Is quantum physics bunk?

[Brian]

For me, this thread begs the question -- what is "quantum theory?" What is the underlying principle?

[Nikolai1]

The subject object split.

[Marblehead]

For me, this thread begs the question -- what is "quantum theory?" What is the underlying principle?

You mean the micro theory of relativity as opposed to the macro theory of relativity?

 

I'm sure there are underlying principles.  Perhaps they can be in two places at the same time?

[Marblehead]

The subject object split.

That didn't even register in my pea-brain the first time I read it.  Some thoughts go deeper than the words imply.

[Brian]

Hint: What is a quantum?

[steve]

With respect to quantum mechanics, the word quantum was first utilized by Max Planck and indicated that changes occurred in discrete amounts (quanta) when observing behavior of systems on a very small scale. This led to the view of fundamental aspects of nature occurring in a discontinuous fashion which was heresy from the perspective of classical Newtonian mechanics. It subsequently led to a much more sophisticated understanding of light, energy, as well as atomic and sub-atomic structure.

 

The irony regarding folks criticizing QM on an internet forum is that I think it's fair to say that without quantum mechanics we would not have (or at least would not understand) the very computers we are using today. Certainly we may have devoped them in other ways (mechanical, vacuum tubes) but our understanding of semiconductivity and solid-state transistors is rooted in QM as far as I know (but take everything I say with a grain of salt - I'm no expert).

[Marblehead]

I liked the part where you said you are no expert.

[Taomeow]

The irony regarding folks criticizing QM on an internet forum is that I think it's fair to say that without quantum mechanics we would not have (or at least would not understand) the very computers we are using today.

 

Or the nuclear weapons we're using today and amassing and perfecting so as to use tomorrow. 

 

I'm very prone to holding unpopular views, I know.  One of them is that a science that giveth with one hand and taketh away with the other in its technological incarnations has missed out on something crucial.  The ancients tried to not lose awareness of this danger --  e.g. in medicine -- "above all, do no harm" was offered in an attempt to prevent this very kind of developments, for giving with one hand and taking away with the other only maintains the sum total of unhealth and unwholeness, and any science in the service of unhealth and unwholeness should be a bit humbler about its accomplishments methinks.  So I'm not a fan of wonderful technological advances promoted as the sweet fruit of our science while omitting any  mention of the bitter ones.  Science that gave us computers had to take communities away first so that computers would become necessary -- and then put these computers in charge of systems of mass destruction encapsulating the whole world in a web of constant, and realistic, subliminal fear of its imminent destruction -- this is what the collective unconscious has been based on ever since Hiroshima.  What this kind of backdrop unconscious expectations have done to the human consciousness is anyone's guess.

 

I've heard a very funky version of our quantum accomplishments.  There's this idea that if you destroy life in a nuclear blast, you manage to destroy the souls, not just the bodies.  That it's a way to make death of the soul possible, not achievable by other methods of killing or dying.  But our science won't "go there" because it posits we have no soul to begin with.    

Edited March 25, 2015 by Taomeow

[MooNiNite]

id say quantum is pretty on point compared to most scientific theories.

 

Fields of frequencies. Matter is made of fields being perceived as solids. Anything is possible at anytime. pretty on point imo

[voidisyinyang]

The idea that if you are against something means you shouldn't use it in regards to technology misses the point that technology is based on a structural supply-side economics.

 

Infrastructure, etc. - it's a top-down process and so people use the technology without much of a choice.

 

Another way to see this is a race to the bottom - starting with chariot wheels being centered using a divide and average value of the Pythagorean Theorem - then moving on to catapults being doubled in volume using a compound ratio equation from Archytas and Eudoxus, etc.

 

So to not use the technology means to get literally run over by the technology.

 

The basic principle involved is a control of 3-D space that is being contained while time is accelerating - so with more technology actually you are enslaved to it more and more.

