Quantum Theory

[thorbiorn]

Hello,

Below is a link to and some excerpts from a an interview with an Austrian physicist Anton Zeilinger who talks about teleportation, the information stored in a human being and freedom in physics.

Title: Spooky action and beyond
Thursday 16 February, 2006
http://www.signandsight.com/features/614.html

Some excerpts:

"But I believe that quantum physics tells us something very profound about the world. And that is that the world is not the way it is independently of us. That the characteristics of the world are to a certain extent dependent on us."

"With the choice of the measuring equipment we've had a major impact on reality. But the answer that nature gives is completely random.

(INTERVIEWER): I choose the measuring equipment, and nature chooses the result?

That's right. I call that the two freedoms: first the freedom of the experimenter in choosing the measuring equipment - that depends on my freedom of will; and then the freedom of nature in giving me the answer it pleases. The one freedom conditions the other, so to speak. This is a very fine property. It's too bad the philosophers don't spend more time thinking about it."

"... for me the freedom to ask questions to nature is one of the most essential achievements of natural science. It's a discovery of the Renaissance. For the philosophers and theologians of the time, it must have seemed incredibly presumptuousness that people suddenly started carrying out experiments and asking questions of nature and deducing laws of nature, which are in fact the business of God. For me every experiment stands or falls with the fact that I'm free to ask the questions and carry out the measurements I want. If that were all determined, then the laws of nature would only appear to be laws, and the entire natural sciences would collapse."

"Yes. For me the concept of "information" is at the basis of everything we call "nature". The moon, the chair, the equation of states, anything and everything, because we can't talk about anything without de facto speaking about the information we have of these things. In this sense the information is the basic building block of our world."

"We've learnt in the natural sciences that the key to understanding can often be found if we lift certain dividing lines in our minds. Newton showed that the apple falls to the ground according to the same laws that govern the Moon's orbit of the Earth. And with this he made the old differentiation between earthly and heavenly phenomena obsolete. Darwin showed that there is no dividing line between man and animal. And Einstein lifted the line dividing space and time. But in our heads, we still draw a dividing line between "reality" and "knowledge about reality", in other words between reality and information. And you cannot draw this line. There is no recipe, no process for distinguishing between reality and information. All this thinking and talking about reality is about information, which is why one should not make a distinction in the formulation of laws of nature. Quantum theory, correctly interpreted, is information theory. "

"We've now been working on the unification of gravitation and quantum physics for almost eighty years – there must be something wrong with our concepts. I'm convinced we can only succeed with an entirely new philosophical approach."


thorbiorn

 

[Guest]

"We've now been working on the unification of gravitation and quantum physics for almost eighty years – there must be something wrong with our concepts. I'm convinced we can only succeed with an entirely new philosophical approach."

The link below is revealing:

http://www.holoscience.com/news.php?article=gdaqg8df

It references the editorial of New Scientist of 10 December 2005 headlined:

"Ideas needed: The hunt for a theory of everything is going nowhere fast."

Here is an excerpt from the editorial:

Physics' greatest endeavour has ground to a halt. We are in "a period of utter confusion", said Nobel laureate David Gross, summing up last week's prestigious Solvay conference on the quantum structure of space and time. That is worrying because the topic is central to finding a "theory of everything" that will describe every force and particle in nature.

Einstein's relativity, which reigned supreme for a century, is a flawed basis for such a theory. Although it deals with gravity, it tells us nothing else about the nature and interactions of matter. Crucially, general relativity is incompatible with quantum theory. Since the 1960s, theorists have struggled to solve this problem, so far to no avail. And the trouble is we have nothing to put in relativity's place.

The great hope, string theory, which views particles as emanating from minuscule strings, has generated myriad mathematical descriptions linked to the dance of particles. But these equations tell us nothing about where space and time come from and describe nothing we would recognise. At best, string theory depicts the way particles might interact in a collection of hypothetical universes.

For decades, string theorists have been excused from testing their ideas against experimental results. When astronomers discovered the accelerating expansion of the universe, which string theory fails to account for, many string theorists took shelter in a remarkable excuse: that their equations describe all possible universes and should not be tied to matching data in just one of them.

But when the theory does not match the one data set we have, is it science? There is a joke circulating on physics blogs: that we can, after all, call our universe unique. Why? Because it is the only one that string theory cannot describe. Should we laugh or cry?

There is a growing feeling that string theory has run into the sand. Gross thinks we are missing something fundamental. We need a leap in understanding, though where it will come from is not clear. Many of the greatest minds in physics were there at last week's conference, and none had an answer.

We are approaching the end of Einstein's centennial year - a celebration of physics. While some lesser-known areas of the subject are flourishing, the search for a theory of everything is in a sorry state. Unless string theory gets a radical shake-up, gifted but frustrated minds will begin to drift into other areas of science.

