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 -
sean6

Quantum physics proves that there IS an after

153 posts in this topic

Recommended Posts

Frank Merton

There are considerations about a world that has no aging that are kinda scary. First, it would not eliminate deaths from accidents and murders and wars.

This would mean the obedient and careful would tend to persist while the risk takers and rebels would die. It would also mean that once in power a dictator would be damn hard to dislodge, and one could not wait for the Franco to die naturally.

As time passed the population would get more and more conservative and less and less inclined to take risks. One can imagine everyone retreating into a cocoon and communicating only via internet.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
SilentHunter

There are considerations about a world that has no aging that are kinda scary. First, it would not eliminate deaths from accidents and murders and wars.

This would mean the obedient and careful would tend to persist while the risk takers and rebels would die. It would also mean that once in power a dictator would be damn hard to dislodge, and one could not wait for the Franco to die naturally.

As time passed the population would get more and more conservative and less and less inclined to take risks. One can imagine everyone retreating into a cocoon and communicating only via internet.

Its already happening lol

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Lilly

For once in my life I'm actually glad I'm old. Living forever in the type of world this kind of 'immortality' would foster doesn't really appeal to me.

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Frank Merton

For once in my life I'm actually glad I'm old. Living forever in the type of world this kind of 'immortality' would foster doesn't really appeal to me.

That sort of dystopian future could probably be prevented as people saw it evolving. Or maybe reverting to a virtual world would not be so bad and we wouldn't notice the difference except we would be able to blow away physics.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Rlyeh

This debate reminds me of the quantum suicide experiment - http://en.wikipedia....and_immortality

I remember a religious article (don't ask me where from as it was years ago so I can't remember) on there being secrets about how the universe works which you only gain access to through the darker states of mind. The one in question being that its impossible to commit suicide from your own point of view. You always survive it!

Even stranger, and this is insane to discuss, I do actually believe that I will never die from anything. I believe the universe will always come up with some way of keeping me alive. Currently it seems to be heading for humans discovering immortality from aging in the next 30-40 years.

I also remember being taught at school that Aristotle believed it was impossible to die. He was going to demonstrate it to his students by walking off a cliff. He didn't and from our point of view he would have died if he had tried but from his point of view he would have survived if the quantum suicide thought experiment is correct.

Even if the quantum suicide thought experiment is correct, when is walking off a cliff determined by quantum probability? Besides the experiment requires the death to be instantaneous, Aristotle would still experience falling to his death. Edited by Rlyeh

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
SilentHunter

Even if the quantum suicide thought experiment is correct, when is walking off a cliff determined by quantum probability? Besides the experiment requires the death to be instantaneous, Aristotle would still experience falling to his death.

When he hits the ground he can either die or survive. The nature of quantum mechanics makes many people believe both outcomes co-exist (the point of the thought experiment). Therefore he always survives in one of the outcomes and that would be the outcome the Aristotle who gets up and walks away would be aware of.

So Aristotle would always survive jumping off a cliff no matter how many times he did it. From the point of view of the Aristotle at the end of the process he survived everything.

Edited by SilentHunter

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Frank Merton

When he hits the ground he can either die or survive. The nature of quantum mechanics makes many people believe both outcomes co-exist (the point of the thought experiment). Therefore he always survives in one of the outcomes and that would be the outcome the Aristotle who gets up and walks away would be aware of.

So Aristotle would always survive jumping off a cliff no matter how many times he did it. From the point of view of the Aristotle at the end of the process he survived everything.

It depends on the odds facing Aristotle. If the odds are a million to one against his surviving, then in a million universes he will die and in one he will live. In the million where he dies he will die.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Rlyeh

When he hits the ground he can either die or survive. The nature of quantum mechanics makes many people believe both outcomes co-exist (the point of the thought experiment). Therefore he always survives in one of the outcomes and that would be the outcome the Aristotle who gets up and walks away would be aware of.

So Aristotle would always survive jumping off a cliff no matter how many times he did it. From the point of view of the Aristotle at the end of the process he survived everything.

