Quantum physics proves their IS an Afterlife

Casual discussion amongst spiritual friends.

Re: Quantum physics proves their IS an Afterlife

Postby chownah » Wed Nov 20, 2013 8:25 am

Buckwheat,
It is my understanding that wave particle duality has been demonstrated for buckminsterfullerenes (Bucky balls) which contain 60 carbon atoms........still very very small but absolutely huge compared to an electron.
chownah
chownah
 
Posts: 2800
Joined: Wed Aug 12, 2009 2:19 pm

Re: Quantum physics proves their IS an Afterlife

Postby mikenz66 » Wed Nov 20, 2013 8:40 am

Apparently up to at least 400-atom molecules:
http://physicsworld.com/cws/article/new ... -the-movie

Here is a movie of the build-up of the interference patter, where you see essentially the impact of each molcule on the detector:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=vCiOMQIR ... r_embedded

:anjali:
Mike
User avatar
mikenz66
 
Posts: 10526
Joined: Sat Jan 10, 2009 7:37 am
Location: New Zealand

Re: Quantum physics proves their IS an Afterlife

Postby Spiny Norman » Wed Nov 20, 2013 9:14 am

Buckwheat wrote:
Spiny Norman wrote:I mean would these natural patterns have any meaning without an observer?


Meaning is a totally different discussion. The theory of biocentricity goes so far as to say that time/space would not even exist in the absence of consciousness. I see no evidence to support that bold assertion.


Though quantum mechanics seems to have explored a range of possibilities about how an observer affects "reality": http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Consciousn ... ollapse.22
Nobody expects the Spanish Inquisition!
User avatar
Spiny Norman
 
Posts: 2832
Joined: Fri Mar 05, 2010 10:32 am
Location: Spam, wonderful spam

Re: Quantum physics proves their IS an Afterlife

Postby Spiny Norman » Wed Nov 20, 2013 9:16 am

Buckwheat wrote: However, it is very dangerous to apply quantum ideas to real world stuff.


It can certainly be misleading, because our everyday world operates according to Newtonian mechanics rather than quantum mechanics.
Nobody expects the Spanish Inquisition!
User avatar
Spiny Norman
 
Posts: 2832
Joined: Fri Mar 05, 2010 10:32 am
Location: Spam, wonderful spam

Re: Quantum physics proves their IS an Afterlife

Postby chownah » Wed Nov 20, 2013 10:12 am

Spiny Norman wrote:
Buckwheat wrote: However, it is very dangerous to apply quantum ideas to real world stuff.


It can certainly be misleading, because our everyday world operates according to Newtonian mechanics rather than quantum mechanics.

I think that science usually would say that Newtonian mechanics is a better description or every day world actions rather than quantum mechanical descriptions.........it is usually not accepted that the world operates according to any scientific description......the world does what it does.......science only tries to describe it.
chownah
chownah
 
Posts: 2800
Joined: Wed Aug 12, 2009 2:19 pm

Re: Quantum physics proves their IS an Afterlife

Postby Spiny Norman » Wed Nov 20, 2013 1:23 pm

chownah wrote:
Spiny Norman wrote:
Buckwheat wrote: However, it is very dangerous to apply quantum ideas to real world stuff.


It can certainly be misleading, because our everyday world operates according to Newtonian mechanics rather than quantum mechanics.

I think that science usually would say that Newtonian mechanics is a better description or every day world actions rather than quantum mechanical descriptions.........it is usually not accepted that the world operates according to any scientific description......the world does what it does.......science only tries to describe it.
chownah


I agree. I think this relates back to the point about the observed and the observer, and the relationship between them.
Nobody expects the Spanish Inquisition!
User avatar
Spiny Norman
 
Posts: 2832
Joined: Fri Mar 05, 2010 10:32 am
Location: Spam, wonderful spam

Re: Quantum physics proves their IS an Afterlife

Postby fig tree » Thu Nov 21, 2013 7:11 am

reflection wrote:Nice post, except I don't understand "The presence or absence of the particle can in principle be detected with however little disturbance to the particle itself". This is not true according to the Heisenberg uncertainty principle.

But this would turn into a discussion about QM. I'm no expert (just know some basics) and this is not my intention in this thread, so Ill leave it at this.

:anjali:

It can be very tricky to state matters in a precise way, and it seems very easy to try, and wind up with a somewhat involved explanation, but then find that one is still being a bit imprecise.