 

In fact the technology is taking over - it's a great illusion that humans are "rationally" in control of technology because in fact the structural trajectory of technology is built into the mathematics as a logarithmic expansion of spatial dimensions - with the inaccurate "rotten root" at the foundation - the geometric "containment" of infinity as a materialistic idealism.

 

There are different models of quantum mechanics. So matrices took preference over the waveform model using Fourier analysis - but the statistical analysis still relies on symmetric measurement - logarithmic measurement.

 

That is the conversion of phase to amplitude. But for example most people have heard of the Heisenberg Uncertainty Principle which already relies on amplitude yet the Fourier Uncertainty Principle is actually primary to the Heisenberg Uncertainty Principle - the Fourier Uncertainty Principle is the inherent infinite of time and frequency that can not contained.

 

We can be "awed" by the technology but the fact is that human biology is more sophisticated than any technology.

 

http://phys.org/news/2013-02-human-fourier-uncertainty-principle.html

 

Human hearing beats the Fourier uncertainty principle

So as the article points out quantum physics is based on linear models while human hearing is nonlinear due to the spiral structure of the inner ear. But as to the particulars of how the ear does so well in beating the uncertainty limit - further testing is being done. haha.

 

So yeah computers are cool but hearing is more cool.

Edited March 25, 2015 by Innersoundqigong

[voidisyinyang]

 

Almost 90 years later, by splitting a single photon between two laboratories, scientists have used homodyne detectors—which measure wave-like properties—to show the collapse of the wave function is a real effect.

 

This phenomenon is the strongest yet proof of the entanglement of a single particle, an unusual form of quantum entanglement that is being increasingly explored for quantum communication and computation.

 

"Einstein never accepted orthodox quantum mechanics and the original basis of his contention was this single-particle argument. This is why it is important to demonstrate non-local wave function collapse with a single particle," says Professor Wiseman.

 

"Einstein's view was that the detection of the particle only ever at one point could be much better explained by the hypothesis that the particle is only ever at one point, without invoking the instantaneous collapse of the wave function to nothing at all other points.

"However, rather than simply detecting the presence or absence of the particle, we used homodyne measurements enabling one party to make different measurements and the other, using quantum tomography, to test the effect of those choices."

"Through these different measurements, you see the wave function collapse in different ways, thus proving its existence and showing that Einstein was wrong."

 

Read more at: http://phys.org/news/2015-03-quantum-einstein-spooky-action-distance.html#jCp

 

Still non-local waveforms in quantum physics pretty much validate a lot of spiritual philosophy.

 

http://www.unexplained-mysteries.com/forum/index.php?showtopic=76467

 

I posted this as

 

Spooky-Activists-At-a-Distance - almost ten years ago.

 

Dr. William Braud, director of the Mind Science Foundation, summarizes his peer-reviewed positive results in psycho-kinetic research: “In reorganization models, nothing is posited to be transmitted from point to point. Rather, the ‘noise,’ randomness, or disorder already present in the to-be-influenced system is reorganized in a manner that creates the desired goal outcome and appears forcelike. The process is one that is analogous to resonance, but without the typical mediators of familiar forms of resonance.” (Distant Mental Influence, 2003)

 

I called it the, "unmoveable power of the UNWHISPERABLES."

 

 

[voidisyinyang]

THE REASON THE PHOTON IS WRONG and the SECRET OF ALCHEMY (anti-copyright)

by drew hempel, MA

 

Ten years ago I posted this:

 

Here goes. Where the hell does amplitude go anyway when Einstein created the photon particle for light? I mean the amplitude squared for the quanta has brought endless interminal debates on whether quantum mechanics involves an observer or not and what the hell it all means.

In point of fact the real issue is logarithmic science in general because it all comes from Pythagoras and how the sine-wave creates asymmetric time reversal!

Just read "Stalking the Riemann Hypothesis" 2006 for how natural numbers turn into quantum chaos that violates the commutative principle.

