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 experiment verifies Einstein's 'spooky action at a distance'

page: 4
38
<< 1  2  3    5  6 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Apr, 1 2015 @ 07:51 AM
link   

originally posted by: ChaoticOrder

Philosophers and mystics say a lot of things, you need to be more specific. When you say that QM invalidates materialism what that means to me is that reality isn't simply made up of little billiard balls which move in predictable ways, because particles such as the electron or photon can behave like a wave with abstract mathematical properties.


What that means to me is that science needs to switch from materialism to idealism, or perhaps neutral monism. That doesn't mean tossing out all the textbooks. Just changing them a bit.


In philosophy, idealism is the group of philosophies which assert that reality, or reality as we can know it, is fundamentally mental, mentally constructed, or otherwise immaterial.


en.m.wikipedia.org...


QM also says that reality is non-local, meaning you can get instantaneous interactions over any distance via entanglement, which also implies that reality is capable of producing truly random events, meaning things can happen without a cause, making the universe non-deterministic.


That means consciousness is non-local, not trapped in our skulls. We are psychic beings, and so science needs to give up its ideological crusade against parapsychology and prepare humanity to reach its potential as a telepathic species.

👣


edit on 580WednesdayuAmerica/ChicagoApruWednesdayAmerica/Chicago by BlueMule because: (no reason given)




posted on Apr, 1 2015 @ 07:51 AM
link   
I love and hate quantum talk. But cause it's quantum talk this makes since and not, at the very same time. The joys of quantum just when you think you have a handle on science here comes quantum to smack you in the face and give you a hug at the same time. Bet this would make more since to me if I drunk.



posted on Apr, 1 2015 @ 08:07 AM
link   

originally posted by: neoholographic

Its no different than saying God is one or there's one consciousness under the illusion of separation.


Yup. I think that if Erwin Schrödinger were alive today, he would reiterate this:

"The multiplicity is only apparent. This is the doctrine of the Upanishads. And not of the Upanishads only. The mystical experience of the union with God regularly leads to this view, unless strong prejudices stand in the way."

As quoted in The Eye of Shiva: Eastern Mysticism and Science (1981) by Amaury de Riencourt

👣



posted on Apr, 1 2015 @ 09:25 AM
link   
a reply to: BlueMule


Excellent points.

Here's some more quotes from Wolfgang Pauli and Schrodinger:

Paulie:


Now to Einstein’s essential question: How are those solutions to the Schrodinger equation which do not belong to class K (for example, macro-objects) to be interpreted in physical terms? Here Einstein’s reasoning is as follows: A. When one ‘looks at’ a macro-body, it has a quasi-sharply-defined position, and it is not reasonable to invent a causal mechanism to which the ‘looking’ fixes the position.Comment:...I am still in agreement, because in this case I do not consider the appearance of the definite position or, what amounts to the same thing, its appearance as a result of the observation, can be deduced by natural laws. Einstein’s reasoning continues: B. Therefore a macro-body must always have a quasi-sharply defined position in the ‘objective description of reality’. As those ψ-functions which do not belong to class K◦cannot in principle be ‘thrown away’, and must also be in accordance with nature, the general ψ-function can only be interpreted as an ensemble description. If one wants to assert that the description of a physical system by a ψ-function is complete, one has to rely on the fact that in principle the natural laws only refer to the ensemble-description, which Einstein does not believe. What I do not agree is Einstein’s reasoning B (please note that the concept of determinism does not occur at all!)...[T]he statement ‘the particle is there’ is [to be] regarded as a ‘creation’ outside the laws of nature, even though it cannot be influenced by the observer. The natural laws only say something about the statistics of these acts of observation.


This brings us back to the day where you have the entanglement of a SINGLE PARTICLE vs. PARTICLE PAIRS. This is something Einstein said couldn't happen because macroscopic objects will always be in a sharply defined position which Paulie argued against.

The recent experiment where the cesium atom was shown to violate macrorealism supports Paulie. The macroscopic object was found to be in correlation in a way that violates macrorealism and the atom never had a sharply defined position.

Schrodinger:

It is then quite clear that a measurement of x affects not only (as is always said)p[ x’s momentum], but also x itself. You have not found a particle at K’ [ x’s definiteposition], you have produced one there!...Before the second measurement, it is ubiquitous in the cloud (it is not a particle at all).


To Western thought this doctrine ‘has little appeal’, it is unpalatable, it is dubbedfantastic, unscientific. Well, so it is because our science—Greek science—is basedon objectivation, whereby it has cut itself off from an adequate understanding of theSubject of Cognizance, of the mind. But I do believe that this is precisely the pointwhere our present way of thinking does need to be amended, perhaps by a bit of blood transfusion from Eastern thought....[t]he 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.