The article in the link above, however, only references the New Scientist editorial to provide an interesting view on the matter, and an alternate approach. It's too large to place here, but well worth looking into as is the whole of www.holoscience.com

 

[ark]

Hello,

Below is a link to and some excerpts from a an interview with an Austrian physicist Anton Zeilinger who talks about teleportation, the information stored in a human being and freedom in physics.

Title: Spooky action and beyond
Thursday 16 February, 2006
http://www.signandsight.com/features/614.html

Some excerpts:

"But I believe that quantum physics tells us something very profound about the world. And that is that the world is not the way it is independently of us. That the characteristics of the world are to a certain extent dependent on us."

"With the choice of the measuring equipment we've had a major impact on reality. But the answer that nature gives is completely random.

Zeilinger seems to take quantum theory for granted. But quantum theory has its own problems. To take it as a good theory is a wishful thinking. It is certainly a good starting point. But only that. Who decides who are 'we" - who "choose the experiment"? To what extent we are "free" to choose experiment? To what extent answers are random? What if "we" can influence also this apparent randomness? There is randomness and randomness. The devil is in the details. And the future of our race and of the universe may well depend on these details.

ark

Added March 2: I have cleaned this thread of noise by deleting posts that were asking for it. I will continue doing if threads that are supposed to be scientific are inundated with noise.

 

[Jehanni]

Web Links you may enjoy reading?

1) The Particle Adventure
http://particleadventure.org/particleadventure/index.html
Subatomic Particles. New lessons on the fundamentals of matter & force.

2) SoulInvitation
http://www.soulinvitation.com/
Detailed study of "Golden Mean" material and waveforms. Also a lot of "technological development"... should also be in Intellectual activity section, as well as in New Technology section.


2) The Brain Project
http://www.culture.com.au/brain_proj/index.htm
Chapters on various issues relating to the nature of consciousness by Stephen Jones.

3) The Electric Universe
http://www.holoscience.com/links.php
"The Electric Universe opens up science again to the individual. Science will blossom in the new millennium as a cultural activity more integrated with history, the arts and the human condition." Wal Thornhill

If you like science, you may find them interesting.

peace & love,
jehanni

 

[ark]

Web Links you may enjoy reading?

2) SoulInvitation
http://www.soulinvitation.com/
Detailed study of "Golden Mean" material and waveforms. Also a lot of "technological development"... should also be in Intellectual activity section, as well as in New Technology section.

If you like science, you may find them interesting.

This one has nothing to do with "science" and has nothing to do with "Intellectual activity". Just the converse, it has to do with neglecting the scientific method. Remember this:

[...] Mr. Winter actually bragged -- when he was first confronted about his lying -- that he knew that what he was presenting (particularly with regard to the golden mean and the golden spiral) was untrue, but that his audiences -- in his words -- were "too stupid to know the difference. [...]"

Check the link and you will also find that Dan Winter was/is closely associated with Vincent Bridges, one who wrote about himself:

Well, I'm a Christian non-denominational minister, a Wiccan initiate, a high ranking GD adepti, a member of the Al Haggagi Sufi Order of Luxor, Egypt, and a Nyngma-pa Buddhist terton holder. That makes me a Christian Wiccan Enochian Sufi Buddhist .

|)

 

[Jehanni]

Ark,

Thanks for the "time" you spent on the reply. "Dan winter" came here to Alberta to teach a few summers ago .... I saw a few days of this, being quite impressed with his computers, which could graph physical responses from individuals. Individuals could watch, via the two graphs on the computer, how their "body responses" changed with how their "thoughts" changed. With a little time spent at this, individuals could actually coalesce the two graphs, bringing them together, thereby balancing the physical with the emotional. I thought to myself ... Pretty Cool! Well, indeed, this is definitely a pretty good way of using technology to help in the balancing process.

Electrical impulses in brain increase the brain's electromagnetic aura, thereby producing the brain waves. The neurons function involves producing electrical charges. The purpose of brain cells is to excite one another. We are continually meeting and dealing with people on this planet, representing different counties and different parts of the world, just as planets and comets in space pass different suns in different galaxies out there ... as above, so below (Ark ... take a deep breath and breathe deeply .... I'm a metaphoric-subjective-kind-of-scientist). AH-HA! .... DEEP BREATHE :0) "We", right now are forming the brain of the "Adam Kadmon". It takes all of us ... no one is the chosen one. ... We are all creating the product of evolution.... Which is better than involution. The brains' many neurons have evolved a set of "tree-like" antlers, called dendrites, which the glia cells pass chemical information from one dendrite to the next cell. Cell exchange acids and bases to form an electrical current. Electrical charges are transmitted down the axon at about 60 beats / second, depending on how excited the cell is. This chemical information is converted to an electrical charge which start to form electromagnetic brain waves. Stated again ... The neurons function involves producing the electrical charges. The purpose of the "brain cells" is to excite one another (such as one of the purposes of "Sign of the Times"). Glia cells carry the chemical, electrical info from cell to cell.... I simply wanted to point out to Dan that he is indeed a very effective "glia cell". I was trying to give him a compliment, however he needed further teachings himself. I think he understands ... "Hey, we are lying to each other all the time ... even if we don't mean to be "untruthful (is that a word?)".