Or consider that in basic music theory G to C is 2:3 while C to G is 3:4 and western music "averages" this off into a circle of fifths when in fact the Law of Pythagoras, proven empirically, states it's INFINITE RESONANCE OF 2:3 as alchemical complimentary opposites.

So... as professor Bart Kosko points out in his new book "NOISE" unless the sine-wave is tempered or turned into a logarithmic measurement with frequency then there can be no overcoming the time-frequency uncertainty principle that is crucial to quantum chaos.

Well the problem with this whole creation of frequency to "square the circle" (FREEMASONRY) for AMPLITUDE is that

as demonstrated in the photoelectric effect -- intensity or energy is actually created from frequency (not amplitude which just gives us the number of photons -- according to the new statistical interpretation).

In otherwords there was a DEEP DISHARMONY created when the true Law of Pythagoras was ignored for the purposes of increased amplitude (or technological power better known as logarithmic magnitude as density or intensity).

 

http://www.unexplained-mysteries.com/forum/index.php?showtopic=77646

[Nikolai1]

Quantum theory does not lead to technological advance. To say so is like saying big bang theory creates the big bang.

 

Technology appears in the world in the same way as anything appears in reality. Human beings are not the architects of technology, as they are themselves just another part of the technology.

 

The apparent congruence between technologiecal know how and scientific theory is only apparent. It would be perfectly possible to describe modern technological events with, for example, the language of theology. Energy would become holy spiriit; gravity would become love, infinity would be God, the quanta would be the Word and so on.

 

This could happen, but we could not conclude from it that reality was divine just because our theory says so. Likewise, we cannot infer anything about reality itself. Science and technology are separate and,incommensurable.

 

There will come a time when modern scientific terms start to become sacrosanct. They will be protected by a kind of dogma police, like the words of he Bible once were. As words become sacrosanct they become unable to flexibly adapt to the changing technological picture. It will become necessary to adopt a new discourse that the dogma police have no interest in, and over more time this new language will become the language of reality.

 

In the present, there are very many intelligent, pioneering individuals who are starting to practically understand non-materialistic technologies: siddhis, headings, and a ll sorts of non-local knowings. Modern materialist science is intrinsically incapable of explaining any technology that assumes the non-duality of actor and action.

 

The observer effect in quantum theory presents an ambiguity that allows the new paradigm to gain a foothold. But this will be clamped down upon. Humanity has never tolerated ambiguity in the fundamentals of its worldview for long. After the clamp down the new paradigm will rise in the usual fashion...as a passionate thrust towards 'truth', and all the martyrdoms will pave the way to secure a new truth that also, alas, is purely discursive.

[steve]

Or the nuclear weapons we're using today and amassing and perfecting so as to use tomorrow. 

 

I agree with you 100%, that doesn't lessen the irony.

If we are so down on the technology why use it?

Why not live our values rather than write about them?

And yes, I'm guilty as well.

 

Technology, like all else, is a balance - yin / yang

It makes our lives much easier and more pleasant, which makes us fat, sick, and lazy...

It allows us to feed, clothe, and shelter our kind much more efficiently and effectively, and so we have overpopulated the planet and will eventually choke ourselves out by using up our resources. 

 

Our cognitive abilities have taken us to wonderful places in the arts, sciences, and spiritual realm, and put us at risk from religious fundamentalism, nuclear technology, child pornography, and pollution...

There's no free ride. 

 

With great freedom and capacity comes great responsibility and, unfortunately, we can clearly see how sorely lacking we are in emotional and intellectual maturity as a species. 

Like Jiddu Krishnamurti liked to point out, we've come a very long way technologically, but not emotionally or psychologically.

 

I do seem to see some degree of change and awakening in the generation of my children and their children and that gives me hope. At the same time, I continue to meditate on my own death daily and that brings me security.

[Brian]

"Technology" started when the first proto-human wrapped up in an animal skin for warmth or sharpened the end of a stick by rubbing it on a rock (actually, it probably started with other species long before us but that's a different conversation). Our amassed understanding (flawed though it always is) of "how things work" leads us to imagine how the world around us might be adapted to fit some need or desire. Creativity is neither good nor bad.