Here's a video talking about what colleagues called the Paulie effect and Paulie's meeting with Carl Jung.




posted on Apr, 1 2015 @ 09:39 AM
link   
a reply to: neoholographic

Yup, and so Carl Jung is vindicated, and Freud goes down for the count along with atomism.

👣



posted on Apr, 1 2015 @ 09:57 AM
link   
a reply to: Bedlam

The fact that "this sort of thing" exists at all is, in itself, enough to provide validity. The scale size is irrelevant.



posted on Apr, 1 2015 @ 02:58 PM
link   

originally posted by: Ultralight
a reply to: Bedlam

The fact that "this sort of thing" exists at all is, in itself, enough to provide validity. The scale size is irrelevant.


Quite incorrect. There's a reason you see the double slit experiment done with electrons and not baseballs.



posted on Apr, 1 2015 @ 03:40 PM
link   

originally posted by: Ultralight
a reply to: Bedlam

The fact that "this sort of thing" exists at all is, in itself, enough to provide validity. The scale size is irrelevant.


Exactly!

Some people act like they have all the answers when Scientist are still asking the questions. They don't know where there's a quantum/classical line. They don't know if one even exists and everything is quantum. The fact that macrorealism is being violated with any macroscopic object is amazing in itself.

You couple this with the emerging field of Quantum Biology and scientific realism becomes an idea that belongs with a flat earth.

I remember just a few years ago, some were saying that biology was to wet and warm and it was impossible for quantum effects to have any meaning on a macroscopic scale. Now we're looking at things like DNA, sense of smell, bird navigation, quantum mind and more as it relates to Quantum Biology.

So what this means is what we call "reality" doesn't have any objective existence outside of the wave function until a measurement occurs. Like Schrodinger said, it's just probabilities and it only becomes real in the environment when a measurement occurs.

So baseballs, bats, trees and leaves are just extensions of this superposition that's more entangled to it's environment so you don't see the blurriness.
edit on 1-4-2015 by neoholographic because: (no reason given)



posted on Apr, 1 2015 @ 04:13 PM
link   
a reply to: Bedlam

But you still see it!



posted on Apr, 1 2015 @ 04:20 PM
link   
a reply to: neoholographic

True scientist know they don't know it all and look for that elusive evidence with excitement. And then there are pseudo-scientists...



posted on Apr, 1 2015 @ 05:01 PM
link   

originally posted by: Bedlam

originally posted by: neoholographic
So like I said, the mystics, Philosophers and Spiritualist have been right all along. It's amazing that people like Plato and Parmenides could grasp these things without the scientific knowledge we have today.


But not for macroscale objects, so if this is your "Therefore, magic" moment, I hate to break it to you...this sort of thing only applies to very very small scales.

It's also sort of cognitively dissonant to be saying that scientific reality is no more, when what you're basing it on is at the bleeding edge of science. Sort of a liar's paradox, wouldn't you say?


Well said sir. Many ignorant people think that when a scientific endeavour draws a negative that it somehow disproves science.



posted on Apr, 1 2015 @ 05:07 PM
link   

originally posted by: neoholographic
a reply to: Arbitrageur

LOL, nope.

Here's from the link you quoted from.


1
: mystical 1a
2
: of or relating to mysteries or esoteric rites : occult

3
: of or relating to mysticism or mystics
4
a : mysterious
b : obscure, enigmatic
c : inducing a feeling of awe or wonder
d : having magical properties


Like many words, it can mean different things. At the end of the day, it has nothing to do with quantum woo or wanting magic to exist. I can say a card trick has magical properties that doesn't mean I want magic to exist as you said.

I want magic to exist.

This is what you said. Get your head out of the James Randi book of nonsense.


Stop backtracking and moving the goalposts. You very clearly intimated magic of some sort.



posted on Apr, 1 2015 @ 05:10 PM
link   
a reply to: ziplock9000

The holographic sort?

👣



posted on Apr, 1 2015 @ 06:13 PM
link   
Briefly let me begin by saying wow, way to derail a thread some of you!

OP, great article, it has been argued there is upward and downward causation realting to the quantum level and this is never more evident than the scientific realisation of epigenetics.

Just as those little suckers expressions can modify the behaviour of a cell, in the macro it has been discovered that even half an hours exercise can have an effect on the expression of the epigene.

I would imagine this is how the classical and quantum could be married together, just because we cannot see the interaction doesn't mean its not there, it just might not be provable, I know this is ill-sitting with our science loving friends, but I guess that's why it's called faith.



posted on Apr, 1 2015 @ 08:41 PM
link   

originally posted by: Ultralight
a reply to: neoholographic

True scientist know they don't know it all and look for that elusive evidence with excitement. And then there are pseudo-scientists...