I was trying to gently impose that "humans", more importantly their "personalities", are essentially the brain cells of Adam Kadmon :0) All of us are producing the brains of our galaxy all the time until we need to get together with the brain power produced from other galaxies (0:aliens:0), to help form the "BRAIN OF OUR UNIVERSE". Perhaps these electrical charges, in the form of electromagnetic vibrations, that coalesce from universe to universe, is helping form the Universal Mind in the process?

I have always felt however, ... Well, we don't need "technology' to do that for us. I must admit, I have always been against "technological things" that replace our "gift" of what we should be able to do "naturally". It also seemed to me like he was quite opposed to the Hebrew side (Adam Kadmon way) of looking at things, where in reality we do things here on this level (microcosm), which is reflective also of the macrocosm, which is found by venturing into our heart. I stated "Dan, you remind me of a 'glia cell', which in the brain carry information from one cell dendrite to another cell. You indeed carry information around to help inform "us" .... the other cells! Indeed, which in there own time and synchronistic way, help us to "unravel the mind of God". He just shrugged it off, until he heard a few strong "bangs" on the rooftop. Objective teachings involve "science" ... Subjective teachings involve 'faith". However sometimes one can work both together and do some "wild" and "crazy" things... true magic can happen! [Gee, there's an Atlantean teaching in there somewhere]. He then said a few more words to show us the "wisdom" of his teachings, but then the "banging" on the roof came back. The room went fairly silent! On those occasions I suspect "spirit", or whatever term one wishes to use, wasn't really agreeing with what he was saying.

Again, I don't usually spend much time with "teachers", so I am always appreciative of any "experience" others can share with me. Thank-you for the time and effort spent in your reply.

Peace,
Jehanni

Truthful words do not flatter.
Flattering words are not true.
(Tao, 81)

If we never dare to trust others,
We will not be trusted.
(Tao, 17)

 

[monksgirl]

"We've now been working on the unification of gravitation and quantum physics for almost eighty years – there must be something wrong with our concepts. I'm convinced we can only succeed with an entirely new philosophical approach."

The link below is revealing:

http://www.holoscience.com/news.php?article=gdaqg8df

It references the editorial of New Scientist of 10 December 2005 headlined:

"Ideas needed: The hunt for a theory of everything is going nowhere fast."

Here is an excerpt from the editorial:

Physics' greatest endeavour has ground to a halt. We are in "a period of utter confusion", said Nobel laureate David Gross, summing up last week's prestigious Solvay conference on the quantum structure of space and time. That is worrying because the topic is central to finding a "theory of everything" that will describe every force and particle in nature.

Einstein's relativity, which reigned supreme for a century, is a flawed basis for such a theory. Although it deals with gravity, it tells us nothing else about the nature and interactions of matter. Crucially, general relativity is incompatible with quantum theory. Since the 1960s, theorists have struggled to solve this problem, so far to no avail. And the trouble is we have nothing to put in relativity's place.

The great hope, string theory, which views particles as emanating from minuscule strings, has generated myriad mathematical descriptions linked to the dance of particles. But these equations tell us nothing about where space and time come from and describe nothing we would recognise. At best, string theory depicts the way particles might interact in a collection of hypothetical universes.

For decades, string theorists have been excused from testing their ideas against experimental results. When astronomers discovered the accelerating expansion of the universe, which string theory fails to account for, many string theorists took shelter in a remarkable excuse: that their equations describe all possible universes and should not be tied to matching data in just one of them.

But when the theory does not match the one data set we have, is it science? There is a joke circulating on physics blogs: that we can, after all, call our universe unique. Why? Because it is the only one that string theory cannot describe. Should we laugh or cry?

There is a growing feeling that string theory has run into the sand. Gross thinks we are missing something fundamental. We need a leap in understanding, though where it will come from is not clear. Many of the greatest minds in physics were there at last week's conference, and none had an answer.

We are approaching the end of Einstein's centennial year - a celebration of physics. While some lesser-known areas of the subject are flourishing, the search for a theory of everything is in a sorry state. Unless string theory gets a radical shake-up, gifted but frustrated minds will begin to drift into other areas of science.

The article in the link above, however, only references the New Scientist editorial to provide an interesting view on the matter, and an alternate approach. It's too large to place here, but well worth looking into as is the whole of www.holoscience.com

thanks for the link! using it took me to others, including this site: http://www.electric-cosmos.org/indexOLD.htm It is refreshing to see scientists in groups who are willing to stand together against the PTB in their fields of specialty, in the hope of furthering truth and greater understanding of the cosmos; and the new ideas are exciting in their own right, this one knocks my socks off!