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.

 

Could quantum entaglement be the key to parallel universes

page: 2
7
<< 1    3 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on May, 3 2012 @ 07:10 PM
link   

Originally posted by RandomEsotericScreenname
reply to post by yampa
 





Quantum Mechanics is a large rotting tree, waiting to topple. Don't accept non-physical physics.


What are you saying, that because you can't explain the quantum weirdness with classical physics, it is all an misunderstanding?

And that we should not accept what we are seeing in quantum experiments?


I would star you twice if I could .
Great reply .

DP




posted on May, 3 2012 @ 07:25 PM
link   

Originally posted by dawnprince
reply to post by yampa
 


Is mere thought not FTL ?
When you think of the process involved in a reflex action , would that not be FTL ?


reflex actions, like spinal nerve responses, are electrochemical in origin and take milliseconds to resolve. That isn't the speed of light. Conscious thoughts, like takes place in the mammalian neocortex take much longer. It takes ~100ms for a human to perceive a simple picture from the time of flashing it up. That isn't the speed of light either. Complexity tends to slow things down.

Consciousness has nothing to do with the quantum realm. That's another piece of popsci poison.



posted on May, 3 2012 @ 07:33 PM
link   
reply to post by yampa
 





Consciousness has nothing to do with the quantum realm. That's another piece of popsci poison.


It has everything to do with it, and also would explain everything.

There are quantum experiments that prove that it is in fact the knowledge of a human of what a particle has done that is repsonsible for a result, and not the interference that detectors might have on the process.

I can post them if you like.


edit on 3-5-2012 by RandomEsotericScreenname because: (no reason given)



posted on May, 3 2012 @ 07:34 PM
link   

Originally posted by RandomEsotericScreenname

What are you saying, that because you can't explain the quantum weirdness with classical physics, it is all an misunderstanding?

And that we should not accept what we are seeing in quantum experiments?


I don't believe in the mystifications of quantum weirdness. Entanglement, superposition, wave/particle duality, quantum tunnelling can be explained efficiently, visually and mechanically using physical physics, without esoteric probabilistic mathematics and associated voodoo. Quantum Mechanics isn't a misunderstanding, it's an overt takeover of the physics department by the mathematicians.

And what is it you think you are seeing in a entanglement experiment like the one I showed? Where is the mention of faster than light communication there? - the lack of mentions of FTL is what you *should* be seeing.



posted on May, 3 2012 @ 07:46 PM
link   

Originally posted by RandomEsotericScreenname
reply to post by yampa
 





Consciousness has nothing to do with the quantum realm. That's another piece of popsci poison.


It has everything to do with it, and also would explain everything.

There are quantum experiments that prove that it is in fact the knowledge of a human of what a particle has done that is repsonsible for a result, and not the interference that detectors might have on the process.

I can post them if you like.



I'll pass on that 'evidence', thanks. Adding New Age babble to non-physical physics is not my thing.

If you want to tell me how the thoughts get out your neocortex and focus themselves on a quantum particle which is many times smaller, avoiding all the noisy interactions in between (which are always seen in quantum interactions), please provide a physical mechanism for the transmission? Since you are likely unable to justify even regular entanglement experiments with any kind of mediating physical interaction, you have just made the task many times harder by proposing your brain is doing quantum magic too.

It's not physics. Give it up.



posted on May, 3 2012 @ 07:57 PM
link   
reply to post by yampa
 





I'll pass on that 'evidence', thanks. Adding New Age babble to non-physical physics is not my thing.


Translation, "My mind is closed and I will not review anything that doesn't fit my preconceived notion".

Typical.




I don't believe in the mystifications of quantum weirdness. Entanglement, superposition, wave/particle duality, quantum tunnelling can be explained efficiently, visually and mechanically using physical physics, without esoteric probabilistic mathematics and associated voodoo.


You can? Can you EXPLAIN entanglement and wave/particle duality with normal phyics? Please give an example.




And what is it you think you are seeing in a entanglement experiment like the one I showed?


What experiment did you show?




If you want to tell me how the thoughts get out your neocortex and focus themselves on a quantum particle which is many times smaller, avoiding all the noisy interactions in between (which are always seen in quantum interactions), please provide a physical mechanism for the transmission?


In certain variations of the Double Slit exp. we can observe the path of a particle with a detector when it is given a choice and look at the detector and the results. That's how our consciousness connects with a particle and the process.




edit on 3-5-2012 by RandomEsotericScreenname because: (no reason given)



posted on May, 3 2012 @ 08:54 PM
link   

Originally posted by RandomEsotericScreenname
reply to post by yampa
 





I'll pass on that 'evidence', thanks. Adding New Age babble to non-physical physics is not my thing.


