Quantum effects in a growing number of macroscopic systems.

[Cabal]

This article got me thinking and wildly speculating..... we all know how weird supposed UFO entities act in dealing with us. Perhaps their technology relies on quantum mechanics and perhaps they must conceal their technology, intentions and existence in order to allow this technology to operate? If there is an observer, their technology "collapses". Fun to think about anyway.....


http://www.scientificamerican.com/article.cfm?id=living-in-a-quantum-world

Living in a Quantum World

Quantum mechanics is not just about teeny particles. It applies to things of all sizes: birds, plants, maybe even people
By Vlatko Vedral | May 18, 2011 | 59

• Share
• Email
• Print

Image: Illustration by Justin Van Genderen
In Brief

• Quantum mechanics is commonly said to be a theory of microscopic things: molecules, atoms, subatomic particles.
• Nearly all physicists, though, think it applies to everything, no matter what the size. The reason its distinctive features tend to be hidden is not a simple matter of scale.
• Over the past several yearsexperimentalists have seen quantum effects in a growing number of macroscopic systems.
• The quintessential quantum effect, entanglement, can occur in large systems as well as warm ones—including living organisms—even though molecular jiggling might be expected to disrupt entanglement.

Supplemental Material

• SidebarMore Information on Quantum Entanglement

According to standard physics textbooks, quantum mechanics is the theory of the microscopic world. It describes particles, atoms and molecules but gives way to ordinary classical physics on the macroscopic scales of pears, people and planets. Somewhere between molecules and pears lies a boundary where the strangeness of quantum behavior ends and the familiarity of classical physics begins. The impression that quantum mechanics is limited to the microworld permeates the public understanding of science. For instance, Columbia University physicist Brian Greene writes on the first page of his hugely successful (and otherwise excellent) book The Elegant Universe that quantum mechanics “provides a theoretical framework for understanding the universe on the smallest of scales.” Classical physics, which comprises any theory that is not quantum, including Albert Einstein’s theories of relativity, handles the largest of scales.
Yet this convenient partitioning of the world is a myth. Few modern physicists think that classical physics has equal status with quantum mechanics; it is but a useful approximation of a world that is quantum at all scales. Although quantum effects may be harder to see in the macroworld, the reason has nothing to do with size per se but with the way that quantum systems interact with one another. Until the past decade, experimentalists had not confirmed that quantum behavior persists on a macroscopic scale. Today, however, they routinely do. These effects are more pervasive than anyone ever suspected. They may operate in the cells of our body.

Full article available here:
<cite style="color: rgb(14, 119, 74); font-style: normal; ">phy.ntnu.edu.tw/~chchang/Notes10b/0611038.pdf</cite>
<cite style="color: rgb(14, 119, 74); font-style: normal; ">
</cite>

 

[trainedobserver]

I've become totally disillusioned, disenchanted, and completely unimpressed by Quantum theory since listening to Bill Gaede.

Here is a brief introduction:

[h=1][/h]

 

[softbeard]

I've become totally disillusioned, disenchanted, and completely unimpressed by Quantum theory since listening to Bill Gaede.

Yeah, well I agree that 'rope theory of light' is about the most stupid nonsense I've ever heard, but why does that nonsense deride quantum theory? Quantum theory explains a lot of everyday effects (like the photoeletric effect) in quantitative detail. Rope is good for smoking it...

 

[trainedobserver]

Yeah, well I agree that 'rope theory of light' is about the most stupid nonsense I've ever heard, but why does that nonsense deride quantum theory? Quantum theory explains a lot of everyday effects (like the photoeletric effect) in quantitative detail. Rope is good for smoking it...

You've misunderstood me. I've thrown in with Gaede. There are several other presentations of his that go into more detail. I could never understand the quantum nonsense anyway. The rope/thread theory I get.

 

[softbeard]

You've misunderstood me. I've thrown in with Gaede. There are several other presentations of his that go into more detail. I could never understand the quantum nonsense anyway. The rope/thread theory I get.

Yeah, well I don't think the rope/thread theory can hold water under more careful quantitative scrutiny. Since we are talking about essentialy an infinite number of rope/thread interconnnections criss-crossing each other, how is this different than Einstein's space-time fabric? There's nothing new in this 'rope' theory. It's essentially saying that light acts as a wave, transmitted by this 'rope'. However, we know from experiments that's not the whole picture either. Because light can act as a particle too, especially high-frequency light like gamma rays.
If this 'rope' theory was all there was to it then criss-crossing light beams would interact at their intersection points. Except at very high power levels, they, in fact, do not and do not interfere with each other. IMHO this light-rope stuff is just pseudo-science, easily falsifyable upon closer inspection.

