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.
David Bohm was deeply influenced by Jiddu Krishnamurti, crediting him as a source for understanding the worldview he proposed in his interpretation of Quantum Mechanics that he put forth in Wholeness and the Implicate Order (his first footnote[14] credited Krishnamurti's book Freedom from the Known[15] - a treatise putting forth a distilled rendition of apophatic mysticism), and had a series of in depth dialogues with him that were published in the book The Ending of Time.[16] In On Creativity, he wrote of Krishnamurti, "I got to know Krishnamurti in the early sixties. I became interested around that time in understanding the whole thing more deeply. I felt that he was suggesting that it is possible for a human being to have some kind of contact with this whole [that Bohm postulated in his work]. I don't think he would want to use the word 'God' because of its limited associations."[17]
Among contemporary quantum field theories, the important gauge theories are indebted to the work of [Hermann] Weyl and Pauli. Yet many physicists today would be shocked if they learned how Weyl and Pauli understood the concept ‘field’ when they wrote their classic articles. They were both immersed in mysticism, searching for a way to unify mind and physics. Weyl published a lecture where he concluded by favoring the Christian-mathematical mysticism of Nicholas of Cusa. Moreover, Pauli's published article on Kepler presents him as part of the Western mystical tradition ... For those who do not favor the Copenhagen interpretation and prefer the alternative proposed by David Bohm, I would suggest reading Bohm's many published dialogues on the topic of Eastern mysticism ... Eddington and Schrödinger, like many today, joined forces to find a quantum gravity theory. Did their shared mysticism have a role to play in whatever insights they gained or mistakes they made? I do not know, but I think it's important to find out.[19]
—Juan Miguel Marin, "'Mysticism' in Quantum Mechanics: The Forgotten Controversy" in European Journal of Physics 30 (2009), as quoted by Lisa Zyga in "Quantum Mysticism: Gone but Not Forgotten"
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 definite position], you have produced one there!...Before the second measurement, it is ubiquitous in the cloud (it is not a particle at all)
The 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.
Against Jordan here, he claims that the event of registration in a thermometer cannot beconsidered an act of observation. Against Einstein he claims that uncertainty tells us something fundamental about physical reality, namely that the acquisition of knowledge is inseparable from it. His premise is that meaning is what makes a random collection become information; the acquisition of knowledge requires that this information be meaningful to someone. Moreover, only quantum physics and consciousness solve the problem that the theory of relativity ‘leaves untouched[,] the “unidirectional flow of time; [the mind using]statistical theory constructs it from the events’’’ [55, p 152]. Construction here means that it is not a law discovered but one created by consciousness at the fundamental level of reality. Thus we are not subject to this law, ‘a liberation from the tyranny of old Chronos’. His final conclusion to this dialogue climaxes the argument by invoking mystical ideas about the immortality of a fundamental consciousness.
originally posted by: neoholographic
...It's important here to note that Schrodinger was arguing against a Western view of science which blindly removes any room for consciousness outside of a blind emergent property of materialism which is simply foolish if you ask me...
To Western thought this doctrine ‘has little appeal’, it is unpalatable, it is dubbed fantastic, unscientific. Well, so it is because our science—Greek science—is based on objectivation, whereby it has cut itself off from an adequate understanding of the Subject of Cognizance, of the mind. But I do believe that this is precisely the point where our present way of thinking does need to be amended, perhaps by a bit of blood transfusion from Eastern thought.
originally posted by: LittleByLittle
a reply to: Soylent Green Is People
...Since we can teleport information with entanglement we have proven that information can change physical even if the physical is light years apart...
originally posted by: neoholographic
a reply to: Soylent Green Is People
First off, you talk about a mechanical measurement, but what exactly is a mechanical measurement?
An eyeball counts.
Scientists have long speculated that certain animals are making use of magnetic fields to find their way, but biologists are mystified as to how they might do it.
Now some answers might be coming from one of the most perplexing interactions in physics.
Quantum entanglement dictates that if two electrons are created at the same time, the pair will be “entangled” so that whatever happens to one particle affects the other. Otherwise, it would violate fundamental laws of physics.
The two particles remain entangled even when separated by vast distances.
So if one particle is spin-up, the other must be spin-down, but what's mind-boggling is that neither will have a spin until they're measured.
That means that not only will you not know what the spin of the electron is until you measure it, but that the actual act of measuring the spin will make it spin-up or spin -own.
As difficult as entanglement is to believe, as well as understand, it is a well established property of quantum mechanics. And some physicists are suggesting that birds and other animals might be using the effect to see and navigate Earth's magnetic fields.
The process could work via light-triggered interactions on a chemical in bird’s eyes.
Light would excite two electrons on a molecule in the bird’s eye, switching one onto a second molecule, but the two would remain entangled even though they’re separated.
The Earth’s magnetic field would alter the alignment of the electron’s spins and in the process alter the chemical properties of the molecules. Physicists suspect that the reactions would leave varying concentrations of chemicals throughout the eye, possibly creating a picture of our planet’s magnetic field that would allow birds to orient themselves.
The measurement problem in quantum mechanics is the problem of how (or whether) wavefunction collapse occurs. The inability to observe this process directly has given rise to different interpretations of quantum mechanics, and poses a key set of questions that each interpretation must answer. The wavefunction in quantum mechanics evolves deterministically according to the Schrödinger equation as a linear superposition of different states, but actual measurements always find the physical system in a definite state. Any future evolution is based on the state the system was discovered to be in when the measurement was made, meaning that the measurement "did something" to the system that is not obviously a consequence of Schrödinger evolution.
To express matters differently (to paraphrase Steven Weinberg[1][2]), the Schrödinger wave equation determines the wavefunction at any later time. If observers and their measuring apparatus are themselves described by a deterministic wave function, why can we not predict precise results for measurements, but only probabilities? As a general question: How can one establish a correspondence between quantum and classical reality?[3]
originally posted by: neoholographic
a reply to: moebius
Nope, what you're seeing is a blind adherence to materialism.
These Scientist just accepted what QM was saying. This isn't something fly by night, this is a Science that has given us our modern world.
This is why the word particle can be misleading. We're not talking about particles of sand or particles of salt. We're talking about a particle that doesn't exist until measured. Prior to measurement you just have probabilities in superposition that exhibit entanglement, non locality and tunneling.
So the skeptical knee jerk reaction is these guys are idiots that just run to mysticism when facing difficult questions.
The people who are blindly putting their heads in the sand are the followers of the cult of materialism who say everything must have an answer that fits into a materialistic box.
This is just putting the cart before the horse in order to placate a belief, it's not science.