Translation, "My mind is closed and I will not review anything that doesn't fit my preconceived notion".

Typical.




I don't believe in the mystifications of quantum weirdness. Entanglement, superposition, wave/particle duality, quantum tunnelling can be explained efficiently, visually and mechanically using physical physics, without esoteric probabilistic mathematics and associated voodoo.


You can? Can you EXPLAIN entanglement and wave/particle duality with normal phyics? Please give an example.




And what is it you think you are seeing in a entanglement experiment like the one I showed?


What experiment did you show?




If you want to tell me how the thoughts get out your neocortex and focus themselves on a quantum particle which is many times smaller, avoiding all the noisy interactions in between (which are always seen in quantum interactions), please provide a physical mechanism for the transmission?


In certain variations of the Double Slit exp. we can observe the path of a particle with a detector when it is given a choice and look at the detector and the results. That's how our consciousness connects with a particle and the process.



I think it is your mind that is closed. Closed to reality. And this is partially the fault of the quantum priesthood. You do not realise that all physical theories require a *mediator*. Some thing, some real thing has to move from one place to another for a communication to take place. If you can't properly describe the motions of particles in the field, please don't insult us by pretending you can trivially add a huge level of complexity by introducing consciousness into the equation.

I pasted a link to an experiment, and could show many others, which claim to show entanglement, but completely ignore that non-locality and instantaneous communication imply the existence of FTL transmission. FTL is a big deal, remember? If FTL entanglement is a fact, then why doesn't every entanglement experiment generate the same buzz as the OPERA neutrinos?

Because it would inconveniently beg the question 'how?'

Quantum computing is a fundraising/plundering exercise by job preserving academics and profit driven industry. These people are well aware that, at this late stage of the game, the public will swallow anything they are told, as long as they drop the word 'quantum' in front of it and hide it behind sufficient jargon. So these questions go unasked. People don't even recognise them as real questions anymore, despite the fact that these theories were deeply troubling to the likes of Einstein and Schrödinger.

Wave particle duality? using regular mathematics? Ok - Photons, electrons, have real spin. Real physical spin. A particle with multiple stacked spins will wave in motion. This is a fact. There is no metaphysical duality, since it is easily demonstrable that a particle can take on a wave motion. These accelerations/spins have exact analogies with the solutions to higher degree polynomials + simple finite derivative equations.

Here is a picture of a particle with a wave motion. These are simple trig relationships. It is trivial to add higher degree motions to get the extra complexity needed for electrons, protons etc.



"I don't like it, and I'm sorry I ever had anything to do with it." - Erwin Schrödinger on Quantum Mechanics



posted on May, 3 2012 @ 09:23 PM
link   
reply to post by yampa
 





I think it is your mind that is closed. Closed to reality


Well I'm not refusing to look at data and calling it New Age bs before looking at it.



. And this is partially the fault of the quantum priesthood. You do not realise that all physical theories require a *mediator*. Some thing, some real thing has to move from one place to another for a communication to take place. If you can't properly describe the motions of particles in the field, please don't insult us by pretending you can trivially add a huge level of complexity by introducing consciousness into the equation.


Well I wasn't talking about Quantum Entanglement experiments in specific, although I think my theory apply to that too.

I was talking about variations of the Double slit exp.




I pasted a link to an experiment, and could show many others, which claim to show entanglement, but completely ignore that non-locality and instantaneous communication imply the existence of FTL transmission. FTL is a big deal, remember? If FTL entanglement is a fact, then why doesn't every entanglement experiment generate the same buzz as the OPERA neutrinos?


I see, so because you can't explain it and they don't refer to FTL, the outcomes of said experiments are somehow non existant?




Quantum computing is a fundraising/plundering exercise by job preserving academics and profit driven industry. These people are well aware that, at this late stage of the game, the public will swallow anything they are told, as long as they drop the word 'quantum' in front of it and hide it behind sufficient jargon. So these questions go unasked. People don't even recognise them as real questions anymore, despite the fact that these theories were deeply troubling to the likes of Einstein and Schrödinger.


So therefore, it doesn't exist, even though scientists are seeing it?




Wave particle duality? using regular mathematics? Ok - Photons, electrons, have real spin. Real physical spin. A particle with multiple stacked spins will wave in motion. This is a fact. There is no metaphysical duality, since it is easily demonstrable that a particle can take on a wave motion. These accelerations/spins have exact analogies with the solutions to higher degree polynomials + simple finite derivative equations.


These are descriptions, not EXPLANATIONS. you said it could be explained by normal physics.

