| Topic: |
Religions > Atheism |
| User: |
"George Dance" |
| Date: |
14 Jan 2004 01:26:38 PM |
| Object: |
Quantum entanglement and telepathy |
Let me say at the outset that I'm no scientist, and have made no
observations of my own wrt quantum mechanics. I'm just taking the
following author's word that what he says is experimentally confirmed
fact is such:
"Another bizarre product of quantum mechanics is what physicists call
'quantum entanglement - a peculiar situation in which the state of one
particle can appear to influence that of another particle,
instantaneously, no matter how far apart they are. This effect had
been predicted by theorists in the 1930s, and promptly denounced by
Einstein as 'ghostly action at a distance.' In the 1980s, however,
such entanglements were shown to quite real; the effect was first
shown by the French physicist Alain Aspect in 1981. Since then, even
more dramatic quantum entanglements have been demonstrated. In 1998,
for example, researchers at the University of Geneva ... produced a
pair of entangled photons. Measuring the energy of one of the photons
determined the enegy of the other, even though it was 10 kilometres
away."
(Dan Falk, /Universe on a T-Shirt," Penguin 2002, 135-6)
It looked to me as if the factuality of this makes the idea of
telepathy more credible than previously. If moving particles can be
entangled, irrespective of size, then so can particles (electrons, eg)
within atoms, particles within cells, and particles within two
different brains. And a thought in one (or, more precisely, the
physical effect that corresponds to a thought in one) can affect one
such electron, which affects the electron in the other; which could be
sufficient (along with the existing background conditions of that
brain) to cause a physical event that produces a corresponding effect
in that second brain.
That of course is no proof that telepathy does happen; it simply gives
the idea of telepathy some theoretical support. Nor is it a theory,
in that it gives no account of the mechanics of how telepathy would
work; but giving that, of course, would have to wait on a scientific
theory of how quantum entanglement works generally.
.
|
|
| User: "Elf M. Sternberg" |
|
| Title: Re: Quantum entanglement and telepathy |
15 Jan 2004 07:06:12 PM |
|
|
(George Dance) writes:
That of course is no proof that telepathy does happen; it simply gives
the idea of telepathy some theoretical support.
But it's technical support right alongside with the notion that
because life exists on Earth, it might exits elsewhere in the universe,
therefore the aliens are here. The leap from one to another is so huge
as to be unwarranted.
Entanglement is such a fragile phenomenon that sustaining it
between individuals is astronomically unlikely. And even if it were to
arise, there's no guarantee that you would find entanglement with the
person you were trying to communicate. The effect is so irrelevant to
the world and the scale of human events-- even those that happen within
the microscopic world of the biochemical brain-- that if it ever
happens, it's just noise in the machinery.
Elf
.
|
|
|
| User: "George Dance" |
|
| Title: Re: Quantum entanglement and telepathy |
16 Jan 2004 10:53:09 AM |
|
|
"Elf M. Sternberg" <elf@drizzle.com> wrote in message news:<m3k73sk8hn.fsf@drizzle.com>...
georgedance@hotmail.com (George Dance) writes:
That of course is no proof that telepathy does happen; it simply gives
the idea of telepathy some theoretical support.
But it's technical support right alongside with the notion that
because life exists on Earth, it might exits elsewhere in the universe,
therefore the aliens are here. The leap from one to another is so huge
as to be unwarranted.
Entanglement is such a fragile phenomenon that sustaining it
between individuals is astronomically unlikely. And even if it were to
arise, there's no guarantee that you would find entanglement with the
person you were trying to communicate. The effect is so irrelevant to
the world and the scale of human events-- even those that happen within
the microscopic world of the biochemical brain-- that if it ever
happens, it's just noise in the machinery.
Well, that's just it. Thoughts wouldn't be transmitted, just changes
in states that could result in thoughts; whom they would be
transmitted to, and what thoughts resulted, would not be subject to
anyone's conscious control. So even if the idea was correct, it would
not, barring some revolution in neurophysiology, provide anything we
could use.