[Taomeow]

If we are so down on the technology why use it?

Why not live our values rather than write about them?

 

Yeah, why not indeed?...  Take a look at one of the why-nots I recently posted in my PPF:

 

http://thedaobums.com/topic/37078-2014-a-war-odyssey/?p=615007

 

 

"This is a mountain of buffalo skulls, the picture taken circa 1870.  These buffalo were killed by the American army in order to force Indians off the land.  In 1800 there were 60 million American Buffalo.  In 1890, 750 were left."

 

And another problem is, "values" divorced from immersion lifestyle and imprinting learning don't work.  They are not realistic because reality has been removed from under them and its roots cut off.  That's why all those hippie communes failed.  If you grow up in front of the screen, you are not part of reality.  You are trained, conditioned, and good to go for observing unreality and living it.  You are product and part of unreality, and are not equipped by your whole psycho-physical conditioning to organically fit in a real world.  Much less to create it -- from scratch, and against all-around resistance of its overlords. 

 

What taoists call "demonic sciences" appears to be anisomorphic. 

Edited March 26, 2015 by Taomeow

[9th]

this should go here: 

[steve]

Yeah, why not indeed?...  Take a look at one of the why-nots I recently posted in my PPF:

 

http://thedaobums.com/topic/37078-2014-a-war-odyssey/?p=615007

 

 

"This is a mountain of buffalo skulls, the picture taken circa 1870.  These buffalo were killed by the American army in order to force Indians off the land.  In 1800 there were 60 million American Buffalo.  In 1890, 750 were left."

 

And another problem is, "values" divorced from immersion lifestyle and imprinting learning don't work.  They are not realistic because reality has been removed from under them and its roots cut off.  That's why all those hippie communes failed.  If you grow up in front of the screen, you are not part of reality.  You are trained, conditioned, and good to go for observing unreality and living it.  You are product and part of unreality, and are not equipped by your whole psycho-physical conditioning to organically fit in a real world.  Much less to create it -- from scratch, and against all-around resistance of its overlords. 

 

What taoists call "demonic sciences" appears to be anisomorphic. 

 

Yes, I'm unfortunately familiar with that photograph and with some of the history of the First People of this "great" country of ours, baptized in slavery and genocide. No surprise that her children are addicted to violence and power.

 

Your discussion of reality begs the question, what is reality now?

Is it not the screen itself?

It's as if the organic is now unreality.

 

Technology seems to me to be little more than an amplifier of human intention.

And one thing is for sure, the human tends to be insatiable.

[Taomeow]

Yes, I'm unfortunately familiar with that photograph and with some of the history of the First People of this "great" country of ours, baptized in slavery and genocide. No surprise that her children are addicted to violence and power.

 

Your discussion of reality begs the question, what is reality now?

Is it not the screen itself?

It's as if the organic is now unreality.

 

Technology seems to me to be little more than an amplifier of human intention.

And one thing is for sure, the human tends to be insatiable.

 

Well...  yes, from the perspective of the realm of ghosts and demons, the world of organic life is not the real world. 

 

Which begs the question --  where the hell are we?.. 

 

And who the hell are we?..

 

Humans are not insatiable.  It was humans who lived alongside 60 million buffalo until 1810.  Humans hunted them for hundreds of thousands of years without endangering the buffalo's (or their own) existence, or feeling compelled to take more (or less) than "enough."  Humans knew -- and lived -- the meaning of "enough." 

 

No, it's not humans who are insatiable.  If it's insatiable, it's a gui, a hungry ghost. 

Edited March 27, 2015 by Taomeow

[3bob]

every great saint has faced down a great demon, (including their own) ... children we can not long remain

[steve]

Well...  yes, from the perspective of the realm of ghosts and demons, the world of organic life is not the real world. 

 

Which begs the question --  where the hell are we?.. 

 

And who the hell are we?..