Sure he can die or survive but that's nothing to do with QM. Nothing about his fall being determined by quantum probability, this is an important part of the experiment.

Even if you had a suicide mechanism that was determined by the spin of a particle, how can you ensure your death coincides with decoherence? You can still survive (or linger) with a bullet in your head.

Edited by Rlyeh

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Leonardo

When he hits the ground he can either die or survive. The nature of quantum mechanics makes many people believe both outcomes co-exist (the point of the thought experiment). Therefore he always survives in one of the outcomes and that would be the outcome the Aristotle who gets up and walks away would be aware of.

So Aristotle would always survive jumping off a cliff no matter how many times he did it. From the point of view of the Aristotle at the end of the process he survived everything.

Which only suggests a lot of people don't understand what QM has to say about superposition and quantum states. Take Schroedinger's Cat as an example - as it is very close to the "Quantum Suicide " thought-experiment in what it attempts to convey. We know from correspondence that Schroedinger did not expect his thought experiment to be taken as a serious promotion of the superposition of quantum states. He actually devised the thought experiment to show how silly such a notion as this superposition existing outside a mathematical representation, was.

Imagine his dismay when he learned it was being used to demonstrate how the superposition does exist in actuality.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Frank Merton

It all depends on whether the "multi-universe" or parallel universe "interpretation" describes reality or not. This is an unpopular view, as far as I can tell, because of the extreme consequences in universe count. I would not rule it out, nor would I rule it in.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
godnodog

Does this medical doctor takes advices on healthcare from, let´s say a philosopher or an astrophisics?

I don´t think so, but on the other hand there has been breakthroughs in science coming from people from other science fields, but I sincirely doubt this one qualifies.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
godnodog

Forgot to mention, I don´t think paradoxes exists, I think that they are created by the limit knowledge of what we know, by the limit of our intelligence and by the limits of human language.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Rlyeh

It all depends on whether the "multi-universe" or parallel universe "interpretation" describes reality or not. This is an unpopular view, as far as I can tell, because of the extreme consequences in universe count. I would not rule it out, nor would I rule it in.

I thought the MWI was somewhat popular, but not all agree with this quantum suicide idea working.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
highdesert50

Preconceived ideas of normality allow us to make the distinction between the notion of reality and that of delusion. The inability might even be considered a psychosis.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
SilentHunter

Sure he can die or survive but that's nothing to do with QM. Nothing about his fall being determined by quantum probability, this is an important part of the experiment.

Even if you had a suicide mechanism that was determined by the spin of a particle, how can you ensure your death coincides with decoherence? You can still survive (or linger) with a bullet in your head.

The survival or death point is what the experiment is about not the fall.

For simplicity possibilities like being crippled but surviving or surviving for a while then dying aren't considered. If you want to be exact you'd design a suicide scenario with only two possible outcomes - perfect health or dead as a dodo.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Rlyeh

The survival or death point is what the experiment is about not the fall.

For simplicity possibilities like being crippled but surviving or surviving for a while then dying aren't considered. If you want to be exact you'd design a suicide scenario with only two possible outcomes - perfect health or dead as a dodo.

Well you were using a cliff fall as an example. They don't usually end up with people walking away unharmed.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
SilentHunter

Which only suggests a lot of people don't understand what QM has to say about superposition and quantum states. Take Schroedinger's Cat as an example - as it is very close to the "Quantum Suicide " thought-experiment in what it attempts to convey. We know from correspondence that Schroedinger did not expect his thought experiment to be taken as a serious promotion of the superposition of quantum states. He actually devised the thought experiment to show how silly such a notion as this superposition existing outside a mathematical representation, was.

Imagine his dismay when he learned it was being used to demonstrate how the superposition does exist in actuality.

I don't know what sources you're using but they aren't current. For example scientists have been able to place laser beams into superposition of more than one state for decades.

Heres an example - http://www.nature.com/nphys/journal/v3/n12/abs/nphys775.html (2007).

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
SilentHunter

It all depends on whether the "multi-universe" or parallel universe "interpretation" describes reality or not. This is an unpopular view, as far as I can tell, because of the extreme consequences in universe count. I would not rule it out, nor would I rule it in.