But if it were correct, it would explain the anecdotal and even
experimental evidence of telepathic linkage (and I don't think there's
none; but I don't know if we have to get into that).
.
|
|
|
|
|
| User: "Kevin Anthoney" |
|
| Title: Re: Quantum entanglement and telepathy |
14 Jan 2004 04:36:37 PM |
|
|
George Dance wrote:
Let me say at the outset that I'm no scientist, and have made no
observations of my own wrt quantum mechanics. I'm just taking the
following author's word that what he says is experimentally confirmed
fact is such:
"Another bizarre product of quantum mechanics is what physicists call
'quantum entanglement - a peculiar situation in which the state of one
particle can appear to influence that of another particle,
instantaneously, no matter how far apart they are. This effect had
been predicted by theorists in the 1930s, and promptly denounced by
Einstein as 'ghostly action at a distance.' In the 1980s, however,
such entanglements were shown to quite real; the effect was first
shown by the French physicist Alain Aspect in 1981. Since then, even
more dramatic quantum entanglements have been demonstrated. In 1998,
for example, researchers at the University of Geneva ... produced a
pair of entangled photons. Measuring the energy of one of the photons
determined the enegy of the other, even though it was 10 kilometres
away."
(Dan Falk, /Universe on a T-Shirt," Penguin 2002, 135-6)
It looked to me as if the factuality of this makes the idea of
telepathy more credible than previously.
Nah, not really. The problem with telepathy isn't that there's a lack of
potential mechanisms for it. A brain with a radiotransmitter would be
perfectly within the laws of physics, for example. It's just that
carefully constructed tests - the ones that try hard to exclude prior
collaboration, for example - haven't shown that such a thing exists.
EPR suggests the possiblity of faster-than-light communication (although, as
another poster has mentioned, it's believed that this "communication" can't
send actual information.) But with telepathy, it's not the speed that's
the problem - it's whether anything is sent at all.
--
Kevin Anthoney
kanthoney[a]dsl.pipex.com
.
|
|
|
| User: "Al Klein" |
|
| Title: Re: Quantum entanglement and telepathy |
14 Jan 2004 11:07:21 PM |
|
|
On Wed, 14 Jan 2004 22:36:37 +0000, Kevin Anthoney
<kevin_anthoney@hotmail.com> posted in alt.atheism:
EPR suggests the possiblity of faster-than-light communication (although, as
another poster has mentioned, it's believed that this "communication" can't
send actual information.) But with telepathy, it's not the speed that's
the problem - it's whether anything is sent at all.
Even if we could somehow send person A's eeg into person B's brain,
what you experience vs. the signals in your brain depend on what
you've experienced. My synapses aren't the same as your synapses. So
my "thoughts" would be nonsense to you.
--
"I can't activate two neurons simultaneously, and I vote"
- The theistic majority
(random sig, produced by SigChanger)
rukbat at optonline dot net
.
|
|
|
|
|
| User: "Rick Russell" |
|
| Title: Re: Quantum entanglement and telepathy |
14 Jan 2004 02:09:30 PM |
|
|
In article <6312c50b.0401141126.7bcfa0a6@posting.google.com>,
George Dance <georgedance@hotmail.com> wrote:
It looked to me as if the factuality of this makes the idea of
telepathy more credible than previously.
It's called the "Einstein-Pedowsky-Rosen Paradox", or EPR for short.
Volumes have been written on it. Although the EPR phenomenon is
legitimate, there are good arguments that suggest there is no way to
transmit information between remote locations by exploiting EPR.
At least, that was the current state of research last time I looked
into it. That was awhile ago.
Rick R.
