Mathematician: Planck data disappoints multiverse claims

... even 'atheist kooks'. Axel

Skram, you seem to have been labouring under a massive misapprehension. In order for BA77 to be offended by your dismissive posturing he would have to respect your own intelligence. I don't think any people on here could do that, apart, perhaps, from the menagerie of atheist 'cooks', your own hapless 'naive realist' confreres, UD likes to play games with. Axel

Of supplemental note, it appears that 'contextuality' can be applied to 'arbitrary large systems' Macrorealism Emerging from Quantum Physics - Brukner, Caslav; Kofler, Johannes American Physical Society, APS March Meeting, - March 5-9, 2007 Excerpt: for unrestricted measurement accuracy a violation of macrorealism (i.e. a violation of the Leggett-Garg inequalities) is possible for arbitrary large systems.,, http://adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2007APS..MARB33005B bornagain77

Here are a few notes on contextuality and Leggett's Inequality which JimFit mentioned: (and also mentioned at the 9:30 minute mark of JimFit's first video)

Quantum physics says goodbye to reality - Apr 20, 2007 Excerpt: Many realizations of the thought experiment have indeed verified the violation of Bell's inequality. These have ruled out all hidden-variables theories based on joint assumptions of realism, meaning that reality exists when we are not observing it; and locality, meaning that separated events cannot influence one another instantaneously. But a violation of Bell's inequality does not tell specifically which assumption – realism, locality or both – is discordant with quantum mechanics. Markus Aspelmeyer, Anton Zeilinger and colleagues from the University of Vienna, however, have now shown that realism is more of a problem than locality in the quantum world. They devised an experiment that violates a different inequality proposed by physicist Anthony Leggett in 2003 that relies only on realism, and relaxes the reliance on locality. To do this, rather than taking measurements along just one plane of polarization, the Austrian team took measurements in additional, perpendicular planes to check for elliptical polarization. They found that, just as in the realizations of Bell's thought experiment, Leggett's inequality is violated – thus stressing the quantum-mechanical assertion that reality does not exist when we're not observing it. "Our study shows that 'just' giving up the concept of locality would not be enough to obtain a more complete description of quantum mechanics," Aspelmeyer told Physics Web. "You would also have to give up certain intuitive features of realism." http://physicsworld.com/cws/article/news/27640 Nonlocal "realistic" Leggett models can be considered refuted by the before-before experiment - 2008 - Antoine Suarez Center for Quantum Philosophy, Excerpt: (page 3) The independence of quantum measurement from the presence of human consciousness has not been proved wrong by any experiment to date.,,, "nonlocal correlations happen from outside space-time, in the sense that there is no story in space-time that tells us how they happen." http://www.quantumphil.org/SuarezFOOP201R2.pdf A simple approach to test Leggett’s model of nonlocal quantum correlations - 2009 Excerpt of Abstract: Bell's strong sentence "Correlations cry out for explanations" remains relevant,,,we go beyond Leggett's model, and show that one cannot ascribe even partially defined individual properties to the components of a maximally entangled pair. http://www.mendeley.com/research/a-simple-approach-to-test-leggetts-model-of-nonlocal-quantum-correlations/ Quantum Measurements: Common Sense Is Not Enough, Physicists Show - July 2009 Excerpt: scientists have now proven comprehensively in an experiment for the first time that the experimentally observed phenomena cannot be described by non-contextual models with hidden variables. http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2009/07/090722142824.htm Violation of Leggett inequalities in orbital angular momentum subspaces - 2010 Main results. We extend the violation of Leggett inequalities to the orbital angular momentum (OAM) state space of photons, which is associated with their helical wavefronts. We define our measurements in a Bloch sphere for OAM and measure the Leggett parameter LN (where N is the number of settings for the signal photon) as we change the angle ? (see figure). We observe excellent agreement with quantum mechanical predictions (red line), and show a violation of five and six standard deviations for N = 3 and N = 4, respectively. http://iopscience.iop.org/1367-2630/12/12/123007 Quantum theory survives latest challenge - Dec 15, 2010 Excerpt: Even assuming that entangled photons could respond to one another instantly, the correlations between polarization states still violated Leggett’s inequality. The conclusion being that instantaneous communication is not enough to explain entanglement and realism must also be abandoned. This conclusion is now backed up by Sonja Franke-Arnold and collegues at the University of Glasgow and University of Strathclyde who have performed another experiment showing that entangled photons exhibit,, stronger correlations than allowed for particles with individually defined properties – even if they would be allowed to communicate constantly. http://physicsworld.com/cws/article/news/2010/dec/15/quantum-theory-survives-latest-challenge Experimental non-classicality of an indivisible quantum system - Zeilinger 2011 Excerpt: Page 491: "This represents a violation of (Leggett's) inequality (3) by more than 120 standard deviations, demonstrating that no joint probability distribution is capable of describing our results." The violation also excludes any non-contextual hidden-variable model. The result does, however, agree well with quantum mechanical predictions, as we will show now.,,, https://vcq.quantum.at/fileadmin/Publications/Experimental%20non-classicality%20of%20an%20indivisible.pdf Contextuality is 'magic ingredient' for quantum computing - June 11, 2012 Excerpt: Contextuality was first recognized as a feature of quantum theory almost 50 years ago. The theory showed that it was impossible to explain measurements on quantum systems in the same way as classical systems. In the classical world, measurements simply reveal properties that the system had, such as colour, prior to the measurement. In the quantum world, the property that you discover through measurement is not the property that the system actually had prior to the measurement process. What you observe necessarily depends on how you carried out the observation. Imagine turning over a playing card. It will be either a red suit or a black suit - a two-outcome measurement. Now imagine nine playing cards laid out in a grid with three rows and three columns. Quantum mechanics predicts something that seems contradictory – there must be an even number of red cards in every row and an odd number of red cards in every column. Try to draw a grid that obeys these rules and you will find it impossible. It's because quantum measurements cannot be interpreted as merely revealing a pre-existing property in the same way that flipping a card reveals a red or black suit. Measurement outcomes depend on all the other measurements that are performed – the full context of the experiment. Contextuality means that quantum measurements can not be thought of as simply revealing some pre-existing properties of the system under study. That's part of the weirdness of quantum mechanics. http://phys.org/news/2014-06-weird-magic-ingredient-quantum.html

Leggett's Inequality, the mathematics behind it, and the Theistic implications of it, are discussed beginning at the 24:15 minute mark of the following video:

Quantum Weirdness and God 8-9-2014 by Paul Giem - video https://www.youtube.com/watch?feature=player_detailpage&v=N7HHz14tS1c#t=1449

Here is the article by Dr. Richard Conn Henry that Dr. Paul Giem discussed at the 32:28 minute mark of the preceding video

Alain Aspect and Anton Zeilinger by Richard Conn Henry - Physics Professor - John Hopkins University Excerpt: Alain Aspect is the physicist who performed the key experiment that established that if you want a real universe, it must be non-local (Einstein’s “spooky action at a distance”). Aspect comments on new work by his successor in conducting such experiments, Anton Zeilinger and his colleagues, who have now performed an experiment that suggests that “giving up the concept of locality is not sufficient to be consistent with quantum experiments, unless certain intuitive features of realism are abandoned.” Be clear what is going on here. Quantum mechanics itself is not crying out for such experiments! Quantum mechanics is doing just fine, thank you, having performed flawlessly since inception. No, it is people whose cherished philosophical beliefs are being threatened that cry out for such experiments, exactly as Einstein used to do, and with exactly the same hope (we think in vain): that quantum mechanics can be refined to the point where it requires (or at least allows) belief in the independent reality of the natural world it describes. Quantum mechanics makes no mention of reality (Figure 1). Indeed, quantum mechanics proclaims, “We have no need of that hypothesis.” Now we are beginning to see that quantum mechanics might actually exclude any possibility of mind-independent reality and already does exclude any reality that resembles our usual concept of such (Aspect: “it implies renouncing the kind of realism I would have liked”). Non-local causality is a concept that had never played any role in physics, other than in rejection (“action-at-a-distance”), until Aspect showed in 1981 that the alternative would be the abandonment of the cherished belief in mind-independent reality; suddenly, spooky-action-at-a-distance became the lesser of two evils, in the minds of the materialists. Why do people cling with such ferocity to belief in a mind-independent reality? It is surely because if there is no such reality, then ultimately (as far as we can know) mind alone exists. And if mind is not a product of real matter, but rather is the creator of the illusion of material reality (which has, in fact, despite the materialists, been known to be the case, since the discovery of quantum mechanics in 1925), then a theistic view of our existence becomes the only rational alternative to solipsism. *(solipsism is the philosophical idea that only one's own mind is sure to exist). (Dr. Henry's referenced experiment and paper - “An experimental test of non-local realism” by S. Gröblacher et. al., Nature 446, 871, April 2007 - “To be or not to be local” by Alain Aspect, Nature 446, 866, April 2007 (Leggett's Inequality: Violated, as of 2011, to 120 standard deviations)

bornagain77

skram i am sorry but you arguing with delusional arguments since hidden variables doesn't exist. If you have proved them come back with PROOF and a Nobel Prize. John Bell theorized that maybe the particles can signal faster than the speed of light. This is what he advocated in his interview in “The Ghost in the Atom.” But the violation of Leggett’s inequality in 2007 takes away that possibility and rules out all non-local hidden variables. Observation instantly defines what properties a particle has and if you assume they had properties before we measured them, then you need evidence, because right now there is none which is why realism is dead, and materialism dies with it. How does the particle know what we are going to pick so it can conform to that? JimFit

JimFit, I'm sorry, but hidden variables are an issue separate from the problem of quantum measurement. skram

skram We cannot escape the implications of the Kochen-Specker theorem. Here these 2 videos will help you https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=qB7d5V71vUE&app=desktop https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=H6HLjpj4Nt4&app=desktop JimFit

So, BA77, do I understand it correctly that you will not try to answer my question about the double-slit experiment? skram

skram, this debate is pointless at this time for me. You have no interest in addressing any of the evidence honestly, and I have no interest in chasing your smug condescending tail in a circle. If I have something to add later that is constructive I may, but for now I see no point in our continuing. Plus I have better things to do today! bornagain77

BA77, If my "appeal to consensus" does not solve the problem, how does your appeal to Dick Henry solve it? :) Again, let me ask you: Is a conscious observe necessary to disrupt the interference pattern in a double-slit experiment? If there is no observer but only a measuring device, will the fringes still appear? skram

sham skram 85, to repeat, decoherence does not solve the problem, nor does your appeal to a consensus solve the problem. The Mental Universe – Richard Conn Henry – Professor of Physics John Hopkins University Excerpt: The only reality is mind and observations, but observations are not of things. To see the Universe as it really is, we must abandon our tendency to conceptualize observations as things.,,, Physicists shy away from the truth because the truth is so alien to everyday physics. A common way to evade the mental universe is to invoke “decoherence” – the notion that “the physical environment” is sufficient to create reality, independent of the human mind. Yet the idea that any irreversible act of amplification is necessary to collapse the wave function is known to be wrong: in “Renninger-type” experiments, the wave function is collapsed simply by your human mind seeing nothing. The universe is entirely mental,,,, The Universe is immaterial — mental and spiritual. Live, and enjoy. http://henry.pha.jhu.edu/The.mental.universe.pdf bornagain77

Further notes on Jaki's "The Mind and Its Now" and how 'the now' correlates with special relativity. Of preliminary note: 'Observation' has a far more important place in science than many seem to realize or are willing to admit. Even Einstein's breakthroughs in relativity came from thought experiments in which he gave a hypothetical observer a privileged frame of reference to make measurements:

Introduction to special relativity Excerpt: Einstein's approach was based on thought experiments, calculations, and the principle of relativity, which is the notion that all physical laws should appear the same (that is, take the same basic form) to all inertial observers.,,, Each observer has a distinct "frame of reference" in which velocities are measured,,,, http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Introduction_to_special_relativity

‘If’ a hypothetical observer were to accelerate to the speed of light, time, as we understand it, would come to a complete stop for that hypothetical observer. To grasp the whole ‘time coming to a complete stop at the speed of light’ concept a little more easily, imagine moving away from the face of a clock at the speed of light. Would not the hands on the clock stay stationary as you moved away from the face of the clock at the speed of light? Moving away from the face of a clock at the speed of light happens to be the same ‘thought experiment’ that gave Einstein his breakthrough insight into e=mc2, i.e. special relativity.

Albert Einstein - Special Relativity - Insight Into Eternity - 'thought experiment' video https://vimeo.com/93101738

It is shown that time, as we understand it, does not pass for light. Yet, if time does not pass for light, why is light not simply 'frozen in time' so as to reflect its timeless nature? The only way it is possible for time not to pass for light, and yet for light to move to our temporal frame of reference is for light to be of a 'higher dimensional' value of time than our temporal time is. Otherwise, if light were of the same temporal time reference as we are, light would simply be ‘frozen in time’ to our temporal frame of reference. Richard Swenson puts the higher dimensional, i.e. 'eternal', nature of light like this:

"The laws of relativity have changed timeless existence from a theological claim to a physical reality. Light, you see, is outside of time, a fact of nature proven in thousands of experiments at hundreds of universities. I don’t pretend to know how tomorrow can exist simultaneously with today and yesterday. But at the speed of light they actually and rigorously do. Time does not pass." Richard Swenson - More Than Meets The Eye, Chpt. 12

This following confirmation of the time dilation of light is my favorite since they have actually caught the time dilation of light on film (of note: light travels approx. 1 foot in a nanosecond (billionth of a second) whilst the camera used in the experiment takes a trillion pictures a second):

Amazing --- light filmed at 1,000,000,000,000 Frames/Second! - video (so fast that at 9:00 Minute mark of video the time dilation effect of relativity is caught on film) http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Y_9vd4HWlVA

A better line of evidence that supports the inference that ‘tomorrow can exist simultaneously with today and yesterday’, at the ‘eternal’ speed of light, is visualizing what would happen if a hypothetical observer were to approach the speed of light. Please note, at the 3:22 minute mark of the following video, when the 3-Dimensional world ‘folds and collapses’ into a tunnel shape as a ‘hypothetical’ observer moves towards the ‘higher dimension’ of the speed of light, (Of note: This following video was made by two Australian University Physics Professors with a supercomputer.).

