Jump to content
Join the Unexplained Mysteries community today! It's free and setting up an account only takes a moment.
- Sign In or Create Account -

Has the Hadron Collider disproven ghosts ?


Claire.

Recommended Posts

Has the Large Hadron Collider Disproved the Existence of Ghosts?

The Large Hadron Collider (LHC) might be the world's most incredible science experiment. A particle collider seventeen miles in circumference, it accelerates protons to velocities approaching the speed of light and slams them together. Enthralled scientists from all over the world watch the subatomic demolition derby and record what happens. Thus far, they've witnessed the creation of quark-gluon plasma (the densest matter outside of black holes), found key evidence against supersymmetry, and discovered the Higgs boson, a result which garnered the Nobel Prize in Physics.

Much of the general public probably isn't aware of these fascinating, yet unfortunately, esoteric discoveries at the LHC. Particle physics simply doesn't inspire as much interest as say, ghosts. At least four in ten Americans believe in ghosts, and it's likely that even fewer people are aware of the LHC. On that note, at least one physicist contends that the LHC has, in fact, disproved the existence of ghosts.

Read more: Live Science

  • Like 7
Link to comment
Share on other sites

There is much more dark matter than ordinary matter in the universe and neither LHC nor any other detector has found any trace of it. We know that there is lots of it, that it is invisible and that it doesn't interact with ordinary matter. It's hard to imagine anything more ghostlike than that I think. For all we know, there might be a "dark matter being" walking straight through you right now and you would have no idea.

  • Like 6
Link to comment
Share on other sites

On the other hand, at least one random person (who is, truly, not a physicist) is not sure if sieving a result (they were hoping to find) out of noise several measuring levels stronger, is any way relevant to a phenomenon no one knows how to explain, let alone disprove, unless we will call everyone who has ever encountered a ghost a liar or mentally ill.

  

  • Like 3
Link to comment
Share on other sites

This is just saying a materialist explanation for ghosts can not exist. It is based on materialist assumptions like the physical brain produces consciousness rather than consciousness being fundamental.  Also it assumes the brain is the hard storage area for information rather than being a tool to access non-local information.

  • Like 3
Link to comment
Share on other sites

I don't see how it disproves the existence of ghosts. How could you disprove the existence of something? You can disprove a theory, which it seems like they did, but the statement is based on their assumption of how they think ghosts and spirits would work. And if they think it doesn't exist, how would they know how it works? They don't, because they can't measure it, so like I said, it's just assumptions.

  • Like 8
Link to comment
Share on other sites

I'm kind of confused. Can someone explain this to me?

  • Like 2
Link to comment
Share on other sites

29 minutes ago, papageorge1 said:

This is just saying a materialist explanation for ghosts can not exist. It is based on materialist assumptions like the physical brain produces consciousness rather than consciousness being fundamental.  Also it assumes the brain is the hard storage area for information rather than being a tool to access non-local information.

You didn't understand what was stated. It is not a materialist explanation. It states that there is no external affect on the matter. It doesn't matter what you want to pretend is there, but it does not affect the matter. Consciousness or whatever you want to call it does not interact with matter. If there is non-local information then it does not interact with matter.

  • Like 4
Link to comment
Share on other sites

8 minutes ago, Zayne Kalis said:

I don't see how it disproves the existence of ghosts. How could you disprove the existence of something? You can disprove a theory, which it seems like they did, but the statement is based on their assumption of how they think ghosts and spirits would work. And if they think it doesn't exist, how would they know how it works? They don't, because they can't measure it, so like I said, it's just assumptions.

The idea is that interactions affect particles. If there is no evidence of an interaction, then no particles are affected.

  • Like 2
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Spartan max2, physicists measure interactions. They can observe these interactions. The world you live is in affected by 4 forces. The main ones you experience are EM and gravity. EM, the electromagnetic force, is what makes things seem solid, causes electricity, the computer in front of you to work, and let's your eyes see the screen. It makes plants grow and allows you to smell, hear, and taste. Gravity is what causes things to fall towards the Earth. There are 2 other forces that are known that affect the nucleus of atoms. The weak force is involved with the Sun producing light and heat for us.

Brian Cox is stating that these forces are all that is needed to explain the workings of the universe. If there were other forces at work then we'd see interactions that could not be explained using just the 4 known forces. Scientific experimentation showed that electricity and magnetism are different aspects of the same force. Experiments showed that there had to be other forces and the weak and strong forces were discovered.

Some people would like to pretend that there is more than what can be detected. They want to embellish what is known with fantasies. Cox is simply pointing out that the known forces appear to cover it all. LV-426 has placed a proper condition which is that this is what we know about today. Maybe there is something more, but at the moment there is no evidence.

  • Like 9
Link to comment
Share on other sites

40 minutes ago, stereologist said:

Spartan max2, physicists measure interactions. They can observe these interactions. The world you live is in affected by 4 forces. The main ones you experience are EM and gravity. EM, the electromagnetic force, is what makes things seem solid, causes electricity, the computer in front of you to work, and let's your eyes see the screen. It makes plants grow and allows you to smell, hear, and taste. Gravity is what causes things to fall towards the Earth. There are 2 other forces that are known that affect the nucleus of atoms. The weak force is involved with the Sun producing light and heat for us.

