Quantum experiment verifies Einstein's 'spooky action at a distance'

a reply to: OccamsRazor04

Pure nonsense.

Where did I say science is wrong??????

I said the materialist interpretation of science is wrong. You nor anyone else has refuted anything that I've said. Everything I listed is from experiments that were recently carried out.

I've said that science supports what mystics and philosophers have been saying for years and I listed experiments to support what I'm saying. Most of science today recognizes that there's a WHOLE to reality and we are experiencing a PART of that WHOLE. Einstein had these type of thoughts based on Physics yet he sounded more like a Buddhist.

Still there are moments when one feels free from one’s own identification with human limitations and inadequacies. At such moments, one imagines that one stands on some spot of a small planet, gazing in amazement at the cold yet profoundly moving beauty of the eternal, the unfathomable: life and death flow into one, and there is neither evolution nor destiny; only being.

A human being is a part of the whole, called by us “Universe,” a part limited in time and space. He experiences himself, his thoughts and feelings as something separate from the rest — a kind of optical delusion of his consciousness. This delusion is a kind of prison for us, restricting us to our personal desires and to affection for a few persons nearest to us. Our task must be to free ourselves from this prison by widening our circle of compassion to embrace all living creatures and the whole of nature in its beauty.

This sounds similar to Plato's Allegory of the Cave. The point is, most of science now is searching for the WHOLE and a big part of this is the fact that Scientist are starting to look at a nonphysical wave function. It's like Telsa said in the quote I use at the bottom of my posts:

“The day science begins to study non-physical phenomena it will make more progress in one decade than in all the previous centuries of its existence.”

― Nikola Tesla

news.discovery.com...

I have been thinking about a complete new model explaining a lot we don't know about yet,
I think 1 photon still is a packet of particles traveling together, we can not yet see in this resolution to measure it, the neutron state coming from the sun ignites on our more and more solid becoming planet, inside our atmosphere is no longer the absolute -270 temperature, inside our atmosphere is temperature enough for a burn effect, this is why we do not see starlight or sunlight I space directly, it cant "burn" there so can not give of the effect " light" .

many single, non-solid, invisible, undividable, virtually massless particles (space material, dark matter) can not hold much heat (dark energy) individually. (slow invisible weak force magnetism? universal up, North-star?)
something which can NOT divide can not EMIT anything, a photon state is only happening inside our atmosphere, we only measure particle speeds on earth under atmospheric pressure where indeed the speed of light is the maximum velocity anything can accomplish, it is not the light itself, it is MASS moving true thicker air creating friction (heat,then light), in our atmosphere where more complex atoms configurations can form under atmospheric pressure, like oxygen need for the effect " light". Space material is so fine it is to small to hold enough energy by itself to even "light up" , only a stream of dark matter that gets ignited on our atmosphere is visible, see Wikipedia and the border where light becomes light, it is our thermo to stratosphere border, the blue glow is the point where solid meets non-solid, the border where incoming light becomes light.

ahwell can continue to type but none ever actually reads so ive made up some drawings to explain further my model.
once I accepted one step of light being more than one particle inside the confinements of a quanta which is our resolution
for measurement today.

drive.google.com...

here you can see some drawings and stuff, hope for some responses.




here is some extra text with some more theoretical thoughts, did not wish to retype the information
is still on topic.