.
|
|
|
| User: "Therion Ware" |
|
| Title: Re: Quantum entanglement and telepathy |
14 Jan 2004 03:13:10 PM |
|
|
On Wed, 14 Jan 2004 20:09:30 +0000 (UTC) in alt.atheism, Rick Russell
(rickr@is.rice.edu (Rick Russell)) said, directing the reply to
alt.atheism
In article <6312c50b.0401141126.7bcfa0a6@posting.google.com>,
George Dance <georgedance@hotmail.com> wrote:
It looked to me as if the factuality of this makes the idea of
telepathy more credible than previously.
It's called the "Einstein-Pedowsky-Rosen Paradox", or EPR for short.
Volumes have been written on it. Although the EPR phenomenon is
legitimate, there are good arguments that suggest there is no way to
transmit information between remote locations by exploiting EPR.
But doesn't the very fact that I'm transmitting convey information?
And turning the machine on and off in a predetermined sequence would
presumably allow transmission of complex info ala a really high tech
version of morse code?
At least, that was the current state of research last time I looked
into it. That was awhile ago.
Yes that's what I heard as well. Be nice if there was a way around it
though.
Rick R.
--
"Do Unto Others As You Would Have Them Do Unto You."
- Attrib: Pauline Reage.
Inexpensive VHS & other video to CD/DVD conversion?
See: <http://www.Video2CD.com>. 35.00 gets your video on DVD.
all posts to this email address are automatically deleted without being read.
** atheist poster child #1 ** #442.
.
|
|
|
| User: "Adam Marczyk" |
|
| Title: Re: Quantum entanglement and telepathy |
14 Jan 2004 04:16:45 PM |
|
|
Therion Ware <autodelete@city-of-dis.com> wrote in message
news:dqbb00t9u11jcmah6a9h8668samqo6l1db@4ax.com...
On Wed, 14 Jan 2004 20:09:30 +0000 (UTC) in alt.atheism, Rick Russell
(rickr@is.rice.edu (Rick Russell)) said, directing the reply to
alt.atheism
In article <6312c50b.0401141126.7bcfa0a6@posting.google.com>,
George Dance <georgedance@hotmail.com> wrote:
It looked to me as if the factuality of this makes the idea of
telepathy more credible than previously.
It's called the "Einstein-Pedowsky-Rosen Paradox", or EPR for short.
Volumes have been written on it. Although the EPR phenomenon is
legitimate, there are good arguments that suggest there is no way to
transmit information between remote locations by exploiting EPR.
But doesn't the very fact that I'm transmitting convey information?
And turning the machine on and off in a predetermined sequence would
presumably allow transmission of complex info ala a really high tech
version of morse code?
In my layman's understanding of it, the way this works is that you create
two particles in an entangled state and then separate them from each other
by an arbitrary distance. As long as they remain entangled, any change to
one will instantly be reflected in the other. However, the particles
themselves can't be made to travel any faster than light, as Einstein
predicted; it's just that changes made to one affect the other
instantaneously regardless of the distance between them. (I understand that
there are sound theoretical reasons why this effect cannot be used to
transmit information, though I confess I'm not certain exactly what they
are.) So, no, you couldn't turn your transmitter on and off to send
information faster than light this way.
--
"We have loved the stars too fondly | a.a. #2001
to be fearful of the night." | http://www.ebonmusings.org
--Tombstone epitaph of | e-mail: ebonmuse!hotmail.com
two amateur astronomers, | ICQ: 8777843
quoted in Carl Sagan's _Cosmos_ | PGP Key ID: 0x5C66F737
----------------------------------------------------------------------
.
|
|
|
| User: "Therion Ware" |
|
| Title: Re: Quantum entanglement and telepathy |
14 Jan 2004 04:27:36 PM |
|
|
On Wed, 14 Jan 2004 22:16:45 GMT in alt.atheism, Adam Marczyk ("Adam
Marczyk" <ebonmuse@deletethis.hotmail.com>) said, directing the reply
to alt.atheism
Therion Ware <autodelete@city-of-dis.com> wrote in message
news:dqbb00t9u11jcmah6a9h8668samqo6l1db@4ax.com...