Brian Cox is stating that these forces are all that is needed to explain the workings of the universe. If there were other forces at work then we'd see interactions that could not be explained using just the 4 known forces. Scientific experimentation showed that electricity and magnetism are different aspects of the same force. Experiments showed that there had to be other forces and the weak and strong forces were discovered.

Some people would like to pretend that there is more than what can be detected. They want to embellish what is known with fantasies. Cox is simply pointing out that the known forces appear to cover it all. LV-426 has placed a proper condition which is that this is what we know about today. Maybe there is something more, but at the moment there is no evidence.

Thanks for taking the time to type that 

  • Like 2
Link to comment
Share on other sites

40 minutes ago, stereologist said:

You didn't understand what was stated. It is not a materialist explanation. It states that there is no external affect on the matter. It doesn't matter what you want to pretend is there, but it does not affect the matter. Consciousness or whatever you want to call it does not interact with matter. If there is non-local information then it does not interact with matter.

Just a thought. With quantum mechanics though, some things are considered unpredictable and there is a known observer effect that occurs that doesn't make sense in classical mechanistic thinking.  It just still seems to be a mystery in science as to why matter does what it does. So, how can you then say there is not something external we don't understand effecting matter?

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

57 minutes ago, stereologist said:

The idea is that interactions affect particles. If there is no evidence of an interaction, then no particles are affected.

How exactly would there be evidence? Did they ask a ghost to try and interact with something to prove he doesn't exist? No, because the conclusion is that they don't exist, so obviously there's no ghost involved. And obviously no particles would be affected by a ghost that wasn't there... am I missing something o_o

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

17 minutes ago, papageorge1 said:

Just a thought. With quantum mechanics though, some things are considered unpredictable and there is a known observer effect that occurs that doesn't make sense in classical mechanistic thinking.  It just still seems to be a mystery in science as to why matter does what it does. So, how can you then say there is not something external we don't understand effecting matter?

Because everything we see is described by what we know about. That's pretty simple isn't it?

You pointed out that QM observes and describes interactions which are not properly described by classical physics. QM is not based on anything other than observations. Long before QM was developed there were known issues such as the UV catastrophe. There were predictions and observations which did not match.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ultraviolet_catastrophe

So where is there an observation that does not fit into the models?

  • Like 2
Link to comment
Share on other sites

6 minutes ago, Zayne Kalis said:

How exactly would there be evidence? Did they ask a ghost to try and interact with something to prove he doesn't exist? No, because the conclusion is that they don't exist, so obviously there's no ghost involved. And obviously no particles would be affected by a ghost that wasn't there... am I missing something o_o

Observations and predictions are starting to match up in many cases. What we do not see is any evidence that there are forces that need to be incorporated into the current models.

Here you are doing nothing more than fantasizing about evidence. Many physicists do that. But they don't make up fantasies about ghosts. They try to determine if the models are correct. Predictions are made and tests are run and there is no evidence of any other forces that need to be added to the model.

Are you missing something? Definitely! You are missing evidence that any other forces exist.

  • Like 3
Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 minute ago, stereologist said:

Observations and predictions are starting to match up in many cases. What we do not see is any evidence that there are forces that need to be incorporated into the current models.

Here you are doing nothing more than fantasizing about evidence. Many physicists do that. But they don't make up fantasies about ghosts. They try to determine if the models are correct. Predictions are made and tests are run and there is no evidence of any other forces that need to be added to the model.

Are you missing something? Definitely! You are missing evidence that any other forces exist.

So the "proof" that they don't exist is the lack of proof that they do exist? What. I mean yeah you shouldn't assume something exists without any evidence, but saying something is disproven simply because they recorded no evidence is ridiculous. The test had nothing to do with ghosts, it just shows they can explain the things they know of with known forces. I wish I could see the list and find who thought what was caused by ghosts.

Well, at least you helped me understand it a bit better, so thanks. I can now firmly answer the article's question: No, they didn't disprove anything.

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

27 minutes ago, stereologist said:

Because everything we see is described by what we know about. That's pretty simple isn't it?

You pointed out that QM observes and describes interactions which are not properly described by classical physics. QM is not based on anything other than observations. Long before QM was developed there were known issues such as the UV catastrophe. There were predictions and observations which did not match.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ultraviolet_catastrophe

So where is there an observation that does not fit into the models?

So are you arguing against the existence of the observer effect in quantum mechanics? Or if you claim it will eventually be solved deterministically, how can you also claim at the same time to know all external influences on matter?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

17 minutes ago, Zayne Kalis said:

So the "proof" that they don't exist is the lack of proof that they do exist? What. I mean yeah you shouldn't assume something exists without any evidence, but saying something is disproven simply because they recorded no evidence is ridiculous. The test had nothing to do with ghosts, it just shows they can explain the things they know of with known forces. I wish I could see the list and find who thought what was caused by ghosts.

Well, at least you helped me understand it a bit better, so thanks. I can now firmly answer the article's question: No, they didn't disprove anything.