Approaching The Speed Of Light - Optical Effects – video https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=JQnHTKZBTI4

It is also very interesting to note that this strange higher dimensional, eternal, framework for time, found in both special relativity and general relativity, finds corroboration in Near Death Experience testimonies:

'Earthly time has no meaning in the spirit realm. There is no concept of before or after. Everything - past, present, future - exists simultaneously.' - Kimberly Clark Sharp - NDE Experiencer 'There is no way to tell whether minutes, hours or years go by. Existence is the only reality and it is inseparable from the eternal now.' - John Star - NDE Experiencer 'In the 'spirit world,,, instantly, there was no sense of time. See, everything on earth is related to time. You got up this morning, you are going to go to bed tonight. Something is new, it will get old. Something is born, it's going to die. Everything on the physical plane is relative to time, but everything in the spiritual plane is relative to eternity. Instantly I was in total consciousness and awareness of eternity, and you and I as we live in this earth cannot even comprehend it, because everything that we have here is filled within the veil of the temporal life. In the spirit life that is more real than anything else and it is awesome. Eternity as a concept is awesome. There is no such thing as time. I knew that whatever happened was going to go on and on.' In The Presence Of Almighty God – The NDE of Mickey Robinson – video https://vimeo.com/92172680

As well, the tunnel, that was noted at the 3:22 minute mark of the already referenced 'Approaching The Speed Of Light' video, also finds correspondence in Near Death Experience testimonies:

"Very often as they're moving through the tunnel, there's a very bright mystical light ... not like a light we're used to in our earthly lives. People call this mystical light, brilliant like a million times a million suns..." - Jeffrey Long M.D. - has studied NDE's extensively "I started to move toward the light. The way I moved, the physics, was completely different than it is here on Earth. It was something I had never felt before and never felt since. It was a whole different sensation of motion. I obviously wasn't walking or skipping or crawling. I was not floating. I was flowing. I was flowing toward the light. I was accelerating and I knew I was accelerating, but then again, I didn't really feel the acceleration. I just knew I was accelerating toward the light. Again, the physics was different - the physics of motion of time, space, travel. It was completely different in that tunnel, than it is here on Earth. I came out into the light and when I came out into the light, I realized that I was in heaven." Barbara Springer - Near Death Experience - The Tunnel - video https://vimeo.com/79072924 “I was in a body, and the only way that I can describe it was a body of energy, or of light. And this body had a form. It had a head, it had arms and it had legs. And it was like it was made out of light. And it was everything that was me. All of my memories, my consciousness, everything.”,,, “And then this vehicle formed itself around me. Vehicle is the only thing, or tube, or something, but it was a mode of transportation that’s for sure! And it formed around me. And there was no one in it with me. I was in it alone. But I knew there were other people ahead of me and behind me. What they were doing I don’t know, but there were people ahead of me and people behind me, but I was alone in my particular conveyance. And I could see out of it. And it went at a tremendously, horrifically, rapid rate of speed. But it wasn’t unpleasant. It was beautiful in fact. I was reclining in this thing, I wasn’t sitting straight up, but I wasn’t lying down either. I was sitting back. And it was just so fast. I can’t even begin to tell you where it went or whatever it was just fast!" – Vicki’s NDE – Blind since birth – Near Death Experience - video https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=e65KhcCS5-Y

If anyone doubts the veracity of Near Death Experience testimonies, I remind them that the observational evidence for the veracity of Near Death Experiences is far stronger than it is for Darwinian evolution:

Near-Death Experiences: Putting a Darwinist's Evidentiary Standards to the Test - Dr. Michael Egnor - October 15, 2012 Excerpt: Indeed, about 20 percent of NDE's are corroborated, which means that there are independent ways of checking about the veracity of the experience. The patients knew of things that they could not have known except by extraordinary perception -- such as describing details of surgery that they watched while their heart was stopped, etc. Additionally, many NDE's have a vividness and a sense of intense reality that one does not generally encounter in dreams or hallucinations.,,, The most "parsimonious" explanation -- the simplest scientific explanation -- is that the (Near Death) experience was real. Tens of millions of people have had such experiences. That is tens of millions of more times than we have observed the origin of species , (or the origin of life, or the origin of a protein/gene, or a molecular machine), which is never.,,, The materialist reaction, in short, is unscientific and close-minded. NDE's show fellows like Coyne at their sneering unscientific irrational worst. Somebody finds a crushed fragment of a fossil and it's earth-shaking evidence. Tens of million of people have life-changing spiritual experiences and it's all a big yawn. Note: Dr. Egnor is professor and vice-chairman of neurosurgery at the State University of New York at Stony Brook. http://www.evolutionnews.org/2012/10/near_death_expe_1065301.html

Indeed, to the surprise of the following researchers, Near Death testimonies were found to be 'even more real than real'

'Afterlife' feels 'even more real than real,' researcher says - Wed April 10, 2013 Excerpt: "If you use this questionnaire ... if the memory is real, it's richer, and if the memory is recent, it's richer," he said. The coma scientists weren't expecting what the tests revealed. "To our surprise, NDEs were much richer than any imagined event or any real event of these coma survivors," Laureys reported. The memories of these experiences beat all other memories, hands down, for their vivid sense of reality. "The difference was so vast," he said with a sense of astonishment. Even if the patient had the experience a long time ago, its memory was as rich "as though it was yesterday," Laureys said. http://www.cnn.com/2013/04/09/health/belgium-near-death-experiences/

'Even more real than real' is certainly a provocative statement for the researchers to make. Exactly how does something become 'more real than real'? I hold that the perception becomes 'more real than real' is because, when a soul enters enternity, that that soul is closer to the source of all reality. i.e. closer to God! bornagain77

BA77, You went on a tangent, as usual. Let me repeat something that any physicist knows well. You do not need a conscious observer to affect the double-slit experiment and prevent quantum interference. Entanglement to any environment will do nicely. No need for a human. skram

BA77, The claim is reality does not exist when we’re not observing it. We can prove (without citing papers and going into QM) that it is not true by using a camera. Your claim is even the camera is an observer. Let's say you look at the reflection of an object in a mirror. Now do you see the object disappearing? Will you claim mirror too is an observer ? Me_Think

Another thing that I find argues strongly for the role of mind in Quantum Mechanics is the following exchange that Einstein had with a philosopher. Einstein was asked (by a philosopher):

"Can physics demonstrate the existence of 'the now' in order to make the notion of 'now' into a scientifically valid term?"

Einstein's answer was categorical, he said:

"The experience of 'the now' cannot be turned into an object of physical measurement, it can never be a part of physics."

Quote was taken from the last few minutes of this following video or can be read in full context in the article following the video:

Stanley L. Jaki: "The Mind and Its Now" https://vimeo.com/10588094 The Mind and Its Now - Stanley L. Jaki, July 2008 Excerpts: There can be no active mind without its sensing its existence in the moment called now.,,, Three quarters of a century ago Charles Sherrington, the greatest modern student of the brain, spoke memorably on the mind's baffling independence of the brain. The mind lives in a self-continued now or rather in the now continued in the self. This life involves the entire brain, some parts of which overlap, others do not. ,,,There is no physical parallel to the mind's ability to extend from its position in the momentary present to its past moments, or in its ability to imagine its future. The mind remains identical with itself while it lives through its momentary nows. ,,, the now is immensely richer an experience than any marvelous set of numbers, even if science could give an account of the set of numbers, in terms of energy levels. The now is not a number. It is rather a word, the most decisive of all words. It is through experiencing that word that the mind comes alive and registers all existence around and well beyond. ,,, All our moments, all our nows, flow into a personal continuum, of which the supreme form is the NOW which is uncreated, because it simply IS. http://www.saintcd.com/science-and-faith/277-the-mind-and-its-now.html?showall=1&limitstart=

The statement, 'the now' cannot be turned into an object of physical measurement’, was an interesting statement for Einstein to make since 'the now of the mind' has, from many recent experiments in quantum mechanics, undermined the space-time of Einstein's General Relativity as to being the absolute frame of reference for reality. For instance, Wheeler's delayed choice experiment:

Quantum Mechanics - Double Slit and Delayed Choice Experiments - video https://vimeo.com/87175892 Here is a interesting quote at the 9:10 minute mark of the preceding video "That's the enigma. That our choice of what experiment to do determines the prior state of the electron. Somehow or other we had an influence on it which appears to travel backwards in time." Fred Kuttner - Univ. Of California “Thus one decides the photon shall have come by one route or by both routes after it has already done its travel” John A. Wheeler Wheeler’s Classic Delayed Choice Experiment: Excerpt: Now, for many billions of years the photon is in transit in region 3. Yet we can choose (many billions of years later) which experimental set up to employ – the single wide-focus, or the two narrowly focused instruments. We have chosen whether to know which side of the galaxy the photon passed by (by choosing whether to use the two-telescope set up or not, which are the instruments that would give us the information about which side of the galaxy the photon passed). We have delayed this choice until a time long after the particles “have passed by one side of the galaxy, or the other side of the galaxy, or both sides of the galaxy,” so to speak. Yet, it seems paradoxically that our later choice of whether to obtain this information determines which side of the galaxy the light passed, so to speak, billions of years ago. So it seems that time has nothing to do with effects of quantum mechanics. And, indeed, the original thought experiment was not based on any analysis of how particles evolve and behave over time – it was based on the mathematics. This is what the mathematics predicted for a result, and this is exactly the result obtained in the laboratory. http://www.bottomlayer.com/bottom/basic_delayed_choice.htm Genesis, Quantum Physics and Reality Excerpt: Simply put, an experiment on Earth can be made in such a way that it determines if one photon comes along either on the right or the left side or if it comes (as a wave) along both sides of the gravitational lens (of the galaxy) at the same time. However, how could the photons have known billions of years ago that someday there would be an earth with inhabitants on it, making just this experiment? ,,, This is big trouble for the multi-universe theory and for the “hidden-variables” approach. - per Greer “It begins to look as we ourselves, by our last minute decision, have an influence on what a photon will do when it has already accomplished most of its doing… we have to say that we ourselves have an undeniable part in what we have always called the past. The past is not really the past until is has been registered. Or to put it another way, the past has no meaning or existence unless it exists as a record in the present.” – John Wheeler – The Ghost In The Atom – Page 66-68

Quantum Mechanics, in regards to time, states, sans Laplace, "I have no need of that hypothesis". i.e. 'The now of the mind', contrary to what Einstein himself thought was possible for experimental physics, apparently takes precedence over past events in time in quantum mechanics! A few related notes:

What Does Quantum Physics Have to Do with Free Will? - By Antoine Suarez - July 22, 2013 Excerpt: What is more, recent experiments are bringing to light that the experimenter’s free will and consciousness should be considered axioms (founding principles) of standard quantum physics theory. So for instance, in experiments involving “entanglement” (the phenomenon Einstein called “spooky action at a distance”), to conclude that quantum correlations of two particles are nonlocal (i.e. cannot be explained by signals traveling at velocity less than or equal to the speed of light), it is crucial to assume that the experimenter can make free choices, and is not constrained in what orientation he/she sets the measuring devices. To understand these implications it is crucial to be aware that quantum physics is not only a description of the material and visible world around us, but also speaks about non-material influences coming from outside the space-time.,,, https://www.bigquestionsonline.com/content/what-does-quantum-physics-have-do-free-will Looking beyond space and time to cope with quantum theory – 29 October 2012 Excerpt: “Our result gives weight to the idea that quantum correlations somehow arise from outside spacetime, in the sense that no story in space and time can describe them,” http://www.quantumlah.org/highlight/121029_hidden_influences.php LIVING IN A QUANTUM WORLD - Vlatko Vedral - 2011 Excerpt: Thus, the fact that quantum mechanics applies on all scales forces us to confront the theory’s deepest mysteries. We cannot simply write them off as mere details that matter only on the very smallest scales. For instance, space and time are two of the most fundamental classical concepts, but according to quantum mechanics they are secondary. The entanglements are primary. They interconnect quantum systems without reference to space and time. If there were a dividing line between the quantum and the classical worlds, we could use the space and time of the classical world to provide a framework for describing quantum processes. But without such a dividing line—and, indeed, with¬out a truly classical world—we lose this framework. We must explain space and time (4D space-time) as somehow emerging from fundamentally spaceless and timeless physics. http://phy.ntnu.edu.tw/~chchang/Notes10b/0611038.pdf

Hmmm, I wonder Whom has been postulated to be beyond space and time for thousands of years so as to be an adequate explanation for the 'emergence' of space-time?

An Interview with David Berlinski - Jonathan Witt Berlinski: There is no argument against religion that is not also an argument against mathematics. Mathematicians are capable of grasping a world of objects that lies beyond space and time …. Interviewer:… Come again(?) … Berlinski: No need to come again: I got to where I was going the first time. The number four, after all, did not come into existence at a particular time, and it is not going to go out of existence at another time. It is neither here nor there. Nonetheless we are in some sense able to grasp the number by a faculty of our minds. Mathematical intuition is utterly mysterious. So for that matter is the fact that mathematical objects such as a Lie Group or a differentiable manifold have the power to interact with elementary particles or accelerating forces. But these are precisely the claims that theologians have always made as well – that human beings are capable by an exercise of their devotional abilities to come to some understanding of the deity; and the deity, although beyond space and time, is capable of interacting with material objects. http://tofspot.blogspot.com/2013/10/found-upon-web-and-reprinted-here.html

Moreover, it is interesting to note the epistemological failure that results for the atheist when the atheist denies the reality of his mind, specifically when he denies free will:

Sam Harris's Free Will: The Medial Pre-Frontal Cortex Did It - Martin Cothran - November 9, 2012 Excerpt: There is something ironic about the position of thinkers like Harris on issues like this: they claim that their position is the result of the irresistible necessity of logic (in fact, they pride themselves on their logic). Their belief is the consequent, in a ground/consequent relation between their evidence and their conclusion. But their very stated position is that any mental state -- including their position on this issue -- is the effect of a physical, not logical cause. By their own logic, it isn't logic that demands their assent to the claim that free will is an illusion, but the prior chemical state of their brains. The only condition under which we could possibly find their argument convincing is if they are not true. The claim that free will is an illusion requires the possibility that minds have the freedom to assent to a logical argument, a freedom denied by the claim itself. It is an assent that must, in order to remain logical and not physiological, presume a perspective outside the physical order. http://www.evolutionnews.org/2012/11/sam_harriss_fre066221.html

Thus not only do the experiments of Quantum Mechanics consistently indicate a primary role of 'Mind and free will' in the experiments, when the atheist denies the reality of his free will he also winds up in epistemological failure so as to try to make a coherent argument for a 'mindless' reality. i.e. In the end, the atheist's argument for no mind or free will defeats itself! Prediction: “nobody’s mind, presuming atheists had a ‘mind’, will be changed.” bornagain77

BA77: Feynman's quote has nothing to do with the double-slit experiment. Try again. Defend your claim. Make an actual argument instead of copying and pasting stuff. skram

"thoroughly debunked" Funny, I saw no 'thorough debunking' but merely grumbling over definitions and an ignoring of weightier matters. (sprinkled with smugness) Prediction confirmed, "nobody’s mind, presuming atheists had a ‘mind’, will be changed." bornagain77

"This is an assertion, not an argument" an experimentally backed assertion! The Scientific Method - Richard Feynman - video Quote: 'If it disagrees with experiment, it’s wrong. In that simple statement is the key to science. It doesn’t make any difference how beautiful your guess is, it doesn’t matter how smart you are who made the guess, or what his name is… If it disagrees with experiment, it’s wrong. That’s all there is to it.” https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=OL6-x0modwY bornagain77

This kind of interpretation was thoroughly debunked by Lubos Motl on his blog the moment Zeilinger et al.'s paper appeared: http://motls.blogspot.com/2012/03/has-anton-zeilinger-created-time.html Piotr

BA77:

The preceding experiment clearly shows, and removes any doubt whatsoever, that the ‘material’ detector recording information in the double slit is secondary to the experiment and that a conscious observer being able to consciously know the ‘which path’ information of a photon with local certainty, is of primary importance in the experiment. You can see a more complete explanation of the startling results of the experiment at the 9:11 minute mark of the following video:

This is an assertion, not an argument, BA77. skram

"when no electrons are going through the slits and thus your mind can no longer affect the result of the experiment," “If we attempt to attribute an objective meaning to the quantum state of a single system, curious paradoxes appear: quantum effects mimic not only instantaneous action-at-a-distance but also, as seen here, influence of future actions on past events, even after these events have been irrevocably recorded.” Asher Peres, Delayed choice for entanglement swapping. J. Mod. Opt. 47, 139-143 (2000). The preceding experiment clearly shows, and removes any doubt whatsoever, that the ‘material’ detector recording information in the double slit is secondary to the experiment and that a conscious observer being able to consciously know the ‘which path’ information of a photon with local certainty, is of primary importance in the experiment. You can see a more complete explanation of the startling results of the experiment at the 9:11 minute mark of the following video: Delayed Choice Quantum Eraser Experiment Explained – 2014 video http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=H6HLjpj4Nt4 i.e. "That’s why, when Peierls was asked whether a machine could be an “observer,” he said no, explaining that “the quantum mechanical description is in terms of knowledge, and knowledge requires somebody who knows.” Not a purely physical thing, but a mind." Prediction, nobody's mind, presuming atheists had a 'mind', will be changed. bornagain77

BA77, quoting Barr:

Couldn’t an inanimate physical device (say, a camera) carry out a “measurement” (minus the ‘observer’ in quantum mechanics)? That would run into the very problem pointed out by von Neumann: If the “observer” were just a purely physical entity, such as a Geiger counter, one could in principle write down a bigger wavefunction that described not only the thing being measured but also the observer. And, when calculated with the Schrödinger equation, that bigger wave function would not jump! Again: as long as only purely physical entities are involved, they are governed by an equation that says that the probabilities don’t jump. That’s why, when Peierls was asked whether a machine could be an “observer,” he said no, explaining that “the quantum mechanical description is in terms of knowledge, and knowledge requires somebody who knows.” Not a purely physical thing, but a mind.