 

[boomerang]

Not many people can actually handle the mathematical interpretations of experimental data upon which quantum theory is based. So we rely on awkward verbal analogies offered us by those gifted individuals who can.

The consensus amongst physicists who can "do the math" (I envy them) seems to be that quantum phenomena simply make no sense in human terms. But quantum theory remains our most powerful tool in understanding how the universe ticks at sub-atomic levels.

A good example of quantum science baffling itself is the discovery by Brian Josephson of the Josephson Junction. His pre-experimental predictions of its behavior were scoffed at by most of his colleagues. Experiment vindicated Josephson and led to breakthroughs in semiconductor design. Josephson has now turned "mystic", pondering many of the things we discuss on this forum. It's a strange world.

Brian Josephson's home page

 

[Randall]

What's the point? Why is this even in the UFO category? Maybe ghosts are a "quantum energy phenomenon", and the trickster is a "quantum awareness phenomenon" and weird creatures are a "quantum biogenic phenomenon". This is just another "quantum woo theory" that should be discussed over in the "quantum woo" thread ... if there is one.

j.r.

 

[boomerang]

This is just another "quantum woo theory

j.r., that was sort of my point. Speculating about quantum possibility in verbal language tends to end up as so much verbal ping pong.

 

[Trajanus]

Perhaps their technology relies on quantum mechanics and perhaps they must conceal their technology, intentions and existence in order to allow this technology to operate? If there is an observer, their technology "collapses".
http://www.scientificamerican.com/article.cfm?id=living-in-a-quantum-world<cite style="color: rgb(14, 119, 74); font-style: normal; "></cite>

Aren't the operators of the technology themselves observers? Strange that they could invent and use anything with such drawbacks.

 

[tyder001]

What's the point? Why is this even in the UFO category? Maybe ghosts are a "quantum energy phenomenon", and the trickster is a "quantum awareness phenomenon" and weird creatures are a "quantum biogenic phenomenon". This is just another "quantum woo theory" that should be discussed over in the "quantum woo" thread ... if there is one.

j.r.

Just remember one man's woo woo is another man's abduction/ufo/lights in the sky/paranomal experience. After all, some if not most folks would call this whole forum and podcast "woo"

 

[PararealitySaint]

What's the point? Why is this even in the UFO category? Maybe ghosts are a "quantum energy phenomenon", and the trickster is a "quantum awareness phenomenon" and weird creatures are a "quantum biogenic phenomenon". This is just another "quantum woo theory" that should be discussed over in the "quantum woo" thread ... if there is one.

j.r.

I believe he was looking for the aspect of a "hidden" design work in the UFO theory, and that was to say that E.T. might be using Quantum Mechanics to hide itself/intentions and thus interaction with us primitive primates:

From Cabal: "Perhaps their technology relies on quantum mechanics and perhaps they must conceal their technology, intentions and existence in order to allow this technology to operate?"

An interesting idea and one I would like to read how members here feel about it.

 

[Randall]

Just remember one man's woo woo is another man's abduction/ufo/lights in the sky/paranomal experience. After all, some if not most folks would call this whole forum and podcast "woo"

Yes of course ... but in this case it actually is. The whole "Quantum Mysticism" thing is complete woo.

j.r.

 

[tyder001]

I'm gonna make a big confession right here. I don't know enough about quantum mechanics or quantum mysticism (whatever that is) to honestly have an opinion of it being woo or not. I have noticed and have said before to badly paraphrase an old ancient source: "Everybody heaps teachers to their own ears" I honestly do think that physics more than any other scientific discipline is very theoretical the deeper you go. Possibilities are endless.

---------- Post added at 12:59 AM ---------- Previous post was at 12:55 AM ----------

By the way, and I'm not telling anybody else what to post. But, as far as my part goes...please nobody start posting link after link and chart after chart to me in order to prove or disprove quantum theory. I'm to lazy to read all that shit and I don't care what the latest mathematical guru on youtube thinks. Now, before somebody thinks I'm a smart azz or I think I can tell anybody else what they can post, please notice I said "I" am not interested. I don't mean you can't post charts and Saganisms and quantum theory to your hearts content.

 

[Hotkafka]

I believe he was looking for the aspect of a "hidden" design work in the UFO theory, and that was to say that E.T. might be using Quantum Mechanics to hide itself/intentions and thus interaction with us primitive primates:

From Cabal: "Perhaps their technology relies on quantum mechanics and perhaps they must conceal their technology, intentions and existence in order to allow this technology to operate?"

