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 Mechanics shows there's life after death

page: 6
31
<< 3  4  5    7  8  9 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Dec, 8 2009 @ 11:01 AM
link   

Originally posted by Point of No Return
reply to post by drsmooth23
 





thats great and all, and Ive seen enough on the double slit expirements to understand that scientists "believe" they are witnessing a photon jump through both slits, but I still think its a ricochet effect where the photon hits another photon and it "looks" like the same photon goes through both slits, causing the wave interference pattern.


You still think?

Think again.

They fire single particles, there is no way they can interfere with another particle.

There is no other explanation than that it goes through both slits, and interferes with itself. the particle is in superposition.

You can "think" what you want, but these are the facts.


A coherent light source illuminates a thin plate with two parallel slits cut in it, and the light passing through the slits strikes a screen behind them


yeah, because theres NO POSSIBLE WAY photons are already in the room, right?... (I keep getting a funny picture in my head of a clumsy scientists trying to observe this in a totally dark room and he keeps bumping into stuff)

so your telling me the ONLY light in the room is coming from the experiment? No windows, no light bulbs? you understand the general nature of the photon right? Light scatters, defuses, reflects and refracts. Im not saying i know much, but I would imagine it would be like shooting a water gun underwater, you can do it, and you can measure it, but there stands to be a chance for interference I would imagine.

[edit on 8-12-2009 by drsmooth23]




posted on Dec, 8 2009 @ 11:21 AM
link   

Originally posted by Matrix Rising
If it's a gross interpretation, tell me where I'm wrong.

Skeptics will always use hyperbole over evidence.

It reminds me of a quote from Alfred Russel Wallace who was a spiritualist and biologist that worked on natural selection.

If it's a "gross" misinterpretation than provide some counter evidence.


I am not a sceptic of the present facts quantum mechanics, however, you are saying you are presenting facts, when in reality you are presenting a conclusion based on your own assumption of the facts of QM. The thread title says QM shows there is life after death, when in fact it does no such thing and there have been no adamant conclusion of the nature of QM from scientists, let alone a conclusion on the nature of life after death.

And if there is, please present peer reviewed papers on these conclusions from the scientific community and not links to new age dogma.



posted on Dec, 8 2009 @ 11:48 AM
link   
reply to post by DisappearCompletely
 



And if there is, please present peer reviewed papers on these conclusions from the scientific community and not links to new age dogma.


Gave you a star for this. I wouldn't hold your breath as these folks don't understand what burden of proof is or how to apply it properly in an argument. They're greatest tactic is straw man arguments with shifting burden of proof and occasionally appeal to authority arguments when it suites they're opinions of reality.

Not much intelligence there at all, perfect example of the philosophical zombie if you ask me. Someone who thinks they think when in fact they do no such thing. Not many real folks around here.



posted on Dec, 8 2009 @ 11:51 AM
link   

Originally posted by drsmooth23

Originally posted by Point of No Return
reply to post by drsmooth23
 





thats great and all, and Ive seen enough on the double slit expirements to understand that scientists "believe" they are witnessing a photon jump through both slits, but I still think its a ricochet effect where the photon hits another photon and it "looks" like the same photon goes through both slits, causing the wave interference pattern.


You still think?

Think again.

They fire single particles, there is no way they can interfere with another particle.

There is no other explanation than that it goes through both slits, and interferes with itself. the particle is in superposition.

You can "think" what you want, but these are the facts.


A coherent light source illuminates a thin plate with two parallel slits cut in it, and the light passing through the slits strikes a screen behind them


yeah, because theres NO POSSIBLE WAY photons are already in the room, right?... (I keep getting a funny picture in my head of a clumsy scientists trying to observe this in a totally dark room and he keeps bumping into stuff)

so your telling me the ONLY light in the room is coming from the experiment? No windows, no light bulbs? you understand the general nature of the photon right? Light scatters, defuses, reflects and refracts. Im not saying i know much, but I would imagine it would be like shooting a water gun underwater, you can do it, and you can measure it, but there stands to be a chance for interference I would imagine.

