I sometimes suspect that the rise of the modern atheist movement could actually be a controlled opposition of some sort. It's that attitude of "certainty" from both sides which tends to promote and fuel each other's defensiveness and extremism; for which the end result is a never-ending "debate". My increasing suspicions are also influenced on the fact that atheists -- basing their dogma on the claim that there is no scientific support for intelligent design -- consistently ignore or downplay what is considered (within the greater scientific community) to be the most successful physics endeavor ever put together, Quantum Mechanics (QM) 1, 2.
With all of this mounting empirical evidence supporting the philosophical implications of QM, both sides of the "Atheism vs. Religion" dichotomy remain locked in a never-ending battle of aggressively opposing dogmatic doctrines which offer no room for adaptability, synthesis, and constructive solutions. Indeed, it is this arrogance of "certainty" perpetuated from both sides which has caused their followers to ignore / downplay / obscure QM, as well as label the science and all of its data as "Satanic", or "New Age", or "Witchcraft".
It is arrogance that prevents people from choosing to evolve.
Joined: 22 Feb 2006 Posts: 8599 Location: Fingerlakes - NY usa
I don't think religion has ever not used a controlled opposition. The ones that are clearly in it to manipulate others are going to present an opposition that they can counter. There isn't a decent sized Christian Forum online that I know of that won't ban me just for quoting their Bible as answers to them.
In the past, the most widely accepted shape of Earth was flat. The cure for Scurvy couldn't come from Native Americans, and the cure for cancer isn't already known, etc etc. The scientific community is equally as arrogant and narrow minded with the same agendas.
- and had no other possible effect on the experiment other than observing. -This also coming from Israel.
I'm not sure what you're getting at with all this QM spam lately. Can you walk through a wall as if it's not there as David Icke has proposed? What can you do with the knowledge of it that hasn't already been done by meditation, Qi, insanity, etc? What does QM bring new to the table, or is it just another way of getting people to pray instead of act?
The scientific community is equally as arrogant and narrow minded with the same agendas.
and had no other possible effect on the experiment other than observing
Yup, the observation of the experimenters directly affects the experiment. This is a well known fact called the Observer Effect aka Measurement Problem which was famously discussed in the Einstein-Bohr debates for which paved the way for the EPR paradox. The EPR paradox pertains to the non-local nature of reality -- as experimentally demonstrated by Bell's Inequality. The Bell's Theorem for Non-Locality was then demonstrated and confirmed in 1982 by physicists led by Alain Aspect 1, 2, 3. This whole phenomenon pertains to Quantum Entanglement 1, 2, 3, a feature of Non-Locality which is founded on the Uncertainty Principle 1, 2.
It is not debatable whether observation affects reality. It's been long confirmed throughout the history of QM. What you need to realize is that such an affect becomes increasingly evident at extremely small scales -- as you approach the Planck's Constant (a quantum of action symbolized by h) which is ~ 6.63 × 10-34 m2 kg / s. This also explains why you cannot notice such an effect in your everyday macro-experience; for the wave-function of matter (matter's wavelength aka the de Broglie wavelength) is relatively too small to the everyday objects which are made from it. But you're affecting matter all the time (you just don't notice it in the macro-perspective). But still you do, because matter is really made out of waves and frequencies -- its nature is known as the Wave Nature of Matter.
The Matter Wave (de Broglie wave) formula not only applies to a particle's momentum, but also to everyday objects. The formula is as follows:
λ = h/p
λ for Wavelength, h for Planck's Constant (remember that ~ 6.63 × 10-34 m2 kg / s is extremely small), p for momentum of an object.
Momentum can be of any object (including a particle). If you apply this formula to a macro object for example (say a chair), its wavelength (which you affect all the time) will be so small in comparison to the scale of the object because you are dividing Planck's unit by that object's momentum. Now, the Uncertainty Principle 1, 2, 3 still applies in the macro-scale, but you just are unable to notice such a law because of the scale factors involved. Matter is made out of waves which are governed by non-Local laws.
Note: One must first be familiar with QM's history and the historical debates and experiments which helped shaped the science before seriously taking an opposing viewpoint. The individual must also be aware that Einstein later accepted and conceded to QM. If an individual is attempting to counter-point QM, he or she must also be prepared to eventually challenge modern Special Relativity, many aspects of Newtonian Laws, M-Theory, Mathematics, and the list goes on and on. It's very difficult. So difficult to refute in fact, that nobody to this day has been able to. I myself don't know how to.
The "observer" in this experiment wasn't human.
You're not getting it, lol. No problem, I will explain to you (in red italics) the report below.....
Strange as it may sound, interference can only occur when no one is watching. Interference means its still a wave (the wavefunction has not yet collapsed). Once an observer begins to watch the particles going through the openings, the picture changes dramatically: if a particle can be seen going through one opening, then it's clear it didn't go through another. In other words, when under observation, electrons are being "forced" to behave like particles and not like waves. Thus the mere act of observation affects the experimental findings. This is caused by sentient observation (with or without the use of devices as mediums).
