Help ATS with a contribution via PayPal:
learn more

Entanglement Shows Space Doesn't Exist!

page: 3
19
<< 1  2    4  5  6 >>

log in

join

posted on Sep, 27 2012 @ 11:31 AM
link   
There is only one thing, consciousness. You are that consciousness! That is why, if you turn your consciousness East! North, South and West don't exist. Get it! It doesn't exist because you are not focused on it! The only way anything in the known Universe exists is through observation, so if the experiments come up zero, zilch, paputska when you are not looking, it is because there's no one left to observe it...............There's only youuuuuuuuuuuuuu.




posted on Sep, 27 2012 @ 12:17 PM
link   
reply to post by DrunkYogi
 


When you die... the universe as you know...ceases to exist... because you stop observing it. So in theory (mine...made up know ^^.)... everything that sorrounds you now, it only exists because i'm observing it.. interacting with it... so in a kind of ridiculous way, i'm just talking to me....

sorry if it sounds crazy... because it's crazy...


I have to explore more the words and thoughts of Einstein, in the continuum of space and time, that we wave to manage to get out ...our try to see what relies beyond that... hum..

edit on 27-9-2012 by voyger2 because: (no reason given)



posted on Sep, 27 2012 @ 01:08 PM
link   

Originally posted by Ajax84
We're all entangled. Meaning space as we know it, is an illusion of observation! If we don't look at it, it's not there.


Einstein did say that reality is a persistent illusion. He uncovered a new layer of scientific understanding much like Newton before him and Galileo before him and Copernicus before him. However, I must admit it is difficult *not to observe* space because Einstein also observed that the more massive an object is, the more space-time seems to "bend".

In my humble opinion I would assume that space only appears not to exist at relatively close distances, such as the speed of light when turning on a flashlight here on Earth. The illusion is that it happens instantly, but the reality is that it is happening in the fraction of a second at 186,000 mph. Such a speed is relatively slow when compared to our observation of the light from our closest star, Alpha Centauri, 4.2 light-years away. The illusion was that we were seeing the light in real time, but Einstein showed that we were seeing the light from Alpha Centauri as it existed 4.2 years ago.

Since light-years are distances and a distance implies a space between two objects, it is difficult NOT to see space. Since light bends around massive objects in space, it is difficult NOT to see space. So - who knows what the reality and what the illusion really is here. Maybe in our lifetimes we will see a new brilliant physicist come along on par with Galileo, Newton, Einstein, and Steven Hawking who will change the universal paradigm and our perception of illusion and reality again.

Interesting video.
edit on 9/27/2012 by DarkKnight21 because: (no reason given)



posted on Sep, 27 2012 @ 01:44 PM
link   

Originally posted by AQuestion
reply to post by Ajax84
 


Dear Ajax84,

And the double slit experiment proves that merely observing something changes the outcome. I love quantum physics, it is so amusing. It always takes us back to Descartes, "I think therefore I am" is all that we can prove, everything else is a theory. So what does it mean to live in a holographic universe, it means that everything is created from a thought, even if it is someone's other than ourselves. The matrix is consciousness and there are many sentient beings effecting one another. Our universe is merely a representation of the varied sentient beings thoughts.

It is said that time is the movement of matter through space, what if instead it was the transition from one thought or emotion to another, that is how we experience time, a change in ourselves. S&F.


There is no proof of such things from the double slit experiment. 'I think therefore I am' is not something we/you can prove either. Applying Cartesian doubt to everything but Cartesian doubt makes no sense in my opinion.



posted on Sep, 27 2012 @ 02:00 PM
link   

Originally posted by LesMisanthrope

Originally posted by AQuestion
reply to post by Ajax84
 


Dear Ajax84,

And the double slit experiment proves that merely observing something changes the outcome. I love quantum physics, it is so amusing. It always takes us back to Descartes, "I think therefore I am" is all that we can prove, everything else is a theory. So what does it mean to live in a holographic universe, it means that everything is created from a thought, even if it is someone's other than ourselves. The matrix is consciousness and there are many sentient beings effecting one another. Our universe is merely a representation of the varied sentient beings thoughts.