On Wed, 14 Jan 2004 20:09:30 +0000 (UTC) in alt.atheism, Rick Russell
(rickr@is.rice.edu (Rick Russell)) said, directing the reply to
alt.atheism
In article <6312c50b.0401141126.7bcfa0a6@posting.google.com>,
George Dance <georgedance@hotmail.com> wrote:
It looked to me as if the factuality of this makes the idea of
telepathy more credible than previously.
It's called the "Einstein-Pedowsky-Rosen Paradox", or EPR for short.
Volumes have been written on it. Although the EPR phenomenon is
legitimate, there are good arguments that suggest there is no way to
transmit information between remote locations by exploiting EPR.
But doesn't the very fact that I'm transmitting convey information?
And turning the machine on and off in a predetermined sequence would
presumably allow transmission of complex info ala a really high tech
version of morse code?
In my layman's understanding of it, the way this works is that you create
two particles in an entangled state and then separate them from each other
by an arbitrary distance. As long as they remain entangled, any change to
one will instantly be reflected in the other. However, the particles
themselves can't be made to travel any faster than light, as Einstein
predicted; it's just that changes made to one affect the other
instantaneously regardless of the distance between them. (I understand that
there are sound theoretical reasons why this effect cannot be used to
transmit information, though I confess I'm not certain exactly what they
are.) So, no, you couldn't turn your transmitter on and off to send
information faster than light this way.
"Bugger".
--
"Do Unto Others As You Would Have Them Do Unto You."
- Attrib: Pauline Reage.
Inexpensive VHS & other video to CD/DVD conversion?
See: <http://www.Video2CD.com>. 35.00 gets your video on DVD.
all posts to this email address are automatically deleted without being read.
** atheist poster child #1 ** #442.
.
|
|
|
|
| User: "David K. Lewis" |
|
| Title: Re: Quantum entanglement and telepathy |
15 Jan 2004 06:46:13 AM |
|
|
"Adam Marczyk" <ebonmuse@deletethis.hotmail.com> writes:
...(I understand that
there are sound theoretical reasons why this effect cannot be used to
transmit information, though I confess I'm not certain exactly what they
are.) So, no, you couldn't turn your transmitter on and off to send
information faster than light this way.
You wouldn't need to turn a transmitter on/off, lets use spin
as an example. If you said that with these particles left
spin = 0 and right spin =1, then couldn't you have instantaneous
binary communication (all that's needed for computers) and
thus be transmitting information by viewing the change.
I know analyzing the change would take some time, but it does
for computers now, however you would cut down to 0 the tranmission
time...
I have heard as well that you can't transmit information
instantly using this method, but have yet to see a convincing
explaination of why.
As always any opionions I may have written above are mine and mine alone.
Dave.
.
|
|
|
| User: "Ron Baker, Pluralitas!" |
|
| Title: Re: Quantum entanglement and telepathy |
15 Jan 2004 09:48:22 AM |
|
|
"David K. Lewis" <dkl28@cas.org> wrote in message
news:bu622l$jfb$1@srv38.cas.org...
"Adam Marczyk" <ebonmuse@deletethis.hotmail.com> writes:
...(I understand that
there are sound theoretical reasons why this effect cannot be used to
transmit information, though I confess I'm not certain exactly what they
are.) So, no, you couldn't turn your transmitter on and off to send
information faster than light this way.
You wouldn't need to turn a transmitter on/off, lets use spin
as an example. If you said that with these particles left
spin = 0 and right spin =1, then couldn't you have instantaneous
binary communication (all that's needed for computers) and
thus be transmitting information by viewing the change.
I know analyzing the change would take some time, but it does
for computers now, however you would cut down to 0 the tranmission
time...
I have heard as well that you can't transmit information
instantly using this method, but have yet to see a convincing
explaination of why.
To use your spin example, you can't encode the spin of the particles.
It is random. The entanglement just tells you that once
you figure out what spin one particle has then you instantly
know what spin the other particle has.
As always any opionions I may have written above are mine and mine alone.