i will share my new realisation, or idea about electro magnetism today, magnetism works on the SMALLEST particles possible,
metal is very cold so it moves these smallest particles "relatively" easy (by pressure), particles want rest (when possible they will loose energy until none is left). so cold disturbs them as it makes air flow easyly also. (smaller are easier movable still than air, wich is bigger in nature) the smallest undevideble particle can not radiate anything itself, it can not devide, this means it is so small single and tiny (almost weightless so easily movable by temperatures it does not like), it can not burn any “fuel”or “light” i think light only becomes light when invisible superfast particles streams hit our atmosphere, think about it, the sun or stars are NOT directly visible in space. a particle stream comming in with millions of miles per hour from the sun thrue non (almost) non resisting) nothingness blackness.... non resistant material for a very long time and suddenly then, impacts hard!!! on earths atmosphere it hits, suddenly it comes from cold in a very “thick” air, it heats up, and starts to burn thrue friction in present in our atmosphere, we can only measure speed of light, burning matter thrue space, Always measured WITHIN our atmosphere, never truely a vacuum( how do we know if theres not any godparticles in your vacuum if you cant find them?), the smallest single particle you can not see they do not radiate "light". again think about this, in space its to cold to “burn” there are no oxygen atoms in space, the grain is to small for complex functions from “atoms” (on earth we have a pressure wich allows more complex atom configurations to form, and with different speeds of spin) a packet of particles thats starts to burn, and give of "radiation" wich is made up of more particles together. a "fireball" needs temperature..... and oxygen.... AND matter... even if its “invisible” matter
because its to fast, or when it burns out, it has no energy left, it radiates no more, and eventually stops moving and rests somewhere...
in space...(black matter IS MATTER ALSO, it just doenst... radiate, hence.... the black darkness of dark matter..(space material is NOT weightless, there IS a super tiny pressure lower than on earth there) (all space material together weighs a total together aswell (tiny resistance, so i predict a maximum length, a bounced off particle can travel after it impacted)... and becomes space in rest itself... (non radiating single particles with the smallest mass possible, no energy, so black, cold is blue (little energy) red is hot is fast light (very hot burning, high colorbrightness or "intensity"of the burn). i think a photon is not 1 single particle but a packet of even smaller particles moving togheter in one direction, and even smaller particles wich it sheds... in all directions, hence a particle packet moving over a straight line... followed... by the burn effect wich gives us the particle wave answer, it is BOTH not OR Glimlach hope you liked it. what do you think about my theory of light? and magnetism combined?
dl.dropboxusercon......;/extra%20information%20a…
dl.dropboxusercon......;/extra%20original%20draw…
dl.dropboxusercon......;/MIJN%20ONDERZOEK%20EN%2…
hope i have inspired you alittle i want to open source ufo technology smile-emoticon i think i know some things
no body else has seen before smile-emoticon see my videos man ive decoded some ancient symbols i think. maybe its time to start a "kickstarter"project online and opensource ufo technology with the complete world.

greetings from Dennis from the netherlands.

www.youtube.com...

www.youtube.com...

www.youtube.com...

i think magnetism works on the smallest undevideble particle, because they are so small they are easily moveble by a force, a pressure, or heat and cold differences, they are even more vulreneble and moveble by heat than wind (air is more heavy than smallest undevidable, 1 single particle. the one smallest possible partice wich can not be devided, can not shed light particles, period. therefore it give off no LIGHT beeing a smallest particle possible itself. undevideble, does not burn fuel, hence a packet of particles burning, moving in the same direction, giving off a speherical formed radiation ball of particles moving from a MOVING point of origin, hence the particle wave is not OR, it is particle AND wave, they have both caristeristics, we are just not able to measure them at the same time yet.

this is why we live in an electric universe, its not electric actually, its a magnetic universe. the smallest parts react in space to heat from the sun aswell, this is why the earths magnetic fields are formed as they are. one time it is heated up and influenced, until gravity gets a hold of it and bends it inwards again. heat makes it float away from earth by pressure (solar winds) but earth fights to hold on to them (pico???)particles.

ah darn uncorrected spellings version blergh sowwy

sunlight.. is actually a sped up particle stream heated by the suns energy, pressured away from the sun, then cooled by space material but matter tends to keep moving in the same direction, so even though it is super cooled, it still moves as a stream of individual invisible tiny pico particles, wich can not radiate light, until they impact earths atmoshere and create their own heat, inside our atmosphere. (occams razor comes to mind, can it all be so simple?)