It is said that time is the movement of matter through space, what if instead it was the transition from one thought or emotion to another, that is how we experience time, a change in ourselves. S&F.


There is no proof of such things from the double slit experiment. 'I think therefore I am' is not something we/you can prove either. Applying Cartesian doubt to everything but Cartesian doubt makes no sense in my opinion.


To deny Cogito ergo sum, entails a self-contradiction. Thus we don't even need to prove it. It's just innately known a priori.



posted on Sep, 27 2012 @ 03:30 PM
link   
reply to post by Ajax84
 


yeah this is mind bending stuff..

i've gotten in the habit of periodically

looking at walls behind me..

ya know, to keep the roof up..






posted on Sep, 27 2012 @ 03:45 PM
link   

Originally posted by Arbitrageur

Originally posted by jiggerj
Doesn't this also imply that the expansion of space didn't happen after the Big Bang. Hence, no Big Bang?
Good question for the author of the video, but as far as I can tell, yes.

I've had some experience looking at claims like this on ATS, and the usual resolution is what I call "dictionary abuse", where the author might say "when I say 'space' I wasn't referring to the definition in the dictionary, but an entirely different meaning which I just made up and you don't know about".

In other words, it's usually nonsense double-talk gibberish, but I have to admit in this case I really don't know how the author of the video resolves that point, but it's a good one.

If all I had to do to eliminate my daily commute was put one entangled particle at home and another at my office, to eliminate the space between them, I'd do it. Why doesn't everybody do this instead of making those long commutes every day?



If space were an illusion it wouldn't be a constant. I and my next door neighbor could agree to meet at the corner. I'd walk half a mile and she'd have to walk fifty miles. That would just plain suck. lol



posted on Sep, 27 2012 @ 03:51 PM
link   
reply to post by Ajax84
 


That makes sense.
Since we are traveling time in a linear fashion.



posted on Sep, 27 2012 @ 04:03 PM
link   
reply to post by sparky31
 



Some scientist are stupid no matter what education they have. So we're just going to say "ok it doesn't exist" wow.

If space is nowhere to be found then, I must be dreaming that I am live and by the time I wake up from this illusion then..............................................................................................(nothing exist, can you feel it?)..................(c..a..n....y..o..u....f..e..e..l....i..t..!!!!?).



posted on Sep, 27 2012 @ 04:25 PM
link   

Originally posted by sylent6
reply to post by sparky31
 



Some scientist are stupid no matter what education they have. So we're just going to say "ok it doesn't exist" wow.

If space is nowhere to be found then, I must be dreaming that I am live and by the time I wake up from this illusion then..............................................................................................(nothing exist, can you feel it?)..................(c..a..n....y..o..u....f..e..e..l....i..t..!!!!?).


Well, "feeling" it would be nothing more than some sensory organs telling you that you feel it. You aren't really "feeling" anything, but are rather being told that you are "feeling" something. Whats more, there are thousands of documented cases of people getting various senses mixed up, like a miswiring. So they smell colors, or taste sounds, or feel odors.

What you call "reality" is your mind trusting the data being fed into it, presumably by our various sensory organs.

And to the poster who mentions Descartes....we can't even be sure that we "are" because we think. Or, rather, the context of that statement cannot be assessed. Consider a jewel. Each facet of this jewel communicates its own information, and receives its own information It is a part of the whole, but has an experience that is wholly unique to the whole, because no other facet points in the same direction.

In much the same way, we cannot be certain that we are sure who "i" is, or if it should be "we". So perhaps Descartes would be more correct in saying "we think therefore we are".



posted on Sep, 27 2012 @ 04:30 PM
link   

Originally posted by jiggerj

Originally posted by Arbitrageur

Originally posted by jiggerj
Doesn't this also imply that the expansion of space didn't happen after the Big Bang. Hence, no Big Bang?
Good question for the author of the video, but as far as I can tell, yes.