BA77, you tell me things I have long known. Let me now tell you something you don't. Just don't be upset. OK? One can conduct an experiment in which electrons go through two slits and form a quantum interference pattern on a screen behind the two slits. One can then add a human observer who tracks (with the help of a measuring device, of course) through which slit the electrons pass, and the interference pattern disappears. That's quantum entanglement of electrons with the device and with the observer's brain (mind if you insist). The funny thing is you can eliminate the observer and just keep the device, recording the experiment on video. If you watch the video afterwards, when no electrons are going through the slits and thus your mind can no longer affect the result of the experiment, the interference pattern is not there. So no, you do not need a conscious observer to prevent quantum interference. Entanglement to any environment will do nicely. Read Zurek's paper. It is short and to the point. Oh well, who am I kidding? :) skram

“If we attempt to attribute an objective meaning to the quantum state of a single system, curious paradoxes appear: quantum effects mimic not only instantaneous action-at-a-distance but also, as seen here, influence of future actions on past events, even after these events have been irrevocably recorded.” Asher Peres, Delayed choice for entanglement swapping. J. Mod. Opt. 47, 139-143 (2000). Quantum physics mimics spooky action into the past – April 23, 2012 Excerpt: The authors experimentally realized a “Gedankenexperiment” called “delayed-choice entanglement swapping”, formulated by Asher Peres in the year 2000.... According to the famous words of Albert Einstein, the effects of quantum entanglement appear as “spooky action at a distance”. The recent experiment has gone one remarkable step further. “Within a naïve classical world view, quantum mechanics can even mimic an influence of future actions on past events”, says Anton Zeilinger. http://phys.org/news/2012-04-q.....ction.html The preceding experiment clearly shows, and removes any doubt whatsoever, that the ‘material’ detector recording information in the double slit is secondary to the experiment and that a conscious observer being able to consciously know the ‘which path’ information of a photon with local certainty, is of primary importance in the experiment. You can see a more complete explanation of the startling results of the experiment at the 9:11 minute mark of the following video: Delayed Choice Quantum Eraser Experiment Explained – 2014 video http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=H6HLjpj4Nt4 Does Quantum Physics Make it Easier to Believe in God? Stephen M. Barr – July 10, 2012 Excerpt: Couldn’t an inanimate physical device (say, a camera) carry out a “measurement” (minus the ‘observer’ in quantum mechanics)? That would run into the very problem pointed out by von Neumann: If the “observer” were just a purely physical entity, such as a Geiger counter, one could in principle write down a bigger wavefunction that described not only the thing being measured but also the observer. And, when calculated with the Schrödinger equation, that bigger wave function would not jump! Again: as long as only purely physical entities are involved, they are governed by an equation that says that the probabilities don’t jump. That’s why, when Peierls was asked whether a machine could be an “observer,” he said no, explaining that “the quantum mechanical description is in terms of knowledge, and knowledge requires somebody who knows.” Not a purely physical thing, but a mind. https://www.bigquestionsonline.com/content/does-quantum-physics-make-it-easier-believe-god bornagain77

bornagain77 @ 68

They found that, just as in the realizations of Bell’s thought experiment, Leggett’s inequality is violated – thus stressing the quantum-mechanical assertion that reality does not exist when we’re not observing it.

Stand with a video camera. Aim at something. Start recording. Look away from the thing. See the recording. Did the thing disappear? Me_Think

skram, you are a jerk. The evidence I listed speaks for itself. But from what poor ole ignorant God believing me can see of the evidence, it is not conducive to your atheistic naturalism in the least. The whole of quantum mechanics, despite the constant denial of atheists/materialists, is just plain downright, to use Einstein's word, "Spooky" to the core. Goodnight and Goodbye. I have better people to insult me than you! bornagain77

BA77:

They found that, just as in the realizations of Bell’s thought experiment, Leggett’s inequality is violated – thus stressing the quantum-mechanical assertion that reality does not exist when we’re not observing it.

And how does that contradict anything I said? What does this have to do with observers and decoherence? Don't BS me, BA77. It doesn't work. skram

BA77:

as to your claim of decoherence, see interation free measurement here:

This isn't an argument. You just post random stuff in response to a comment whose meaning you did not understand. skram

BA77:

Thanks for pointing that out. Will correct that word in my notes.

You better run that by a more trustworthy source. You just cannot take an atheist's word! skram

"120 standard deviations is not a level of precision. It is a level of violation." Thanks for pointing that out. Will correct that word in my notes. The following articles give us common folk a small glimpse as to what it truly means for Leggett's Inequality to be 'violated' by '120 standard deviations': Standard deviation Excerpt: Particle physics uses a standard of "5 sigma" for the declaration of a discovery.[3] At five-sigma there is only one chance in nearly two million that a random fluctuation would yield the result. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Standard_deviation#Particle_physics SSDD: a 22 sigma event is consistent with the physics of fair coins? - June 23, 2013 Excerpt: So 500 coins heads is (500-250)/11 = 22 standard deviations (22 sigma) from expectation! These numbers are so extreme, it’s probably inappropriate to even use the normal distribution’s approximation of the binomial distribution, and hence “22 sigma” just becomes a figure of speech in this extreme case… https://uncommondesc.wpengine.com/mathematics/ssdd-a-22-sigma-event-is-consistent-with-the-physics-of-fair-coins/ bornagain77

as to your claim of decoherence, see interation free measurement here: https://uncommondesc.wpengine.com/intelligent-design/mathematician-planck-data-disappoints-multiverse-claims/#comment-548471 Moreover, decoherence is shown to fail as an explanation here: Delayed Choice Quantum Eraser Experiment Explained – 2014 video http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=H6HLjpj4Nt4 here The Measurement Problem in quantum mechanics – (Inspiring Philosophy) – 2014 video https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=qB7d5V71vUE and here: Quantum physics says goodbye to reality - Apr 20, 2007 Excerpt: Many realizations of the thought experiment have indeed verified the violation of Bell's inequality. These have ruled out all hidden-variables theories based on joint assumptions of realism, meaning that reality exists when we are not observing it; and locality, meaning that separated events cannot influence one another instantaneously. But a violation of Bell's inequality does not tell specifically which assumption – realism, locality or both – is discordant with quantum mechanics. Markus Aspelmeyer, Anton Zeilinger and colleagues from the University of Vienna, however, have now shown that realism is more of a problem than locality in the quantum world. They devised an experiment that violates a different inequality proposed by physicist Anthony Leggett in 2003 that relies only on realism, and relaxes the reliance on locality. To do this, rather than taking measurements along just one plane of polarization, the Austrian team took measurements in additional, perpendicular planes to check for elliptical polarization. They found that, just as in the realizations of Bell's thought experiment, Leggett's inequality is violated – thus stressing the quantum-mechanical assertion that reality does not exist when we're not observing it. "Our study shows that 'just' giving up the concept of locality would not be enough to obtain a more complete description of quantum mechanics," Aspelmeyer told Physics Web. "You would also have to give up certain intuitive features of realism." http://physicsworld.com/cws/article/news/27640 bornagain77

BA77:

This following experiment verified Leggett’s inequality to a stunning 120 standard deviations level of precision

120 standard deviations is not a level of precision. It is a level of violation. Just sayin'. skram

Good night, BA77. skram

BA77, You are obviously replying to me, so don't pretend that it has nothing to do with me. :) If I were like you, I would certainly be tempted to post peer-reviewed articles in response. For example, one by Wojciech Zurek, a prominent expert in the field of quantum measurement, who works at the Los Alamos National Lab. This one, for instance: Decoherence and the Transition from Quantum to Classical—Revisited. But I won't. There is no point in doing so. You do not have the ability to comprehend what you read. You can copy and paste, that I know. But comprehend, no. skram

skram, once again, I'm not posting for your benefit. I don't care if you read what I write. Moreover, I am not talking about entanglement in this instance but am talking specifically about consciousness and provided references that refute your claim of 'decoherence'. but, If I were talking about entanglement, that would, as far as peer-review goes, not go well for your atheistic/materialistic belief either. Goodnight. bornagain77

BA77:

I first, much like everybody else, was immediately shocked to learn that the observer could have any effect whatsoever in the double slit experiment

You will be shocked to know that a dumb measuring device, with no conscious observer, or even just an electron that scatters light, will have the same effect. Consciousness has nothing to do with it. Entanglement is a ubiquitous phenomenon in quantum mechanics. Once photons get entangled with the environment, interference is killed. skram

BA77, Please do not post your pages upon pages. I do not have time to follow all your links. If you want to make an argument, make an argument. skram

Related notes on ‘interaction free’ measurement:

Quantum Zeno effect “It has been experimentally confirmed,, that unstable particles will not decay, or will decay less rapidly, if they are observed. Somehow, observation changes the quantum system. We’re talking pure observation, not interacting with the system in any way.” Douglas Ell – Counting to God – pg. 189 – 2014 – Douglas Ell graduated early from MIT, where he double majored in math and physics. He then obtained a masters in theoretical mathematics from the University of Maryland. After graduating from law school, magna cum laude, he became a prominent attorney. The Mental Universe – Richard Conn Henry – Professor of Physics John Hopkins University Excerpt: The only reality is mind and observations, but observations are not of things. To see the Universe as it really is, we must abandon our tendency to conceptualize observations as things.,,, Physicists shy away from the truth because the truth is so alien to everyday physics. A common way to evade the mental universe is to invoke “decoherence” – the notion that “the physical environment” is sufficient to create reality, independent of the human mind. Yet the idea that any irreversible act of amplification is necessary to collapse the wave function is known to be wrong: in “Renninger-type” experiments, the wave function is collapsed simply by your human mind seeing nothing. The universe is entirely mental,,,, The Universe is immaterial — mental and spiritual. Live, and enjoy. http://henry.pha.jhu.edu/The.mental.universe.pdf The Renninger Negative Result Experiment – video http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=C3uzSlh_CV0 Elitzur–Vaidman bomb tester Excerpt: In 1994, Anton Zeilinger, Paul Kwiat, Harald Weinfurter, and Thomas Herzog actually performed an equivalent of the above experiment, proving interaction-free measurements are indeed possible.[2] In 1996, Kwiat et al. devised a method, using a sequence of polarising devices, that efficiently increases the yield rate to a level arbitrarily close to one. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Elitzur%E2%80%93Vaidman_bomb-testing_problem#Experiments Experimental Realization of Interaction-Free Measurement – Paul G. Kwiat; H. Weinfurter, T. Herzog, A. Zeilinger, and M. Kasevich – 1994 http://www.univie.ac.at/qfp/publications3/pdffiles/1994-08.pdf Interaction-Free Measurement – 1995 http://archive.is/AjexE Realization of an interaction-free measurement – 1996 http://bg.bilkent.edu.tr/jc/topics/Interaction%20free%20measurements/papers/realization%20of%20an%20interaction%20free%20measurement.pdf

The following video also clearly demonstrates that “decoherence” does not solve the measurement problem:

The Measurement Problem in quantum mechanics – (Inspiring Philosophy) – 2014 video https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=qB7d5V71vUE

Of related interest:

Does Quantum Physics Make it Easier to Believe in God? Stephen M. Barr - July 10, 2012 Excerpt: Couldn’t an inanimate physical device (say, a Geiger counter) carry out a “measurement” (minus the 'observer' in quantum mechanics)? That would run into the very problem pointed out by von Neumann: If the “observer” were just a purely physical entity, such as a Geiger counter, one could in principle write down a bigger wavefunction that described not only the thing being measured but also the observer. And, when calculated with the Schrödinger equation, that bigger wave function would not jump! Again: as long as only purely physical entities are involved, they are governed by an equation that says that the probabilities don’t jump. That’s why, when Peierls was asked whether a machine could be an “observer,” he said no, explaining that “the quantum mechanical description is in terms of knowledge, and knowledge requires somebody who knows.” Not a purely physical thing, but a mind. https://www.bigquestionsonline.com/content/does-quantum-physics-make-it-easier-believe-god

Verse and Music:

Colossians 1:17 And he is before all things, and by him all things consist. Brooke Fraser- “C S Lewis Song” http://www.godtube.com/watch/?v=DL6LPLNX

bornagain77

As with the delayed choice experiment, the violation of Leggett’s inequalities have been extended. This following experiment verified Leggett’s inequality to a stunning 120 standard deviations level of precision:

Experimental non-classicality of an indivisible quantum system – Zeilinger 2011 Excerpt: Page 491: “This represents a violation of (Leggett’s) inequality (3) by more than 120 standard deviations, demonstrating that no joint probability distribution is capable of describing our results.” The violation also excludes any non-contextual hidden-variable model.The result does, however, agree well with quantum mechanical predictions, as we will show now.,,, https://vcq.quantum.at/fileadmin/Publications/Experimental%20non-classicality%20of%20an%20indivisible.pdf

The preceding experiment, and the mathematics behind it, are discussed beginning at the 24:15 minute mark of the following video:

Quantum Weirdness and God 8-9-2014 by Paul Giem – video https://www.youtube.com/watch?feature=player_detailpage&v=N7HHz14tS1c#t=1449

The following video and paper get the general, and dramatic, point across of what ‘giving up realism’ actually means:

Quantum Physics – (material reality does not exist until we look at it) – Dr. Quantum video http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=D1ezNvpFcJU Macrorealism Emerging from Quantum Physics – Brukner, Caslav; Kofler, Johannes American Physical Society, APS March Meeting, – March 5-9, 2007 Excerpt: for unrestricted measurement accuracy a violation of macrorealism (i.e., a violation of the Leggett-Garg inequalities) is possible for arbitrary large systems.,, http://adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2007APS..MARB33005B

But, as if all that was not enough to demonstrate consciousness’s centrality in quantum mechanics, I then learned about something called the ‘Quantum Zeno Effect’,,

Quantum Zeno Effect The quantum Zeno effect is,, an unstable particle, if observed continuously, will never decay. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Quantum_Zeno_effect

The reason why I am very impressed with the Quantum Zeno effect as to establishing consciousness’s primacy in quantum mechanics is, for one thing, that Entropy is, by a wide margin, the most finely tuned of initial conditions of the Big Bang:

