The universe really is weird, and a landmark quantum experiment proves it

originally posted by: Kashai
a reply to: Hyperia

True perfection it seems cannot exist without the imperfect
as it then encompasses all things.

Any thoughts?

I think science describes it as infinity. An asymptotic relationship which approaches absolute perfection but never ever gets there. So they indeed cannot exist without the another!

a reply to: Kashai

balance, balance, balance, balance...

Loophole-Free Bell inequality Violation using Electron Spins Separated by 1.3 Kilometers
B. Hensen,
H. Bernien,
A. E. Dréau,
A. Reiserer,
N. Kalb,
M. S. Blok,
J. Ruitenberg,
R. F. L. Vermeulen,
R. N. Schouten,
C. Abellán,
W. Amaya,
V. Pruneri,
M. W. Mitchell,
M. Markham,
D. J. Twitchen,
D. Elkouss,
S. Wehner,
T. H. Taminiau
& R. Hanson

More than 50 years ago1, John Bell proved that no theory of nature that obeys locality and realism2 can reproduce all the predictions of quantum theory: in any local-realist theory, the correlations between outcomes of measurements on distant particles satisfy an inequality that can be violated if the particles are entangled. Numerous Bell inequality tests have been reported3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10, 11, 12, 13; however, all experiments reported so far required additional assumptions to obtain a contradiction with local realism, resulting in ‘loopholes’13, 14, 15, 16. Here we report a Bell experiment that is free of any such additional assumption and thus directly tests the principles underlying Bell’s inequality. We use an event-ready scheme17, 18, 19 that enables the generation of robust entanglement between distant electron spins (estimated state fidelity of 0.92 ± 0.03). Efficient spin read-out avoids the fair-sampling assumption (detection loophole14, 15), while the use of fast random-basis selection and spin read-out combined with a spatial separation of 1.3 kilometres ensure the required locality conditions13. We performed 245 trials that tested the CHSH–Bell inequality20 S ≤ 2 and found S = 2.42 ± 0.20 (where S quantifies the correlation between measurement outcomes). A null-hypothesis test yields a probability of at most P = 0.039 that a local-realist model for space-like separated sites could produce data with a violation at least as large as we observe, even when allowing for memory16, 21 in the devices.Our data hence imply statistically significant rejection of the local-realist null hypothesis. This conclusion may be further consolidated in future experiments; for instance, reaching a value of P = 0.001 would require approximately 700 trials for an observed S = 2.4. With improvements, our experiment could be used for testing less-conventional theories, and for implementing device-independent quantum-secure communication22 and randomness certification23, 24.

Source

Any thoughts?

Where is the Psi correlation?

a reply to: FlyingFox

To objectify Psi one would need to objectify subjective experiences.

To suggest God is Love is to present that subjective experiences can be objectified.

This experiment presents that objective events such as a supernova can be experienced by the particles in our bodies despite distance and instantaneously.

As well as just about everything else.

originally posted by: Kashai
a reply to: FlyingFox

To objectify Psi one would need to objectify subjective experiences.

To suggest God is Love is to present that subjective experiences can be objectified.

This experiment presents that objective events such as a supernova can be experienced by the particles in our bodies despite distance and instantaneously.

As well as just about everything else.

If a particle located in DNA during cell mitosis were entangled in such a way, it may result in a mutation. Cancer comes to mind here, as well as a mutation like this occurring during the formation of a zygote and the effects it would have on a newborn child and all future offspring that would come from that child. The implications are far reaching.

a reply to: charlyv

Absolutely but beyond Biology, Philosophy, Psychology, Engineering. Physics, Communications and Travel.


There is also the issue of Remote Viewing.

originally posted by: Ngatikiwi
Ouch

So we are kind of like individually aware conscious fragments of a larger consciousness that we are unaware of?
... we exist in the mind of God.