...who try to prove magic exists from quantum studies. Like Chopra. Or the OP.



posted on Apr, 1 2015 @ 08:44 PM
link   

originally posted by: solargeddon
I would imagine this is how the classical and quantum could be married together, just because we cannot see the interaction doesn't mean its not there, it just might not be provable, I know this is ill-sitting with our science loving friends, but I guess that's why it's called faith.


I don't think it's faith. It's unicorns. Tiny tiny unicorns. They stitch up the boundary between genetic markers and Heisenberg, which you wouldn't normally think would go together. They use their horns, and connect quantum indeterminacy with methylation markers, using rainbow thread.



posted on Apr, 1 2015 @ 09:12 PM
link   

originally posted by: neoholographic
I remember just a few years ago, some were saying that biology was to wet and warm and it was impossible for quantum effects to have any meaning on a macroscopic scale. Now we're looking at things like DNA, sense of smell, bird navigation, quantum mind and more as it relates to Quantum Biology.


It really sort of depends on what sort of quantum effects you mean. I notice you scoot the goalposts on that around so fast I'm surprised there's not a fire going.

"quantum mind" is unprovably speculative at this point. Lots of talk, not so much in the way of even promising proof yea or nay. The vibrational theory of smell is also sort of quirky, although it's less ungrounded than 'quantum mind'. But that's theoretically tied to quantum vibrational modes of molecules, something that's also well known and used in things like IR spectroscopy. Not to some sort of macroscale indeterminacy. Any chemical bond is going to have quantum effects.

So of course there are all sorts of quantum effects in biology, since it's all chemistry. But by quantum effects, you're generally going to be talking about something at the phonon or QM vibrational level. Not some macroscale indeterminacy wherein you can think something into being the way you'd like it, which seems to be what you're dancing around.

I'm really surprised you didn't ring in LEDs emitting light due to electrons changing excitation levels and then try to claim that proved Plato's cave was literally true.



So what this means is what we call "reality" doesn't have any objective existence outside of the wave function until a measurement occurs. Like Schrodinger said, it's just probabilities and it only becomes real in the environment when a measurement occurs.


None of the things you listed here have diddly to do with that part of 'quantum'.

Come on, admit it. What you'd like is for "The Secret" or the like to be literally true.



posted on Apr, 2 2015 @ 12:17 AM
link   
a reply to: neoholographic

Congratulations, you just posted a highly convoluted non sequitur. Quite the feat, I must say.



posted on Apr, 2 2015 @ 01:36 AM
link   
a reply to: Bedlam

This makes zero sense. You said:

Not some macroscale indeterminacy wherein you can think something into being the way you'd like it, which seems to be what you're dancing around.

Utter rubbish. This has zero to do with what I'm talking about. First off, there is evidence that supports a quantum mind. There was a recent discovery of vibrations in microtubules as predicted by Hameroff and Penrose.

Discovery of quantum vibrations in microtubules inside brain neurons corroborates controversial 20-year-old theory of consciousness


A review and update of a controversial 20-year-old theory of consciousness published in Elsevier’s Physics of Life Reviews (open access) claims that consciousness derives from deeper-level, finer-scale activities inside brain neurons.

The recent discovery of quantum vibrations in microtubules inside brain neurons corroborates this theory, according to review authors Stuart Hameroff and Sir Roger Penrose. They suggest that EEG rhythms (brain waves) also derive from deeper level microtubule vibrations, and that from a practical standpoint, treating brain microtubule vibrations could benefit a host of mental, neurological, and cognitive conditions.


www.kurzweilai.net... ousness

The problem for materialist is when you open the door for Quantum Biology you can't say in the next breath that it has nothing to do with consciousness. In fact, a quantum mind would give a species a huge advantage in terms of evolution.

Here's M.I.T. Professor Seth Lloyd talking about Quantum Biology.

Quantum Biology: Better Living Through Quantum Mechanics


So in the spring of 2007 when the New York Times reported that green sulphur-breathing bacteria were performing quantum computations during photosynthesis, my colleagues and I laughed. We thought it was the most crackpot idea we had heard in a long time. Closer examination of the paper, published in Nature, however, showed that something decidedly non-crackpot was going on.


The fact is, there's a blindness in science. Seth Loyd admits, he thought any idea of Quantum Biology was just a crackpot idea.

The fact is, there's zero evidence that supports macroealism. It's just a fantasy and I'm just glad more Scientist are looking into these things instead of burying their heads in the sand like ignorant James Randi clones. It goes onto say.