The Physics of the Small and Large: What is the Bridge Between Them? Roger Penrose Excerpt: “The time-asymmetry is fundamentally connected to with the Second Law of Thermodynamics: indeed, the extraordinarily special nature (to a greater precision than about 1 in 10^10^123, in terms of phase-space volume) can be identified as the “source” of the Second Law (Entropy).” How special was the big bang? – Roger Penrose Excerpt: This now tells us how precise the Creator’s aim must have been: namely to an accuracy of one part in 10^10^123. (from the Emperor’s New Mind, Penrose, pp 339-345 – 1989)

For another thing, it is interesting to note just how foundational entropy is in its explanatory power for actions within the space-time of the universe:

Shining Light on Dark Energy – October 21, 2012 Excerpt: It (Entropy) explains time; it explains every possible action in the universe;,, Even gravity, Vedral argued, can be expressed as a consequence of the law of entropy. ,,, The principles of thermodynamics are at their roots all to do with information theory. Information theory is simply an embodiment of how we interact with the universe —,,, http://crev.info/2012/10/shining-light-on-dark-energy/

In fact, entropy is also the primary reason why our physical, temporal, bodies grow old and die,,,

Aging Process – 85 years in 40 seconds – video http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=A91Fwf_sMhk *3 new mutations every time a cell divides in your body * Average cell of 15 year old has up to 6000 mutations *Average cell of 60 year old has 40,000 mutations Reproductive cells are ‘designed’ so that, early on in development, they are ‘set aside’ and thus they do not accumulate mutations as the rest of the cells of our bodies do. Regardless of this protective barrier against the accumulation of slightly detrimental mutations still we find that,,, *60-175 mutations are passed on to each new generation. Per John Sanford Entropy Explains Aging, Genetic Determinism Explains Longevity, and Undefined Terminology Explains Misunderstanding Both - 2007 Excerpt: There is a huge body of knowledge supporting the belief that age changes are characterized by increasing entropy, which results in the random loss of molecular fidelity, and accumulates to slowly overwhelm maintenance systems [1–4].,,, http://www.plosgenetics.org/article/info%3Adoi/10.1371/journal.pgen.0030220

And yet, to repeat,,,

Quantum Zeno effect Excerpt: The quantum Zeno effect is,,, an unstable particle, if observed continuously, will never decay. per wiki

This is just fascinating! Why in blue blazes should conscious observation put a freeze on entropic decay, unless consciousness was/is more foundational to reality than the 1 in 10^10^120 entropy is? Putting all the lines of evidence together the argument for God from consciousness can now be framed like this:

1. Consciousness either preceded all of material reality or is a ‘epi-phenomena’ of material reality. 2. If consciousness is a ‘epi-phenomena’ of material reality then consciousness will be found to have no special position within material reality. Whereas conversely, if consciousness precedes material reality then consciousness will be found to have a special position within material reality. 3. Consciousness is found to have a special, even central, position within material reality. 4. Therefore, consciousness is found to precede material reality. Four intersecting lines of experimental evidence from quantum mechanics that shows that consciousness precedes material reality (Wigner’s Quantum Symmetries, Wheeler’s Delayed Choice, Leggett’s Inequalities, Quantum Zeno effect)

bornagain77

Also of note:

Von Neumann–Wigner – interpretation Excerpt: The von Neumann–Wigner interpretation, also described as “consciousness causes collapse [of the wave function]“, is an interpretation of quantum mechanics in which consciousness is postulated to be necessary for the completion of the process of quantum measurement. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Von_Neumann%E2%80%93Wigner_interpretation#The_interpretation “I think von Neumann’s orthodox QM gives a good way to understand the nature of the universe: it is tightly tied to the practical test and uses of our basic physical theory, while also accounting for the details of the mind-brain connection in a way that is rationally concordant with both our conscious experiences, and experience of control, and the neuroscience data.” Henry Stapp

Then after I had learned about Wigner’s Quantum Symmetries, I stumbled across Wheeler’s Delayed choice experiments in which this finding shocked me as to the central importance of the observer’s free will choice in quantum experiments:

Alain Aspect speaks on John Wheeler’s Delayed Choice Experiment – video http://vimeo.com/38508798 “Thus one decides the photon shall have come by one route or by both routes after it has already done its travel” John A. Wheeler Wheeler’s Classic Delayed Choice Experiment: Excerpt: Now, for many billions of years the photon is in transit in region 3. Yet we can choose (many billions of years later) which experimental set up to employ – the single wide-focus, or the two narrowly focused instruments. We have chosen whether to know which side of the galaxy the photon passed by (by choosing whether to use the two-telescope set up or not, which are the instruments that would give us the information about which side of the galaxy the photon passed). We have delayed this choice until a time long after the particles “have passed by one side of the galaxy, or the other side of the galaxy, or both sides of the galaxy,” so to speak. Yet, it seems paradoxically that our later choice of whether to obtain this information determines which side of the galaxy the light passed, so to speak, billions of years ago. So it seems that time has nothing to do with effects of quantum mechanics. And, indeed, the original thought experiment was not based on any analysis of how particles evolve and behave over time – it was based on the mathematics. This is what the mathematics predicted for a result, and this is exactly the result obtained in the laboratory. http://www.bottomlayer.com/bottom/basic_delayed_choice.htm Genesis, Quantum Physics and Reality Excerpt: Simply put, an experiment on Earth can be made in such a way that it determines if one photon comes along either on the right or the left side or if it comes (as a wave) along both sides of the gravitational lens (of the galaxy) at the same time. However, how could the photons have known billions of years ago that someday there would be an earth with inhabitants on it, making just this experiment? ,,, This is big trouble for the multi-universe theory and for the “hidden-variables” approach. - per Greer “It begins to look as we ourselves, by our last minute decision, have an influence on what a photon will do when it has already accomplished most of its doing… we have to say that we ourselves have an undeniable part in what we have always called the past. The past is not really the past until is has been registered. Or to put it another way, the past has no meaning or existence unless it exists as a record in the present.” – John Wheeler – The Ghost In The Atom – Page 66-68

Then, a little bit later, I learned that the delayed choice experiment had been extended:

The Experiment That Debunked Materialism – video – (delayed choice quantum eraser) http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=6xKUass7G8w (Double Slit) A Delayed Choice Quantum Eraser – updated 2007 Excerpt: Upon accessing the information gathered by the Coincidence Circuit, we the observer are shocked to learn that the pattern shown by the positions registered at D0 (Detector Zero) at Time 2 depends entirely on the information gathered later at Time 4 and available to us at the conclusion of the experiment. http://www.bottomlayer.com/bottom/kim-scully/kim-scully-web.htm

And then I learned the delayed choice experiment was refined yet again:

“If we attempt to attribute an objective meaning to the quantum state of a single system, curious paradoxes appear: quantum effects mimic not only instantaneous action-at-a-distance but also, as seen here, influence of future actions on past events, even after these events have been irrevocably recorded.” Asher Peres, Delayed choice for entanglement swapping. J. Mod. Opt. 47, 139-143 (2000). Quantum physics mimics spooky action into the past – April 23, 2012 Excerpt: The authors experimentally realized a “Gedankenexperiment” called “delayed-choice entanglement swapping”, formulated by Asher Peres in the year 2000. Two pairs of entangled photons are produced, and one photon from each pair is sent to a party called Victor. Of the two remaining photons, one photon is sent to the party Alice and one is sent to the party Bob. Victor can now choose between two kinds of measurements. If he decides to measure his two photons in a way such that they are forced to be in an entangled state, then also Alice’s and Bob’s photon pair becomes entangled. If Victor chooses to measure his particles individually, Alice’s and Bob’s photon pair ends up in a separable state. Modern quantum optics technology allowed the team to delay Victor’s choice and measurement with respect to the measurements which Alice and Bob perform on their photons. “We found that whether Alice’s and Bob’s photons are entangled and show quantum correlations or are separable and show classical correlations can be decided after they have been measured”, explains Xiao-song Ma, lead author of the study. According to the famous words of Albert Einstein, the effects of quantum entanglement appear as “spooky action at a distance”. The recent experiment has gone one remarkable step further. “Within a naïve classical world view, quantum mechanics can even mimic an influence of future actions on past events”, says Anton Zeilinger. http://phys.org/news/2012-04-quantum-physics-mimics-spooky-action.html

i.e. The preceding experiment clearly shows, and removes any doubt whatsoever, that the ‘material’ detector recording information in the double slit is secondary to the experiment and that a conscious observer being able to consciously know the ‘which path’ information of a photon with local certainty, is of primary importance in the experiment. You can see a more complete explanation of the startling results of the experiment at the 9:11 minute mark of the following video:

Delayed Choice Quantum Eraser Experiment Explained – 2014 video http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=H6HLjpj4Nt4

And then, after the delayed choice experiments, I learned about something called Leggett’s Inequality. Leggett’s Inequality was, as far as I can tell, a mathematical proof developed by Nobelist Anthony Leggett to prove ‘realism’. Realism is the belief that an objective reality exists independently of a conscious observer looking at it. And, as is usual with challenging the predictions of Quantum Mechanics, his proof was violated by a stunning 80 orders of magnitude, thus once again, in over the top fashion, highlighting the central importance of the conscious observer to Quantum Experiments:

A team of physicists in Vienna has devised experiments that may answer one of the enduring riddles of science: Do we create the world just by looking at it? – 2008 Excerpt: In mid-2007 Fedrizzi found that the new realism model was violated by 80 orders of magnitude; the group was even more assured that quantum mechanics was correct. Leggett agrees with Zeilinger that realism is wrong in quantum mechanics, but when I asked him whether he now believes in the theory, he answered only “no” before demurring, “I’m in a small minority with that point of view and I wouldn’t stake my life on it.” For Leggett there are still enough loopholes to disbelieve. I asked him what could finally change his mind about quantum mechanics. Without hesitation, he said sending humans into space as detectors to test the theory.,,, (to which Anton Zeilinger responded) When I mentioned this to Prof. Zeilinger he said, “That will happen someday. There is no doubt in my mind. It is just a question of technology.” Alessandro Fedrizzi had already shown me a prototype of a realism experiment he is hoping to send up in a satellite. It’s a heavy, metallic slab the size of a dinner plate. http://seedmagazine.com/content/article/the_reality_tests/P3/ Alain Aspect and Anton Zeilinger by Richard Conn Henry – Physics Professor – John Hopkins University Excerpt: Why do people cling with such ferocity to belief in a mind-independent reality? It is surely because if there is no such reality, then ultimately (as far as we can know) mind alone exists. And if mind is not a product of real matter, but rather is the creator of the “illusion” of material reality (which has, in fact, despite the materialists, been known to be the case, since the discovery of quantum mechanics in 1925), then a theistic view of our existence becomes the only rational alternative to solipsism (solipsism is the philosophical idea that only one’s own mind is sure to exist). (Dr. Henry’s referenced experiment and paper – “An experimental test of non-local realism” by S. Gröblacher et. al., Nature 446, 871, April 2007 – “To be or not to be local” by Alain Aspect, Nature 446, 866, April 2007 (Leggett’s Inequality: Verified to 80 orders of magnitude) http://henry.pha.jhu.edu/aspect.html

bornagain77

A Short Survey Of Quantum Mechanics and Consciousness: That consciousness is integral to quantum mechanics is fairly obvious to the unbiased observer (no pun intended). I first, much like everybody else, was immediately shocked to learn that the observer could have any effect whatsoever in the double slit experiment:

Quantum Mechanics – Double Slit and Delayed Choice Experiments – video https://vimeo.com/87175892 Dr. Quantum – Double Slit Experiment – video https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Q1YqgPAtzho Double Slit Experiment – Explained By Prof Anton Zeilinger – video http://www.metacafe.com/watch/6101627/ Quantum Mechanics – Double Slit Experiment. Is anything real? (Prof. Anton Zeilinger) – video http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ayvbKafw2g0

Prof. Zeilinger makes this rather startling statement in the preceding video:

“The path taken by the photon is not an element of reality. We are not allowed to talk about the photon passing through this or this slit. Neither are we allowed to say the photon passes through both slits. All this kind of language is not applicable.” Anton Zeilinger

Feynman said this in regards to the double slit experiment with electrons,

“has in it the heart of quantum mechanics” and “is impos­sible, absolutely impos­sible, to explain in any clas­sical way.” http://thisquantumworld.com/wp/the-mystique-of-quantum-mechanics/two-slit-experiment/

Feynman also stated this in regards to quantum mechanics,,,

"…the “paradox” is only a conflict between reality and your feeling of what reality “ought to be.” Richard Feynman, in The Feynman Lectures on Physics, vol III, p. 18-9 (1965)

Dean Radin, who spent years at Princeton testing different aspects of consciousness, recently performed experiments testing the possible role of consciousness in the double slit. His results were, not so surprisingly, very supportive of consciousness’s central role in the experiment:

Consciousness and the double-slit interference pattern: six experiments – Radin – 2012 Abstract: A double-slit optical system was used to test the possible role of consciousness in the collapse of the quantum wavefunction. The ratio of the interference pattern’s double-slit spectral power to its single-slit spectral power was predicted to decrease when attention was focused toward the double slit as compared to away from it. Each test session consisted of 40 counterbalanced attention-toward and attention-away epochs, where each epoch lasted between 15 and 30 s(seconds). Data contributed by 137 people in six experiments, involving a total of 250 test sessions, indicate that on average the spectral ratio decreased as predicted (z = -4:36, p = 6·10^-6). Another 250 control sessions conducted without observers present tested hardware, software, and analytical procedures for potential artifacts; none were identified (z = 0:43, p = 0:67). Variables including temperature, vibration, and signal drift were also tested, and no spurious influences were identified. By contrast, factors associated with consciousness, such as meditation experience, electrocortical markers of focused attention, and psychological factors including openness and absorption, significantly correlated in predicted ways with perturbations in the double-slit interference pattern. The results appear to be consistent with a consciousness-related interpretation of the quantum measurement problem. http://www.deanradin.com/papers/Physics%20Essays%20Radin%20final.pdf

Hans Halvorson of Princeton weighs in here

The Soul Hypothesis: Investigations into the Existence of the Soul Chapter 6 is Hans Halvorson's 'The Measure of All Things: Quantum Mechanics and the Soul' Hans Halvorsen is a philosopher of quantum physics at Princeton University Description: Quantum theory's strange conclusions are founded on data obtained by measuring effects in certain experimental situations. But if quantum theory is correct there are no determinate data of the required sort, for the states of the measuring instruments will be superposed and entangled and thus indeterminate. The dualist has a way out of this problem. Superposition is when a physical system is in two apparently inconsistent states at once -- for example, an electron is passing through both the left-hand slit and the right-hand one at the same time. Because of the nature of linear dynamics, this superposition is retained in a device further down the line of this process. If this continued with an observer, he would be aware of inconsistently believing that the electron was in two places at once. But this is not what happens. Observation 'collapses the wave packet' (not a phrase Halvorson generally deploys) and only one determinate state is observed. Now it is often pointed out that measurement collapses the wave packet, but that the measuring device need not be a conscious observer. Halvorson replies to this that a non-conscious measuring device will itself be in an entangled state, but that if a conscious subject observes it, only one of its possible states will be seen, so consciousness is crucial to making reality determinate. (151) http://ndpr.nd.edu/news/24611-the-soul-hypothesis-investigations-into-the-existence-of-the-soul/

Of course, atheists/materialists were/are in complete denial as to the obvious implications of mind in the double slit (invoking infinite parallel universes and such as that to try to get around the obvious implications of ‘Mind’). But personally, not being imprisoned in the materialist’s box, my curiosity was aroused and I’ve been sort of poking around, finding out a little more here and there about quantum mechanics, and how the observer is central to it. One of the first interesting experiments in quantum mechanics I found after the double slit, that highlighted the centrality of the observer to the experiment, was Wigner’s Quantum Symmetries. Here is Wigner commenting on the key experiment that led Wigner to his Nobel Prize winning work on quantum symmetries,,,