All interpretations of quantum mechanics mean the same thing. You can easily get the multiverse to mean parallel universes or extra dimensions because the maths is identical in each.

Putting aside interpretations and limiting ourselves to the maths then superposition is very much real.

Edited by SilentHunter

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Rlyeh

All interpretations of quantum mechanics mean the same thing.

You can easily get the multiverse to mean parallel universes or extra dimensions because the maths is identical in each.

They all attempt to explain the same but some have consequences others do not.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
SilentHunter

They all attempt to explain the same but some have consequences others do not.

The multiverse is possibly an infinite amount of parallel universes joined together by extra dimensions. There you go the most three common opinions on what it means amounting to the same thing. If you can't see it nothing can be done for you lmao!

Edited by SilentHunter

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Rlyeh

The multiverse is possibly an infinite amount of parallel universes joined together by extra dimensions. There you go the most three common opinions on what it means amounting to the same thing. If you can't see it nothing can be done for you lmao!

That's really got nothing to do with addressing outcomes that favour different interpretations.

Experiments have been thought up that could test whether the MWI is correct.

http://plato.stanford.edu/entries/qm-manyworlds/#5

http://www.hedweb.com/manworld.htm#detect

Edited by Rlyeh

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Leonardo

I don't know what sources you're using but they aren't current. For example scientists have been able to place laser beams into superposition of more than one state for decades.

Heres an example - http://www.nature.co...s/nphys775.html (2007).

The experiment does not conclusively demonstrate a quantum object in superposition - that being the existence of a single quantum object in multiple states simultaneously. A laser pulse, which was what was measured/observed, is a packet of many individual photons - not a single photon.

I would agree the experiment showed multiple objects occupying multiple states simultaneously, but that is not the 'superposition' under discussion.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
SilentHunter

The experiment does not conclusively demonstrate a quantum object in superposition - that being the existence of a single quantum object in multiple states simultaneously. A laser pulse, which was what was measured/observed, is a packet of many individual photons - not a single photon.

I would agree the experiment showed multiple objects occupying multiple states simultaneously, but that is not the 'superposition' under discussion.

http://chronos-st.blogspot.co.uk/2007/08/schrdingers-cat-theory-proven.html

http://www.newscientist.com/article/dn24159-quantum-chip-connected-to-internet-is-yours-to-command.html#.Uot9A9LxrIw

Shall I carry on? Superposition is real and proved.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
spacelizard667

Another very scientific but ludicrist crackpot theory, Lanza's view on quantum physics/quantum mechanics is that consciousness creates and makes sense of the universe, and not that the universe exists independently of individual brains or consciousness.

So in Lanza's ideology the universe is only what you make it as creator and absolutely nothing else. No matter how many other dimensions, parallel or alternate universes you want to include here guess which one we're living in.....death is a known effect that terminates life as we know that in a manifested physical body.......death is not however the end of our spiritual existence at all.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
DieChecker

Another very scientific but ludicrist crackpot theory, Lanza's view on quantum physics/quantum mechanics is that consciousness creates and makes sense of the universe, and not that the universe exists independently of individual brains or consciousness.

So in Lanza's ideology the universe is only what you make it as creator and absolutely nothing else. No matter how many other dimensions, parallel or alternate universes you want to include here guess which one we're living in.....death is a known effect that terminates life as we know that in a manifested physical body.......death is not however the end of our spiritual existence at all.

To my thinking, if the Universe was a reflection of human (Specifically) existance, then when someone specific, like Hawking, was to pass away, parts of the Universe that only he imagined would also pass away. No one would then detect the deleted stars/objects till someone read Hawkings notes on those objects, then miraculously they would exist again. Such a "revision" of scientific data would quickly become obvious, as older records would not match current records.

It also seems that if this was true, we'd miraculously have stars/objects appearing randomly in random locations as people (Astronomers) "found" them where they suspected they should be.

Basically if the Universe was contiousness driven, we'd see examples of celestial objects blinking in and out over long stretches of time. Which, AFAIK, has not happened.

Share this post


Link to post
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.