Sunlight (beams of matter at a certain incomming speed) once moved thrue clouds, are less energetic, darker, less intense heated rays of matter, they burn less intense and thus create a contract between the two on the border of the cloud, water molecules themselves just COOL the burning packets moving in a stream into the ground. the must be stopped somewhere in the ground, they are just collected within all the bigger masses. they becoe, earth... we pack on more and more matter over the yearts, iron compresses.... we get bigger.... earth CAN become a sun itself, think about it, more and more compressed heavier metals, more pressure beacause of more matter over time we gain, there will be a point we become a sun. a sun will explode and stop lighting its "area" light must first come in from another sun, wich is very far, if indeed it CAN reach it in the time it happened, and during the timespan we live or observe this over time. a blackhole is a black burnt out sun core. the core itself still will atracks the most closest matter, it will slowly grow, into a new earth...... over time, give microbial live in a petriedish time, and a universe will start from it, but give it time. all planets are in a period or phases of its life cycle, namely the one state we can currently observe, a gas planet is about to form a solid planet again, after this a sun, afer this a blackhole, after this a new earth, and so on. etcetera. i think we have to planet hop some day, it will become very hot here, almost like a judgement day i reckon.
who will be on the "life" "boats" and who will suffer.....

a reply to: neoholographic

I've said that science supports what mystics and philosophers have been saying for years and I listed experiments to support what I'm saying.

Philosophers and mystics say a lot of things, you need to be more specific. When you say that QM invalidates materialism what that means to me is that reality isn't simply made up of little billiard balls which move in predictable ways, because particles such as the electron or photon can behave like a wave with abstract mathematical properties. QM also says that reality is non-local, meaning you can get instantaneous interactions over any distance via entanglement, which also implies that reality is capable of producing truly random events, meaning things can happen without a cause, making the universe non-deterministic.

Of course none of these weird things sit very well with a realist, but there aren't many prominent scientists who I would call classical realists in this day and age, which I why I think the term "scientific realism" is a terrible term. I think it is more appropriate to just use the term "realism" without needing to say anything about science. Anyone can be a realist whether they know much about science or not. But I also think it's kind of important to distinguish between classical realism and what might be considered a more modern form of realism.

originally posted by: Arbitrageur
a reply to: neoholographic

Yet another blow to scientific realism.

How? The experiment matches scientific prediction so it confirms science.

There's a lot of inconsistency in what that term even means:
philsci-archive.pitt.edu...

It is perhaps only a slight exaggeration to say that scientific realism is characterized differently by every author who discusses it

The experiment confirms quantum mechanics. It doesn't confirm quantum woo.

Quantum woo is the justification of irrational beliefs by an obfuscatory reference to quantum physics.

...The logical process runs something like this:

I want magic to exist.
I don't understand quantum.
Therefore, quantum could mean magic exists.

Concepts such as "non-locality" or "quantum probability waves" or "uncertainty principle" have become social memes of a kind where people inherently recognize that something "strange" is going on. Practitioners of fraudulent and silly ideas can tap into this feeling of mystery to push their sham concepts...

What we observe is consistent with our model of quantum mechanics. I can't say there's no mystery in QM, as we don't have all the answers, but that's no reason to invoke claims of quantum woo.

Oh, thank god, a link to a "rational"wiki article, that's what we needed.


"Quantum woo" sure sounds like a really nice term invented by people who think they're smarter. You know, in essence the kind that runs "rational"wiki



Hilarious how much flak OP gets for supposedly suggesting "magic", despite the fact that it's obvious that's not what they're getting at.


Kneejerks come in all shapes and sizes I guess, though maybe the quantum physics "experts" on ATS should grab a work by plato sometime, rather than acting like the fans of philosophy should keep their noses out of physics

a reply to: neoholographic

I rather preferred when Tesla said "I believe that irradiating my head with x-rays gives wings to my thoughts".

It probably isn't the first experimental proof. Thread from last year.

www.abovetopsecret.com...

a reply to: neoholographic

Nice find!