Dave.
.
|
|
|
|
| User: "Martin Thomas" |
|
| Title: Re: Quantum entanglement and telepathy |
15 Jan 2004 09:47:36 PM |
|
|
On 15 Jan 2004 12:46:13 GMT in alt.atheism
dkl28@cas.org (David K. Lewis) wrote:
"Adam Marczyk" <ebonmuse@deletethis.hotmail.com> writes:
...(I understand that
there are sound theoretical reasons why this effect cannot be used
to
transmit information, though I confess I'm not certain exactly what
they
are.) So, no, you couldn't turn your transmitter on and off to send
information faster than light this way.
You wouldn't need to turn a transmitter on/off, lets use spin
as an example. If you said that with these particles left
spin = 0 and right spin =1, then couldn't you have instantaneous
binary communication (all that's needed for computers) and
thus be transmitting information by viewing the change.
I know analyzing the change would take some time, but it does
for computers now, however you would cut down to 0 the tranmission
time...
I have heard as well that you can't transmit information
instantly using this method, but have yet to see a convincing
explaination of why.
This relates to Bell's theorem. Roger Penrose explains it very well in
'The Emperor's New Mind' - which won a well deserved science writing
award. However it is many years since I read it, so I am not sure I
can give it justice now.
In a simple case - which was eventually tested experimentally - 2
particles were created together which separated at nearly the speed of
light. At opposite sides of the laboratory their spin was measured -
and it was found that their spins were always opposite to one another.
As first sight this does not sound very remarkable, could they have
simply started life with opposite spins? It turns out that this cannot
explain it.
When the spin of the particle is measured, it is necessary to measure
it in a particular direction. For the particles in question, the spin
is always either clockwise or anticlockwise.
If the 2 particles are measured in the same direction, the correlation
is exactly -1, the spins are always opposite. If the directions are at
an angle to one another, the correlation changes. If I remember
correctly, it is proportional to the cosine of the angle.
In early experiments, it was decided in advance what the angles of the
2 measurements would be and the correlations were always what the
theory predicted.
In a later experiment, a random factor was introduced - an unrelated
measurement was made, one which could not be predicted in advance.
This determined what the angle of measurement was. This all happened
so fast that it would have been impossible for a signal traveling at
the speed of light to inform one particle which angle was going to
going to be used to measure the other particle's measurement, before
it's own spin was measured.
And all the correlations were as theory predicted. In a couple of
pages, Penrose convinced me that the results were completely
inconsistent with the idea that the spin of the particles was
determined when they were created. The spin appeared when it was
measured.
Since all you can do is to alter the angle of measurement, can this be
used to transmit information? It turns out that it cannot. Penrose
demonstrated this for the example he gave. According to Bell's
theorem, this is perfectly general.
So there is some kind of ghostly faster than light connection - but
not one that can be used to transmit information. That is just as
well, because if it was possible to send a signal faster than light,
then it would be easy to send a message backwards in time.
As always any opionions I may have written above are mine and mine
alone.
-
Martin Thomas
Official "Teddy Bear" Atheist
mart666t@netscape.NO.GHASTLY.HAWKERS.net (Posted via Google)
.
|
|
|
|
| User: "Jim Hutton" |
|
| Title: Re: Quantum entanglement and telepathy |
15 Jan 2004 09:34:48 AM |
|
|
We now know that an electron (as well as other particles) are not small
little spheres whizzing to and 'fro. They are composed of "probability"
waves that *usually* result in the electron being found where you might
expect it.
However, often those probability waves have some non-zero value in places
you'd least expect (at least from a classical point of view), the result is
that the electron can simply "appear" in a different part of space.
However, that doesn't mean that your 1974 Dodge will all of a sudden appear
3 blocks north of where you parked it.