Eugene Wigner Excerpt: When I returned to Berlin, the excellent crystallographer Weissenberg asked me to study: why is it that in a crystal the atoms like to sit in a symmetry plane or symmetry axis. After a short time of thinking I understood:,,,, To express this basic experience in a more direct way: the world does not have a privileged center, there is no absolute rest, preferred direction, unique origin of calendar time, even left and right seem to be rather symmetric. The interference of electrons, photons, neutrons has indicated that the state of a particle can be described by a vector possessing a certain number of components. As the observer is replaced by another observer (working elsewhere, looking at a different direction, using another clock, perhaps being left-handed), the state of the very same particle is described by another vector, obtained from the previous vector by multiplying it with a matrix. This matrix transfers from one observer to another. http://www.reak.bme.hu/Wigner_Course/WignerBio/wb1.htm

Wigner went on to make these rather dramatic comments in regards to his work:

“It was not possible to formulate the laws (of quantum theory) in a fully consistent way without reference to consciousness.” Eugene Wigner (1902 -1995) from his collection of essays “Symmetries and Reflections – Scientific Essays”; received the Nobel Prize in Physics in 1963 for his work in symmetries “It will remain remarkable, in whatever way our future concepts may develop, that the very study of the external world led to the scientific conclusion that the content of the consciousness is the ultimate universal reality” - Eugene Wigner – (Remarks on the Mind-Body Question, Eugene Wigner, in Wheeler and Zurek, p.169) 1961

Moreover, Wigner was certainly no lightweight in quantum mechanics, but his deep insights continue to foster ‘a second revolution’ in quantum mechanics:

Eugene Wigner – A Gedanken Pioneer of the Second Quantum Revolution – Anton Zeilinger – Sept. 2014 Conclusion It would be fascinating to know Eugene Wigner’s reaction to the fact that the gedanken experiments he discussed (in 1963 and 1970) have not only become reality, but building on his gedanken experiments, new ideas have developed which on the one hand probe the foundations of quantum mechanics even deeper, and which on the other hand also provide the foundations to the new field of quantum information technology. All these experiments pay homage to the great insight Wigner expressed in developing these gedanken experiments and in his analyses of the foundations of quantum mechanics, http://epjwoc.epj.org/articles/epjconf/pdf/2014/15/epjconf_wigner2014_01010.pdf

bornagain77

Skram: Imagining that quantum entanglement somehow proves the existence of God is a rather naive proposition.

Maybe not directly God, however quantum entanglement obviously implies a cause outside space and time. How many candidates are there? Box

I fail to see what atheism and religion have to do with quantum mechanics. Or vice versa. Imagining that quantum entanglement somehow proves the existence of God is a rather naive proposition. skram

skram, I have not listened to Sungenis and do not know what he believes. I have listed and defended my own references as to the geocentric anomalies in CMB. Specifically Huterer and company. You have provided no peer-reviewed research as to why I should question his claim which he has made in the literature twice now. made once in 2007 and once again 2013 with the new Planck data. Moreover, I conceded that whilst the geocentric anomalies are interesting, that is all they are to me 'interesting'. As I stated earlier. I find the 'observer-centered' frame of reference to be more useful scientifically so as to make a certain cohesive sense out of Quantum Mechanics, General Relativity and Special Relativity. https://uncommondesc.wpengine.com/intelligent-design/mathematician-planck-data-disappoints-multiverse-claims/#comment-548191 I specifically find, despite your denial to the contrary, the advances in Quantum Mechanics to be particularly devastating to atheistic claims. bornagain77

I appreciate your humble style, BA77 and think that you are quite sincere in your postings. Nonetheless, I do not think that it is a good idea to prop up your faith in God with misguided apologetics. People like Sungenis are not just obvious crackpots, they are worse than that. Someone claiming a doctoral degree from an offshore diploma mill is a crook. Geocentrism is an indefensible proposition today. People like him should be laughed out of court by Christians first and foremost. skram

skram, I'm not offended, and, unlike most atheists on the internet, am well aware of my limitations. In fact, I have never claimed to be 'wise'. In fact most of my life was wasted living foolishly before, in a moment of despair, I turned to God and He was tangibly there for me in that moment of desperation. Thus no, I am certainly not 'wise'. I claim only to know, and be known by, the one who possesses all wisdom. Colossians 2 2that their hearts may be encouraged, having been knit together in love, and attaining to all the wealth that comes from the full assurance of understanding, resulting in a true knowledge of God's mystery, that is, Christ Himself, 3in whom are hidden all the treasures of wisdom and knowledge. 4I say this so that no one will delude you with persuasive argument. Strange But True - testimony https://docs.google.com/document/d/17piSvQw-2MrpK3y0yHjZvMqS70pgXK8UvsucHyeABwQ/edit I have a fundamental belief in the Bible as the Word of God, written by men who were inspired. I study the Bible daily.... All my discoveries have been made in an answer to prayer. — Sir Isaac Newton (1642-1727), considered by many to be the greatest scientist of all time. bornagain77

Don't be offended, BA77. It's OK not to understand things. Happens to all of us. skram

skram, Well if I were only an atheist then I would know it all wouldn't I !?! LOL :) Something tells me that you are not nearly as smart as you try to make yourself out to be: Romans 1:22 Although they claimed to be wise, they became fools bornagain77

BA77, It's amusing to observe how you post pages after pages of stuff that you don't understand. I hope it looks convincing to those "unbiased readers." skram

skram, you can read what I wrote or not. Whatever you want. I don't care. I wrote it mainly for unbiased readers. I gave up on atheists being fair to the evidence long, long ago! bornagain77

BA77, I don't follow your Gish gallop. What does Planck's data have to do with the "observer-centric Universe?" Can you explain it in your own words, without posting reams of quotes? :) skram

skram, Personally, considering the extreme difficulty that many, many, brilliant minds have had in trying to reconcile Quantum Mechanics and Special Relativity(QED), with Gravity (General Relativity),,,

A Capella Science – Bohemian Gravity! – video https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=2rjbtsX7twc Bohemian Gravity – Rob Sheldon – September 19, 2013 Excerpt: there’s a large contingent of physicists who believe that string theory is the heroin of theoretical physics. It has absorbed not just millions of dollars, but hundreds if not thousands of grad student lifetimes without delivering what it promised–a unified theory of the universe and life. It is hard, in fact, to find a single contribution from string theory despite 25 years of intense effort by thousands of the very brightest and best minds our society can find. http://rbsp.info/PROCRUSTES/bohemian-gravity/

Reflecting on that extreme difficulty, I consider the preceding ‘quantum’ nuance on the Shroud of Turin to be a subtle, but powerful, evidence substantiating Christ’s primary claim as to being our Savior from sin, death, and hell:

John 8:23-24 But he continued, “You are from below; I am from above. You are of this world; I am not of this world. I told you that you would die in your sins; if you do not believe that I am he, you will indeed die in your sins. G.O.S.P.E.L. – (the grace of propitiation) – poetry slam – video https://vimeo.com/20960385 Matthew 10:28 “Do not fear those who kill the body but are unable to kill the soul; but rather fear Him who is able to destroy both soul and body in hell. Colossians 1:15-20 The Son is the image of the invisible God, the firstborn over all creation. For in him all things were created: things in heaven and on earth, visible and invisible, whether thrones or powers or rulers or authorities; all things have been created through him and for him. He is before all things, and in him all things hold together. And he is the head of the body, the church; he is the beginning and the firstborn from among the dead, so that in everything he might have the supremacy. For God was pleased to have all his fullness dwell in him, and through him to reconcile to himself all things, whether things on earth or things in heaven, by making peace through his blood, shed on the cross. Empty (Empty Cross Empty Tomb) with Dan Haseltine Matt Hammitt http://www.godtube.com/watch/?v=F22MCCNU

Supplemental notes:

Two very different ‘eternities’: Special Relativity, General Relativity, Heaven and Hell https://docs.google.com/document/d/1_4cQ7MXq8bLkoFLYW0kq3Xq-Hkc3c7r-gTk0DYJQFSg/edit

bornagain77

Godel proved, if numbers are included, that there cannot be a ‘complete’ mathematical theory of everything. Even Hawking himself at one time admitted, and apparently subsequently forgot, that there cannot be a ‘complete’ mathematical 'theory of everything'.

The nature and significance of Gödel’s incompleteness theorems – Princeton – 2006 Excerpt: ,,Stephen Hawking and Freeman Dyson, among others, have come to the conclusion that Gödel’s theorem implies that there can’t be a (mathematical) Theory of Everything.,, http://math.stanford.edu/~feferman/papers/Godel-IAS.pdf

Godel also stated:

The God of the Mathematicians – Goldman Excerpt: As Gödel told Hao Wang, “Einstein’s religion [was] more abstract, like Spinoza and Indian philosophy. Spinoza’s god is less than a person; mine is more than a person; because God can play the role of a person.” Kurt Gödel – (Gödel is considered one of the greatest logicians who ever existed) http://www.firstthings.com/article/2010/07/the-god-of-the-mathematicians

And when one allows God into mathematics so as to bring ‘completeness’ to mathematics, and so as to ‘breathe fire into the equations’, i.e. agent causality, then a solution to the most profound enigma in modern physics readily pops out for us. Namely, the resurrection of Christ from death provides a empirically backed reconciliation of Quantum Mechanics/Special Relativity, (Quantum Electrodynamics), and General Relativity into the much sought after ‘theory of everything’:

The Center Of The Universe Is Life (Jesus) – General Relativity, Quantum Mechanics, Entropy and The Shroud Of Turin – video http://vimeo.com/34084462

And as would be expected if Gravity was truly unified with Quantum Mechanics in the resurrection of Christ from death, Gravity was overcome in the resurrection event of Christ:

Particle Radiation from the Body – July 2012 – M. Antonacci, A. C. Lind Excerpt: The Shroud’s frontal and dorsal body images are encoded with the same amount of intensity, independent of any pressure or weight from the body. The bottom part of the cloth (containing the dorsal image) would have born all the weight of the man’s supine body, yet the dorsal image is not encoded with a greater amount of intensity than the frontal image. Radiation coming from the body would not only explain this feature, but also the left/right and light/dark reversals found on the cloth’s frontal and dorsal body images. https://docs.google.com/document/d/19tGkwrdg6cu5mH-RmlKxHv5KPMOL49qEU8MLGL6ojHU/edit A Quantum Hologram of Christ’s Resurrection? by Chuck Missler Excerpt: “You can read the science of the Shroud, such as total lack of gravity, lack of entropy (without gravitational collapse), no time, no space—it conforms to no known law of physics.” The phenomenon of the image brings us to a true event horizon, a moment when all of the laws of physics change drastically. Dame Piczek created a one-fourth size sculpture of the man in the Shroud. When viewed from the side, it appears as if the man is suspended in mid air (see graphic, below), indicating that the image defies previously accepted science. The phenomenon of the image brings us to a true event horizon, a moment when all of the laws of physics change drastically. http://www.khouse.org/articles/2008/847 THE EVENT HORIZON (Space-Time Singularity) OF THE SHROUD OF TURIN. – Isabel Piczek – Particle Physicist Excerpt: We have stated before that the images on the Shroud firmly indicate the total absence of Gravity. Yet they also firmly indicate the presence of the Event Horizon. These two seemingly contradict each other and they necessitate the past presence of something more powerful than Gravity that had the capacity to solve the above paradox. http://shroud3d.com/findings/isabel-piczek-image-formation

Moreover, as would also be expected if General Relativity (Gravity), and Quantum Mechanics/Special Relativity (QED), were truly unified in the resurrection of Christ from death, the image on the shroud is found to be formed by a quantum process. The image was not formed by a ‘classical’ process:

The absorbed energy in the Shroud body image formation appears as contributed by discrete values – Giovanni Fazio, Giuseppe Mandaglio – 2008 Excerpt: This result means that the optical density distribution,, can not be attributed at the absorbed energy described in the framework of the classical physics model. It is, in fact, necessary to hypothesize a absorption by discrete values of the energy where the ‘quantum’ is equal to the one necessary to yellow one fibril. http://cab.unime.it/journals/index.php/AAPP/article/view/C1A0802004/271 “It is not a continuum or spherical-front radiation that made the image, as visible or UV light. It is not the X-ray radiation that obeys the one over R squared law that we are so accustomed to in medicine. It is more unique. It is suggested that the image was formed when a high-energy particle struck the fiber and released radiation within the fiber at a speed greater that the local speed of light. Since the fiber acts as a light pipe, this energy moved out through the fiber until it encountered an optical discontinuity, then it slowed to the local speed of light and dispersed. The fact that the pixels don’t fluoresce suggests that the conversion to their now brittle dehydrated state occurred instantly and completely so no partial products remain to be activated by the ultraviolet light. This suggests a quantum event where a finite amount of energy transferred abruptly. The fact that there are images front and back suggests the radiating particles were released along the gravity vector. The radiation pressure may also help explain why the blood was “lifted cleanly” from the body as it transformed to a resurrected state.” Kevin Moran – optical engineer Scientists say Turin Shroud is supernatural – December 2011 Excerpt: After years of work trying to replicate the colouring on the shroud, a similar image has been created by the scientists. However, they only managed the effect by scorching equivalent linen material with high-intensity ultra violet lasers, undermining the arguments of other research, they say, which claims the Turin Shroud is a medieval hoax. Such technology, say researchers from the National Agency for New Technologies, Energy and Sustainable Economic Development (Enea), was far beyond the capability of medieval forgers, whom most experts have credited with making the famous relic. “The results show that a short and intense burst of UV directional radiation can colour a linen cloth so as to reproduce many of the peculiar characteristics of the body image on the Shroud of Turin,” they said. And in case there was any doubt about the preternatural degree of energy needed to make such distinct marks, the Enea report spells it out: “This degree of power cannot be reproduced by any normal UV source built to date.” http://www.independent.co.uk/news/science/scientists-say-turin-shroud-is-supernatural-6279512.html

bornagain77

as to a 'observer-centric' universe: skram in the following article, they appealed to 'exotic physics' to try to 'explain away' why inflation continues not to match expectations:

Planck telescope puts new datestamp on first stars By Jonathan Amos - 5 February 2015 Excerpt: What is clear from the Planck investigation is that the simplest models for how the super-rapid expansion might have worked are probably no longer tenable, suggesting some exotic physics will eventually be needed to explain it. "We're now being pushed into a parameter space we didn't expect to be in," said collaboration scientist Dr Andrew Jaffe from Imperial College, UK. "That's OK. We like interesting physics; that's why we're physicists, so there's no problem with that. It's just we had this naïve expectation that the simplest answer would be right, and sometimes it just isn't." http://www.bbc.com/news/science-environment-31145520

But will he, and other physicists like you skram, like the ‘interesting physics’ he is being pushed into when that ‘exotic physics’ is shown to require God? And in regards to showing that God is necessary for physics (exotic or otherwise), the most profound confusion in modern physics is the fallacious belief that blind (it just happened) causality is superior to agent causality in terms of explanatory power.