[edit on 8-12-2009 by drsmooth23]


I'm sure they would have thought of this prior to setting up the experiment. This also doesn't explain how once the electron is measured, it behaves differently. Where is the interference then?



posted on Dec, 8 2009 @ 12:14 PM
link   
reply to post by drsmooth23
 


Oh please, the fact that your are refering to the original DS exp. from 1800 is telling.

I've already said at least three times that I'm talking about the Quantum Eraser exp., wich takes place in a controlled environment, so no, there aren't any other particles the one particle can interfere with.

Please read up, so you may know what you are talking about.



posted on Dec, 8 2009 @ 12:45 PM
link   
reply to post by loner007
 


Okay, I only got this far into page two but I have to post now because you SO precisely sized up my thoughts and feelings in this.

I am amazed by this thread and the discussions. Due to my background I have been around a lot of people who have either recently died or while they die and I strongly believe in the presence of a soul and the 'departing' of their conciousness.

Several years ago I began to come up with my own theory. I believe that there are many different levels of existence co-existing but with only the one plane visible to us. (think of tuning into a radio frequency. There are hundreds of them there all at once, but you only tune into one at a time)

I believe that our souls are 'connected' to our bodies while our physical being is 'alive', but once the mind stops functioning the 'teather' is lost and our 'soul' snaps back to another dimension. Now up until today I have always believed that these other dimensions are what we refer to as 'heaven' or 'hell' and our soul goes to whichever one we have aligned our consiousness with. Or to put it another way, which channel we have been listening to the most!


Your description of the whole universe being one soul and all of us a part of it, to never be disconnected and always returning to it is incredibly enlightening to me. Thank you for that analogy, it enforces the belief that I have been struggling to cement whithin myself.

I am a religous person (not church going) and I believe strongly in who I call 'God'. I feel that the power so obviously present all around us to me is connected to our souls and I feel that the theory presented in this thread ties into that belief. (from my perception anyways)

What is death? What is life? Who/what is God? What is a soul/spirit? What happens to us after we 'die'?

These are the biggest questions of mankind, I feel we are close to understanding more of it.....I really don't know if our restricted minds can fully grasp it all, but it is fun to try!!!

[edit on 8-12-2009 by westcoast]

[edit on 8-12-2009 by westcoast]

[edit on 8-12-2009 by westcoast]



posted on Dec, 8 2009 @ 12:47 PM
link   
reply to post by sirnex
 


I will just go over 3 things that you said that shows me your just phoning it in and you don't understand these things.


We are all zombies who only act as if and think that we have consciousness. Source


????? What does a philisophical debate about Zombies have to do with these observed and tested theories in quantum mechanics? Again, these things that I'm talking about are not speculation. Quantum Mechanics is the reason you watch Cable TV or talk on your cell phone. Zombies have nothing to do with it.


Nothing is truly in supposition because these states were already determined a long time ago. Source


It's superposition not supposition. If you would have read the post and tried to understand it instead of being a troll, you would debate silly things like this.

Also you have it wrong. It's eveything is in a state of superposition and there's just the appearence of collapse because of "decoherence." So the wave function is still present but it can't be measured because of decoherence.

If you would have read my post, you wouldn't even have said these silly things. You should have tried to understand it before you tried to debate this. It's one thing to give an opinion it's another thing to try and debate something you clearly don't understand. This is a troll. You just want to debate in opposition no matter how silly you look. I would welcome a debate if you had a clue as to what you are debating.


A conscious observer is never needed nor required by the universe. Source


Again, this shows you don't understand anything about the things you are posting. You did this in the other thread. You assumed and made an ass out of yourself. You are looking worse with this nonsense.

Decoherence is not connected to the choice of the observer. So yes a conscious observer is needed to make a choice.

What you are talking about is called extreme determinism. This means there has to be a parallel universe for every choice that's made. Decoherence says nothing about the choice of the observer.

