apparent qualities. This is the actuality of which every/ and any/ thing that you think exists consists. This is inclusive and complete; nothing whatever other than this field exists. In short, the entirety of Reality is the "bubble" of YOUR experience, the field of Radiant Presence, which alone exists.

This is the totality of Reality. This is not theoretical, but is actually, immediately real; always the case right here right now.
theopendoorway.org...



posted on Jan, 27 2015 @ 12:03 PM
link   
a reply to: Soylent Green Is People




Why can't the universe just be a materialistic place, doing its thing the same way before human thought came along, and will continue doing its thing after humans and human thought are extinct?


Do you have any proof that anything ever happens or happened, outside of conscious perception?

On the other hand, I can prove that everything happens inside of conscious perception.



posted on Jan, 27 2015 @ 12:09 PM
link   
a reply to: neoholographic

I for one thank you for this thread.

Quantum Physics, and how it relates to the whole, the physical reality and the "spiritual", leaves me slackjawed in utter philosophical joy...

I read an article once relating Quantum Physics to the buddhist principle of Form in Emptiness and Emptiness in Form. It completely overloaded my brain as if it were under a DOS attack by a foreign country. Ever since, I am simply addicted from an intellectual standpoint.

Whereas I truly feel that I have nothing to "add" to this discussion, I will enjoy reading, chewing, and completely digesting all of the thoughts and input given here.


CHEERS!


-NF



posted on Jan, 27 2015 @ 12:38 PM
link   
a reply to: Soylent Green Is People

Soylent, please allow me to start by saying that I enjoy your input immensely. It comes across to me as very well thought out, and foundationally stable. There are many threads that you've partaken in where I feel you are overtly attacked and wrongfully maligned.

OK, needless gushing now over


With regards to entanglement resulting in the transfer of information (I would argue data, not information, they are not one and the same) not being possible...


Ready for a mind-bending news story that will forever change your perception of life? Quantum physicists in Israel have successfully entangled two photons that don’t exist at the same time. They create one photon and measure its polarization, destroying it — they then create another photon, and though it never coexisted with the first, it always has the exact opposite polarization, proving they’re entangled.


Extreme Tech / Quantum Entanglement

The above article quotes the following Cornell source...

Cornell University Library

Now, I am nowhere near qualified to even begin to consider myself someone who should be arguing one point or the other on this topic. IMHO, reading an article does not necessarily qualify someone to argue it's intent and or truth. All that I can comment on is that I have seen this conclusion on more than one paper / article by those that are, IMHO, truly qualified to make declarations and posit opinions. I am making my statement based off of the shoulders of those giants.

Also, the article I offer above unfortunately is not as self standing as I would like. My head is a little swimmy due to sinus conditions and atmospheric / barometric pressure. It is preventing me from digging in even further. Making my quite sleepy, actually.


So, I realize I now need to summarize and wrap this up.

Data can be boiled down to a "mechanical" language of ones and zeros. This being said, if an electron is in an elevated state versus a non elevated one, we essentially have a resulting situation of ones and zeros. To put it in short form, it either is or isn't elevated. Yes or No. 1 or 0. Therefore, IMHO, data can be "recorded" in this sense. Now, if this data can be passed on to another atom via the state of it's electron charge, I take this as communication.

Can you address this?

(I hate the way that sounds, it sounds to me as an attack, but I truly do not mean it as such)



-NF
edit on 27-1-2015 by nullafides because: damned grammar nazi spirits in my head...can't you hear them?

edit on 27-1-2015 by nullafides because: nothing like screwing up your own edit of a screw up. SPOON!



posted on Jan, 27 2015 @ 12:40 PM
link   

originally posted by: FunkyContents
a reply to: Soylent Green Is People




Why can't the universe just be a materialistic place, doing its thing the same way before human thought came along, and will continue doing its thing after humans and human thought are extinct?


Do you have any proof that anything ever happens or happened, outside of conscious perception?

On the other hand, I can prove that everything happens inside of conscious perception.



If the universe seems as it is only due to our perception of it, then why do we perceive it the way it is -- i.e., unimaginably so huge that the Earth is a infinitesimally small bit of almost nothingness in comparison, and the time of humans on that Earth has occurred in an almost imperceptible and infinitesimally small blip of time. The universe we perceive is so huge and has existed so long that humans seem to not even matter. Why would we perceive such a universe if the universe wasn't really like that.