A Professor’s Journey out of Nihilism: Why I am not an Atheist – University of Wyoming – J. Budziszewski Excerpt page12: “There were two great holes in the argument about the irrelevance of God. The first is that in order to attack free will, I supposed that I understood cause and effect; I supposed causation to be less mysterious than volition. If anything, it is the other way around. I can perceive a logical connection between premises and valid conclusions. I can perceive at least a rational connection between my willing to do something and my doing it. But between the apple and the earth, I can perceive no connection at all. Why does the apple fall? We don’t know. “But there is gravity,” you say. No, “gravity” is merely the name of the phenomenon, not its explanation. “But there are laws of gravity,” you say. No, the “laws” are not its explanation either; they are merely a more precise description of the thing to be explained, which remains as mysterious as before. For just this reason, philosophers of science are shy of the term “laws”; they prefer “lawlike regularities.” To call the equations of gravity “laws” and speak of the apple as “obeying” them is to speak as though, like the traffic laws, the “laws” of gravity are addressed to rational agents capable of conforming their wills to the command. This is cheating, because it makes mechanical causality (the more opaque of the two phenomena) seem like volition (the less). In my own way of thinking the cheating was even graver, because I attacked the less opaque in the name of the more. The other hole in my reasoning was cruder. If my imprisonment in a blind causality made my reasoning so unreliable that I couldn’t trust my beliefs, then by the same token I shouldn’t have trusted my beliefs about imprisonment in a blind causality. But in that case I had no business denying free will in the first place.” http://www.undergroundthomist.org/sites/default/files/WhyIAmNotAnAtheist.pdf “to say that a stone falls to earth because it’s obeying a law, makes it a man and even a citizen” - CS Lewis “In the whole history of the universe the laws of nature have never produced, (i.e. caused), a single event.” C.S. Lewis – doodle video https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_20yiBQAIlk

The Christian founders of modern science understood the distinction between a mathematical description of a law and the agent causality of the lawgiver quite well.

“God is not a “God of the gaps”, he is God of the whole show.,,, C. S. Lewis put it this way: “Men became scientific because they expected law in nature and they expected law in nature because they believed in a lawgiver.” John Lennox – Not the God of the Gaps, But the Whole Show – 2012 http://www.christianpost.com/news/the-god-particle-not-the-god-of-the-gaps-but-the-whole-show-80307/

Perhaps the most famous confusion of a mere mathematical description of a law and the causal agency required to be behind the law is Stephen Hawking’s following statement:

“Because there is a law such as gravity, the universe can and will create itself from nothing. Spontaneous creation is the reason there is something rather than nothing, why the universe exists, why we exist.The universe didn’t need a God to begin; it was quite capable of launching its existence on its own,” Stephen Hawking http://www.dailygalaxy.com/my_weblog/2010/09/the-universe-exists-because-of-spontaneous-creation-stephen-hawking.html

Here is an excerpt of an article, (that is well worth reading in full), in which Dr. Gordon exposes Stephen Hawking’s delusion for thinking that mathematical description and agent causality are the same thing.

BRUCE GORDON: Hawking’s irrational arguments – October 2010 Excerpt: ,,,The physical universe is causally incomplete and therefore neither self-originating nor self-sustaining. The world of space, time, matter and energy is dependent on a reality that transcends space, time, matter and energy. This transcendent reality cannot merely be a Platonic realm of mathematical descriptions, for such things are causally inert abstract entities that do not affect the material world,,, Rather, the transcendent reality on which our universe depends must be something that can exhibit agency – a mind that can choose among the infinite variety of mathematical descriptions and bring into existence a reality that corresponds to a consistent subset of them. This is what “breathes fire into the equations and makes a universe for them to describe.” Anything else invokes random miracles as an explanatory principle and spells the end of scientific rationality.,,, Universes do not “spontaneously create” on the basis of abstract mathematical descriptions, nor does the fantasy of a limitless multiverse trump the explanatory power of transcendent intelligent design. What Mr. Hawking’s contrary assertions show is that mathematical savants can sometimes be metaphysical simpletons. Caveat emptor. http://www.washingtontimes.com/news/2010/oct/1/hawking-irrational-arguments/

Moreover, Godel’s incompleteness theorem has proven that there will never be a ‘complete’ mathematical description of everything that is sufficient within itself so as to be a ‘theory of everything’.

Kurt Gödel – Incompleteness Theorem – video https://vimeo.com/92387853 THE GOD OF THE MATHEMATICIANS – DAVID P. GOLDMAN – August 2010 Excerpt: we cannot construct an ontology that makes God dispensable. Secularists can dismiss this as a mere exercise within predefined rules of the game of mathematical logic, but that is sour grapes, for it was the secular side that hoped to substitute logic for God in the first place. Gödel’s critique of the continuum hypothesis has the same implication as his incompleteness theorems: Mathematics never will create the sort of closed system that sorts reality into neat boxes. http://www.firstthings.com/article/2010/07/the-god-of-the-mathematicians Godel and Physics – John D. Barrow Excerpt (page 5-6): “Clearly then no scientific cosmology, which of necessity must be highly mathematical, can have its proof of consistency within itself as far as mathematics go. In absence of such consistency, all mathematical models, all theories of elementary particles, including the theory of quarks and gluons…fall inherently short of being that theory which shows in virtue of its a priori truth that the world can only be what it is and nothing else. This is true even if the theory happened to account for perfect accuracy for all phenomena of the physical world known at a particular time.” Stanley Jaki – Cosmos and Creator – 1980, pg. 49 http://arxiv.org/pdf/physics/0612253.pdf

bornagain77

I'm not agitated. I calmly and clearly told you 'Frankly I don't trust you' and why I don't. Moreover, I note you have ignored some weighty matters in this thread to focus on what you perceived to be grey areas that could be turned to your advantage. That tactic does not reflect well on your honesty! As well, I note that this 'nothing to see here' line you are currently trying to use to gain some traction with, (i.e. denialism), in spite of some evidence that apparently has only gotten stronger with the Planck data, is a common tactic among atheists, especially evolutionists. In other words, no matter what evidence you present to an atheist, (such as say the human brain being far more complex than the entire internet combined), an atheist always pretends that it is of no real significance. This irrational denialism inherent to atheists is summed nicely in this quote by Crick: "Biologists must constantly keep in mind that what they see was not designed, but rather evolved. It might be thought, therefore, that evolutionary arguments would play a large part in guiding biological research, but this is far from the case. It is difficult enough to study what is happening now. To figure out exactly what happened in evolution is even more difficult. Thus evolutionary achievements can be used as hints to suggest possible lines of research, but it is highly dangerous to trust them too much. It is all too easy to make mistaken inferences unless the process involved is already very well understood." Francis Crick - What Mad Pursuit (1988) But why must atheists constantly deny design? It is irrationality on steroids! bornagain77

No need to get agitated, BA77! Keep calm and carry on! :) skram

What part of,,, "Frankly, I just don’t trust you" do you not understand? You simply have no credibility with me! I'm standing by them and have no reason to trust you. Especially when the Planck spokesman himself stated,,, “Because of these features that we are finding in the sky, people really are in a situation now where they cannot ignore them any more. ,,, We’ve established them (the anomalies) as fact!”. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=M2CWaLU6eMI Apparently materialists have been using your same line of 'nothing to see here' for a while and he is calling them on it: Nothing to see here https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=5NNOrp_83RU bornagain77

BA77, Let me try to explain to you one more time that the purported alignment isn't something that is very impressive. CMB radiation coming to us from all directions in the universe is mostly uniformly distributed, but it has some inhomogeneities. More microwaves are observed coming from some directions than from others. The standard way to describe these fluctuations is to expand them in functions called spherical harmonics. If the universe were two-dimensional, these would simply be sinusoidal waves around the circle containing one, two, three wavelengths and so on on the circle. In three dimensions, the functions are more complicated, but the idea is similar. Dipolar harmonics are like a sine wave with one wavelength fitting on the circle, quadrupoles like a sine wave with two and so on. Roughly speaking, a dipole can have 3 distinct orientations in 3D space, a quadrupole 5, an octupole 7. So the researchers know which way the dipole is oriented, which way the quadrupole points and so on. How specific is that information? As I have told you already, it doesn't contain too many bits. You can encode log_2(3) = 1.58 bits in the orientation of the dipole, log_2(5) = 2.32 bits in the quadrupole and so on. You can generate a random signal, and its first two harmonics can align with the ecliptic plane (or not) with the probability of 1 in 15. It's not that small. This is why I am not impressed. skram

skram, from what I understand in my extremely limited capacity, THEY, Huterer and company, are saying unambiguously that the anomalies line up with geocentric considerations. The English is plain in that regards: from the 2013 paper they state,,, “The observed alignments — the quadrupole with the octopole and their joint alignment with the direction of our motion with respect to the CMB (the dipole direction) and the geometry of the Solar System (defined by the Ecliptic plane) — are generally in good agreement with results from the previous WMAP data releases.” from the 2007 paper Huterer states it more clearly: Why is the solar system cosmically aligned? BY Dragan Huterer – 2007 The solar system seems to line up with the largest cosmic features. Is this mere coincidence or a signpost to deeper insights? Caption under figure on page 43: ODD ALIGNMENTS hide within the multipoles of the cosmic microwave background. In this combination of the quadrupole and octopole, a plane bisects the sphere between the largest warm and cool lobes. The ecliptic — the plane of Earth’s orbit projected onto the celestial sphere — is aligned parallel to the plane between the lobes. http://www-personal.umich.edu/~huterer/PRESS/CMB_Huterer.pdf Here is the actual graph of the alignment from the 2007 paper (worth a thousand words) that the Planck data agreed with: ODD ALIGNMENTS hide within the multipoles of the cosmic microwave background. In this combination of the quadrupole and octopole, a plane bisects the sphere between the largest warm and cool lobes. The ecliptic — the plane of Earth’s orbit projected onto the celestial sphere — is aligned parallel to the plane between the lobes. http://i44.servimg.com/u/f44/16/14/18/96/axis_o10.jpg Do you disagree with Huterer and company? Well, I agree with them. ,,, If you disagree with them I suggest you take it up with them and not some 'random' guy on the internet (me) because, besides you having zero credibility with me, I am not the person you need to convince that they are wrong. They are. Only then, after you publish a paper showing them to be wrong, or better yet, get them to retract, will you effect a change in my position. Frankly, I just don't trust you. bornagain77

To help you with your endeavor, BA77, let me note that spherical harmonics with angular momentum L can have roughly 2L+1 possible orientations. Dipoles have L=1, quadrupoles L=2, octupoles L=3, and so on. Finding a particular arrangement of the dipole moment in CMB corresponds to less than 2 bits of information (binary logarithm of 3). For the quadrupole, that's just a bit more than 2 bits (binary log of 5), and for the octupole not even 3 bits (binary log of 7). Do you understand this? skram

The new Planck data agree with the old WMAP data. The CMB fluctuation spectra registered by both satellites are not statistical noise. The statement is about the first few spherical harmonics. What's so remarkable about it, exactly? Can you express it in your own words? skram

and you read this how? "the alignment of the plane defined by the two with the dipole direction, are both at the greater than 3-sigma level for all three Planck maps studied" I read it as all 3 maps achieved greater than 3-sigma level for the geocentric alignments. Moreover, even If I have misread it, the paper still unambiguously states that geocentric anomalies are present in both WMAP and Planck: "The observed alignments — the quadrupole with the octopole and their joint alignment with the direction of our motion with respect to the CMB (the dipole direction) and the geometry of the Solar System (defined by the Ecliptic plane) — are generally in good agreement with results from the previous WMAP data releases." Moreover, I note that you are ignoring the much more problematic fact that your preferred model of inflation has now been brought into severe question with such anomalies, Planck reveals an almost perfect Universe - video Quote at 2:00 minute mark: "What's surprising in Planck's latest findings and is inconsistent with prevailing theories, is the presence of unexpected large scale anomalies in the sky. Including a large cold region. Stronger fluctuations in one half of the sky than the other. And less light signals than expected across the entire sky." Planck spokesman: "When we look at only the large features on this (CMBR) map you find that our find that our best fitting theory (inflation) has a problem fitting the data." "Planck launched in 2009,, is the 3rd mission to study the Cosmic Microwave Background to date. While these unusual features in the sky were hinted at the two previous US missions, COBE and WMAP, Planck's ability to measure the tiniest of fluctuations in the Cosmic Microwave Background has made these so called anomalies impossible to ignore." Planck spokesman: "Because of these features that we are finding in the sky, people really are in a situation now where they cannot ignore them any more. ,,, We've established them (the anomalies) as fact!". https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=M2CWaLU6eMI bornagain77

BA77, Do you even understand what these guys are talking about? They find agreement between measurements of Planck and WMAP. This is not even controversial. skram

Well skram, I certainly take his credentials over yours any day, especially since you are the one trying to toot your own horn by tearing other people down.,,, Pooh Poohing other people doesn't address the empirical evidence, moreover, I have yet to see anything remotely impressive in your thinking about these matters. (much less any cites supporting your position) "statistical significance?" Duh! Large-scale alignments from WMAP and Planck – 2013 We revisit the alignments of the largest structures observed in the cosmic microwave background (CMB) using the seven and nine-year WMAP and first-year Planck data releases. The observed alignments — the quadrupole with the octopole and their joint alignment with the direction of our motion with respect to the CMB (the dipole direction) and the geometry of the Solar System (defined by the Ecliptic plane) — are generally in good agreement with results from the previous WMAP data releases.,,, both the WMAP and Planck data confirm the alignments of the largest observable CMB modes in the Universe. In particular, the p-values for the mutual alignment between the quadrupole and octopole, and the alignment of the plane defined by the two with the dipole direction, are both at the greater than 3-sigma level for all three Planck maps studied. We also calculate conditional statistics on the various alignments and find that it is currently difficult to unambiguously identify a leading anomaly that causes the others or even to distinguish correlation from causation. http://arxiv.org/abs/1311.4562 bornagain77

BA77, If you wanted to impress me with Singal's credentials, you have failed. Try answering my question about the statistical significance of CMB fluctuations. skram

You are right skram, perhaps he is just a 'random' member of the lower (i.e. not as evolved) caste in India that has to clean sewers to boot besides his work in cosmology :) Ashok K. Singal http://www.iau.org/administration/membership/individual/425/ Organization website: http://www.prl.res.in/ Dragan Huterer http://www-personal.umich.edu/~huterer/ Large-scale alignments from WMAP and Planck - 2013 We revisit the alignments of the largest structures observed in the cosmic microwave background (CMB) using the seven and nine-year WMAP and first-year Planck data releases. The observed alignments -- the quadrupole with the octopole and their joint alignment with the direction of our motion with respect to the CMB (the dipole direction) and the geometry of the Solar System (defined by the Ecliptic plane) -- are generally in good agreement with results from the previous WMAP data releases.,,, both the WMAP and Planck data confirm the alignments of the largest observable CMB modes in the Universe. In particular, the p-values for the mutual alignment between the quadrupole and octopole, and the alignment of the plane defined by the two with the dipole direction, are both at the greater than 3-sigma level for all three Planck maps studied. We also calculate conditional statistics on the various alignments and find that it is currently difficult to unambiguously identify a leading anomaly that causes the others or even to distinguish correlation from causation. http://arxiv.org/abs/1311.4562 bornagain77

Anyway, whatever. I find it hilarious that multiple participants of this forum promote the geocentric principle. Young Earth, geocentrism... What else, guys? How about flat earth? skram

BA77, You got a random guy in India trying to discern a meaningful pattern in CMB fluctuations. That is literally reading tea leaves. Can you show that the fluctuations are statistically significant? skram

as to: "There are no “geocentric anomalies” in CMB radiation." That is not what I got:

Why is the solar system cosmically aligned? BY Dragan Huterer – 2007 The solar system seems to line up with the largest cosmic features. Is this mere coincidence or a signpost to deeper insights? Caption under figure on page 43: ODD ALIGNMENTS hide within the multipoles of the cosmic microwave background. In this combination of the quadrupole and octopole, a plane bisects the sphere between the largest warm and cool lobes. The ecliptic — the plane of Earth’s orbit projected onto the celestial sphere — is aligned parallel to the plane between the lobes. http://www-personal.umich.edu/~huterer/PRESS/CMB_Huterer.pdf let’s not forget this too: Is there a violation of the Copernican principle in radio sky? – Ashok K. Singal – May 17, 2013 Abstract: Cosmic Microwave Background Radiation (CMBR) observations from the WMAP satellite have shown some unexpected anisotropies (directionally dependent observations), which surprisingly seem to be aligned with the eclipticcite {20,16,15}. The latest data from the Planck satellite have confirmed the presence of these anisotropiescite {17}. Here we report even larger anisotropies in the sky distributions of powerful extended quasars and some other sub-classes of radio galaxies in the 3CRR catalogue, one of the oldest and most intensively studies sample of strong radio sourcescite{21,22,3}. The anisotropies lie about a plane passing through the two equinoxes and the north celestial pole (NCP). We can rule out at a 99.995% confidence level the hypothesis that these asymmetries are merely due to statistical fluctuations. Further, even the distribution of observed radio sizes of quasars and radio galaxies show large systematic differences between these two sky regions. The redshift distribution appear to be very similar in both regions of sky for all sources, which rules out any local effects to be the cause of these anomalies. Two pertinent questions then arise. First, why should there be such large anisotropies present in the sky distribution of some of the most distant discrete sources implying inhomogeneities in the universe at very large scales (covering a fraction of the universe)? What is intriguing even further is why such anisotropies should lie about a great circle decided purely by the orientation of earth’s rotation axis and/or the axis of its revolution around the sun? It looks as if these axes have a preferential placement in the larger scheme of things, implying an apparent breakdown of the Copernican principle or its more generalization, cosmological principle, upon which all modern cosmological theories are based upon. http://arxiv.org/abs/1305.4134

as to: "Quantum mechanics allows you to work with whatever frame of reference." again, that is not what I got:

"If we attempt to attribute an objective meaning to the quantum state of a single system, curious paradoxes appear: quantum effects mimic not only instantaneous action-at-a-distance but also, as seen here, influence of future actions on past events, even after these events have been irrevocably recorded." Asher Peres, Delayed choice for entanglement swapping. J. Mod. Opt. 47, 139-143 (2000). You can see a more complete explanation of the startling results of the experiment at the 9:11 minute mark of the following video Delayed Choice Quantum Eraser Experiment Explained - 2014 video http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=H6HLjpj4Nt4 Does Quantum Physics Make it Easier to Believe in God? Stephen M. Barr - July 10, 2012 Excerpt: Couldn’t an inanimate physical device (say, a Geiger counter) carry out a “measurement” (minus the 'observer' in quantum mechanics)? That would run into the very problem pointed out by von Neumann: If the “observer” were just a purely physical entity, such as a Geiger counter, one could in principle write down a bigger wavefunction that described not only the thing being measured but also the observer. And, when calculated with the Schrödinger equation, that bigger wave function would not jump! Again: as long as only purely physical entities are involved, they are governed by an equation that says that the probabilities don’t jump. That’s why, when Peierls was asked whether a machine could be an “observer,” he said no, explaining that “the quantum mechanical description is in terms of knowledge, and knowledge requires somebody who knows.” Not a purely physical thing, but a mind. https://www.bigquestionsonline.com/content/does-quantum-physics-make-it-easier-believe-god

bornagain77

The Principle looks like an interesting movie. http://www.theprinciplemovie.com/ Silver Asiatic

BA77:

But if, according to Einstein, ‘any place will do’ as a frame of reference, then that is exactly why the Geocentric anomalies in the Cosmic Background Radiation are so interesting!

There are no "geocentric anomalies" in CMB radiation. The latest data for CMB anisotropy were taken not from the Earth but from Lagrange 2 point in the solar system. The anisotropy distribution looks pretty much the same from the Sun as it does from the Earth.

Moreover, Einstein said one could ‘arbitrarily’ chose one’s frame of reference, yet quantum mechanics allows no such flexibility. In quantum mechanics, the observer’s frame of reference is always fixed with the observer himself.

Baloney. Quantum mechanics allows you to work with whatever frame of reference. skram

Once again Einstein stated:

“Can we formulate physical laws so that they are valid for all CS [coordinate systems], not only those moving uniformly, but also those moving quite arbitrarily, relative to each other? […] The struggle, so violent in the early days of science, between the views of Ptolemy and Copernicus would then be quite meaningless. Either CS could be used with equal justification. The two sentences: “the sun is at rest and the earth moves” or “the sun moves and the earth is at rest” would simply mean two different conventions concerning two different CS.” Einstein, A. and Infeld, L. (1938) The Evolution of Physics, p.212 (p.248 in original 1938 ed.);

But if, according to Einstein, 'any place will do' as a frame of reference, then that is exactly why the Geocentric anomalies in the Cosmic Background Radiation are so interesting! i.e. why do the anomalies line up with the earth's rotation and not the sun's? Moreover, Einstein said one could 'arbitrarily' chose one's frame of reference, yet quantum mechanics allows no such flexibility. In quantum mechanics, the observer's frame of reference is always fixed with the observer himself.

"It will remain remarkable, in whatever way our future concepts may develop, that the very study of the external world led to the scientific conclusion that the content of the consciousness is the ultimate universal reality" - Eugene Wigner - (Remarks on the Mind-Body Question, Eugene Wigner, in Wheeler and Zurek, p.169) 1961 - received Nobel Prize in 1963 for 'Quantum Symmetries' "It was not possible to formulate the laws (of quantum theory) in a fully consistent way without reference to consciousness." Eugene Wigner (1902 -1995) from his collection of essays "Symmetries and Reflections – Scientific Essays";

Here is Wigner commenting on the key experiment that led Wigner to his Nobel Prize winning work on quantum symmetries,,,

Eugene Wigner Excerpt: When I returned to Berlin, the excellent crystallographer Weissenberg asked me to study: why is it that in a crystal the atoms like to sit in a symmetry plane or symmetry axis. After a short time of thinking I understood:,,,, To express this basic experience in a more direct way: the world does not have a privileged center, there is no absolute rest, preferred direction, unique origin of calendar time, even left and right seem to be rather symmetric. The interference of electrons, photons, neutrons has indicated that the state of a particle can be described by a vector possessing a certain number of components. As the observer is replaced by another observer (working elsewhere, looking at a different direction, using another clock, perhaps being left-handed), the state of the very same particle is described by another vector, obtained from the previous vector by multiplying it with a matrix. This matrix transfers from one observer to another. http://www.reak.bme.hu/Wigner_Course/WignerBio/wb1.htm

i.e. In the experiment the 'world' (i.e. the universe) does not have a ‘privileged center’. Yet strangely, the conscious observer does exhibit a 'privileged center'. This is since the 'matrix', which determines which vector will be used to describe the particle in the experiment, is 'observer-centric' in its origination! Thus explaining Wigner’s dramatic statement, “It was not possible to formulate the laws (of quantum theory) in a fully consistent way without reference to consciousness.” bornagain77

wallstreeter43:

Your claim that he never took a physics class is wrong though. He was a physics major in college before changing course and focusing more on theology.

Read what I posted carefully. I said that even if he took some physics classes, those would be in general physics, which doesn't cover general relativity. I know what physics majors study. Some may take general relativity in their senior year, if at all (more likely they do so in grad school). If this guy switched his major, there is no way in hell he had the time to study general relativity. Not a chance. Again, I could be wrong. The guy could be a crook and a genius. Go ahead, explain what his theory is and why you think it is worth my time. I don't have time to wade through every crackpot's ruminations, but if you make a convincing case, I could look into it.

I guarantee you dude you don’t wanna go there with me on the shroud .

Bite me. skram

"" the burden is on you "" Is the hallmark of an intellectually lazy person . Skram let me guess, your an atheist right ? Getting easier and easier to spot . wallstreeter43

Sk ram like I said I didn't say he believed him simply because I haven't had time to study this yet. Your claim that he never took a physics class is wrong though. He was a physics major in college before changing course and focusing more on theology. Your excuse for not watching the videos is that I haven't watched the videos yet ? Would u also eat your dinner at 3pm since I also eat dinner at 3pm ? Talk about not having a mind if your own lol Since I have researched the shroud of turin skram, that means that by your wannabee standards you also should be researching the shroud of turin. I guarantee you dude you don't wanna go there with me on the shroud . But generally people watch these types of videos to gain knowledge about what people of different views believe , not because someone else didn't watch that video . Maybe u should learn the definition if non conformity or you will be having people who have their own agendas spoon feeding you ur beliefs for the rest if your life. wallstreeter43

Thanks for the Richard conn henry link BA, it was what convinced me of the strong case for idealism. Atheist physicists counter with the many worlds interpretation which not only violates Occam's razor but makes a completely mess of it with pieces flying every where . Atheists accuse us of having faith but I don't know of anything that requires more faith then the many worlds theory . The evidence is strong from fine. Tuning you say ? Lets debunk it by creating a trillion times a trillion times a trillion universe lol wallstreeter43

wallstreeter43, You haven't even watched the videos yet and you want me to debunk them? Not a chance. How about this? You go ahead and watch the videos, then you come here and explain what Sungenis's "science" is. Then I will discuss it with you. I'll tell you why I have low expectations. Sungenis has no degree in science. It's a sure bet that he never took a physics course in college. And if he did, it would be general physics that covers special relativity at a very superficial level and does not even touch general relativity. It's a virtual certainty that the guy does not understand Einstein's theory. Add to this his "doctoral" degree from a known diploma mill and you have a recipe for a garden-variety crackpot. I could be wrong. The guy could be a genius. His theory may overturn science as we know it. So go ahead and make a case for it. You're the one suggesting there is something worthwhile in there. The burden is on you. skram

Here is the PDF article by sungenis on how the pontifical academy of science is over run by atbeists . Even though it's a non binding group on Catholics and we are not obliged to believe them (and I agree since I don't believe them myself and I'm a catholic ) it's very important to know this and how they treat intelligent design advocates . They won't even let an is advocate have the floor there . http://galileowaswrong.com/wp-content/uploads/2013/06/Proof-the-Pontifical-Academy-of-Science-is-Run-by-Avowed-Atheists.pdf wallstreeter43

Skram, like I said I haven't yet studied this fully, but how about going through it and actually debunking the science ? When lawrence krauss was asked about this he simply responded by saying its junk , but yet hasn't debunked the science behind it. BA, to say that this theory is dating in the scientific community would be an understatement . Sungenis is definetly a guy that isn't afraid to speak his mind. I definately don't agree with him on everything he says. For instance he is a catholic that is a young earth creationist (very rare) , but I do agree with him on the pontifical academy of sciences being overun with atheists (took some guts to come out and say it )He's been reprimanded by the church many times . Like I said he isnt afraid to speak his mind lol wallstreeter43

skram, while I find the geocentric anomalies in the Cosmic Bachground Radiation, and the overturning of the Copernican Principle entailed by that, interesting, I'm with you in that I find 'another' frame of reference to be more useful scientifically. I find, due to advances in quantum mechanics, that the 'observer-centric' view of reality is the 'frame of reference' that more satisfactorily achieves a certain consistency across General Relativity, Special Relativity and Quantum Mechanics. Specifically, quantum mechanics tells us that instantaneous quantum wave collapse to its 'uncertain' 3D state is centered on each individual conscious observer in the universe (i.e. Leggett's Inequality), whereas, 4D space-time cosmology (General Relativity) tells us each 3D point in the universe is central to the expansion of the universe. These findings of modern science are pretty much exactly what we would expect to see if this universe were indeed created, and sustained, from a higher dimension by a omniscient, omnipotent, omnipresent, eternal Being who knows everything that is happening everywhere in the universe at the same time. These findings certainly seem to go to the very heart of the age old question asked of many parents by their children, “How can God hear everybody’s prayers at the same time?”,,, i.e. Why should the expansion of the universe, or the quantum wave collapse of the entire universe, even care that you or I, or anyone else, should exist? Only Theism, Christian Theism in particular, offers a rational explanation as to why you or I, or anyone else, should have such undeserved significance in such a vast universe. Verse:

Psalm 33:13-15 The LORD looks from heaven; He sees all the sons of men. From the place of His dwelling He looks on all the inhabitants of the earth; He fashions their hearts individually; He considers all their works.

here are a very few notes in that regards:

"There is no centre of the universe! According to the standard theories of cosmology, the universe started with a "Big Bang" about 14 thousand million years ago and has been expanding ever since. Yet there is no centre to the expansion; it is the same everywhere. The Big Bang should not be visualized as an ordinary explosion. The universe is not expanding out from a centre into space; rather, the whole universe is expanding and it is doing so equally at all places, as far as we can tell." Philip Gibbs Centrality of The Earth Within The 4-Dimensional Space-Time of General Relativity – video https://vimeo.com/98189061 Einstein - General Relativity - Thought Experiment - video https://vimeo.com/95417559 Albert Einstein - Special Relativity - Insight Into Eternity - Thought Experiment - video https://vimeo.com/93101738 "The laws of relativity have changed timeless existence from a theological claim to a physical reality. Light, you see, is outside of time, a fact of nature proven in thousands of experiments at hundreds of universities. I don’t pretend to know how tomorrow can exist simultaneously with today and yesterday. But at the speed of light they actually and rigorously do. Time does not pass." Richard Swenson - More Than Meets The Eye, Chpt. 12 Quantum Enigma:Physics Encounters Consciousness - Richard Conn Henry - Professor of Physics - John Hopkins University Excerpt: It is more than 80 years since the discovery of quantum mechanics gave us the most fundamental insight ever into our nature: the overturning of the Copernican Revolution, and the restoration of us human beings to centrality in the Universe. And yet, have you ever before read a sentence having meaning similar to that of my preceding sentence? Likely you have not, and the reason you have not is, in my opinion, that physicists are in a state of denial… https://uncommondesc.wpengine.com/intelligent-design/the-quantum-enigma-of-consciousness-and-the-identity-of-the-designer/ Alain Aspect and Anton Zeilinger by Richard Conn Henry - Physics Professor - John Hopkins University Excerpt: Why do people cling with such ferocity to belief in a mind-independent reality? It is surely because if there is no such reality, then ultimately (as far as we can know) mind alone exists. And if mind is not a product of real matter, but rather is the creator of the "illusion" of material reality (which has, in fact, despite the materialists, been known to be the case, since the discovery of quantum mechanics in 1925), then a theistic view of our existence becomes the only rational alternative to solipsism (solipsism is the philosophical idea that only one's own mind is sure to exist). (Dr. Henry's referenced experiment and paper - “An experimental test of non-local realism” by S. Gröblacher et. al., Nature 446, 871, April 2007 - “To be or not to be local” by Alain Aspect, Nature 446, 866, April 2007 (Leggett’s Inequality verified to 120 standard deviations as of 2011) http://henry.pha.jhu.edu/aspect.html Experimental non-classicality of an indivisible quantum system - Zeilinger 2011 Excerpt: Page 491: "This represents a violation of (Leggett's) inequality (3) by more than 120 standard deviations, demonstrating that no joint probability distribution is capable of describing our results." The violation also excludes any non-contextual hidden-variable model. The result does, however, agree well with quantum mechanical predictions, as we will show now.,,, https://vcq.quantum.at/fileadmin/Publications/Experimental%20non-classicality%20of%20an%20indivisible.pdf The preceding experiment, and the mathematics behind it, are discussed beginning at the 24:15 minute mark of the following video: Quantum Weirdness and God 8-9-2014 by Paul Giem - video https://www.youtube.com/watch?feature=player_detailpage&v=N7HHz14tS1c#t=1449

bornagain77

BA77, General relativity indeed makes it possible to write down the equations of motion in any reference frame in the same formal way. (In Newtonian mechanics and in special relativity, inertial frames were better than others.) And if you take that general principle then what is the point of advocating geocentrism? It makes no sense whatsoever. skram