Similarly, showing that there is a qm entanglement between particles doesn't
mean that you can extrapolate that to the macroscopic domain of esp.
jh #1696
.
|
|
|
|
|
| User: "Fred Stone" |
|
| Title: Re: Quantum entanglement and telepathy |
14 Jan 2004 05:30:39 PM |
|
|
Adam Marczyk wrote:
Therion Ware <autodelete@city-of-dis.com> wrote in message
news:dqbb00t9u11jcmah6a9h8668samqo6l1db@4ax.com...
On Wed, 14 Jan 2004 20:09:30 +0000 (UTC) in alt.atheism, Rick Russell
(rickr@is.rice.edu (Rick Russell)) said, directing the reply to
alt.atheism
In article <6312c50b.0401141126.7bcfa0a6@posting.google.com>,
George Dance <georgedance@hotmail.com> wrote:
It looked to me as if the factuality of this makes the idea of
telepathy more credible than previously.
It's called the "Einstein-Pedowsky-Rosen Paradox", or EPR for short.
Volumes have been written on it. Although the EPR phenomenon is
legitimate, there are good arguments that suggest there is no way to
transmit information between remote locations by exploiting EPR.
But doesn't the very fact that I'm transmitting convey information?
And turning the machine on and off in a predetermined sequence would
presumably allow transmission of complex info ala a really high tech
version of morse code?
In my layman's understanding of it, the way this works is that you create
two particles in an entangled state and then separate them from each other
by an arbitrary distance. As long as they remain entangled, any change to
one will instantly be reflected in the other. However, the particles
themselves can't be made to travel any faster than light, as Einstein
predicted; it's just that changes made to one affect the other
instantaneously regardless of the distance between them. (I understand that
there are sound theoretical reasons why this effect cannot be used to
transmit information, though I confess I'm not certain exactly what they
are.) So, no, you couldn't turn your transmitter on and off to send
information faster than light this way.
Almost. You don't have any control over the "changes" to the particle.
What can be done is to *measure* some quantum property (spin, for
instance) and the other particle will be found to be in a correlated
spin state.
--
Fred Stone
aa# 1369
.
|
|
|
|
| User: "Kevin Anthoney" |
|
| Title: Re: Quantum entanglement and telepathy |
14 Jan 2004 04:58:27 PM |
|
|
Adam Marczyk wrote:
Therion Ware <autodelete@city-of-dis.com> wrote in message
news:dqbb00t9u11jcmah6a9h8668samqo6l1db@4ax.com...
On Wed, 14 Jan 2004 20:09:30 +0000 (UTC) in alt.atheism, Rick Russell
(rickr@is.rice.edu (Rick Russell)) said, directing the reply to
alt.atheism
In article <6312c50b.0401141126.7bcfa0a6@posting.google.com>,
George Dance <georgedance@hotmail.com> wrote:
It looked to me as if the factuality of this makes the idea of
telepathy more credible than previously.
It's called the "Einstein-Pedowsky-Rosen Paradox", or EPR for short.
Volumes have been written on it. Although the EPR phenomenon is
legitimate, there are good arguments that suggest there is no way to
transmit information between remote locations by exploiting EPR.
But doesn't the very fact that I'm transmitting convey information?
And turning the machine on and off in a predetermined sequence would
presumably allow transmission of complex info ala a really high tech
version of morse code?
In my layman's understanding of it, the way this works is that you create
two particles in an entangled state and then separate them from each other
by an arbitrary distance. As long as they remain entangled, any change to
one will instantly be reflected in the other. However, the particles
themselves can't be made to travel any faster than light, as Einstein
predicted; it's just that changes made to one affect the other
instantaneously regardless of the distance between them. (I understand
that there are sound theoretical reasons why this effect cannot be used to
transmit information, though I confess I'm not certain exactly what they
are.) So, no, you couldn't turn your transmitter on and off to send
information faster than light this way.
I think it's because, in order for the measurement of your particle to make
any sense, you have to get information on how the other guy measured his
particle (i.e. the direction you measured your particle in v. the direction
he measured his particle in). This would have to be transmitted by some
other means. You could use either a conventional means for this, or
another faster-than-light channel (which would, of course, simply defer the
problem.)