I don't feel I'm special in comparison to the universe. I don't think human thought is important to the workings of the universe, and I don't think humans are special or important enough that it would make a difference to the universe whether or not we were around to perceive it.

Why would I think I and humans are special? Especially considering how infinitesimal our existence is (in both space and time) in relation to a much much grander universe -- a universe that does its thing without any reliance on human thought.

Consider an intelligent ET species billions of light years away on a planet around one of the 100s of billions of stars in one of the anonymous 100s of billions of galaxies in the universe (for example, one of those unnamed dots of a galaxy we see in the Hubble Deep-Field image). Why should MY perception of the universe matter to the universe in which that ET and I live? For that matter why should that ETs perception of the universe matter to our universe? Why should my conscience thought make a difference to the universe as a whole?


edit on 1/27/2015 by Soylent Green Is People because: (no reason given)



posted on Jan, 27 2015 @ 12:47 PM
link   

originally posted by: Soylent Green Is People

If the universe seems as it is only due to our perception of it, then why do we perceive it the way it is -- i.e., unimaginably so huge that the Earth is a infinitesimally small bit of almost nothingness in comparison, and the time of humans on that Earth has occurred in an almost imperceptible and infinitesimally small blip of time. The universe we perceive is so huge and has existed so long that humans seem to not even matter. Why would we perceive such a universe if the universe wasn't really like that.

I don't feel I'm special in comparison to the universe. I don't think human thought is important to the workings of the universe, and I don't think humans are special or important enough that it would make a difference to the universe whether or not we were around to perceive it.

Why would I think I and humans are special? Especially considering how infinitesimal our existence is (in both space and time) in relation to a much much grander universe -- a universe that does its thing without any reliance on human thought.




THANK YOU!!!!

I grow so very tired of the hubris we suffer as a condition of being human.



-NF



posted on Jan, 27 2015 @ 12:54 PM
link   
a reply to: Soylent Green Is People




There is no known method to communicate information between entangled particles. Maybe we will find a method to do so someday, but your statement seem to be saying that it is a fact that we can do so right now. We can't.


We actually can communicate information between entangled particles, we just can't use it for "faster than light" communication. It does indeed require a classical means of communication to place the information in perspective.

With quantum teleportation entangled particles are "communicating". If you change the spin on one partner the other changes its spin to the opposite polarisation.

This is a given. There is just no accepted mechanism that explains how this communication happened. Accepted by mainstream science that is.
edit on 27-1-2015 by FunkyContents because: (no reason given)



posted on Jan, 27 2015 @ 01:03 PM
link   
a reply to: Soylent Green Is People

I see nothing in your post that I consider an argument of sorts. Questions that arise from the confinement of your human perspective.

I didn't really focus on us being humans either. I was talking about consciousness and conscious observers.

Your default perspective is that of a material world outside of consciousness when there is absolutely nothing, I repeat NOTHING, that happens outside of conscious perception, so why is it a logical perspective to have, and more logical than mine?




If the universe seems as it is only due to our perception of it, then why do we perceive it the way it is -


Because that is the way the program your particular form of consciousness is residing in, is designed.
edit on 27-1-2015 by FunkyContents because: (no reason given)



posted on Jan, 27 2015 @ 01:58 PM
link   
a reply to: FunkyContents

That's a bit of a circular argument...i.e., "I wrongly perceive the universe as being materialistic only because that's the way my consciousness is programed to perceive it"

I need some evidence that my consciousness is programmed that way. In fact, I need some evidence that a separate thing called 'consciousness" exists at all, other than an emergent construct within my own brain caused by the chemical processes in my brain.

I personally don't think there is a separate thing called "consiousness" or "souls" or whatever. Our thoughts are 100% created and contained in our own heads. The brain activity we call consciousness just disappears when our brains permanently stop doing their thing.

I mean, sure, it's fun to think philosophically about the possibilities of consciousness being a separate entity that exists outside of brain chemistry. If we want to get really philosophical, then the only thing any person can be sure about is his/her own existence. It's entirely possible that while you may know you exist, there is no reason to believe that anyone/anything else exists outside of your brain. You may be the only being in existence, and the rest of the universe does not really exist, but instead is only a construct of your own mind.