For instance, iin the case of Schrodinger's cat the observer has to make the choice to carry out the experiment, the observer has to make the choice to open the box. The observer may make the choice to call his wife, open a window, grab a cup of coffee or talk to his assistant before they open the box.

Decoherence is not connected to the choice of the observer. The sources you quoted without reading are based on "decoherence." This is one of the things that I have been talking about.

Again, everything that I have said about things like decoherence, non locality, black hole thermodynamic,entanglement and more have been true. Like I said I welcome a debate but I don't like ignorance.

Here's a little about decoherence.


Decoherence does not generate actual wave function collapse. It only provides an explanation for the appearance of wavefunction collapse. The quantum nature of the system is simply "leaked" into the environment. A total superposition of the universal wavefunction still occurs, but its ultimate fate remains an interpretational issue. Specifically, decoherence does not attempt to explain the problem of measurement. Rather, decoherence provides an explanation for the transition of the system to a mixture of states that seem to correspond to those states we perceive as determinant. Moreover, our observation tells us that this mixture looks like a proper quantum ensemble in a measurement situation, as we observe that measurements lead to the "realization" of precisely one state in the "ensemble". But within the framework of the interpretation of quantum mechanics, decoherence cannot explain this crucial step from an apparent mixture to the existence and/or perception of single outcomes.

However, decoherence by itself may not give a complete solution of the measurement problem, since all components of the wave function still exist in a global superposition, which is explicitly acknowledged in the many-worlds interpretation.


en.wikipedia.org...

So let's look at the cat in the box. The cat is in a state of superposition but it only last for a short time. A classical object like a cat will interact with their enviroment and collapse into one state or another before the observer opens the box.

So the observers choice creates reality. This is because an observer can reduce uncertainty. This is how Shannon defined information.

I wish you would take the time to read and understand these things if you want to debate an opposing view.



posted on Dec, 8 2009 @ 12:52 PM
link   
reply to post by FlySolo
 



I'm sure they would have thought of this prior to setting up the experiment. This also doesn't explain how once the electron is measured, it behaves differently. Where is the interference then?


The thing with the experiments is that they don't honestly know how the interference is created. The Copenhagen interpretation is only meant to be a mathematical descriptor, not a real world application to any real physical event.

Source

Feynman stressed that his formulation is merely a mathematical description, not an attempt to describe a real process that we cannot meassure.


The other interpretation of the observed results describe a much different event that can't even be applied to this current discussion as a valid argument in favor for it.


Point B is now at the detector, and a new path proceeds from the detector to the screen. In this eventuality there is only empty space between (B =) A' and the new terminus B', no double slit in the way, and so an interference pattern no longer appears.


The problem we are seeing here is the usage of one interpretation of a series of different theories out of all other interpretations as if they were somehow more valid than the others, when they are at this time equally valid and all explain the same observed phenomena.



posted on Dec, 8 2009 @ 12:53 PM
link   

Originally posted by DisappearCompletely

Originally posted by Matrix Rising
If it's a gross interpretation, tell me where I'm wrong.

Skeptics will always use hyperbole over evidence.

It reminds me of a quote from Alfred Russel Wallace who was a spiritualist and biologist that worked on natural selection.

If it's a "gross" misinterpretation than provide some counter evidence.


I am not a sceptic of the present facts quantum mechanics, however, you are saying you are presenting facts, when in reality you are presenting a conclusion based on your own assumption of the facts of QM. The thread title says QM shows there is life after death, when in fact it does no such thing and there have been no adamant conclusion of the nature of QM from scientists, let alone a conclusion on the nature of life after death.

And if there is, please present peer reviewed papers on these conclusions from the scientific community and not links to new age dogma.


You keep saying that you are presenting the facts of quantum mechanics, but you haven't said anything. What facts are you presenting?

What new age dogma are you talking about?

I'm talking about thing like non locality, entanglement and decoherence. You keep bringing up this new age thing while I'm talking physics.

This is just a distraction because you have no facts. You haven't mentioned o said anything that has to do with quantum mechanics. You are just spouting an opinion about new age dogma.