To demonstrate this, Weizmann Institute researchers built a tiny device measuring less than one micron in size, which had a barrier with two openings. They then sent a current of electrons towards the barrier. The "observer" in this experiment wasn't human. Notice they added "" around the word observer? I'll explain later, keep reading. Institute scientists used for this purpose a tiny but sophisticated electronic detector that can spot passing electrons. The quantum "observer's" capacity to detect electrons could be altered by changing its electrical conductivity, or the strength of the current passing through it.
Apart from "observing," or detecting, the electrons, the detector had no effect on the current. Yet the scientists found that the very presence of the detector-"observer" near one of the openings caused changes in the interference pattern of the electron waves passing through the openings of the barrier. In fact, this effect was dependent on the "amount" of the observation: when the "observer's" capacity to detect electrons increased, in other words, when the level of the observation went up, the interference weakened; in contrast, when its capacity to detect electrons was reduced, in other words, when the observation slackened, the interference increased.
Thus, by controlling the properties of the quantum observer the scientists managed to control the extent of its influence on the electrons' behavior. The theoretical basis for this phenomenon was developed several years ago by a number of physicists, including Dr. Adi Stern and Prof. Yoseph Imry of the Weizmann Institute of Science, together with Prof. Yakir Aharonov of Tel Aviv University. The new experimental work was initiated following discussions with Weizmann Institute's Prof. Shmuel Gurvitz, and its results have already attracted the interest of theoretical physicists around the world and are being studied, among others, by Prof. Yehoshua Levinson of the Weizmann Institute.
Understand that the detector itself does not see. It's not Sentient. However, when a Sentient observer (no "" symbols) measures the findings of the detector, that's when wavefunctions either collapse or remain an interference pattern. This is what's called the Measurement Problem 1, 2. It's not the measurement apparatus that changes things. The scientists observing the measurement apparatus making the measurements are the ones maintaining or collapsing the wavefunctions.
A Sentient observation affects the data from the "observer" device (the measuring instrument) when that data from it has become known (when the scientist observes the data). Consider the statement from the following link:
"It seems that just by knowing the results of a measurement we determine its outcome, determine the state of the system and, by implication, the state of the Universe as a whole. This notion is so counter-intuitive that it fostered a raging debate which has been on going for more than 7 decades now."
In order to understand the Measurement Problem, one must first understand the history of the scientific debates which discussed it. This is why I mentioned the Einstein-Bohr debates earlier. One needs to read everything I linked to in my QM threads in order to understand what's going on. In this link (from Stanford University) it reads the following:
Bohr extended this position by proposing that the “external procedures” that affect the forms of sensible intuition include the processes of observation themselves.
He was talking about the measurement apparatus and devices themselves being part of the observation as well. Devices do not observe by themselves. People still have to observe the data from these devices (regardless of whether its during or after the process). This means that "objective" reality cannot exist without the interaction of Sentient observation. And that fact is backed up by the confirmation that no hidden variables can exist. That is extremely critical to not misunderstanding what's being pointed out in these articles.
1: Reality is identical with the totality of observed phenomena (which means reality does not exist in the absence of observation)
2: Quantum mechanics is a complete description of reality; no deeper understanding is possible.
That means that there are no hidden variables independent of observation. This also means that even if you have measurement devices that record data on their own, their recordings can not be real until a sentient observer comes to look at those devices' findings. The collapse or maintenance of a wavefunction is not determined by "observer" devices , but the sentient scientists who interact with those devices.
This is not a statement about the inaccuracy of measurement instruments, nor a reflection on the quality of experimental methods; it arises from the wave properties inherent in the quantum mechanical description of nature. Even with perfect instruments and technique, the uncertainty is inherent in the nature of things.
Important steps on the way to understanding the uncertainty principle are wave-particle duality and the DeBroglie hypothesis. As you proceed downward in size to atomic dimensions, it is no longer valid to consider a particle like a hard sphere, because the smaller the dimension, the more wave-like it becomes. It no longer makes sense to say that you have precisely determined both the position and momentum of such a particle. When you say that the electron acts as a wave, then the wave is the quantum mechanical wavefunction and it is therefore related to the probability of finding the electron at any point in space. A perfect sinewave for the electron wave spreads that probability throughout all of space, and the "position" of the electron is completely uncertain.
You are referring to the 'Uncertainty Principle,' deduced by Werner Heisenberg early in the 20th century. Heisenberg realized that one implication of quantum physics is that the act of measurement always disturbs the object measured. The Uncertainty Principle applies to all objects, but is only significant at the atomic or subatomic level. At such scales, there are discernible limits to how certain we can be about an object's position.