I didn't see you offer any explanation as to WHY there is W/P duality or entanglement, which you claimed you had, and I asked you for.




"I don't like it, and I'm sorry I ever had anything to do with it." - Erwin Schrödinger on Quantum Mechanics


So because this guy said that at least 50 years ago, results from experiments after that time are somehow not weird, unexplainable and even non existant?

Experiments like Delayed Choice Quantum Eraser and Quantum Eraser show that the knowing of certain info of a quantum level affects outcomes on the same quantum level.

You are quite the piece of work. I've seen sceptics deny the implications of results of Quantum experiments, but you seem to even deny the existance of such experiments and their results, that's a very scientific disposition you got there.
edit on 3-5-2012 by RandomEsotericScreenname because: (no reason given)



posted on May, 3 2012 @ 09:38 PM
link   
I don't think any of you are going to get this. So I give up.



posted on May, 3 2012 @ 09:43 PM
link   

Originally posted by yampa
I don't think any of you are going to get this. So I give up.


Another one bites the dust.....

Like I said, typical.



posted on May, 4 2012 @ 02:57 PM
link   

Originally posted by YoungMind92
As soon as I saw this post I thought of that show "Fringe".


same here



posted on May, 4 2012 @ 03:33 PM
link   
I know quite a bit about the paranormal, however, my 3 year old son has completely stumped me. Over the past few months he has been talking about things that he calls "the bleeders". At first his mother and I put it off to a strange nightmare, but he has been very consistant on them. When his mother questioned him about it, he said they were going to come and "bleed him out". When his mother pressed him on it and asked if he ment vampires, he very adamantly stated "No, not vampires. Vampires look like people. They aren't people."

The fact that he understands the term "bleed out" and how insistant he is on the fact that they are not vampires or zombies because they dont look like people. He doesn't just see them at night, and in fact has been telling his mother that he "worries about her because the bleeders can get her". He claims he can hear them under the floor at night and will not sleep without the t.v. on. I would like to note that his t.v. only has age appropriate cartoons on at night and we do not allow him to watch horror movies at this age.

The were in the past mild incidents that could be paranormal (shadow people, he talks to people not there, toys going off by themselves, cold spots, etc.) but this is a completely new level and has only been getting worse. ANY thoughts, comments, or suggestions would be greatly appreciated as this is beyond anything I have ever heard of. It doesn't fit into any type of haunting i have heard of, and doesnt match with any demon. From his descriptions, it almost sounds like the cenobites from hellraiser. Either he has a phenominal imagination, or he is seeing something I have NEVER heard of.... Maybe I.D.E.s???



posted on May, 6 2012 @ 12:53 AM
link   
Ok I am not well versed in physics but that inability allows me come up with outlandish and wired concepts that might seem laughable to you so keep that in mind I have some questions:


just for a second and for a second assume what the opening post said is achievable and exists in nature however even with this assumption there is a problem. As in example of drivers and turn signals if one person could travel to a parallel earth or parallel universe then will it it cause a tear in fabric of space time? Because firstly the same person from two different worlds will be present at the same time and either their singular or combined actions will lead to changes that will either not allow return and or not allow a second visit?

Thanks



posted on May, 6 2012 @ 02:59 AM
link   
Most physicites admit hat they dont like and dont undestand quantum mechanics
as it is too probalistic and where everything under the sun is possible.
Though laura mersini is working with the possibility of infinite number of universes
and has foung some evidence.
On another note the experimental signature of quantum gravity has eluded mainstream,
but I have it and a pity laura does not reply.



posted on May, 7 2012 @ 08:50 AM
link   

Originally posted by Angelic Resurrection
Most physicites admit hat they dont like and dont undestand quantum mechanics
as it is too probalistic and where everything under the sun is possible.
Though laura mersini is working with the possibility of infinite number of universes
and has foung some evidence.
On another note the experimental signature of quantum gravity has eluded mainstream,
but I have it and a pity laura does not reply.


...but most physicists will also admit that Quantum Mechanics theory has been tested thousands of times experimentally and the results always point to validation.



posted on May, 9 2012 @ 06:12 AM
link   
I'm not sure why that guy was so adamantly against quantum stuff. Just because quantum theory type experiments indicate communication that would be "faster than light" doesn't mean it violates the speed of light.

My understanding is that Einstein's postulation that nothing can exceed the SOL was really talking about matter, due to the increased mass as matter would approach the SOL. Since when is thought or information made of matter anyway?

Perhaps he is a paid shill from the anti-quantum-theory industry.