--
Kevin Anthoney
kanthoney[a]dsl.pipex.com
.
|
|
|
|
|
|
| User: "Rick Russell" |
|
| Title: Re: Quantum entanglement and telepathy |
14 Jan 2004 02:11:22 PM |
|
|
In article <bu47lq$kdc$1@joe.rice.edu>, Rick Russell <rickr@is.rice.edu> wrote:
It's called the "Einstein-Pedowsky-Rosen Paradox", or EPR for short.
Sorry, that's "Podolsky". It's possible that my physics professors at
the time, of European origin, were pronouncing it correctly despite
the English spelling.
Rick R.
.
|
|
|
|
|
| User: "Martin Thomas" |
|
| Title: Re: Quantum entanglement and telepathy |
14 Jan 2004 08:53:26 PM |
|
|
On 14 Jan 2004 11:26:38 -0800 in alt.atheism
georgedance@hotmail.com (George Dance) wrote:
Let me say at the outset that I'm no scientist, and have made no
observations of my own wrt quantum mechanics. I'm just taking the
following author's word that what he says is experimentally confirmed
fact is such:
"Another bizarre product of quantum mechanics is what physicists call
'quantum entanglement - a peculiar situation in which the state of
one
particle can appear to influence that of another particle,
instantaneously, no matter how far apart they are. This effect had
been predicted by theorists in the 1930s, and promptly denounced by
Einstein as 'ghostly action at a distance.' In the 1980s, however,
such entanglements were shown to quite real; the effect was first
shown by the French physicist Alain Aspect in 1981. Since then, even
more dramatic quantum entanglements have been demonstrated. In 1998,
for example, researchers at the University of Geneva ... produced a
pair of entangled photons. Measuring the energy of one of the
photons
determined the enegy of the other, even though it was 10 kilometres
away."
(Dan Falk, /Universe on a T-Shirt," Penguin 2002, 135-6)
It looked to me as if the factuality of this makes the idea of
telepathy more credible than previously. If moving particles can be
entangled, irrespective of size, then so can particles (electrons,
eg)
within atoms, particles within cells, and particles within two
different brains. And a thought in one (or, more precisely, the
physical effect that corresponds to a thought in one) can affect one
such electron, which affects the electron in the other; which could
be
sufficient (along with the existing background conditions of that
brain) to cause a physical event that produces a corresponding effect
in that second brain.
That of course is no proof that telepathy does happen; it simply
gives
the idea of telepathy some theoretical support. Nor is it a theory,
in that it gives no account of the mechanics of how telepathy would
work; but giving that, of course, would have to wait on a scientific
theory of how quantum entanglement works generally.
In the mechanistic world of 19th century physics, it was very
difficult to see how such phenomena as telepathy or clairvoyance could
fit in anywhere. But the world of quantum mechanics is not so
inhospitable.
Carl Jung wrote a book called 'Synchronicity: an Acausal Connecting
Principle' which introduced the idea of synchronicity; that 2 events
could be linked in a meaningful way, but without one of them causing
the other. He suggested that this was a useful way of looking at
psychic phenomena. As far as I remember, he made no explicit mention
of quantum mechanics, though I think it possible he had heard
something of the subject which may have influenced him.
Maybe processes in the brain could be linked with processes elsewhere,
but without an explicit causal link between them? If that is the case,
it would go far beyond what is currently known about the phenomena of
entanglement.
My own experiences with psychic phenomena suggest to me that the brain
has an amazing ability to figure out a great deal from very few clues.
There have been times when I have gotten information about events
which have startled me greatly. Usually - though not always - I have
later been able to see how I might have acquired all the information
to figure it out. The fact that I suddenly became aware of the
conclusion - without any awareness of the intervening steps - was
unsettling to say the least.
Whether that can explain all psychic phenomena I do not know. If not,
then we may have to wait for physics to catch up with Jung.