I've had some experience looking at claims like this on ATS, and the usual resolution is what I call "dictionary abuse", where the author might say "when I say 'space' I wasn't referring to the definition in the dictionary, but an entirely different meaning which I just made up and you don't know about".

In other words, it's usually nonsense double-talk gibberish, but I have to admit in this case I really don't know how the author of the video resolves that point, but it's a good one.

If all I had to do to eliminate my daily commute was put one entangled particle at home and another at my office, to eliminate the space between them, I'd do it. Why doesn't everybody do this instead of making those long commutes every day?



If space were an illusion it wouldn't be a constant. I and my next door neighbor could agree to meet at the corner. I'd walk half a mile and she'd have to walk fifty miles. That would just plain suck. lol


So how do you know this doesn't happen? Until you are able to partake in your friends perception, you cannot be sure what a mile is to them. Further, can you be certain that a mile is always a mile to you? Have you ever not had the perception that it was taking longer than it should for that next interstate exit to come up?

For that matter, can you be certain that you have this "friend"? Sure, you may have recollection of interacting with them....but so have countless other patients that were in a mental hospital i worked at back in the 90's.

Reality, despite all our attempts to defy it, is purely perceptive. 10 eye witnesses will all tell a different story. Can we be certain that there is a constant "reality" that exists outside of our perception?



posted on Sep, 27 2012 @ 04:41 PM
link   

Originally posted by Ajax84

Originally posted by LesMisanthrope

Originally posted by AQuestion
reply to post by Ajax84
 


Dear Ajax84,

And the double slit experiment proves that merely observing something changes the outcome. I love quantum physics, it is so amusing. It always takes us back to Descartes, "I think therefore I am" is all that we can prove, everything else is a theory. So what does it mean to live in a holographic universe, it means that everything is created from a thought, even if it is someone's other than ourselves. The matrix is consciousness and there are many sentient beings effecting one another. Our universe is merely a representation of the varied sentient beings thoughts.

It is said that time is the movement of matter through space, what if instead it was the transition from one thought or emotion to another, that is how we experience time, a change in ourselves. S&F.


There is no proof of such things from the double slit experiment. 'I think therefore I am' is not something we/you can prove either. Applying Cartesian doubt to everything but Cartesian doubt makes no sense in my opinion.


To deny Cogito ergo sum, entails a self-contradiction. Thus we don't even need to prove it. It's just innately known a priori.


Not necessarily. We must first exist before we think, much like a rock must exist before it can do what a rock does. Also we must first understand what thinking is and that there is an 'I' who's doing the thinking. More so, we are still unable to understand or explain being, or the 'am' in Descartes' proposition.

Sorry for digressing off topic.



posted on Sep, 27 2012 @ 05:17 PM
link   
Just so you guys know, a scientist Face Palms everytime a laymen use Quantum mechanical phenomenon to start explaining consciousness, etc. The deepest of fundemtalling thinking minds, Richard Feynman once said "No one understands quantum mechanics". Think about that next time you start applying your human logic to something as abstract as non-locality (Which is what you mean about space not existing w/ entanglement. See your human logic has led you to a faulty understanding of a decently understood, and well measured quantum effect. For the correct understanding of non-locality please take a quantum mechanics class at your local university)



posted on Sep, 27 2012 @ 05:21 PM
link   
All this observer dependant stuff is overplayed. Its all to do with the measurement problem. Please read the proper history of the measurement problem and then you will see were all this psuedoscience comes from. A mis understanding of the concepts. The observer just colapses the wave function. Tho very wierd, its not as wierd as other ideas in quantum mechanics, tho just not as enticing to this branch of pseudoscience. So they are not mentioned.

