*-Quantum Theory Proves Consciousness Moves To Another Universe After Death-*
http://simplecapacity.com/2016/09/quantum-theory-proves-consciousness-mo...
There's a video on the bottom of this page and the first few seconds indicate that this scientist ranks in the top three by the New York Times. I don't know what that means but I think they protest too much. Does anybody have this book and what are your thoughts?
Subscription Note:
Choosing to subscribe to this topic will automatically register you for email notifications for comments and updates on this thread.
Email notifications will be sent out daily by default unless specified otherwise on your account which you can edit by going to your userpage here and clicking on the subscriptions tab.
"If" consciousness is one thing and enters the body from somewhere else like a cable signal? That is an extraordinary claim with not a shred of evidence. Chopra-ism is all that is.
Haha, hate Chopra-ism all you want, it is entertaining as hell
This should have been the first tip that the article was not serious.
--------------------------------
It's just what I like to call quantum flap-a-doodle; more formally called quantum mysticism:
Ohhh, what a cool term. I'd like that on my business card:
The Pragmatic
Quantum Mystic, level VII
Authorized Spiritual Quantum Mechanic
Attachments
Attach Image/Video?:
Thank you, Nyarlathotep. I knew I could count on you to put it into perspective.
Albert Einstein considered quantum mechanics to be "spooky action at a distance" . The exotic garden of subatomic particles is deductive fantasy.,like looking at a multi-faceted diamond and thinking each facet is its own entity, without ever seeing the diamond.
The "proton accelerators" used for sub-atomic physics experiments works like smashing two cars together, and trying to figure out their "subcomponents" by the trajectories of the two cars components flying away. The physicists photograph the colission on magnetic plates and deduce. Not all physicists are quantum theorists, they think it is crap.
In his book "The God Particle" Leon Lederman PhD , Nobel Prize in Physics 1988, wrote "The history of atomism is one of reductionism - the effort to reduce all the operations of nature to a small number of laws governing a small number of primordial objects. If the Universe Is the Answer, What Is the Question?"
www.TheResonancePrinciple.com anwsers these questions.
It is based upon a primary assumption that the physical universe was intelligently created and as such is not random chaos but built with principles that allow for random events. I think Robert Lanza might agree with this, but the other universes our souls move to after death are probably part of this universe but at different frequencies, like the chakras. The speed of resonance is infinite, not confined to hyperexcited electrons (photons) with their mass and falling within a certain frequency, which we call the visible light spectrum.
I went to that site and made it about 5 minutes into the first video when it said:
Looks like someone failed high-school chemistry: if you remember, a proton joined to an electron already has a name; it's called a hydrogen atom. Neutrons are definitely not hydrogen atoms, making this website into a giant high-school chemistry fail.
From Wiki "In everyday life on Earth, isolated hydrogen atoms (usually called "atomic hydrogen" or, more precisely, "monatomic hydrogen") are extremely rare. Instead, hydrogen tends to combine with other atoms in compounds, or with itself to form ordinary (diatomic) hydrogen gas, H2."
H2 is two protons and two electrons orbiting each other. This of this as two weak protons and two strong electrons The protons are bound together by their orb force of attraction and the electrons have a wider orbit (greater resonance) when compared to a neutron which is a proton and electron of closer resonance quantity that cause them to orbit with not the space between the electron shell and nucleus of a hydrogen atom.
From Wiki" The most abundant isotope, hydrogen-1, protium, or light hydrogen, contains no neutrons and is just a proton and an electron. Protium is stable and makes up 99.9885% of naturally occurring hydrogen by absolute number (not mass).
Deuterium contains one neutron and one proton. Deuterium is stable and makes up 0.0115% of naturally occurring hydrogen and is used in industrial processes like nuclear reactors and Nuclear Magnetic Resonance.
Tritium contains two neutrons and one proton and is not stable, decaying with a half-life of 12.32 years. Because of the short half life, Tritium does not exist in nature except in trace amounts."
The question is, why is H1 extremely rare in the universe and H2 common? Why doesnt H2 have a nucleus with neutrons as occurs in every other element? It takes until Helium is created (processed through until you get two protons, two neutrons and two electrons as a noble gas.
@seeker: Einstein is considered one of the founders of quantum physics. See his 1905 paper explaining the photoelectric effect.
Name a modern physicist that says quantum physics is crap. Please don't say Deepak Chopra!
@Chimp3
Wave–particle duality is the concept that every elementary particle or quantic entity may be partly described in terms not only of particles, but also of waves. It expresses the inability of the classical concepts "particle" or "wave" to fully describe the behavior of quantum-scale objects.