It looks so.. This explains how everything was created through the Word of God's Mind. In Light (pun intended) of this new finding... I think this is worth a read:

"In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God, and the Word was God. He was with God in the beginning. Through him all things were made; without him nothing was made that has been made. In him was life, and that life was the light of all mankind... The true light that gives light to everyone was coming into the world. He was in the world, and though the world was made through him, the world did not recognize him. He came to that which was his own, but his own did not receive him. Yet to all who did receive him, to those who believed in his name, he gave the right to become children of God — children born not of natural descent, nor of human decision or a husband’s will, but born of God."

originally posted by: Kashai
a reply to: charlyv

Absolutely but beyond Biology, Philosophy, Psychology, Engineering. Physics, Communications and Travel.


There is also the issue of Remote Viewing.

And time travel as well. (not really traveling, in this sense)
Quantum research carries with it the possibility of great change. I hope we deal with it wisely.

so basically science is only just now catching up to religion? im just a simple man its hard to understand this post. a reply to: neoholographic

a reply to: Zen64


Given Bells Theorem were ever acknowledged as correct it would be, "the most profound discovery of science."

Source


Bells Theorem is a mathematical construct that offers an opinion that is consistent with reality, to the extent Theoretical Physicist's understand. It does not prove the existence of anything outside the idea that free communication seems apparent, at the quantum scale.

originally posted by: cooperton

originally posted by: Ngatikiwi
Ouch

So we are kind of like individually aware conscious fragments of a larger consciousness that we are unaware of?
... we exist in the mind of God.

It looks so.. This explains how everything was created through the Word of God's Mind. In Light (pun intended) of this new finding... I think this is worth a read:

"In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God, and the Word was God. He was with God in the beginning. Through him all things were made; without him nothing was made that has been made. In him was life, and that life was the light of all mankind... The true light that gives light to everyone was coming into the world. He was in the world, and though the world was made through him, the world did not recognize him. He came to that which was his own, but his own did not receive him. Yet to all who did receive him, to those who believed in his name, he gave the right to become children of God — children born not of natural descent, nor of human decision or a husband’s will, but born of God."

Reading the above - it states "the Word was with God, and the Word was God" how can something be 'with' something if it is that something?

It then states "Through him all things were made" the him implied would surely be 'the word' here and not 'God'

"He came to that which was his own, but his own did not receive him. Yet to all who did receive him, to those who believed in his name" so who are those that are not of his own that received him and where are they supposed to have come from?

a reply to: johnb

Just like you have a soul, body, and spirit, God has a soul, body, and spirit.

Father is the soul of God, Jesus is the body of God, The Holy Ghost is the Spirit of God, and they are one.

Are one like so:

These words are the image of my awareness,
my awareness is of my will,
my will is to explain the Trinity to you.

At once, they are all three the same. (my formation, my awareness, and my will were all three, at once, the same.)

words/images/form=body
awareness/psyche/concepts=soul
will/desire/force=spirit

e.g. What I see when looking at my will/desire/spirit, are these very words to you - these words that I am typing right this very moment are the image of my awareness of my will - my desire to reproduce good conception / good awareness of the spirit (good conception is love).

Body/Form is the image of the measurement/the image of the observation/the image of the conception/apperception/abstraction [of will].

...That should answer your first two questions.

@The third question: I think the verse is referring to Jews and gentiles. The Jews were his own but, by and large, they did not receive him.

originally posted by: johnb
Reading the above - it states "the Word was with God, and the Word was God" how can something be 'with' something if it is that something?

It then states "Through him all things were made" the him implied would surely be 'the word' here and not 'God'

Ah. This is the Logos of St John.

The English translation of the Koine doesn't do it justice. "Logos" is much more than "word". This passage spawned a lot of theological debate.

originally posted by: johnb

Reading the above - it states "the Word was with God, and the Word was God" how can something be 'with' something if it is that something?

It then states "Through him all things were made" the him implied would surely be 'the word' here and not 'God'

As Bedlam said, the translation is imperfect, but the main idea is still there; creation through the Word of God (Divine Mind?).

"He came to that which was his own, but his own did not receive him. Yet to all who did receive him, to those who believed in his name" so who are those that are not of his own that received him and where are they supposed to have come from?

I think all humankind is his (Jesus') own, but many did/do not recognize his Word as the authentic truth. A more in-depth analysis is presented in John's Apocryphon... but it is some heavy material.