One thing that is never mentioned. Scientists are like little kids. Especially Physicists. #, string theory predicts 10 dimensions of space, and multiple universes, etc. We are not afraid of crazy, abstract ideas anymore. The crazyer the better. So all this talk of science suppressing aliens, and being too blind to see the "obvious" is crazy. We want to find this #, just as much as you do. We just dont have the luxory of ignorance and we have to go were ALL the data lies, not just the convenient stuff.
edit on 27-9-2012 by ubeenhad because: (no reason given)



posted on Sep, 27 2012 @ 06:41 PM
link   
Space and time are from our perspective, the four dimensions we can observe. There are at the very least 10 dimensions necessary to make this Universe possible. We are not really observing an illusion though, in the case of Einstein i would say he probably did not mean that in purely layman's terms.

We cannot see these other dimensions because of how the Universe is organized. If it were possible to perceive reality as a being made entirely of particles some of these dimensions would become apparent. Getting down to an organism that could perceive itself as quarks more so. Space/time is what we can perceive, with the common sense's, of everything in our surroundings.

No so much an illusion as much as a developmental issue due to the present human condition.

Any thoughts?



posted on Sep, 27 2012 @ 06:45 PM
link   

Originally posted by bigfatfurrytexan
So how do you know this doesn't happen? Until you are able to partake in your friends perception, you cannot be sure what a mile is to them. Further, can you be certain that a mile is always a mile to you? Have you ever not had the perception that it was taking longer than it should for that next interstate exit to come up?
People do perceive things like distance and time differently...this has been researched and documented.

This is why we have things like the meter, the second and other basic units defined so they are the same no matter who is doing the measuring. But if you don't use any other measuring tools besides human perception, chances are you'll be off.



posted on Sep, 27 2012 @ 06:51 PM
link   

Originally posted by ubeenhad
All this observer dependant stuff is overplayed. Its all to do with the measurement problem. Please read the proper history of the measurement problem and then you will see were all this psuedoscience comes from. A mis understanding of the concepts.
I made a thread about this:

The "observer effect": Is it proof the system is "aware it's being observed?"

It's a simpler example of the measurement problem that I thought many people could understand without understanding quantum mechanics.



posted on Sep, 27 2012 @ 06:52 PM
link   
reply to post by Kashai
 


Everything you just said is speculative.
String theory is not a standard lol so neither is 10 dimensions of space and 1 of time.



posted on Sep, 27 2012 @ 06:57 PM
link   

Originally posted by Arbitrageur

Originally posted by ubeenhad
All this observer dependant stuff is overplayed. Its all to do with the measurement problem. Please read the proper history of the measurement problem and then you will see were all this psuedoscience comes from. A mis understanding of the concepts.
I made a thread about this:

The "observer effect": Is it proof the system is "aware it's being observed?"

It's a simpler example of the measurement problem that I thought many people could understand without understanding quantum mechanics.


Good conceptual understanding for a pseudoscientist. :p
The double slit experiment is the perfect example of the measurment problem. That Dr. Quantum video is pretty good, till I saw who it came from.



posted on Sep, 27 2012 @ 07:24 PM
link   

Originally posted by ubeenhad
reply to post by Kashai
 


Everything you just said is speculative.


Everything related to science is statistical and also therefore speculative. Though as meantioned above, in recent response, and has been observed to curve space-time. Nonetheless, concluding that observation is speculative does not in and of itself, prove it is.


"String theory is not a standard lol so neither is 10 dimensions of space and 1 of time. "

According to Einstein space and time are synonymous.

Standards are in the eye of the beholder take gravity for example? We can only state, that as far as we can observe, gravity seems to act a certain way. We do not have access to all reality and its intricacies, therefore the idea that gravity works the same way everywhere is not a truth ( by any real definition of the term).

There are those of course who insist that there is no other possible way, this is a beleif.

Science is more about ruling out things as answers. So, if one believes reality is an illusion, one should start by trying to prove it is real.

Any thoughts?

edit on 27-9-2012 by Kashai because: Modified content





new topics

top topics



 
19
<< 1  2    4  5  6 >>

log in

join