Jump to content
Search In
  • More options...
Find results that contain...
Find results in...
Avoozl

Scientist claims there is an afterlife using Quantum Physics

Recommended Posts

Hmm....so if you die and rot, you are not really dead nor rotten but you just believe that you are, so it might actually be reversible/avoidable? E.g. if I take a fatal stab wound, can I simply shrug it off by realizing that there are really no such things as vital organs that can take damage? Or, for that matter, the blade and the attacker can simply cease to exist at my whim?

Sounds like something straight out of the Matrix -reality only exists by consensus/convention/playing by the "rules", and it takes a special individual, the "Chosen One", to break them.

Also, that double slit experiment, reminded me of a sci-fi short story where somebody crafted a perfect 45-degree reflective surface, which caused a particle to stop rather than be randomly deflected, thus causing a reality breakdown ;-)

Share this post


Link to post

"Your grampa's not dead! He's still alive... in the past!" Gee, thanks, professor.

Share this post


Link to post

Even if there are alternate realities/universes/time splits etc. there seems to be at least a "dominant" one, governed by laws such as entropy maximization and probabilities, and towards which all -or most- observers converge towards.

E.g. it just might be physically possible that a knife goes through a victim and leaves it unscathed because of some highly improbable quantum phenomenon which could cause some atoms to dodge the blade, but its highly improbable that this will work for ALL affected atoms of the victim...therefore the dominant reality is the one where the victim is stabbed. Maybe one, two, or even a hunded atoms may have done the "quantum dodge" successfully. It doesn't matter: the reality where the BILLIONS of affected atoms manage to do it, is just a very tiny probability, drowned in infinitely more other realities where the blade's damage IS ultimately fatal.

Similarly, it just might be possible for a cell not to suffer aging, even with everything working against it during your lifetime. But for all cells in your body to achieve this? Highly improbable, hence the dominant reality where everybody ages and dies.

Being able to shift/follow other realities at your whim would be a God-like power, and pretty much equate with having complete control over time and matter.

Share this post


Link to post

The funny thing is Quantum Physics isn't even proven. It might as well be 'afterlife proven using fairy tales.'

Dictionary:

Quantum Theory : a theory in physics based on the concept of the subdivision of radiant energy into finite quanta and applied to numerous processes involving transference or transformation of energy in an atomic or molecular scale

Quantum Mechanics : a theory of matter that is based on the concept of the possession of wave properties by elementary particles, that affords a mathematical interpretation of the structure and interactions of matter on the basis of these properties, and that incorporates within it quantum theory and the uncertainty principle —called also wave mechanics

Share this post


Link to post
geo said:

The funny thing is Quantum Physics isn't even proven. It might as well be 'afterlife proven using fairy tales.'

Dictionary:

Quantum Theory : a theory in physics based on the concept of the subdivision of radiant energy into finite quanta and applied to numerous processes involving transference or transformation of energy in an atomic or molecular scale

Quantum Mechanics : a theory of matter that is based on the concept of the possession of wave properties by elementary particles, that affords a mathematical interpretation of the structure and interactions of matter on the basis of these properties, and that incorporates within it quantum theory and the uncertainty principle —called also wave mechanics

Gravity is "only" a theory, too. You take for granted how many everyday devices like LEDs would not be possible without an understanding of quantum mechanics.

Share this post


Link to post

My understanding is that physicists only try to use the anthropic principle as a last ditch effort to explain something, yet it feels like this guy is trying to build an entire theory around it. O_o

Share this post


Link to post

^ That. A theory is considered "practical", if not correct, as long as it allows humankind to do/build stuff. It may be superseded/extended/revised, but seldom completely abandoned or proven totally wrong.

E.g. consider the ancient and medieval knowledge of astronomy: the earth-centric theory and the limited knowledge of celestial bodies didn't preclude them from coming up with equations predicting orbits etc. When heliocentrism was definitively adopted, that resulted in adapting rather than completely discarding old results (and actualy made everything much simpler to understand!)

Similarly, alchemy, along with its delusions of turning lead into gold, actually came up with useful and still valid foundaments of modern chemistry.

The only sciences that still are too unpredictable today are anything having to do with medicine/biology/pharmaceuticals, in part because the pressure to deliver without exhaustive testing is higher than ever, and also because it's the most common and visible aspect of science the layman is going to encounter -whenever you get to a hospital or to see your doctor, you're dealing with Scientists, albeit highly specialized/particular ones, and a category which might have your life in their hands -quite literally.