When I wrote of detecting the presence or absence of the particle before, I meant detecting whether the particle is going through the left slit or the right slit. This is not the same as if one were to try to detect the precise location of the particle. By the Heisenberg uncertainty principle, if the position is observed to be within a small enough radius of a given point, then the momentum (hence velocity) can't also be determinately within a certain small range of a fixed value at the same time. In our case, though, all I'm describing our doing is observing which side of the apparatus the particle is on, and the uncertainty in momentum forced by doing that is minuscule. In a two slit experiment the slits usually have to be somewhat close, but one can do similar experiments where the two paths taken by the particle are meters or even kilometers apart before they come back together and one gets interference fringes. The Heisenberg limit for detecting whether a particle is in New York or Los Angeles isn't something to worry about. But the mere fact of having made it possible to distinguish afterward which side of the experiment the particle passed through is enough to get rid of the interference fringes.

Physicists sometimes denote quantum states with a notation like this: |s>. A system made up of two pieces can sometimes be described by giving the states of the two pieces, like this: |s1>|s2>. Suppose that it's a question of a particle like an electron that might be observed to be in a state |e_L> going through the left slit, or a state |e_R> going through the right slit. A superposition of the two can be written as |e_L>+|e_R> (and I'll leave off dividing by the square root of 2 here, which typically would be done to keep the magnitude of the result the same). Suppose there is also a detector with possible states |D> that it starts in, |D_L> and |D_R> the state of having detected the electron on the left or on the right. If |e_L> and |e_R> are states in which the electron is in two genuinely separate regions, then they are orthogonal and in principle there is a measurement process that distinguishes them without disturbing them. That is, a process in which |e_L>|D> would evolve to |e_L>|D_L> and |e_R>|D> would evolve to |e_R>|D_R>. The rules of quantum physics allow a process like this as long as it satisfies a property called unitarity, which this does as long as |e_L> and |e_R> are orthogonal. Unitarity means essentially that the angles, corresponding to the degree to which states are reliably distinguishable from each other, is preserved (and that superpositions also are preserved).

The two things I meant to say were that in this observation process, where one can have an electron passing on the left and being observed there, or likewise on the right, the two component states of the electron don't have to be disturbed. Limitations of experimental technique may mean that |e_L>|D> really evolves into |e_L'>|D_L> where |e_L'> is very slightly different from |e_L>, but there's no Heisenberg-enforced lower limit on how small the disturbance is. Second, just the fact that the detector has made a detection, that |D_L> and |D_R> are now orthogonal, is enough to get rid of the interference fringes.

But if I want to be 100% accurate in what I'm saying, the measurement really is a change in the state of the electron, just a more subtle change. Before the measurement, one says the electron is in a "pure" superposition of the two states, |e_L> and |e_R>. After measurement, one says that the electron and the detector have become "entangled", and the state of the electron is described now as being a "mixture" of |e_L> and |e_R>, and they don't interfere as before. That's the essential difference. It does have an effect on the momentum but a very small one not particularly responsible for the change in the interference fringes.

Fig Tree
User avatar
fig tree
 
Posts: 174
Joined: Fri Jan 09, 2009 6:25 am

Re: Quantum physics proves their IS an Afterlife

Postby Spiny Norman » Thu Nov 21, 2013 9:22 am

Spiny Norman wrote:Though quantum mechanics seems to have explored a range of possibilities about how an observer affects "reality": http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Consciousn ... ollapse.22


Actually, thinking this through, it does seem very unlikely that the universe wasn't the universe before human consciousness developed to observe it...( or space alien consciousness )... :rolleye:

This QM stuff makes my brain hurt. :D
Nobody expects the Spanish Inquisition!
User avatar
Spiny Norman
 
Posts: 2832
Joined: Fri Mar 05, 2010 10:32 am
Location: Spam, wonderful spam

Re: Quantum physics proves their IS an Afterlife

Postby Mkoll » Thu Nov 21, 2013 11:39 am

Please keep in mind: science doesn't "prove" anything. The closest thing that science comes to proof are theories that are both testable and falsifiable.
Peace,
James
User avatar
Mkoll
 
Posts: 3515
Joined: Wed Dec 05, 2012 6:55 pm
Location: California, USA

Re: Quantum physics proves their IS an Afterlife

Postby Kare » Thu Nov 21, 2013 11:35 pm

Quantum physics proves there IS a quantum physics. Nothing about the afterlife.

