Quantum Universe

by undercover 35 Replies latest jw friends

• 

  OnTheWayOut

  Sounds like a crackpot to me.

  That was my initial reaction as well. However, I did some Internet research on quantum mechanics and the like and
  some of what he told me is in some of the papers I've read online. But who's to say that whoever wrote those
  papers aren't crackpots too?

  You gathered information in this fake imitation of reality to prove that this is a fake imitation of reality. That's
  almost paradox.

  This is not a subject I know about, but I used to question the Bible this way- The Bible says it is true, but how
  do I know? Well, the writings in the Bible prove it's true writings? HOW? By being prophetic and accurate and all
  that. ACCORDING TO WHO? COULDN'T THE WRITINGS ABOUT THE WRITINGS BE IN NEED OF JUST AS
  MUCH PROOF?

  What I am saying is: You can't use some of the Bible to prove that the Bible is accurate. You need more.
  You can't use part of a theory that makes sense to prove the theory. You need more. If the theory starts
  with a false premise (like the WT application of the Bible) and builds alot of stuff like facts and figures around it,
  you eventually accept the false premise because of all the stuff built around it. If we are not experiencing reality,
  it's in a sense that our minds don't comprehend, so it is possible to learn those senses, but that doesn't change
  the reality that others are experiencing. People living on a small island don't understand the train schedule of
  NYC, but they sure know what fresh fish and coconut tastes like.
• 

  undercover

  That's almost paradox.

  I can't help myself, but I see Chico Marx now... "whya paradox? whya not a pair of chickens?"

  Seriously, I see your point and I, like you, know little of this subject, so while I'm a bit fascinated by it, I tend to call into question anything that I read about it, not quite trusting it, though I'm reading it to learn about it. It is a parachicken.
• 

  OnTheWayOut

  "whya paradox? whya not a pair of chickens?"

  I am glad the wife wasn't home< Busted out loud laughing.
• 

  OICU8it2

  energy does have mass. entanglement does not allow the transmission of info faster than light. there is no instant of time in 2 places. something can exist in more than one place as long as you can know nothing of its momentum. space does not exist apart from mass or energy unless there are space particles and they would have mass. empty space is not empty.
• 

  frankiespeakin

  OIC,

  energy does have mass. entanglement does not allow the transmission of info faster than light. there is no instant of time in 2 places. something can exist in more than one place as long as you can know nothing of its momentum. space does not exist apart from mass or energy unless there are space particles and they would have mass. empty space is not empty. I think you may have it a little wrong, There is comunication faster than the speed of light in sub atomic particles(proven arounf 1999) and partilce travel back and forth in time like it wasn't there. Kind of point to that time and space are mental consrtuct that deal with our middle world and not applicable in the smaller dimensions that quantam deals with. And since size has no smallest limit who knows..
• 

  jst2laws

  Frankiespeakin,

  Only want to add, it was John Aspect in about 1980 who proved that entangled particles respond to each other at the rate of at least twice the speed of light. He did this in validation of the Bell Theorum where he and Bell found Einstein to be wrong regarding the EPR mind experiment. Notice I did not say they 'communicate' at twice the speed of light because, as Niels Bohr stated to Einstein about 80 years ago, 'they do not need to communicate, they are connected'.

  Steve
• 

  frankiespeakin

  Just,

  Yes and from what I understand Bell made the mathmatical therum back in 80's even though he was in the einstien camp, he prove einstien wrong and then I think in france they did a 7km test with lazers and proved instantanious comunication or as eistien used to say spooky action at a distance.This was suppose to more confirmantion of the earlier tests and that was around 1999 or 5 I don't quite remember.
• 

  Terry

  It might be good to keep this in mind.

  Science is largely a series of measurements.

  How you measure teeny things comes in to question.

  To see a subatomic particle you must bounce light (particles: photons) off those very same tiny entities.

  When you bounce one object off another object you disturb it. This is why we say OBSERVATION CHANGES things. It isn't from some spooky metaphysical reason.

  Consquently, there is the problem of interpreting the (now) changed path or trajectory or momentum. It has to be re-contextualized.

  Before science delved deeper into the tiniest constituencies there was less physical interference in observation and determination by experiment.

  Quantifying, measuring, predicting and correlating become increasingly less accurate as things being quantified, measured, predicted and correlated become smaller.

  The UNCERTAINTY PRINCIPLE reflects this rather clumsy truth.
• 

  TopHat

  Your question reminds me of an old movie called "Double Ganger" A Man finds himself on the other side of another planet and everything is like looking into a mirror except him. The light switch is on the wrong side of the wall and so forth.
• 

  hillary_step

  TopHat,

  Your question reminds me of an old movie called "Double Ganger" A Man finds himself on the other side of another planet and everything is like looking into a mirror except him. The light switch is on the wrong side of the wall and so forth.

  'Doppleganger'. HS