An interesting idea and one I would like to read how members here feel about it.

Yep. Using non-sequitors as a talking points seems par for the course in the paranormal.

 

[boomerang]

What makes quantum mechanics relevant to the "woo" factor in esoterica is that it demonstrates that what lies behind the curtain of our everyday perceptions is a world of high strangeness. Bohr probably wasn't joking when he said that reality is comprised of things that behave as if unreal. That's pretty "woo-woo" to me.

 

[trainedobserver]

Yeah, well I don't think the rope/thread theory can hold water under more careful quantitative scrutiny.

You've drawn this conclusion after watching a ten minute video? I have a lot of questions myself, although I've watched all the presentations he has out there (I think), I haven't read Gaede's book yet. I do say it makes incredible sense to me, despite my questions, and is worthy of consideration.

My reconsideration of quantum mechanics came from reading Anthony Peakes' Life after Death and The Daemon where it plays a major part in his ideas, which I think qualifies as quantum mysticism or quantum woo-woo. As I tried to refresh myself on Quantum theory I came across Gaede's destruction of the slit experiment and had to listen to everything else.

---------- Post added at 08:48 AM ---------- Previous post was at 08:21 AM ----------

What makes quantum mechanics relevant to the "woo" factor in esoterica is that it demonstrates that what lies behind the curtain of our everyday perceptions is a world of high strangeness. Bohr probably wasn't joking when he said that reality is comprised of things that behave as if unreal. That's pretty "woo-woo" to me.

Well it may or it may not give an accurate depiction of what is behind the curtain, one can only say it attempts to do so. I think it can be argued that the reality behind the curtain of our everyday perceptions is indeed nothing whatsoever as it appears to us. All that we can ever experience is our brain/mind system's representation of sensory data which essentially are pops, clicks, and chemical reactions with which the brain constructs what we experience from its own substance. From this tremendous abstraction we attempt to suss out what lies on the other side. All of our science is based on this abstraction. Yes indeed, while it is true the reality behind the curtain of our perception is stranger than anything we could possibly imagine, it is also true that it is that which is truly real and it is our perception of it that is totally unreal.

 

[softbeard]

You've drawn this conclusion after watching a ten minute video? I have a lot of questions myself, although I've watched all the presentations he has out there (I think), I haven't read Gaede's book yet. I do say it makes incredible sense to me, despite my questions, and is worthy of consideration.

No, I've drawn this conclusion after thinking about some of the implications of the 'rope' theory. As I've stated, the 'rope' theory is fundamentaly no different than Einstein's general relativity theory which basically states the same concept, except Einstein gave a detailed mathematical formulation and these guys are just ad-libing it.
Furthermore, what you are alluding to with your objection to Quantum mechanics, is the inconsistency between quantum mechanics and Einstein's General Relativity others have pointed out, yet we know from many experiments both are correct. The main point of quantum mechanics is it describes effects on scales so small that space-time itself is discontinuous, ie.; your 'rope' is not rope any longer but a series of segments.

 

[trainedobserver]

No, I've drawn this conclusion after thinking about some of the implications of the 'rope' theory.

So you saying you have drawn these conclusions after watching Gaede talk about it for 10 minutes and then thinking about it for some undisclosed time. I see, that's totally different. I don't understand either theory well enough to make a reasonable argument at this point.

 

[softbeard]

So you saying you have drawn these conclusions after watching Gaede talk about it for 10 minutes and then thinking about it for some undisclosed time. I see, that's totally different. I don't understand either theory well enough to make a reasonable argument at this point.

Oh geez; so you're arguing that you don't quite understand quantum mechanics but believe it is a flawed theory because another theory, that you also don't quite understand, contradicts quantum mechanics. Is that about right?
Look, my point is that quantum mechanics has explained a lot of physical experiments. So before you decide it's got to be wrong because it's too complicated, you better have a better theory that can explain things better. And the rope don't have a hope.
And really trainedobserver, though the math may be daunting, the basic concepts of quantum mechanics and Einstein's general relativity aren't really that daunting. There's not nearly as much hocus pocus in there as you've been led to believe.

 

[trainedobserver]

softbeard,

You have a point. I guess I'll reserve further comment until I've read Gaede's book and looked into it further. My blind acceptance of the quantum business is over though. Clearly there has been a tremendous amount of nonsense generated over the years based on misconceptions about the subject. My attempts at sorting that out for myself as a layman has me thinking quite differently about it at this point. Not that that matters to anyone but myself.