The rug of 'materialism' got pulled out from under science long ago, but it's taking a long time for the taint to fade. Experiments like this help.

Schrodinger also hated it because of what QM implied.

I wouldn't go that far. Erwin was a Vedic non-dual mystic philosopher. I think he just went through periods of doubt and pain, like everyone else.

👣

originally posted by: Arbitrageur
How? The experiment matches scientific prediction so it confirms science.

Science, yes. Materialism, no.

It's way past time for those two to get a divorce.

Oh science, how long are you going to lay there embracing a corpse?

There's a lot of inconsistency in what that term even means:
philsci-archive.pitt.edu...

From your link:

"The context dependence of the objects and the fact that they are entangled with their environment means that it is not realism that is refuted by quantum mechanics but atomism and the idea of context-independent objects"

Ok, so atomism is refuted. Where does that leave modern materialism? I think it leaves it resorting to fancy sleight-of-hand gymnastics, through apologists such as yourself, because it doesn't want to face the music. Goodbye mechanistic, deterministic systems of thought.

"The universe begins to look more like a great thought than a great machine."

-James Jeans

Classical Materialism

Materialism originated in ancient Greek philosophy during the 6th century b.c.e., and in China and India around the same time, if not even earlier. In Greece in the 5th century the atomists Leucippus and Democritus argued that all that existst is matter (in the form of limitless number of tiny indivisible partcles - atoms) and empty space, and that the differences in the sense objects are due to variations in the size and shape of atoms and their combinations

The atomism of Democritus and Leucippus was strenuosly challanged by the great Greek philosophers Socrates, Plato, and Aristotle, although it found a supporter in Epicurus in the 4th century BCE.

www.kheper.net...

Plato wins. Democritus, the father of modern science, loses.

👣

originally posted by: theabsolutetruth
It probably isn't the first experimental proof. Thread from last year.

www.abovetopsecret.com...

Experiments confirming quantum entanglement date back to the early 1980s:

Alain Aspect

In the early 1980s, while working on his PhD thesis[1] from the lesser academic rank of lecturer, he performed the elusive "Bell test experiments" that showed that Albert Einstein, Boris Podolsky and Nathan Rosen's reductio ad absurdum of quantum mechanics, namely that it implied 'ghostly action at a distance', did in fact appear to be realised when two particles were separated by an arbitrarily large distance (see EPR paradox).

This is the latest in a long line of quantum entanglement experiments.

originally posted by: Arbitrageur

originally posted by: Bicent76
a reply to: neoholographic

yea I find it interesting you immediately get attacked on ats, for posting the results of a experiment on ats...

Posting the experiment is fine and there's no dispute about that. It's the claim that it shows mystics were right all along that's in dispute as it does no such thing.

Yes, it does. The problem is that your science background has not prepared you to understand mystics.

👣

nice article thank you, I guess im a classical materialist then


Classical Materialism

Materialism originated in ancient Greek philosophy during the 6th century b.c.e., and in China and India around the same time, if not even earlier. In Greece in the 5th century the atomists external link Leucippus and external link Democritus argued that all that exists is matter (in the form of limitless number of tiny indivisible particles - atoms) and empty space, and that the differences in the sense objects are due to variations in the size and shape of atoms and their combinations



except for my theoretical idea that atoms are not the smallest indivisible particles. invisible does not mean its not existing, it just means it is so small or non-self-emitting itself, I think the smallest indivisible particle which can not emit anything can not give off the effect " light". Something must originate from the photon, which is seen as light, a intense burning particle even smaller than the boundaries of a quanta. outside of our resolution of measurement still.
plus if the realization dopes not get made that the smallest indivisible particle can NOT emit light, they will be searching fot that god particle, or space material for a long time to come

a reply to: Arbitrageur

I am aware of that, I posted the link as it is also 'proof' of 'Spooky' Quantum Entanglement, hence the posted research isn't that 'groundbreaking'.

originally posted by: Bedlam

If you'd like to logically support the claim that the Akashic Records are now proven to be true due to the paper cited, I'd love to hear you out. Please. Elucidate.