I'm glad you like my endorsement, BA77! With a bachelor's and master's degrees in religious studies, and with a doctorate from a diploma mill in Vanuatu, Sungenis surely looks like an expert in YEC cosmology. Have fun! :) skram

Thanks for the link, Scram. The bio reads like the script of a surreal comedy. A PhD thesis vindicating geocentrism from a university in the Republic of Vanuatu is something out of a Monty Python sketch. Piotr

skram, thanks for the link, quite the controversial figure and film. That Lawrence Krauss opposes "The Principle" so strongly is practically a 5 star endorsement in my book! :)

In 2014, Sungenis funded the production of a film called The Principle, which features interviews with Lawrence Krauss, Michio Kaku, Max Tegmark, Julian Barbour, and George F. R. Ellis.[1][22][26][27] Krauss has since stated that he was featured in the film without permission and agrees with the scientific community that geocentrism has been thoroughly debunked. Krauss said of the film that if people ignore it, “Maybe then it will quickly disappear into the dustbin of history, where it belongs.”[28] Kate Mulgrew, who narrated the trailer, released a public statement on her Facebook page disavowing the film, saying that she does not subscribe to Sungenis' views on history or science and would not have gotten involved in the documentary had she known of his involvement in it. She stated that she was "a voice for hire, and a misinformed one, at that."[29][30] Several other scientists featured in the film came forward to say that they had been misled about its true agenda, and that they would never have taken part in it had they known its aim.[31] Co-producer Rick DeLano responded to these allegations, insisting that the documentary is an examination of the Copernican Principle and does not explicitly promote the geocentric point of view, adding that he is in possession of signed releases from Krauss and Mulgrew, neither being misled about the content of the documentary or its intention to "explore controversial aspects of cosmology, even highly controversial ideas and theories."[32] Sungenis and DeLano suspect that the criticisms and complaints against their movie are part of a coordinated campaign to keep people from concentrating on the evidence presented in it.[4] http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Robert_Sungenis#Geocentrism

Same for Mr. Multiverse, Tegmark. As to the other complaint from Ellis, Ellis himself stated:

“People need to be aware that there is a range of models that could explain the observations… For instance, I can construct you a spherically symmetrical universe with Earth at its center, and you cannot disprove it based on observations… You can only exclude it on philosophical grounds… What I want to bring into the open is the fact that we are using philosophical criteria in choosing our models. A lot of cosmology tries to hide that.” - George Ellis - W. Wayt Gibbs, “Profile: George F. R. Ellis,” Scientific American, October 1995, Vol. 273, No.4, p. 55

Einstein weighs in here:

“Can we formulate physical laws so that they are valid for all CS [coordinate systems], not only those moving uniformly, but also those moving quite arbitrarily, relative to each other? […] The struggle, so violent in the early days of science, between the views of Ptolemy and Copernicus would then be quite meaningless. Either CS could be used with equal justification. The two sentences: “the sun is at rest and the earth moves” or “the sun moves and the earth is at rest” would simply mean two different conventions concerning two different CS.” Einstein, A. and Infeld, L. (1938) The Evolution of Physics, p.212 (p.248 in original 1938 ed.);

Further note:

“The relation of the two pictures [geocentrism and geokineticism] is reduced to a mere coordinate transformation and it is the main tenet of the Einstein theory that any two ways of looking at the world which are related to each other by a coordinate transformation are entirely equivalent from a physical point of view.... Today we cannot say that the Copernican theory is ‘right’ and the Ptolemaic theory ‘wrong’ in any meaningful physical sense.” Hoyle, Fred. Nicolaus Copernicus. London: Heinemann Educational Books Ltd., 1973.

bornagain77

BA77, You will be delighted to know that these videos feature one "Dr." Robert Sungenis, whose brief biography is available on Wikipedia. skram

wallstreeter43. Thanks for the tip. Before I watch them, How do you personally rate the quality? i.e. How pleased were you?,,, never mind I see you have edited your opinion in bornagain77

Geocentrism geocentric cosmology http://youtu.be/cnLYIbpNst4 Here is a series of lectures (2 videos and one audio) by one of the main proponents of geocentrism Robert sungenis which basically explains the science behind it. Altogether about 4-5 hours worth so it's not light listening . Geocentrism the coming revolution part 2 http://youtu.be/U49_IzLeEo4 Geocentrism the coming revolution part 3 http://youtu.be/EMr8lb2tYvo I am on the fence here on this one simply because I don't have the time right now to research it , but the science seems pretty sound and the only comebacks from atheists are comments like "it's so crazy how can anyone believe it" in ither words I haven't seen any of them attack the science behind it. Fascinating lectures with info most don't know about . wallstreeter43

ppolish: the following paper confirmed that the Cosmic Microwave Background Radiation is 'maximized' for discoverability: The Fine-Tuning for Discoverability - Robin Collins - March 22, 2014 Excerpt: Predictive and Explanatory Power of Discoverability - Cosmic Microwave Background Radiation Prediction: DLO: Within the range of values of a given parameter p that yield near - optimal livability, p will fall into that subrange of values that maximize discoverability (given constraints of elegance are not violated). In every case that I was able to make calculations regarding whether the fundamental parameters of physics are optimized in this way, they appear to pass the test.[iv] This alone is significant since this hypothesis is falsifiable in the sense that one could find data that potentially disconfirms it – namely, cases in which as best as we can determining, such as a case in which changing the value of a fundamental parameter – such as the fine - structure constant – increases discoverability while not negatively affecting livability.[v] Below, I will look at a case from cosmology where this thesis could have been disconfirmed but was not.,,, The most dramatic confirmation of the discoverability/livability optimality thesis (DLO) is the dependence of the Cosmic Microwave Background Radiation (CMB) on the baryon to photon ratio.,,, ...the intensity of CMB depends on the photon to baryon ratio, (??b), which is the ratio of the average number of photons per unit volume of space to the average number of baryons (protons plus neutrons) per unit volume. At present this ratio is approximately a billion to one (10^9) , but it could be anywhere from one to infinity; it traces back to the degree of asymmetry in matter and anti - matter right after the beginning of the universe – for approximately every billion particles of antimatter, there was a billion and one particles of matter.,,, The only livability effect this ratio has is on whether or not galaxies can form that have near - optimally livability zones. As long as this condition is met, the value of this ratio has no further effects on livability. Hence, the DLO predicts that within this range, the value of this ratio will be such as to maximize the intensity of the CMB as observed by typical observers. According to my calculations – which have been verified by three other physicists -- to within the margin of error of the experimentally determined parameters (~20%), the value of the photon to baryon ratio is such that it maximizes the CMB. This is shown in Figure 1 below. (pg. 13) It is easy to see that this prediction could have been disconfirmed. In fact, when I first made the calculations in the fall of 2011, I made a mistake and thought I had refuted this thesis since those calculations showed the intensity of the CMB maximizes at a value different than the photon - baryon ratio in our universe. So, not only does the DLO lead us to expect this ratio, but it provides an ultimate explanation for why it has this value,,, This is a case of a teleological thesis serving both a predictive and an ultimate explanatory role.,,, http://home.messiah.edu/~rcollins/Fine-tuning/Greer-Heard%20Forum%20paper%20draft%20for%20posting.pdf Greer Heard Forum: Robin Collins – “God and the Fine-Tuning of the Universe for Discovery” – video https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=rBWmMU7BXGE bornagain77

News: Diogenes' main point is that there are multiple versions of the "multiverse" view of things. There are suggestions that "if" we are part of a 'multiverse' then there are certain things we "may" see. I'm no cognoscenti of the multiverse theory, however, roughly speaking, they're but an extension of "inflation" theory, which is, itself, a way of dealing with the tremendous homogeneity found in the universe. Here you'll find an article that talks about how the new Planck data have ruled out a number of simple "inflation" models. They're careful to say that the entire idea of 'inflation' has not been ruled out; however, this is a big setback for the "multiverse" way of thinking. So, Diogenes, "inflation" IS falsifiable, and, because most every "multiverse" theory rests upon it, by extension, the "multiverse" theory would be ruled out if the day comes when "inflation" is completely ruled out. Multiverse ideas may continue, but they will then be completely "unfalsifiable." So, "News", the inconsistency Diogenes wants to hammer at, is really non-existent. PaV

I confess not to know what Diogenes is talking about. If there were evidence for a multiverse, it would presumably be testable and falsifiable, at least in principle. If there is no evidence, it is not testable or falsifiable in principle. We are informed that the Planck data did not provide any evidence. In the absence of any evidence anywhere, it is not testable or falsifiable. Are there readers other than Diogenes who find this proposition hard to grasp? News

Diogenes

Is that statement falsifiable or just speculation? Why should I believe it?

You reference all of these things: What is ... an hypothesis? a theory? a speculation? a falsification? evidence? a claim? a multiverse? However you answer those, none of them can be falsified. Silver Asiatic

Diogenes @5

There are a bunch of multiverse hypotheses. Not just one. Some make predictions about observable quantities and are testable. Some maybe not. The multiverse may also be a deduction, i.e. if there’s an inflaton and it’s governed by quantum indeterminacy, then inflation goes on forever, and the multiverse would be (if the assumptions are correct) an inescapable deduction, whether or not you can see it. While deductions may or may not be testable, theories are. Multiverses can be one or the other; they can also be just speculation.

Well either way, it's bad news for the Multiverse hypotheses. A deduction sounds really impressive until you realize it is all built on untestable assumptions and therefore has the same unfalsifiable problem it would seem. The BICEP2 data has proven to be an embarrassment for believers in this hypothesis and now the Planck data looks unpromising as well. What in the world is a dedicated Materialist supposed to do? In what should he turn to now for hope? I'm sure the answer will be the same as always. IF they give up on the multiverse, which I doubt they will, but if they do, I'm sure they will simply resort to some hoped for future discovery to temporarily bail out their faith. tjguy

Yes BA77, and there are no inflation/multiverse models that would explain the cosmic alignment. Many cosmologists and physicists hope this alignment is just coincidence - which it could be. But a very unlikely coincidence. Some were hoping it was dust or something screwing up the observations. But it first was revealed by COBE then reconfirmed by WMAP and now confirmed again by PLANCK. This cosmic "Axis of Evil" is NOT scientifically popular. It screws up inflation/multiverse and might get "Creationists" all excited by putting Earth in a special vantage point. ppolish

Silver Asiatic:

Evidence supporting the claims can be falsified while the claims themselves are not.

What the hell does that mean? "Evidence supporting the claims"? You mean testable predictions of a theory, right? There are a bunch of multiverse hypotheses. Not just one. Some make predictions about observable quantities and are testable. Some maybe not. The multiverse may also be a deduction, i.e. if there's an inflaton and it's governed by quantum indeterminacy, then inflation goes on forever, and the multiverse would be (if the assumptions are correct) an inescapable deduction, whether or not you can see it. While deductions may or may not be testable, theories are. Multiverses can be one or the other; they can also be just speculation. O'Leary has repeatedly and falsely written that there is one multiverse, it's just speculation, and she ignores the testable theories and the inescapable deductions, calling it all speculation. She says it's non-falsifiable (which would be true of untestable speculations, but not true of all versions of the hypotheses) and then she turns right around and says it's falsified by observations. Orwellian logic. But let's look again at what you wrote.

Evidence supporting the claims can be falsified while the claims themselves are not.

Is that statement falsifiable or just speculation? Why should I believe it? Diogenes

ppolish, besides,,, Why is the solar system cosmically aligned? BY Dragan Huterer - 2007 The solar system seems to line up with the largest cosmic features. Is this mere coincidence or a signpost to deeper insights? Caption under figure on page 43: ODD ALIGNMENTS hide within the multipoles of the cosmic microwave background. In this combination of the quadrupole and octopole, a plane bisects the sphere between the largest warm and cool lobes. The ecliptic — the plane of Earth’s orbit projected onto the celestial sphere — is aligned parallel to the plane between the lobes. http://www-personal.umich.edu/~huterer/PRESS/CMB_Huterer.pdf let's not forget this too: Is there a violation of the Copernican principle in radio sky? - Ashok K. Singal - May 17, 2013 Abstract: Cosmic Microwave Background Radiation (CMBR) observations from the WMAP satellite have shown some unexpected anisotropies (directionally dependent observations), which surprisingly seem to be aligned with the eclipticcite {20,16,15}. The latest data from the Planck satellite have confirmed the presence of these anisotropiescite {17}. Here we report even larger anisotropies in the sky distributions of powerful extended quasars and some other sub-classes of radio galaxies in the 3CRR catalogue, one of the oldest and most intensively studies sample of strong radio sourcescite{21,22,3}. The anisotropies lie about a plane passing through the two equinoxes and the north celestial pole (NCP). We can rule out at a 99.995% confidence level the hypothesis that these asymmetries are merely due to statistical fluctuations. Further, even the distribution of observed radio sizes of quasars and radio galaxies show large systematic differences between these two sky regions. The redshift distribution appear to be very similar in both regions of sky for all sources, which rules out any local effects to be the cause of these anomalies. Two pertinent questions then arise. First, why should there be such large anisotropies present in the sky distribution of some of the most distant discrete sources implying inhomogeneities in the universe at very large scales (covering a fraction of the universe)? What is intriguing even further is why such anisotropies should lie about a great circle decided purely by the orientation of earth's rotation axis and/or the axis of its revolution around the sun? It looks as if these axes have a preferential placement in the larger scheme of things, implying an apparent breakdown of the Copernican principle or its more generalization, cosmological principle, upon which all modern cosmological theories are based upon. http://arxiv.org/abs/1305.4134 Here is a blurb on 'The Principle': Does the Universe Revolve Around Earth? - The Principle - video Excerpt: three probes of this radiation all showed the same proof that the universe and its galaxies appear to be arrayed around Earth and the Milky Way. "All of the radiation which comes from everywhere in the universe - there's no place we don't see it - it's all coming toward us and aligned with us," Sungenis said.,,, there is provable design in the universe and Earth's at the center of it - like what scientists found with the 2005 Sloan Digital Sky Survey of all the visible cosmos. "As far out as we could see in the universe the galaxies were aligned in concentric spheres around - guess what - Earth, or our galaxy," http://m.cbn.com/cbnnews/healthscience/2014/October/Film-Shocker-Does-the-Universe-Revolve-Around-Earth-/ bornagain77

The "fact" the speaker says needs explaining is the "Axis of Evil". This fact is a "dirty little secret" that gets overshadowed by the Multiverse fiction. http://www-personal.umich.edu/~huterer/PRESS/CMB_Huterer.pdf There is a movie out in limited release called "The Principle" that highlights this alignment. ppolish

Diogenes Evidence supporting the claims can be falsified while the claims themselves are not. Silver Asiatic

This shows up the lie of O'Leary's repeated claims that multiverse hypotheses (should be PLURAL Denyse) are not testable. O'Leary yesterday: Multiverse not falsifiable! O'Leary today: Multiverse falsified! O'Leary tomorrow: Multiverse not falsifiable! Diogenes