Can we draw that conclusion from an interesting recent study on elementary particles?
Here’s the explanation to give, when you are an hour late for work:
Before the Big Bang, space-time as we know it did not exist. So how was it born? The process of creating normal space-time from an earlier state dominated by quantum gravity has been studied for years by theorists at the Faculty of Physics, University of Warsaw. Recent analyses suggest a surprising conclusion: not all elementary particles are subject to the same space-time.
…
Several billion years ago, in the era soon after the Big Bang, the Universe was so dense and so hot that elementary particles felt the existence of gravity strongly. For decades, physicists around the world have been attempting to discover the laws of quantum gravity describing this phase of the evolution of the Universe.
…
“Particles with mass not only experience different space-times than photons do, but each sees its own private version of space-time depending on the direction it moves in. This finding really took us by surprise,” says PhD student Andrea Dapor.
By now, it will have occurred to him that if this quantum stuff catches on, he could use the same excuse for paying his bills late.
But be sure you don’t let him see this part of the story:
As observers studying the behaviour of elementary particles, we are classical, rather than quantum, systems and in a sense we are “outside” the particles’ world. It is not then important what each particle “experiences” of its space-time.
So, you are late and he is in arrears of his car payment after all.
But, if you don’t come in late again, by the time he figures that out, he’ll be busy checking up on someone else… 😉
Watching shadows in Plato’s cave anyone?
Music:
Besides Plato’s parable, the classical world of separate material particles has had the disparaging label of ‘illusion’ put on it more than a few times by the modern science of quantum mechanics:
I think Dr. Eben Alexander sums up the situation nicely here:
In the ‘life review’ portion of near death experience, where every minute detail of a person’s life is reviewed, the illusion of separateness is removed and our actions in this life, and how they effected others, are seen as they truly are.
The following comment and photo from the article are interesting,,
For although the comment touches on it, Special relativity (or even general relativity) has already, long ago, revealed two distinct realms of time for mass and photons. Moreover adding Quantum Mechanics to the mix reveals a third distinct level of time.
This following statement from the OP is ‘not even wrong’:
Because we, at our most foundational basis, are holistic ‘quantum systems’, not ‘classical systems’:
Music and verse:
OT: per Justin Brierley: This week’s Unbelievable? show is all about the “probability” of the resurrection having happened.
Christian philosopher Richard Swinburne claims that the resurrection can be shown to have an approximately 0.97 probability
Calum Millerler, a student of Swinburne (and frequenter of this group) debates atheist Chris Hallquist on whether probability theory supports the case for the resurrection.
Listen: http://goo.gl/jeOqa
MP3: http://ow.ly/2y9Dnr
Haven’t listened to the show yet but, from what I’ve seen of the evidence and in my own life, I’m at a probability of 1 myself! 🙂
I still think the reference-frame of photons is beyond space-time, and they merely interact with it. God done it. And that’s the good oil.
I should have said, ‘their proper reference-frame’, in case it’s not obvious.
Well, that Polish particle physicists findings on the Shroud seem to me to provide very compelling evidence of the Resurrection.
Although atheists will not even accept logic as ‘persuasive’, never mind, ‘binding’, if their word-view might thereby be jeopardized.
‘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’
Great, great quote, Phillip. Truly, it both describes a surreal epoch and is epoch-making in its clarity. I mean it couldn’t set out the reality more clearly. The truth of the matter is that, despite appearances to the contrary, intelligence is a great leveller. As ever, a matter of our assumptions, they, in turn, often very purposefully locked into the individual’s world-view.
Somebody pointed out the other day that one would need to be pretty smart to be able to deploy arguments capable of obscuring from the individual what he really doesn’t want to see, when the truth is unambiguous, glaringly obvious common-sense. We see it, again and again, in virtually all these threads in the posts of materialists.
Christ identified the openness to the deepest truths, spiritual truths, as characteristically a quality of the poor, i.e. those of a less worldly, more modestly analytical intelligence in terms of the more superficial, material world we inhabit; poor (among the children of light – about those darkness there can be no rhyme or reason), let us remember, because their hearts are not set on ever-growing status and wealth. When they win a large amount on a lottery, more often than not, it brings misery. They and miss their friends, for one thing, but of course, there would be others – all, I should think due to their being primarily ‘people’ people.
What then is worldly intelligence if it is not founded upon sensible assumptions? How often have jokes been made at the expense of the military, for example, casting them as duffers: military intelligence, an oxymoron, etc. Yet is there, could there ever be, a more obstinately die-hard enemy of knowledge than a professional establishment comfortably ensconced within a particular paradigm. And make no mistake, the more learned and powerful the professional body, the more brutal and savage the history of its obstructionism has been.
Indeed, the worldly intelligence is worse than a leveller for its possessor, since he starts from a lower rank and simply descends from there, this latter, due to no other reason than his appropriation of what has been loaned to him by God, who pities him for his worldly avarice. Up to a point. The article, below, is not idle chit-chat, of course. The mercy we receive will be proportionate to the mercy we show.
http://www.internetmonk.com/ar.....offend-you