Is it cool to consider those possibilities? Sure.
Do I actually believe in them? No.


edit on 1/27/2015 by Soylent Green Is People because: (no reason given)



posted on Jan, 27 2015 @ 02:13 PM
link   
a reply to: Soylent Green Is People




That's a bit of a circular argument...i.e., "I wrongly perceive the universe as being materialistic only because that's the way my consciousness is programed to perceive it"


No that is taking things out of context. You were asking why you perceive the universe like you do, implying that the answer is somehow proof of a materialistic universe. The way you perceive the universe is proof of nothing. At least it proves nothing we were discussing.

What I said is that it should be more logical to view the universe as a non material perception, since there is no proof that anything happens outside of conscious perception. You may think that is oversimplifying or a circular argument but it is an inescapable truth and arguably more logical than the notion that the universe is material outside of conscious perception, since there is nothing that can possibly support that notion, yet it still is your default view.




I need some evidence that my consciousness is programmed that way. In fact, I need some evidence that a separate thing called 'consciousness" exists at all, other than an emergent construct within my own brain caused by the chemical processes in my brain.


If you are aware of Quantum Mechanics and still didn't see the proof, then you just don't get it. Is it a coincidence you didn't respond to my other comments I directed at you. Like I said the proof is there, you are just (willfully)ignorant.




I mean, sure, it's fun to think philosophically about the possibilities of consciousness being a separate entity that exists outside of brain chemistry. If we want to get really philosophical, then the only thing any person can be sure about is his/her own existence. It's entirely possible that while you may know you exist, there is no reason to believe that anyone/anything else exists outside of your brain. You may be the only being in existence, and the rest of the universe does not really exist, but instead is only a construct of your own mind.


Now you are getting there.




Is it cool to consider those possibilities? Sure. Do I actually believe in them? No.


That is cool, but to say that consciousness does not play a major role in the way sub atomic particles behave, is ignorant.



posted on Jan, 27 2015 @ 05:15 PM
link   
I am going to sound flippant here, and to be honest I don't think that that description is inaccurate but my opinion is this.

Does it really matter what label we put on events?

QM is a theory that I believe has distracted modern science for far too long, to the detriment of another branch of mathematics that would be far more useful.

Given the inherently unpredictable, indefinite, unmeasurable and unobservable nature of QM events to an absolute degree, wouldn't the refining, defining and fine tuning of probability according to the local classical and observable laws have been time more well spent?

This is not to say I believe the concepts of QM to be worthless, I simply believe we arrived, quite a long time ago, to the end of that road. We can't define it any more, so the idea of differentiating between a "physical" reason for an event and a so-called "act of god" is nonsensical. We'll never know.

What's more important in the end, being able to predict with almost absolute certainty that when we do "x" then "y" is the result, or that because "z" however improbable, is still...infinitesimally improbable, but possible?

More work related to probability calculation based on locally accepted physical laws is what is needed I believe.

I love the ideas behind knowing the absolute fundamentals behind reality, but because they are so absolutely unfathomable, by their very nature, what difference does it really make if it's god, chaos, unknowable physics or a flying spaghetti monster behind it.


Excellent thread and thanks.



posted on Jan, 27 2015 @ 06:24 PM
link   

originally posted by: FunkyContents
a reply to: Soylent Green Is People




There is no known method to communicate information between entangled particles. Maybe we will find a method to do so someday, but your statement seem to be saying that it is a fact that we can do so right now. We can't.


We actually can communicate information between entangled particles, we just can't use it for "faster than light" communication. It does indeed require a classical means of communication to place the information in perspective.

With quantum teleportation entangled particles are "communicating". If you change the spin on one partner the other changes its spin to the opposite polarisation.

This is a given. There is just no accepted mechanism that explains how this communication happened. Accepted by mainstream science that is.


Maybe its the same particle. The left and rightness, are gained from our point of observation. Just as looking down on the earth from the South pole would seem to have an opposite spin than gazing down from the North pole.

The fact that particles don't need the same timeline to be entangled suggest that they are timed relative to our observation. Which if the communication of entangled particles is instant, either their is no distance between them, for this to happen, therefore no time, or they would either have to be the same particle. But not answering to the three dimensions, make them ex dimensional. The conclusion being that its the observer who has observed these states and interpreted them as the reality.



new topics

top topics



 
18
<< 1    3  4  5 >>

log in

join