First off there is a difference between evidence and proof.

The fact that there is no evidence to suppose a new force simply means that there is no evidence to support a new force. The test has everything to do with the completeness of describing the observations. It has everything to do with known observations.

Does this disprove ghosts you ask? Yes it does. Think of it this way. Suppose there are ghosts. How do we know? They supposedly interact with particles. They supposedly can be seen. They supposedly can be heard. They supposedly can be photographed. They supposedly can be recorded. If this is the case then these are nothing more than things that are the result of the 4 known forces. A ghost can't be just energy. Why? That would be in conflict with the behavior of the 4 known forces. Are they matter? The behavior of ghosts is in conflict with the behavior of matter. Are they external to the 4 known forces and the menagerie of particles that are known? Well, there is no evidence that something like that exists.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

7 minutes ago, papageorge1 said:

So are you arguing against the existence of the observer effect in quantum mechanics? Or if you claim it will eventually be solved deterministically, how can you also claim at the same time to know all external influences on matter?

Are you misunderstanding QM again? The answer to that is yes.

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Didn't they already do the cat in the hat , I mean box, mr dinger etc. over this quantum fun already? so fun, all possibilities, now get this shooting from the hip,  all at the same time !  superpositions was coined.  Never boring all these SWAG oh, hypothetical/theorems.

Oh one more thing quickly,

3 hours ago, Helen of Annoy said:

unless we will call everyone who has ever encountered a ghost a liar or mentally ill.

I'm thinking there are mentally ill, but also I thought I read or heard that there are places where a ghost or whatever can be FELT / heard/ seen by multitudes on a regular basis?  Maybe not, I just thought there was well documented places like that.

Edited by MWoo7
Link to comment
Share on other sites

14 minutes ago, stereologist said:

Are you misunderstanding QM again? The answer to that is yes.

No, I just follow the conventional understanding that seems different than yours. The observer effect contradicts classical deterministic thinking.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I sometimes wonder if the brain behaves like a radio reciever, perhaps the soul/conciousness isn't actually "housed" in the brain but is transmitted (from where I don't know, maybe from another dimension, parallel universe, the Matrix etc) to the brain, that it is idiviually tuned too,  where it can then take form and interact in a 3 dimensional universe.

In the same way a spirit might possibly interact with our reality

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

34 minutes ago, stereologist said:

First off there is a difference between evidence and proof.

The fact that there is no evidence to suppose a new force simply means that there is no evidence to support a new force. The test has everything to do with the completeness of describing the observations. It has everything to do with known observations.

Does this disprove ghosts you ask? Yes it does. Think of it this way. Suppose there are ghosts. How do we know? They supposedly interact with particles. They supposedly can be seen. They supposedly can be heard. They supposedly can be photographed. They supposedly can be recorded. If this is the case then these are nothing more than things that are the result of the 4 known forces. A ghost can't be just energy. Why? That would be in conflict with the behavior of the 4 known forces. Are they matter? The behavior of ghosts is in conflict with the behavior of matter. Are they external to the 4 known forces and the menagerie of particles that are known? Well, there is no evidence that something like that exists.

Again your argument is "there's no evidence, so it's disproven". That's a very unscientific approach, we would've gotten nowhere with that sort of thinking. You can't say it's been disproven, just that it's not proven. And besides so far you haven't listed any evidence that contradicts anything I could say on the matter. You're just speaking about known "facts". Do you know how many so-called facts have been proven wrong throughout history, when new information came to light? It's pretty naive to think you know all the secrets about how the universe works. You could say it's unlikely, you could claim there's no evidence, you could even say it directly contradicts the laws of physics, but to say it's been disproven is factually untrue. It'd be like trying to disprove God. It's impossible. According to the concept of God, he would be impossible to detect unless he wanted to be detected (being all powerful and what not). So, it's scientifically impossible to prove that an undetectable being doesn't exist. (don't turn this into an argument about God, I'm just using that as an example)

  • Like 2
Link to comment
Share on other sites

48 minutes ago, papageorge1 said:

No, I just follow the conventional understanding that seems different than yours. The observer effect contradicts classical deterministic thinking.

No. You have misunderstood and misrepresented QM in every thread I have seen where you have posted.

The sort of posting that shows how little you understand QM is when you post nonsense such as " So are you arguing against the existence of the observer effect in quantum mechanics? " That very clearly shows you have no idea what you are posting. If you want to show me wrong please tell us all how this is relevant to this discussion. You brought this up so please tell us what you were thinking.

Let me help you out

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Observer_effect_(physics)

Quote

... there is a common misconception that it is the mind of a conscious observer that causes the observer effect  ...

 

  • Like 2
Link to comment
Share on other sites

43 minutes ago, EBE Hybrid said:

I sometimes wonder if the brain behaves like a radio reciever, perhaps the soul/conciousness isn't actually "housed" in the brain but is transmitted (from where I don't know, maybe from another dimension, parallel universe, the Matrix etc) to the brain, that it is idiviually tuned too,  where it can then take form and interact in a 3 dimensional universe.

In the same way a spirit might possibly interact with our reality

Again no evidence of that.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now
  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    • No registered users viewing this page.