I always heard that Einstein didn't like quantum mechanics because he believed "God doesn't play dice" or some such quote. Not because he didn't believe the results actually happened....



posted on May, 9 2012 @ 02:10 PM
link   

Originally posted by djmarcone
I'm not sure why that guy was so adamantly against quantum stuff. Just because quantum theory type experiments indicate communication that would be "faster than light" doesn't mean it violates the speed of light.

My understanding is that Einstein's postulation that nothing can exceed the SOL was really talking about matter, due to the increased mass as matter would approach the SOL. Since when is thought or information made of matter anyway?

Perhaps he is a paid shill from the anti-quantum-theory industry.

I always heard that Einstein didn't like quantum mechanics because he believed "God doesn't play dice" or some such quote. Not because he didn't believe the results actually happened....


" Just because quantum theory type experiments indicate communication that would be "faster than light" doesn't mean it violates the speed of light. " - that makes no sense. You are wrong. Entanglement implies communication at faster than light speeds. That means the messenger particle transmitting the communication must travel at faster than the observed constant velocity of the photon (300 million meters a second+). Breaking the speed of light is a big deal, remember? It invalidates a lot of important things?

I don't think it has ever been properly proven that the photons in an entanglement experiment have travelled faster than the speed of light anyway. All the entanglement experiments I have examined have been a mess of contradictions and metaphysical assumptions. This is the fault of the predictions of Quantum Mechanics and Quantum Chromodynamics. This is why I am able to disregard consciousness + entanglement theories with ease. It's easy because I know the physics assumptions are already fake.

I have also bothered to read some neuroscience, thus I know where consciousness takes place and the general parameters of the nervous system. Anyone wishing to make statements about human consciousness MUST study the neural correlates of consciousness. 'Quantum Consciousness' is not a scientific theory. It's a new age set of buzz words. It functions as propaganda. It isn't justified in physics, mathematics or neuroscience.

"Perhaps he is a paid shill from the anti-quantum-theory industry." - if only there was such an industry! Unfortunately, the standard model evangelists have completely dominated the field since the time of the Copenhagen interpretation. There is almost zero mainstream dissent. Doesn't that strike you as strange?



posted on May, 10 2012 @ 10:25 AM
link   
reply to post by yampa
 





" Just because quantum theory type experiments indicate communication that would be "faster than light" doesn't mean it violates the speed of light. " - that makes no sense. You are wrong. Entanglement implies communication at faster than light speeds. That means the messenger particle transmitting the communication must travel at faster than the observed constant velocity of the photon (300 million meters a second+). Breaking the speed of light is a big deal, remember? It invalidates a lot of important things?


What that poster probably means is, that even though faster than light travel is implied, it doesn´t mean that there actually is FTL communication.




I don't think it has ever been properly proven that the photons in an entanglement experiment have travelled faster than the speed of light anyway.


Isn´t that exactly what that poster was saying? And are you suggesting that because the FTL hasn't been proven, the results are somehow not valid or based on errors?

Cause that would be unbelievably ignorant and biased.




All the entanglement experiments I have examined have been a mess of contradictions and metaphysical assumptions.


I don't know which ones you're looking at, but that is bull. Experiments are experiments, and they show what they show. There are no assumptions made and the results are there.




This is the fault of the predictions of Quantum Mechanics and Quantum Chromodynamics. This is why I am able to disregard consciousness + entanglement theories with ease. It's easy because I know the physics assumptions are already fake.


No, you are biased and arrogant, you don't have an explanation for real life results and therefore you act like weird quantum results are somehow wrong or even non existent. Head in the sand much?

Take this one for example,

arstechnica.com...


Suffice it to say that facile explanations about information passing between Alice's and Bob's photons lead to violations of causality, since Alice and Bob perform their polarization measurement before Victor makes his choice about whether to entangle his photons or not. (Similarly, if you think that all the photons come from a single laser source, they must be correlated from the start, and you must answer how they "know" what Victor is going to do before he does it.)



As always with entanglement, it's important to note that no information is passing between Alice, Bob, and Victor: the settings on the detectors and the BiSA are set independently



and there's no way to communicate faster than the speed of light. Nevertheless, this experiment provides a realization of one of the fundamental paradoxes of quantum mechanics: that measurements taken at different points in space and time appear to affect each other, even though there is no mechanism that allows information to travel between them.


There is no physical way of FTL communication between them, or direct communication at all, it is simply not possible.

That doesn't mean the result is not real.

There is in fact one "mechanism" that allows for the travel of information betwwen them and that is the human observer.

It is the only coonnection between them.




You are wrong. Entanglement implies communication at faster than light speeds. That means the messenger particle transmitting the communication must travel at faster than the observed constant velocity of the photon (300 million meters a second+).


No you are wrong, and clearly misinformed and ignorant.