Seriously dude, I'm not making this stuff up. It sounds crazy at first, I know. That's what I was thinking when I first got into this years ago.
It's not the source but the information contained that really should be the focus of the discussions here. The information "just so happens" to be 100% consistent with every QM law talked about in all the other sources I've provided in my QM-posts (including this one).
We must be aware that anyone who may not agree with any particular article can easily use a similar counter-statement like the one you just utilized by focusing on the source rather than the information itself. It's an easy way out of a discussion, to be honest.
I'm not sure what you're getting at with all this QM spam lately.
I do regret posting too much QM in these forums lately. I think it's really critical information necessary for the formulation of potentially new and innovative solutions to the global conspiracies which face us. However I do realize we have differing approaches in dealing with such challenges. I can respect that.
Can you walk through a wall as if it's not there as David Icke has proposed?
Technically yes. Is it possible? Yes -- for it does not violate the laws of QM. However, this is extremely improbable. And to raise the probability of such requires the subconscious mind to undergo an extensive de-conditioning program that would effectively deconstruct subconscious attachments and dependencies on conventional "classical" Newtonian laws of nature. From there on, the mind would still need to practice the meditative skills which are specific to that task. And that could take many years, depending on the will of the individual.
What can you do with the knowledge of it that hasn't already been done by meditation, Qi, insanity, etc? What does QM bring new to the table, or is it just another way of getting people to pray instead of act?
Everything is basically an action. Planck's Constant is a quantum (an amount) of action (basically the unit of an information). It's not just prayer that can do things. As long as any task is done with persistence (time), the probability in that direction increases. It's all about frequency (state of being frequent). The harder the task, the more persistence (time) is required. But because levels of difficulty and ease are subjective to each person, it's very difficult to assess how much persistence is required. As one Werner Heisenberg used to say:
"The more precisely the position is determined, the less precisely the momentum is known in this instant, and vice versa." --Heisenberg, uncertainty paper, 1927
Now, the challenge for willing individuals (like myself) is to be able to amplify their mental skills to a level in which they can manipulate these wave-functions into higher scales. That's a very very difficult (yet simple) task which demands their very best personal Self-discipline and willpower -- the likes of which can only be harnessed through one's coming to terms with his or her deepest inner issues -- and that's where the philosophical implications of QM inevitably come into play. And because of that inevitable implication of testing the Self, people are turned off. I've said it many times, the Self-application of the philosophical implications of QM is not for the weak of heart.
What does QM bring new to the table, or is it just another way of getting people to pray instead of act?
And what do you mean by act? If acting, you mean by creating news forums -- that in reality, you and I know have done nothing to actually stop the global conspiracies which they attempt to expose -- then no, for QM is actually much bigger than that.
The reality is, many people already know about Zionism and the atrocities in Palestine. Many people already know about the ongoing subjugation of the Native American communities. Many people already know about the mass poisoning of water. Many people already know about racism. Many people already know about controlled oppositions, etc. etc. What you're doing in a futile attempt to inform a desensitized society willfully ignorant of your efforts has already been done countless times. And what have those other people who have come before you, using the same approach as you do, really accomplished to stop these global conspiracies which are on pace to completely encroach on their very personal lives? What do your forums bring new to the table that hasn't been attempted already? Sure you can "wake up" a niche of people interested in your research, but that's about it.
You see QM with its deep philosophical implications is the only scientific approach that actually addresses the Human psyche. If you are really serious in addressing global corruption, you must be willing to acknowledge the only possible force behind such corruption -- and that is the Human mindset. These global corruptions just don't happen by themselves.
This is why QM has more potential than that of your approach -- for your approach only deals with the problems on the surface (the material paradigm), while QM at least attempts to deal with the very nature of reality, down to the wave-function of matter / mind dynamic. Zionism and all of these global corruptions are just reflections of the Human mindset. You are addressing the symptoms rather than the cause.
So we really have to deal with the Self -- ourselves. We all have our own issues and we all can only experience this world through our own individual minds. If we continue to play into the illusion that our minds have no influence on our lives, we will never come to terms with the source of all the problems we experience. As a result, we would have effectively convinced ourselves that we have no control over our own destiny and fate; and that experience of helplessness and victimization is what we amplify and project into our lives. You see Self-reflection, Self-reconnection, Self-reprogramming, and Self-training is a tedious process that demands time and will -- 2 things which you still enjoy right now. But the door of opportunity will close sooner or later.
I like to close by saying that I'm at peace with my take on QM. I've made my points and have backed them up with empirical data from many different -- yet consistently agreeing -- sources. Now that I have shared this information to the public, I will step back and let others formulate opinions for themselves. It is not in my position to force a position on readers. I will honor their right to choose what they want to believe.
Anyways, I appreciate your honest questions as well, regards m8.