There are plenty of peer reviewed papers about these things and repeated experiments that shows that everything I'm talking about is based on quantum mechanics.

So please present these facts you claim you have and stop spouting off nonsense about new age dogma.



posted on Dec, 8 2009 @ 01:15 PM
link   

Originally posted by sirnex
reply to post by FlySolo
 


Point B is now at the detector, and a new path proceeds from the detector to the screen. In this eventuality there is only empty space between (B =) A' and the new terminus B', no double slit in the way, and so an interference pattern no longer appears.



I like how you omitted the first sentence before you snipped your Wikipedia evidence.

"When a detector is placed at one of the slits, the situation changes, and we now have a different point B."

The situation changes is the point I'm making. Why did you ignore this?



posted on Dec, 8 2009 @ 01:16 PM
link   

Originally posted by sirnex
reply to post by FlySolo
 


Point B is now at the detector, and a new path proceeds from the detector to the screen. In this eventuality there is only empty space between (B =) A' and the new terminus B', no double slit in the way, and so an interference pattern no longer appears.



I like how you omitted the first sentence before you snipped your Wikipedia evidence.

"When a detector is placed at one of the slits, the situation changes, and we now have a different point B."

The situation changes is the point I'm making. Why did you ignore this?



posted on Dec, 8 2009 @ 01:22 PM
link   

Originally posted by sirnex
Source


You as well as I know that the scientific community will never postulate.


Feynman stressed that his formulation is merely a mathematical description, not an attempt to describe a real process that we cannot meassure.



posted on Dec, 8 2009 @ 01:26 PM
link   
reply to post by sirnex
 





The thing with the experiments is that they don't honestly know how the interference is created. The Copenhagen interpretation is only meant to be a mathematical descriptor, not a real world application to any real physical event.


Let's look at the Quantum Eraser exp.

It rules out interference with other particles.

It rules out interference with a measuring, or observing device.

A wave is particles interfering.

One single particle is presented with two paths, suddenly it turns into wave.

A very sound conclusion is that the particle is in superposition, and interferes with itself.

Or do you have a more sound, more intelligent explanation?

If you do, please, don't be afraid to share.

Old friend.



posted on Dec, 8 2009 @ 01:33 PM
link   
reply to post by Point of No Return
 


Good points and I would suggest people read up on these experiments if they don't understand them before trying to debate an opposing view.

Delayed Choice quantum eraser
en.wikipedia.org...

Quantum Eraser
en.wikipedia.org...

Wheeler's Delayed Choice
en.wikipedia.org...'s_delayed_choice_experiment

Again, people are not talking about speculation but observed experiments.

[edit on 8-12-2009 by Matrix Rising]



posted on Dec, 8 2009 @ 01:42 PM
link   
reply to post by Matrix Rising
 


Thanks, it's funny how people come in, yapping about how silly and New Agey these views are, using the same old false arguments, seemingly ignorant of new experiments and no ability to grasp the implications.

They never respond to the actual evidence and implications of these experiments, mainly because they can't.

ERROR! ERROR! BOOM!

Head explodes.



posted on Dec, 8 2009 @ 01:55 PM
link   

Originally posted by R-evolve
reply to post by oconnection
 


Whats set in stone for me is i now require proof and am cynical of extraordinary claims. I no longer believe what i would like to believe because i like the idea of it. People take comfort in certain beliefs but id rather be presented with cold hard facts regardless of the romance they may take out of life. Im open minded to new evidence i suppose though i wont kid myself id understand half of what im being presented with.

Your philosophy reflects mine.

Although I would like to say Quantum Mechanics can prove life after death (even though I don't believe QM can prove that at all), my own thoughts say that our thought processes are created in meat, or at least carried out through meat, when the meat dies the communication between the meat parts dies too.

Sure matter is not destroyed or created, but we are talking atoms here, when a building is torn down, it is no longer a building, it is destroyed, except of course the atoms. You are a sum of your parts, not individual atoms.

