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

a reply to: Bedlam

You said:

You're saying this means the Akashic Records are literal truth, which is amazingly wrong. And all the wave collapsing-macroscale stuff is right out of "The Secret". It's wish-and-make-it-so, which is the sort of things people generally get past at about 5.

No, it's not right out of the Secret but you somehow think just saying this has some type of meaning. Wish and make it so is just more gibberish that has nothing to do with what I'm saying.

I'm not saying that science has literally found the Akashic record. I'm saying that science is discovering it's equivalent in things like the wave function. Again, the fact is you haven't debated anything I said.

I said science is showing that the wave function may be a nonphysical entity that contains information about every state that matter can be in. This has nothing to do with magic, woo or the Secret it's science.

The wave-function is real but nonphysical: A view from counterfactual quantum cryptography

Counterfactual quantum cryptography (CQC) is used here as a tool to assess the status of the quantum state: Is it real/ontic (an objective state of Nature) or epistemic (a state of the observer's knowledge)? In contrast to recent approaches to wave function ontology, that are based on realist models of quantum theory, here we recast the question as a problem of communication between a sender (Bob), who uses interaction-free measurements, and a receiver (Alice), who observes an interference pattern in a Mach-Zehnder set-up. An advantage of our approach is that it allows us to define the concept of "physical", apart from "real". In instances of counterfactual quantum communication, reality is ascribed to the interaction-freely measured wave function (ψ) because Alice deterministically infers Bob's measurement. On the other hand, ψ does not correspond to the physical transmission of a particle because it produced no detection on Bob's apparatus. We therefore conclude that the wave function in this case (and by extension, generally) is real, but not physical. Characteristically for classical phenomena, the reality and physicality of objects are equivalent, whereas for quantum phenomena, the former is strictly weaker. As a concrete application of this idea, the nonphysical reality of the wavefunction is shown to be the basic nonclassical phenomenon that underlies the security of CQC.

arxiv.org...

Traveling without moving: Quantum communication scheme transfers quantum states without transmitting physical particles

phys.org...

Here's more:

As Salih says: "I believe the question of how information gets from Bob to Alice is a deep one speaking to the heart of the debate about the reality of the quantum state: if physical particles did not carry information between sender and receiver, what did?"

Again, NOT THE SECRET, QUANTUM WOO OR MAGIC JUST SCIENCE.

The ancients have been saying for years that what we experience is Maya or an illusion of separation and Science is quickly catching up with this notion and any hope for scientific realism belongs in middle earth with Bilbo Baggins.

a reply to: neoholographic

From www.evawaseerst.be...

Plato learned us that God, Love and Light are bounded in a very close relationship. Plato learned us too that this world is just a reflection of the real world. That the materialistic world is not the real world. That after dead our soul enters 'The Light', the real world.

Plato knew that from the Egyptian priests. We see no other explanation. And if you read between the lines you will notice that his theory is being proven these days.

www.nature.com...

a reply to: neoholographic

This isn't quantum woo or magic. These are scientist confirming things that ancients, mystics, philosophers and some scientist have been saying for years. Again it isn't magic, it's simply saying, OUR REALITY IS PART OF A WHOLE AND THIS WHOLE MAY CONTAIN ALL THE INFORMATION ABOUT WHAT STATES CAN BE PERCEIVED.

What does "reality is part of a whole" even mean? Reality describes everything, so what does it mean to say that everything is part of a whole? If you're saying everything in the universe is connected in some way then QM would tend to agree with you on some level but that doesn't automatically mean we all have some type of psychic connection to each other. Our brains could very well behave like quantum computers, but that doesn't give us telepathic powers, it gives our brain the ability to crunch a huge amount of data in a very short amount of time and may very well be the reason we are conscious in the first place. But mystics and philosophers have only been talking about that type of quantum consciousness in the last few decades, ancient mystics or philosophers didn't know about QM. However some ancient philosophers did argue the brain wasn't a simple classical machine, and they may turn out to be correct, but we honestly still don't know for sure.

Also I think it's very unfair to keep referring to mainstream science as if it's stuck in a materialist mind set. The heavy research that is going into exotic theories such as QM, String Theory, the Holographic Principle, Simulation Theory, etc, proves that scientists are now willing to discard their old notions of a material clockwork universe in favor of much more abstract theories. Mainstream science tells you that particles are actually some sort of abstract mathematical entity with a wave function and it also tells you virtually everything in nature is quantized into discrete energy levels, which implies the universe is entirely digital. Science no longer believes in the naive notion of materialistic billiard balls moving through space in predictable ways and it's annoying that you keep accusing science of holding onto such outdated philosophies.

a reply to: ChaoticOrder

Again, you make no sense. You said:

Science no longer believes in the naive notion of materialistic billiard balls moving through space in predictable ways and it's annoying that you keep accusing science of holding onto such outdated philosophies.

WHERE DID I ACCUSE SCIENCE????

Everything I have been saying, I have also quoted SCIENTIST to support what I'm saying.