And to quote the famous quantum physicist Richard Feynman: "If you think you understand quantum mechanics, you don't understand quantum mechanics." So I instinctively distrust someone who is not a quantum physicist, who still claims not only to understand quantum physics, but even to prove an afterlife with it.
Mettāya,
Kåre
User avatar
Kare
 
Posts: 684
Joined: Sun Feb 01, 2009 10:58 am
Location: Norway

Re: Quantum physics proves their IS an Afterlife

Postby Spiny Norman » Fri Nov 22, 2013 11:37 am

Kare wrote:And to quote the famous quantum physicist Richard Feynman: "If you think you understand quantum mechanics, you don't understand quantum mechanics." So I instinctively distrust someone who is not a quantum physicist, who still claims not only to understand quantum physics, but even to prove an afterlife with it.


I take your point, though QM is still a developing science with lot's of alternate theories, so it's not like the experts agree.
Nobody expects the Spanish Inquisition!
User avatar
Spiny Norman
 
Posts: 2832
Joined: Fri Mar 05, 2010 10:32 am
Location: Spam, wonderful spam

Re: Quantum physics proves their IS an Afterlife

Postby Buckwheat » Fri Nov 22, 2013 4:09 pm

Spiny Norman wrote:Though quantum mechanics seems to have explored a range of possibilities about how an observer affects "reality": http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Consciousn ... ollapse.22


There are other possible solutions to the "Wigner's friend" thought experiment, which do not require consciousness to be different from other physical processes. Moreover, Wigner actually shifted to those interpretations (and away from "consciousness causes collapse") in his later years. This was partly because he was embarrassed that "consciousness causes collapse" can lead to a kind of solipsism, but also because he decided that he had been wrong to try to apply quantum physics at the scale of every day life (specifically, he rejected his initial idea of treating macroscopic objects as isolated systems—as one might microscopic objects).[28]
Sotthī hontu nirantaraṃ - May you forever be well.
Buckwheat
 
Posts: 931
Joined: Thu Nov 24, 2011 12:39 am
Location: California USA

Re: Quantum physics proves their IS an Afterlife

Postby Spiny Norman » Sat Nov 23, 2013 10:19 am

Buckwheat wrote:
Spiny Norman wrote:Though quantum mechanics seems to have explored a range of possibilities about how an observer affects "reality": http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Consciousn ... ollapse.22


There are other possible solutions to the "Wigner's friend" thought experiment, which do not require consciousness to be different from other physical processes. Moreover, Wigner actually shifted to those interpretations (and away from "consciousness causes collapse") in his later years. This was partly because he was embarrassed that "consciousness causes collapse" can lead to a kind of solipsism, but also because he decided that he had been wrong to try to apply quantum physics at the scale of every day life (specifically, he rejected his initial idea of treating macroscopic objects as isolated systems—as one might microscopic objects).[28]


Yes, there is the idea that it's any form of interaction with the environment that causes the collapse, consciousness is only one example.
Nobody expects the Spanish Inquisition!
User avatar
Spiny Norman
 
Posts: 2832
Joined: Fri Mar 05, 2010 10:32 am
Location: Spam, wonderful spam

Re: Quantum physics proves their IS an Afterlife

Postby chownah » Sat Nov 23, 2013 1:49 pm

Also, it is good to keep in mind is that it is a mathematical equation that collapses.....specifically the wave equation. I don't think it is necessary to think of the particle collapsing......I could be wrong but I think it is better to think that at certain times it is difficult to imagine what characteristics the particle has but at certain times like when the particle interacts with something it's characteristics or at least some of its characteristics become known......I guess......don't know for sure.......
chownah
chownah
 
Posts: 2800
Joined: Wed Aug 12, 2009 2:19 pm

Re: Quantum physics proves their IS an Afterlife

Postby Spiny Norman » Sat Nov 23, 2013 3:00 pm

chownah wrote:...I don't think it is necessary to think of the particle collapsing......


My understanding is that the particle "makes up it's mind" when it interacts with the environment. I think.... ;)
Nobody expects the Spanish Inquisition!
User avatar
Spiny Norman
 
Posts: 2832
Joined: Fri Mar 05, 2010 10:32 am
Location: Spam, wonderful spam

Re: Quantum physics proves their IS an Afterlife

Postby Jason » Sat Nov 23, 2013 4:33 pm

cooran wrote:Hello all,

Very interesting article "Quantum physics proves there IS an afterlife, claims scientist":

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/sciencetech/ ... ntist.html

With metta,
Chris


On the one hand, I think it's an interesting perspective to take. One reason is that being open to ideas like biocentrism helps to open us up to different possibilities, keeping us from having theoretical blinders on which themselves can make us see what we want to see, or else what we're conditioned by the ruling ideology to see. On the other, these kinds of articles often exhibit a lack of understanding when it comes to stuff like quantum mechanics, and overstates (and even misstates) certain concepts to make their points, undermining their usefulness.
"Sabbe dhamma nalam abhinivesaya" (AN 7.58).