PhotoElectric effect from Wiki: "Instead, electrons are dislodged only by the impingement of photons when those photons reach or exceed a threshold frequency (energy). Below that threshold, no electrons are emitted from the metal regardless of the light intensity or the length of time of exposure to the light. To make sense of the fact that light can eject electrons even if its intensity is low, Albert Einstein proposed that a beam of light is not a wave propagating through space, but rather a collection of discrete wave packets (photons), each with energy hf. This shed light on Max Planck's previous discovery of the Planck relation (E = hf) linking energy (E) and frequency (f) as arising from quantization of energy. The factor h is known as the Planck constant."
photons are particles (orbs) moving in a curlicue wave like motion. They also come in the full range of rainbow colors, each corresponding to a different resonance level within the photon spectrum. If light (photons) eject electrons, it is because the photons have lost some resonance (a certain quantum of energy in this case) so they revert back to electrons, whose resonance/energy level is lower than a photon's. The Planck constant is the quantum of energy (resonance) that separates an electron from a photon.
Violation of the conservation of electric charge: You started with a photon (0 electric charge) and ended with an electron (-1 electric charge).
Answer below part of https://van.physics.illinois.edu/qa/listing.php?id=2348 Very interesting.
Why are photons (all wavelengths) considered to be instruments of the so-called "electromagnetic force"? So far as I know, please correct me, photons have no electrical charge nor are they influenced by magnetic fields. The term "electromagnetic spectrum" seems to me to be very inappropriate and highly misleading. Perhaps I am missing something? Thank you!
- grahame (age 60)
PA
A:
Grahame- You’re right that electromagnetic waves, whether viewed classically or in terms of quantized photons, are not affected by static electrical or magnetic fields. They have no charge. Nevertheless, they do exert electrical and magnetic forces on charged particles and magnetic particles. Viewed classically, they consist of nothing but electrical and magnetic fields propagating through space, so it’s entirely appropriate to call them electromagnetic waves.
It's right there in the page you quoted: "[photons] have no charge". But electrons do. Therefore it is impossible for a photon to become just an electron, and it is impossible for an electron to become just a photon; something more complicated has to happen instead so electric charge is conserved. How do you keep making these same mistakes over and over again?
To be fair some photons are found to have a slight electric charge and mass before the excess momentum is carried away by another particle during annihilation but yes for the most part what he is saying is wrong.
Seeker: Nothing more laughable than amateur physicists. I suppose you spend a little time with us each day after a hard shift down at the particle accelerator.
*Laughed out Loud*
Please stop calling them orbs. If you are going to give bad analogies in physics use better examples. Think of light( as well as all elementary particles) as ripples. Raw examples of energy and vibration. Like a ripple in space and time itself. That is also a bad example, but the orb thing is kind of killing me. Read up on wave-particle duality, annihilation, rest energy, and special relativity if you want a better understanding. Hell read more about photons cause you still clearly don't understand what it is you are saying yet. Physics is very complex and from what I've seen you type, you only have done some cursory research on it.There is too much to explain. The most of that entire last paragraph is wrong and/or not explained correctly or fully.
Nyarlathotep has said all that needs to be said about this topic, at least from a scientific perspective. It's just flap-doodle. The nut cases always gravitate towards those exotic areas that offer enough confusion (in the public mind) from which to spin their nonsense.
Now's when the Chopra-isms come in. That's a beaut Seeker.
Well, he got his physics degree from Wiki University so is quite the exert after all.
I think biology is the last refuge of theistic scientists. They use quantum theory like smoke and mirrors because they know only half a dozen people on this planet really get it.
The bottom line is this: What is the physics underlying the theory of the soul?
The equations we have do not account for consciousness independent of matter.
Uh, what evidence do you have for the existence of this soul? Once you answer that satisfactorily, we can move on to your question.
I'm joining this late, so I apologize if what follows repeats any points already made by others (who have covered most of the scientific aspects, it seems).
Yes, I was reminded of Chopra almost immediately, but also the anti-evolutionists who insist that the "fine tuned universe" proves the existence of God (no other deities allowed).
If I am to accept the scientific view on such things as quanta, entanglement, inflation (big bang) and titanic structures for clusters of galaxies, then I must assume that the cosmos exhibits phenomena at the smallest and largest scales that humans are fundamentally unable to understand. This is difficult, but personally I'm more inclined to believe that our minds have such limitations than to believe that the scientific community has been weaving a tremendous hoax for the past century. Another, simpler, approach to this is to ask oneself if the universe had a beginning: if we can't conceive of a universe before which there was nothing, and we can't conceive of a universe without beginning or end, then it must be our minds that are at fault, because the universe does exist.
But it has a limitation beyond which we can't see by any means: it is the only universe we will ever know. So inventing a Long Home in another multiverse, or black holes from which our universe originated is the stuff of Silver Surfer and Dr. Strange comics. And it is like miracles, in the sense that anyone can invent a new "truth" without having to explain anything.
Arthur Conan Doyle became a spiritualist after his son died. Is it possible that Dr. Lanza is not just in it for the money, but has felt a need for some kind of hereafter now that his years grow short?
I think this is a pile of dog shit. Data asserted without proof can be disregarded without a second thought.
http://www.forbes.com/sites/emilywillingham/2015/11/30/why-do-some-peopl...
From that Forbes article: Examples of these pseudo-profound statements include “Hidden meaning transforms unparalleled abstract beauty,” a totally meaningless sentence that appears to be profound because it uses buzzwords like “hidden” and “transforms” and “abstract” and “beauty.”.
Sounds just like ProgrammingGodJordan.