I said those who blindly believe in macrorealism and calls anything that doesn't agree with their belief quantum woo or magic has their heads in the sand.

PLEASE READ WHAT I SAID BEFORE YOU RESPOND!

What does "reality is part of a whole" even mean? Reality describes everything, so what does it mean to say that everything is part of a whole?

I explained this time and time again. As Einstein said, the part or NOW that we experience as the evolution of 3 dimensional existence is in part an illusion of separation from the whole of 4 dimensional space-time.

Since there exists in this four dimensional structure [space-time] no longer any sections which represent "now" objectively, the concepts of happening and becoming are indeed not completely suspended, but yet complicated. It appears therefore more natural to think of physical reality as a four dimensional existence, instead of, as hitherto, the evolution of a three dimensional existence.

There could be an infinite or close to infinite number of 3 dimensional nows in 4 dimensional space-time and the 3 dimensional nows give us the illusion of separation from the whole.

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. - Einstein

I have talked about these things coming from SCIENTIST so please read before you post something that doesn't have anything to do with what I'm saying.

a reply to: neoholographic

science is showing that the wave function may be a nonphysical entity

I think it's important to really consider what "physical" even means. Is something physical just because we can see it or feel it? Is something physical if it looks like a little billiard ball and moves around in a predictable way? What does it even mean to say a particle is like a little "billiard ball"? That's just a statement about energy, because everything in our universe is energy in one form or another, and particles are just condensed little packets of quantized energy. But there is still something very abstract about a little condensed and quantized ball of energy when you really think about it. The fact we call large clumps of matter "physical" is simply because there's so much energy in one place that's easy to detect with our human senses. But when I clap I send a sound wave through the air, and just because it's a wave doesn't mean it isn't physical. If I could clap fast enough I could create a large shock wave which would have very physical effects to those in the path of the wave. In essence what I'm really saying is that "everything behaves according to mathematical rules". It makes no sense to say one mathematical system is more real or more physical than another system. Our universe could have very different laws of physics but that wouldn't make it more or less real, it would just make it behave differently.

originally posted by: neoholographic
WHERE DID I ACCUSE SCIENCE????

You have made several jabs at mainstream science in this thread, alluding to the fact that philosophers and mystics have always been one step ahead, and I don't necessarily think that's true.

There could be an infinite or close to infinite number of 3 dimensional nows in 4 dimensional space-time and the 3 dimensional nows give us the illusion of separation from the whole.

What you are saying is that every moment in time exists simultaneously. I tend not to believe in the whole time continuum idea because it conflicts with QM. The future cannot already be determined when QM tells us that nature is capable of producing truly random non-casual events. And even if such a time continuum does exist, it doesn't make me feel more connected to anyone else, because I'm trapped in this specific point in the time line and can't see the whole thing, and it actually makes me feel like I have no ability to control my future.

a reply to: neoholographic

Yet another blow to scientific realism.

Don't you find it ironic that this blow to scientific realism came from a scientist?

TBH I don't know how the Philosophers, mystics and spiritualists fit in to all of this. This universe was a perfectly coherent place to live in until the discovery of relativity and Quantum mechanics, I doubt that the ancient philosophers were aware of the dichotomy that was to come.

a reply to: ChaoticOrder

Again, nonsense. You can't quote me accusing science of anything. I said the materialist interpretation of scientific realism makes no sense and there's some people who just stick their heads in the sand and believe it. So your ridiculous accusation has no merit.

Secondly, you have it all wrong and that's Einsten's point. The perception of NOW is just an illusion and this is why he also wrote to his friends family at his death that the distinction between the past, present and future is a persistent illusion. This is perception of the evolution of a 3 dimensional existence.

This doesn't mean your future is determined, it just means from your P.O.V. you can't see the results of these choices just the evolution of a 3 dimensional now.

If I were a hypothetical 4 dimensional being, I could freely move up and down the timeline of a 3 dimensional being. That 3 dimensional being could make a free choice between a blue Lexus or a black Lexus and from his vantage point he's making the choice "NOW."

From my perspective as a 4 dimensional being, I can see ahead in his timeline and see he chose a black Lexus. That doesn't make his choice any less free, it just means from a 4 dimensional perspective that choice can be known.

These things all go back to my point. Science points to the WHOLE and if you look at the PART or what Einstein called the evolution of 3 dimensional existence as an objective reality then you're just under the illusion of separation from this whole.

Science is looking into things like a holographic universe, inflation, is the universe a simulation, string theory, a multiverse, parallel universes, M-Theory and more and this is the search for the WHOLE that Ancients have been talking about for years.

Here's some quotes from Erwin Schrodinger whose called the one of the father's of QM.

Nirvana is a state of pure blissful knowledge... It has nothing to do with the individual. The ego or its separation is an illusion. Indeed in a certain sense two "I"'s are identical namely when one disregards all special contents — their Karma. The goal of man is to preserve his Karma and to develop it further... when man dies his Karma lives and creates for itself another carrier.