Now that Democritus is defeated and Plato is victorious, it opens a way for science to take a new philosophy as a partner. One that is compatible with the concept of a collective unconscious or 'akashic records'.

There is evidence to support the idea of a collective unconscious, but due to the taint of materialism in science, it is regarded as not 'credible' and swept under the rug. Those days are coming to a close.

👣

Rethorical question....

Can you meassure a human?

Why should particles of any sort be any different? Science is looking at "reality" in the wrong way because the basis of perception is always derived from our point of view. How do you think a star 1000.000 times larger than Earths sees or interprets a human being?

Everything is about rounds.... about cycles, but there are varieties of rounds and some cycles are short and some are long (from mans point of view).

None of us fx. can imagine what the Earth looks like when our solarsystem is on the exact opposite place of the galaxy.

Our brains are manufactured in a way as to, by the hand of nature and convinience, survive and understand this particular spot in the universe.
Trying to force our concepts of physics down on the entire universe is a flawed approach to understanding it. Instead it would require that we not only recognise that our view of the universe is biased but also find a way to handle these raw data by modifying our minds.

originally posted by: BlueMule
Yes, it does. The problem is that your science background has not prepared you to understand mystics.

So neo says the science proves mystics were right all along.

Now you're saying that science hasn't prepared me for what science is telling me...which is that the mystics were right...wait, what?

That doesn't even make any sense.

As I said these experiments date back to the 1980s so this is nothing surprising, they are just variations of similar experiments.

originally posted by: Arbitrageur

originally posted by: BlueMule
Yes, it does. The problem is that your science background has not prepared you to understand mystics.

So neo says the science proves mystics were right all along.

Now you're saying that science hasn't prepared me for what science is telling me...which is that the mystics were right...wait, what?

That doesn't even make any sense.

So what did you do? You ran to the dictionary to gain an understanding of mystics. Sorry but that won't cut it.

Suppose a remote mystic, a hermit who lived his life in a cave meditating; exploring altered states of consciousness, comes out to join society and discovers science. A mere dictionary wouldn't prepare him to understand that mysticism and science are overlapping more and more.

A dictionary won't prepare you either.

You are like that hermit, but you've been in a cave of indoctrination.

👣

a reply to: neoholographic

The wave function is a probability function. In the absence of all the parameters of the function ( quaintly called collapsed) the probability of every state of any particle is never zero. HOWEVER, the probability of the position the particle I am about observe (and thus "collapse" it's wave function) being "here" is 99.99999999999999......9999% as opposed to everywhere else being 0.000000000.......000000001% !!!. Oh look it is not zero and thus theoretically possible to be at opposite ends of the universe (you might have come across that expression).

Dr. Schroedinger knew fine well about the wave function bveing merely the sum of probability states and that it could not ever be used to prove some mystically, spooky actions. Hence his cat. The thought experiment proves that no matter how much you wish to believe in the possibilities of the wave function that cat will be either Dead or alive and thus the wave function has, essentially, already collapsed. The human observer does not know this yet and arrogantly believes it is he through observation that collapses the wave function. This ignore the cat, who is watching intently at his imminenet demise, the cat MUST be an observer. In fact you can take this to it;s logical conclusion and that is that every particle is an observer of every other particle. It is the "measuring" humans who need to the wave function to fill in the gaps about pre oberved (by them) conditions.

The probability of tossing a coin and being heads is 50% or tails 50%. Since neither is zero then before being tossed (observed) it must be both heads and tails at the same time.

originally posted by: yorkshirelad

The probability of tossing a coin and being heads is 50% or tails 50%. Since neither is zero then before being tossed (observed) it must be both heads and tails at the same time.

That's all well and good, except for one thing. The output of random number generators, which basically toss coins really really fast, can be altered by consciousness.

Probability < consciousness



👣

a reply to: yorkshirelad


Link to that paper please. Thanks.