It doesn't help that -often contrasting- "health tips" usually get published in tabloids or lifestyle magazines, and get taken at face value even if they come from non-experts or "weak" branches of human biology, like nutrition/dietology.

Share this post


Link to post
exp(x) said:

Gravity is "only" a theory, too. You take for granted how many everyday devices like LEDs would not be possible without an understanding of quantum mechanics.


I'm pretty sure there is a law of gravity and not just a theory.

Share this post


Link to post

This explanation of the double slit experiment is fucked up. It's not that the particles sent through the slits behave differently depending on whether they're observed or not (since in any case, they're always observed), it's that they exhibit wave behaviors (notably interference phenomenons) and particle behaviors (single point of impact) at the same time. Placing detectors in the slits themselves show that the particles only go through one of the two slits at once, but their distribution over time still shows sign of interference.

geo said:

I'm pretty sure there is a law of gravity and not just a theory.


You've got to understand that the law of gravity is part of the theory of gravity.

A theory is a set of things. An ensemble of things. It's a global view of phenomenon. A model to understand how the world might work.

Laws are single elements. "This happens in this way," says the law. The theory says "there are all these laws that work together."

Gravity itself actually has many laws, which are refinement of each others, going from Newton to Einstein. But yeah, each of them is "just a theory" and you could as well explain things differently. Maybe with greedy invisible demons trying to push things down to Hell. That's a theory too! Just not a scientific one.

When a scientist talks about a theory, they don't mean an idle idea that they're unsure of. They mean a complex model that has been well thought-out.

Share this post


Link to post

So we're playing out our lives in an infinite amount of parallel universes and dying just means shedding the fleshy avatar, or localized consciousness, whatever. You sucked at using the spacetime continuum as your tool and now you're dead, get out of this universe. Eventually we die in all the universes except the ones where we're the God Almighty, because in those everything we think of becomes reality by sheer quantum luck. Are you a benevolent God in your universes?

I want my PhD in New Age Crapism.

Share this post


Link to post
geo said:

I'm pretty sure there is a law of gravity and not just a theory.


The Law: it just tells you what happens macroscopically based on an observable phenomenon (gravitational attraction between masses), which is measurable and verified up to an accuracy some some 0.00000000001%, and never contraddicted (e.g. no instance of "antigravity" recorded).

The Theory: explaning how and why this interaction exactly happens. Invisible rays? Tiny particles? Existence of an anti-form? Link to electromagnetism?

Share this post


Link to post

Lanza seems to be more of a well-meaning hobbyist in this area; so far as I can tell he's a medical doctor, with some involvement in clinical research, but certainly not a physicist, so I suspect his grasp of quantum theory and its implications is not as complete as it might otherwise be. His book on the subject is not published by a reputed academic press, and his theory of 'biocentrism' looks more than a little muddled in its reasoning and central claims. Recommend moving along...

Share this post


Link to post

PROTIP: If you want to give your argument some sort of credibility, start it with "Scientist claims" or "According to science".

Share this post


Link to post
GreyGhost said:

And in other news from the same impeccable source - Humans do NOT come from Earth

In his book, HUMANS ARE NOT FROM EARTH: A SCIENTIFIC EVALUATION OF THE EVIDENCE, the ecologist writes the human race has defects that mark it of being ‘not of this world’.

‘Mankind is supposedly the most highly developed species on the planet, yet is surprisingly unsuited and ill-equipped for Earth's environment: harmed by sunlight, a strong dislike for naturally occurring foods, ridiculously high rates of chronic disease, and more,’ he told Yahoo.

Dr Ellis says that humans might suffer from bad backs because they evolved on a world with lower gravity.


This is so incredibly stupid that I am staggered by the good doctor's incredible naivety as well as his colossal lack of understanding of how evolution works. We get back pains, so we must have come from a different planet with lower gravity? What a moron.

What matters for evolution is that we can breed before we die. That we get back pains after a while is just one of many symptoms of aging. Aging is the result of shoddy haphazard design, were the only matter was it the specimen would stay functional until it bred.

Plenty -- practically all -- other species of animals and plants and other weird stuff likewise suffer from aging.