leaves in the hand (Buddhist-related blog)
leaves in the forest (non-Buddhist related blog)
User avatar
Jason
 
Posts: 469
Joined: Sun Jan 04, 2009 1:09 am
Location: Earth

Re: Quantum physics proves their IS an Afterlife

Postby mikenz66 » Sun Nov 24, 2013 4:00 am

Spiny Norman wrote:
Kare wrote:And to quote the famous quantum physicist Richard Feynman: "If you think you understand quantum mechanics, you don't understand quantum mechanics." So I instinctively distrust someone who is not a quantum physicist, who still claims not only to understand quantum physics, but even to prove an afterlife with it.


I take your point, though QM is still a developing science with lot's of alternate theories, so it's not like the experts agree.

That's even more reason to be skeptical about pontification by non-practitioners...
And, be especially careful of the illogical arguments that go:
    "The experts disagree therefore, even though I'm not an expert, this idea I came up with is just as valid as any of their theories...".

:anjali:
Mike
User avatar
mikenz66
 
Posts: 10526
Joined: Sat Jan 10, 2009 7:37 am
Location: New Zealand

Re: Quantum physics proves their IS an Afterlife

Postby Digity » Sun Nov 24, 2013 4:19 am

Ben wrote:Dave,

Whenever anyone mentions Buddhism and quantum mechanics in the same sentence, I feel an irrepressible urge to roll my eyes into the back of their sockets.
so, I am grateful to you for sharing the chopra/coyne exchange in New Republic.
Kind regards,
Ben

Same here. Although, in the beginning when my faith and understanding in Buddhism was shaky I did turn to a lot of these ideas to arouse interest in the teachings. I liked the idea that Buddhism fit in more nicely with science than did Christianity or any other religion. Although, eventually I saw it as being a bit silly and unnecessary and eventually the teachings themselves were enough.
Digity
 
Posts: 602
Joined: Wed Mar 30, 2011 2:13 am

Re: Quantum physics proves their IS an Afterlife

Postby Spiny Norman » Mon Nov 25, 2013 11:10 am

mikenz66 wrote:
Spiny Norman wrote:
Kare wrote:And to quote the famous quantum physicist Richard Feynman: "If you think you understand quantum mechanics, you don't understand quantum mechanics." So I instinctively distrust someone who is not a quantum physicist, who still claims not only to understand quantum physics, but even to prove an afterlife with it.


I take your point, though QM is still a developing science with lot's of alternate theories, so it's not like the experts agree.

That's even more reason to be skeptical about pontification by non-practitioners...
And, be especially careful of the illogical arguments that go:
    "The experts disagree therefore, even though I'm not an expert, this idea I came up with is just as valid as any of their theories...".

:anjali:
Mike


You're probably right, Mike, but it is a fascinating subject to ponder.
Nobody expects the Spanish Inquisition!
User avatar
Spiny Norman
 
Posts: 2832
Joined: Fri Mar 05, 2010 10:32 am
Location: Spam, wonderful spam

Re: Quantum physics proves their IS an Afterlife

Postby Kim OHara » Tue Nov 26, 2013 2:54 am

Spiny Norman wrote:
mikenz66 wrote:...
That's even more reason to be skeptical about pontification by non-practitioners...
And, be especially careful of the illogical arguments that go:
    "The experts disagree therefore, even though I'm not an expert, this idea I came up with is just as valid as any of their theories...".

:anjali:
Mike


You're probably right, Mike, but it is a fascinating subject to ponder.

There's no "probably" about that, Spiny. What you find with science is that the experts disagree about the 1% of stuff that is new and unsettled while agreeing entirely - and rarely even discussing - on the 99% that is well established, and the non-scientist comes in and casts doubt on (even denies) the whole 100%.
It's particularly common in climate science (which most adults did not learn in school because it hadn't been invented then), in QM (which no-one understands at the gut or intuitive level because we can't see or touch the facts) and in psychology (because no-one really knows what goes on in people's minds). You don't see the same sort of thing in engineering or geology.

:namaste:
Kim

Edit: punctuation :embarassed:
User avatar
Kim OHara
 
Posts: 3112
Joined: Wed Dec 09, 2009 5:47 am
Location: North Queensland, Australia

PreviousNext

Return to Lounge

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: Google [Bot], phil and 4 guests