When we die, the electrical impulses stop, we rot in our grave or are incinerated to smoke and ashes. So if all our atoms are no longer a chunk of an animated meat machine, but are dispersed, how can we live on?

Does the meat have a memory, like for instance the atoms are like a computer memory that projects an aura of energy that rides with the meat and separates at death?
How would a soul power itself? How could memory not leak out into the ether, dissipating until it is nothing?

Is life after death wishful thinking, a human invention to make death more palatable?
Do we live on, and why would we?
The atoms that we consist of surely don't die, but the animated meat machine does, we are the sum of those parts.

Are ghosts real?
Were they really once people?
What powers a ghost?

Do we live on, or not?
Enquiring minds want to know.



posted on Dec, 8 2009 @ 02:03 PM
link   
Let me talk a little bit more about the choice of the observer.

The observers choice creates reality.

So when I wake up in the morning I can watch Cable TV, watch a DVR program, listen to the radio, hop on the computer, brush my teeth and hop in the shower, fix breakfast, call my sister and the list goes on.

A measurement occurs when the observer makes a choice. This is when parallel realities occur.

So if I make the choice to call my sister, there's a reality where she answers and we tallk and a reality where her answering machine picks up.

This all starts with the choice of the observer.

So if I make the choice to cross the street and I get hit by a car then there's a reality where my legs are broke and a reality where I'm dead. These are connected states and seperation is an illusion because of decoherence.

This goes to things like delayed choice and quantum eraser.

J

ohn Archibald Wheeler is one of those thinkers who takes the ideas of quantum mechanics seriously. After studying the Copenhagen explanation of the double slit experiment – with its emphasis on what the observer knows and when it is known – Wheeler realized that the observer's choice might control those variables in a test.

"If what you say is true," he said (in effect), "then I may choose to know a property after the event should already have taken place." Wheeler realized that in such a situation, the observer's choice would determine the outcome of the experiment – regardless of whether the outcome should logically have been determined long ago.

"Nonsense," said the reductionists. "Rubbish," said the materialists. "Completely absurd," said the naïve realists. "Yup," said the mathematicial.


www.bottomlayer.com...

Experiments supported Wheeler.



posted on Dec, 8 2009 @ 02:05 PM
link   
reply to post by Point of No Return
 


Exactly, I keep hearing this new age thing but people are talking about physics and observed experiments.



posted on Dec, 8 2009 @ 02:06 PM
link   
S&F

I remember seeing something similar to this idea in "Physics of the Impossible" book by Dr. Michio Kaku.

I think he talked about quantum physics and the possibility of Teleportation. That's a whole other topic of interest there, but it gets real interesting when he starts to describe that idea.

I vaguely remembered something about how quantum physics explains whether if a thing exists in our universe or not. He used a cat for example. On paper, if you want to prove mathematically that a particular cat exists, there has to be two states. A living cat, and a dead cat. I think it was something like, you can't prove mathematically that a cat is a alive unless you can mathematically prove it's deceased state, or something along this line.

When I read that particular chapter, it really gotten me interested. So everything exists in two states, the you that's alive and the you that's dead. So if you have an alive state, that means you must exist in a state where you are dead.

I'm not sure if what he talked about is related to this, but I kind of feel that it does.



posted on Dec, 8 2009 @ 02:24 PM
link   
reply to post by truthseeker84
 


Good points.

This occurs because qubits become entangled and decoherence gives us the illusion of two seperate states or two bits of information.

I like to talk about the hypothetical quantum egg.

A quantum egg can be broken or not broken at the same time. A classical egg is broken or not broken.

So in our classical universe we see these two states as seperate because of decoherence. This is just an illusion.

These two states are connected but noise and decoherence makes it appear as if we are seperated from the whole.

The the broken and not broken states are connected just like the dead and not dead states are connected.

So when some people talk of death as something that's seperated from the whole it makes no sense in light of quantum mechanics.



new topics




 
31
<< 3  4  5    7  8  9 >>

log in

join