Photosynthesis converts light from the Sun into chemically useful energy inside cells. In photosynthesis, particles of light called photons are absorbed by light-sensitive molecules called chromophores (“light carriers” in ancient Greek), which are arranged in a tightly bound structure called an antenna photocomplex. When a photon is absorbed, a quantum particle of energy called an exciton is generated. (An exciton isn’t a particle in the traditional sense, but it acts enough like a particle that physicists find it useful to treat it as one. Such mathematical likenesses are called “quasi-particles.”) The exciton hops from chromophore to chromophore inside the photocomplex until it arrives at the reaction center, an agglomeration of molecules that take in the exciton and transform its energy into a form that the living system can put to use to perform cellular metabolism, grow, and reproduce. The great majority of the energy used by living systems once came from photosynthesis: Every calorie that you consume came originally from excitons that hopped through the antenna photocomplex of a photosynthetic organism.

How could tiny bacteria be performing the kind of sophisticated quantum manipulations that it takes human beings a room full of equipment to perform? Natural selection is a powerful force.


www.pbs.org...

So materialist will say natural selection can do all things yet quantum mechanics is prohibited from having anything to do with consciousness when materialism explains NOTHING. That's not science, that's blind belief.

Here's more from Seth Lloyd on Quantum Life.



Here's Leonard Susskind talking about the universe as a Hologram and his debate with Hawking.



Here's George Smoot talking about the universe is a simulation.



This isn't quantum woo or magic. These are scientist confirming things that ancients, mystics, philosophers and some scientist have been saying for years. Again it isn't magic, it's simply saying, OUR REALITY IS PART OF A WHOLE AND THIS WHOLE MAY CONTAIN ALL THE INFORMATION ABOUT WHAT STATES CAN BE PERCEIVED.

The fact is, you guys haven't refuted anything that I have said.

You use meaningless buzzwords like the Secret, quantum woo or magic. This is because you can't refute anything that's being said and scientific realism has quickly become a bigger fantasy than The Lord of the Rings.
edit on 2-4-2015 by neoholographic because: (no reason given)



posted on Apr, 2 2015 @ 01:52 AM
link   

originally posted by: neoholographic
a reply to: Bedlam

This makes zero sense. You said:

Not some macroscale indeterminacy wherein you can think something into being the way you'd like it, which seems to be what you're dancing around.

Utter rubbish. This has zero to do with what I'm talking about. First off, there is evidence that supports a quantum mind. There was a recent discovery of vibrations in microtubules as predicted by Hameroff and Penrose.


You're saying this means the Akashic Records are literal truth, which is amazingly wrong. And all the wave collapsing-macroscale stuff is right out of "The Secret". It's wish-and-make-it-so, which is the sort of things people generally get past at about 5.




Discovery of quantum vibrations in microtubules inside brain neurons corroborates controversial 20-year-old theory of consciousness

The problem for materialist is when you open the door for Quantum Biology you can't say in the next breath that it has nothing to do with consciousness. In fact, a quantum mind would give a species a huge advantage in terms of evolution.


Penrose reviewing Penrose's controversial and generally unsold theory, finds that Penrose's assumptions are correct. It might be true, but I think it needs to be replicated and verified by more than Penrose and Company.

It's hearkening back to homunculi and Cartesian dualism.



The fact is, there's zero evidence that supports macroealism. It's just a fantasy and I'm just glad more Scientist are looking into these things instead of burying their heads in the sand like ignorant James Randi clones. It goes onto say...


And what it goes on to say is again about quasiparticles like phonons and excitons. Not macroscale indeterminacy. You really can't take a paper about excitons and say "therefore, reality at a macroscale can be collapsed to whatever the observer would like", which really feels like where you'd like to go.



Again it isn't magic, it's simply saying, OUR REALITY IS PART OF A WHOLE AND THIS WHOLE MAY CONTAIN ALL THE INFORMATION ABOUT WHAT STATES CAN BE PERCEIVED.

The fact is, you guys haven't refuted anything that I have said.

You use meaningless buzzwords like the Secret, quantum woo or magic. This is because you can't refute anything that's being said and scientific realism has quickly become a bigger fantasy than The Lord of the Rings.


And again, you don't seem to be able to separate things like quantum mechanical vibrations in bonds and phonons, and Heisenberg indeterminacy not really applying to macroscale objects and events. You can't choose to perceive your way into the realm of elves and magic spells, or attracting things you'd like by writing them over and over on a tablet.

No example you have given supports your statement in any way. Other than the very first post, and it was about a lone atom.
edit on 2-4-2015 by Bedlam because: (no reason given)




top topics



 
38
<< 1  2  3    5  6 >>

log in

join