The multiplicity is only apparent. This is the doctrine of the Upanishads. And not of the Upanishads only. The mystical experience of the union with God regularly leads to this view, unless strong prejudices stand in the way.

Multiplicity is only apparent, in truth, there is only one mind...

The plurality that we perceive is only an appearance; it is not real.

We do not belong to this material world that science constructs for us. We are not in it; we are outside. We are only spectators. The reason why we believe that we are in it, that we belong to the picture, is that our bodies are in the picture. Our bodies belong to it. Not only my own body, but those of my friends, also of my dog and cat and horse, and of all the other people and animals. And this is my only means of communicating with them.

The world is given to me only once, not one existing and one perceived. Subject and object are only one. The barrier between them cannot be said to have broken down as a result of recent experience in the physical sciences, for this barrier does not exist.

Was Schrodinger accusing science of anything when he spoke this way??? Of course not, he was just stating the obvious!

originally posted by: Bedlam

originally posted by: neoholographic
So like I said, the mystics, Philosophers and Spiritualist have been right all along. It's amazing that people like Plato and Parmenides could grasp these things without the scientific knowledge we have today.

But not for macroscale objects, so if this is your "Therefore, magic" moment, I hate to break it to you...this sort of thing only applies to very very small scales.

And the philosophers and spiritualists were still uselessly wrong and ignorant about small scales as well. No philosopher or spiritualist predicted anything like QM or offered any substantial guidance or assistance.

And the experiments turned out exactly, and quantitatively like the objective, mathematically defined, equations of motion predicted. The ones derived by empirically motivated physicists.

originally posted by: ChaoticOrder
a reply to: neoholographic

science is showing that the wave function may be a nonphysical entity

I think it's important to really consider what "physical" even means.

The paper in question defined what they meant by "physical" in a particular and technical way.

The upshot is that the fundamental basis of quantum mechanics is, in fact, the evolution of the wavefunction and not any instantiations of 'particles' in the elementary fields. Which is something we knew already.

Neo is taking this word 'non-physical' as meaning "we can insert arbitrary spiritual woo", which isn't the case.

a reply to: mbkennel

More nonsense!

Neo is taking this word 'non-physical' as meaning "we can insert arbitrary spiritual woo", which isn't the case.

You guys sound like broken records that's stuck in the ignorance of James Randi and that word woo. You can't debate the issue so you say woo and think it means something.

What you're really saying is anyone who looks at these issues and doesn't walk in lockstep behind a silly, illogical, outdated materialist interpretation of these findings is just looking for woo.

It's a very idiotic view and I for one am glad people like Schrodinger, Pauli and others recognized this.

We do not belong to this material world that science constructs for us. We are not in it; we are outside. We are only spectators. The reason why we believe that we are in it, that we belong to the picture, is that our bodies are in the picture. Our bodies belong to it. Not only my own body, but those of my friends, also of my dog and cat and horse, and of all the other people and animals. And this is my only means of communicating with them.

This is no different than Einstein saying:

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 isn't quantum woo, this is just science. People will not bury their heads in the sand and blindly yell woo and think it means something outside of blind materialist who believe this nonsense.

a reply to: neoholographic

I love it, and I agree.

Rebel 5

"Spooky action at a distance", means that from the perspective of quantum mechanics everything that we perceive as separate is interconnected. For me anyway the OP is one of helping mankind orient to that conclusion, whatever specifically that could imply to consciousness.

See without consciousness all this information would be impossible at least on Earth.

Speaking of Chemistry the simple fact of the matter is molecular quantum mechanics is a relevant factor.

Every living thing on Earth functions with a purpose that is not random and because of Chaos theory neither is the Universe.

What we perceive with the common senses is purely and factually the result of an internal representation. WE are observing an internal representation that in and of itself can be, just accurate enough for us to find food and shelter in innovative ways.

And reach the point of comprehending that at the micro-scale our Universe seems to be functioning like a solid object or related.

Any thoughts?

Confusing stuff. With scales going form 0-infinity, we can only start to separate one action from another through constants that effect the known scales. Macro is infinity out, quantum infinity in. It seems to me as a guess, infinity (in) loops eventually to infinity (out) and because of that, zero can equal infinity when it is null at certain inverted stages. So nothing can be everywhere all the time, with also no redundancies.

a reply to: blindprometheus


In Ten Dimensions everything can be everywhere.....

a reply to: Kashai

I was just saying like infinity, nothing or zero can also be everywhere all the time and like infinity also with no redundancies.

👣

a reply to: blindprometheus

I understand. I just wanted to clarify your position to the Layman.


Any thoughts?

a reply to: Kashai

I though so, since the video goes to much detail in how all numbers positive and negative to infinity, even when combined are less than in some way then the foundation of zero in which it was built.

Any thing less than zero (everything), begins to have a value. Being something, it has to be somewhere, unless factored with the greater zero, which can make anything anywhere (or any when) by being both greater and less than zero.

a reply to: neoholographic


An apparent argument I have with you Sir is that DNA could be represented in our wave aspect

It could all very well be Biological, inclusive of the Soul.


Any thoughts?