 

Humans are not insatiable.  It was humans who lived alongside 60 million buffalo until 1810.  Humans hunted them for hundreds of thousands of years without endangering the buffalo's (or their own) existence, or feeling compelled to take more (or less) than "enough."  Humans knew -- and lived -- the meaning of "enough." 

 

No, it's not humans who are insatiable.  If it's insatiable, it's a gui, a hungry ghost. 

Well said... again we agree.

Far too many of us are living in the hungry ghost realm and our present Western model, which is being adopted world wide, makes it challenging for folks to realize that it's possible do otherwise. 

And that can happen to anyone, we all have the potential under the right circumstances.

The distinction between them and us is artificial.

[forestofemptiness]

Notice that Rupert Sheldrake distinguishes between science as a methodology and materialism as a system of beliefs. I think there is a lot of confusion here. Science is a methodology. As a methodology, it works. Science has been able to do what no religion, philosophy, or other methodology has been able to do: change the entire world in a relatively short period of time. Anyone who contends that science as a method is somehow fundamentally flawed or mistaken is required to hold onto faith in the face of overwhelming evidence, or in other words, delusion. 

 

But materialism as a system of beliefs is bound to fail. Because science is constantly learning new material, and modifying accordingly. Beliefs suffer from a lack of flexibility. Materialism, in my mind, has been outdated by quantum physics which suggests that there are no discrete, independent particles the way it is commonly thought. 

 

Neurologists report that people prefer to "feel" their way to conclusions because it is faster and  efficient than using reason and evidence, which has evolutionary advantages. 

[Nikolai1]

Hi forest - I think you should bear in mind the distinction between technology and the discourse that is used to describe and explain said technology. Technology can make rapid gains, even within a theological society with a theological worldview. Islam in the middle ages is the obvious example.

 

The problem Sheldrake correctly identifies is when dogmatic attachment to discourse inhibits technological advance hat is inspired by other discourses.

[9th]

While Sheldrake correctly identifies the culture of belief systems themselves as being the culprit for the materialistic delusion, he doesnt go further than that - which is to say, he does not identify why everyone has a need to feel they fundamentally "know" what is going on.  This occurs in all areas, it really has nothing to do with how deep or shallow your knowledge of a particular subject may be (and in this case, its almost always of a second hand nature anyways).  In other words, the belief system itself is secondary to the need for self-righteousness.  In those cases when a person is able to accept that they do not know, to whatever degree and for whatever reason - that is specifically the space which allows for real awareness to take place.

 

The methodology of investigation and observation of reality through experimental procedure is technically labeled "scientific", but it is the same as the methods required in any real cultivation work.  It is an effort towards mutual understanding of perception and that which is perceived, and the inter-relationships between them. 

[Taomeow]

Well said... again we agree.

Far too many of us are living in the hungry ghost realm and our present Western model, which is being adopted world wide, makes it challenging for folks to realize that it's possible do otherwise. 

And that can happen to anyone, we all have the potential under the right circumstances.

The distinction between them and us is artificial.

 

I think of this "distinction" as "tampering" or "intervention."  Yes, it is artificial, it's a method whereby "us" are thwarted and transformed into "them."

 

"Them" whom the gnostics called "archons," semisynthetic beings of technology, created by Gaia by mistake.  Power hungry, full of deception, capable of inducing all-encompassing mass hallucinations shrouding a whole world in unreality, makers of hell on earth covered up by fake visions of paradise (like in The Matrix).  The reason people, humans, fall for it is that these beings have the power equal to that of life -- the power of death.  Death is sexy.  You surround yourself with things dead, they are easy to manipulate, they are not as messy as things alive, they are controllable, predictable, obedient.  That's our technology, and sciences at the service of producing that and only that.  Archonic to gnostics, demonic to taoists.  The one and only, the undeniable, the best ever to the turncoat former or would-be humans, the enslaved, the exploited, and the deadened. 

Edited March 27, 2015 by Taomeow