Anybody here has an old dog? Their hips get very frail with age (canine hips dysplasia). I guess dogs come from a low-gravity planet too!

  • Harmed by sunlight -- yeah, for pale-skinned Europeans. Not so much for Africans. And oh, look, we originate from Africa originally! White skin is an adaptation to the colder, less sunbathed climate of Europe so as to actually absorb more energy from the Sun (so as to produce vitamin D).
  • Dislike for naturally-occurring food -- entirely cultural. The good doctor ought to tour the world a bit. Or even just talk to some historians.
  • ridiculously high rates of chronic diseases -- high compared to what? Other animals get plenty of chronic diseases too, at least when they live in safety and security, and do not die of predation, starvation, or illness first.

Share this post


Link to post

The way they discribe it, it doesn't really looks like afterlife. Looks more like Spectator Mode.

Isn't this the same site about the Nigerian scientist that proved that homosexuality is against the laws of nature by using magnets? The site's layout is very similar.

Share this post


Link to post
Sergeant_Mark_IV said:

The way they discribe it, it doesn't really looks like afterlife. Looks more like Spectator Mode.

Isn't this the same site about the Nigerian scientist that proved that homosexuality is against the laws of nature by using magnets? The site's layout is very similar.


Oh, I totally forgot about that one. Has Amalaha received the Nobel already? The Committee can't ignore his substantial and totally revolutionary contribution.

Share this post


Link to post

This is an interesting article on some peculiar attempts to empirically verify whether there's life after death.

Share this post


Link to post
Gez said:

This explanation of the double slit experiment is fucked up. It's not that the particles sent through the slits behave differently depending on whether they're observed or not (since in any case, they're always observed), it's that they exhibit wave behaviors (notably interference phenomenons) and particle behaviors (single point of impact) at the same time. Placing detectors in the slits themselves show that the particles only go through one of the two slits at once, but their distribution over time still shows sign of interference.

That is wrong. If you place detectors in the slits, the interference pattern completely disappears. Photons really do go through both slots at the same time and interfere with themselves. Go read about it, it is one of the most researched experiment of all time.

Share this post


Link to post
Gez said:

This explanation of the double slit experiment is fucked up. It's not that the particles sent through the slits behave differently depending on whether they're observed or not (since in any case, they're always observed)


The Observer Effect is real and proven, but many physicists either don't appreciate it, or ignore it, probably since reductionists & materialists abhor it. There is a fundamental unknown in QM, and that is the transition from probability wave to an actual result during an 'observation'. What actually causes (and happens during) the 'collapse the wave function'.
An observation does NOT happen through the use of non-conscious instruments like measuring plates or non-conscious computers etc.. since QM can adequately model the interaction of the quantum mechanical system (electrons, whatever) being observed with the measuring devices, as a superposition of the original system being measured (electrons, whatever) with the measuring apparatus.
So merely having a measuring device does NOT constitute an observation, and thus cause the collapse into an observable result. This is mainstream QM.

A great but very technical thread explains this here: http://www.physicsforums.com/showthread.php?t=507154&page=4


Recommend reading it from the start, but page 4 is where it gets interesting and to the point, post #58 is worth a read on that page as well.

So what does cause it? QM cannot explain what causes the collapse, but evidently us humans do see it collapse into the world of individual events we see around us, so either there is something special with how us humans consciously observe the universe which QM theory cannot explain, or there is no collapse and the wave function is real and thus we have infinitely creating realities (Many Worlds Theory to get around this problem).

A cool video which succinctly explains how experimenters proved that it is conscious observers that actually observe/collapse the wave function, NOT devices: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=sfeoE1arF0I

Share this post


Link to post

I'd be very careful about trying to learn quantum mechanics from YouTube. It takes about two clicks from any page to get into the realm of pure pseudoscience, with notions of quantum mysticism/spirituality, magic, new age bullshit, etc.

If you didn't read it from a published science journal or at least a book by someone with a degree in a reputable field, I suggest being highly skeptical of anything you have to post a YouTube video to cite.

I suggest in particular watching out for this and anybody who is linking to or citing it:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/What_the_Bleep_Do_We_Know!%3F

It is widely acknowledged to be pseudoscience quackery.

Share this post


Link to post
Guest
This topic is now closed to further replies.
×