Like I just said, the above experiment is setup in a way that direct communication between the particles, or the detectors is physically impossible.

There is no communication between them, and definately no FTL communication. So your argument is moot.

The results are there.
edit on 10-5-2012 by RandomEsotericScreenname because: (no reason given)



posted on May, 10 2012 @ 12:17 PM
link   
reply to post by RandomEsotericScreenname
 


I read your thread 'Quantum Experiments, Proof that Human Consciousness influences Particles' and I think a few people there have done a good job of explaining why entanglement has nothing to do with consciousness. So I'm not going to attempt to argue it with you. I seems you have decided this is your thing to promote. I would suggest attempting to use neuroscience if you want to make your argument appear effective. You can't explain consciousness without neuroscience.

I also notice you seem very keen to call me and others close minded yet you litter your own thread with non-scientific statements like:


The conclusion is again inescapable, the availability of the info is what collapses the pattern, or not. I see no other reason for that besides it having a direct relation with the consciousness of the experimenter


You've been given several theories about why entanglement might not involve consciousness, but you've dismissed them and seemingly gone right back to your inescapable conclusion. Have you really made a real effort to escape this conclusion?

Like Einstein predicted, most of these 'spooky' interactions will prove to be misunderstood side effects of the real underlying physical fields. A reason for these misunderstandings is the failure of the standard model to accept that all baryonic matter is emitting 'charge', and that this charge is a real particle field. Another is a failure to understand the innate motions of the photon and electron. There is no metaphysical wave particle duality. Particles can wave via the stacking of accelerations/spins.



posted on May, 10 2012 @ 12:57 PM
link   
reply to post by yampa
 





I read your thread 'Quantum Experiments, Proof that Human Consciousness influences Particles' and I think a few people there have done a good job of explaining why entanglement has nothing to do with consciousness.


First off, I never siad that entanglement itself has anything to do with consciousness, I suggested that supposed communication between entangled partners is done through human consciousness.

And noone expalined how past results can always correpsond with what the experimenter knows in the present. There is no explanation.




I also notice you seem very keen to call me and others close minded yet you litter your own thread with non-scientific statements like:


You are close minded, you clearly refuse to even acknowledge experimental results cause they don't fit your views.




The conclusion is again inescapable, the availability of the info is what collapses the pattern,or not.


This is completely scientific, the Quantum Eraser exp. proves that it is not the measuring itself, but the fact that the info is available.




I see no other reason for that besides it having a direct relation with the consciousness of the experimenter


This is clearly my opinion, but it is based on the factual results of these experiments.




You've been given several theories about why entanglement might not involve consciousness, but you've dismissed them and seemingly gone right back to your inescapable conclusion. Have you really made a real effort to escape this conclusion?


All the theories presented didn't explain a thing and are even in error, with the way some of these exp. are set up.

Like the exp. I posted in my last post. There is no way that the particles are communicating with each other, it is physically impossible

You are the one ignoring things. There is only one mechanism that is allowing info to pass in this case, and that is the experimenter.

That's is the only mechanism we are absolutely sure of at this point, so like it or not, it is the only valid explanation we have sofar, so we have to recognise it.




You can't explain consciousness without neuroscience.


That is what you say, I don't see how it is relevant. We are not talking about proving consciousness. We are talking about mechanism that are able to communicate the info. sofar, the only one we see is the experimenter himself.

He has a brain, he is conscious.

You are only suggesting that consciousness needs to be proven first to discredit my argument, but that's obviously a dumb thing to do.

There is no debate about wether the experimenter is a conscious being or not.




Like Einstein predicted, most of these 'spooky' interactions will prove to be misunderstood side effects of the real underlying physical fields


Good for him, since then the results are still strange and unexplained.




A reason for these misunderstandings is the failure of the standard model to accept that all baryonic matter is emitting 'charge', and that this charge is a real particle field.


Please link me to research that proves this "charge" and that particle field, and how it allows for communication between particles when that is physically impossible.





Another is a failure to understand the innate motions of the photon and electron. There is no metaphysical wave particle duality. Particles can wave via the stacking of accelerations/spins.


Is this about the simulation you posted earlier?

It's ridiculous, the motion of a particle that was shown there is not a wave function. It just shows the particle going up and down.

A wave is particles interfering with each other, not a single particle taking a route with a motion that looks like a wave.

Please expand on that. Please, links and proof.




So I'm not going to attempt to argue it with you.


Well, I responded to everything you said, please respond to all the statements I made.




edit on 10-5-2012 by RandomEsotericScreenname because: (no reason given)




top topics



 
7
<< 1    3 >>

log in

join