-
Martin Thomas
Official "Teddy Bear" Atheist
mart666t@netscape.NO.HAWKERS.net (posted via Google)
.
|
|
|
|
| User: "MarkA" |
|
| Title: Re: Quantum entanglement and telepathy |
15 Jan 2004 11:10:10 AM |
|
|
On Wed, 14 Jan 2004 11:26:38 +0000, George Dance wrote:
Let me say at the outset that I'm no scientist, and have made no
observations of my own wrt quantum mechanics. I'm just taking the
following author's word that what he says is experimentally confirmed fact
is such:
"Another bizarre product of quantum mechanics is what physicists call
'quantum entanglement - a peculiar situation in which the state of one
particle can appear to influence that of another particle,
instantaneously, no matter how far apart they are. This effect had been
predicted by theorists in the 1930s, and promptly denounced by Einstein as
'ghostly action at a distance.' In the 1980s, however, such entanglements
were shown to quite real; the effect was first shown by the French
physicist Alain Aspect in 1981. Since then, even more dramatic quantum
entanglements have been demonstrated. In 1998, for example, researchers
at the University of Geneva ... produced a pair of entangled photons.
Measuring the energy of one of the photons determined the enegy of the
other, even though it was 10 kilometres away."
(Dan Falk, /Universe on a T-Shirt," Penguin 2002, 135-6)
It looked to me as if the factuality of this makes the idea of telepathy
more credible than previously. If moving particles can be entangled,
irrespective of size, then so can particles (electrons, eg) within atoms,
particles within cells, and particles within two different brains. And a
thought in one (or, more precisely, the physical effect that corresponds
to a thought in one) can affect one such electron, which affects the
electron in the other; which could be sufficient (along with the existing
background conditions of that brain) to cause a physical event that
produces a corresponding effect in that second brain.
That of course is no proof that telepathy does happen; it simply gives the
idea of telepathy some theoretical support. Nor is it a theory, in that
it gives no account of the mechanics of how telepathy would work; but
giving that, of course, would have to wait on a scientific theory of how
quantum entanglement works generally.
The problem with quantum mechanics is that it is so bizzare, it is easy to
use it to justify faith in bizzare paranormal phenomena, such as
telepathy. In point of fact, we don't know what QM "means," we just know
how to solve equations that predict the behavior of quantum systems with
extremely high accuracy. It is hard enough trying to get QM to predict
the existence of gravity, I won't hold my breath waiting for it to predict
or explain telepathy.
--
MarkA
(still caught in the maze of twisty little passages, all different)
.
|
|
|
|
| User: "Bobby D. Bryant" |
|
| Title: Re: Quantum entanglement and telepathy |
15 Jan 2004 01:13:32 AM |
|
|
On Wed, 14 Jan 2004 11:26:38 -0800, George Dance wrote:
Let me say at the outset that I'm no scientist, and have made no
observations of my own wrt quantum mechanics. I'm just taking the
following author's word that what he says is experimentally confirmed
fact is such:
"Another bizarre product of quantum mechanics is what physicists call
'quantum entanglement - a peculiar situation in which the state of one
particle can appear to influence that of another particle,
instantaneously, no matter how far apart they are. This effect had been
predicted by theorists in the 1930s, and promptly denounced by Einstein
as 'ghostly action at a distance.' In the 1980s, however, such
entanglements were shown to quite real; the effect was first shown by
the French physicist Alain Aspect in 1981. Since then, even more
dramatic quantum entanglements have been demonstrated. In 1998, for
example, researchers at the University of Geneva ... produced a pair of
entangled photons. Measuring the energy of one of the photons
determined the enegy of the other, even though it was 10 kilometres
away."
(Dan Falk, /Universe on a T-Shirt," Penguin 2002, 135-6)
It looked to me as if the factuality of this makes the idea of telepathy
more credible than previously. If moving particles can be entangled,
irrespective of size, then so can particles (electrons, eg) within
atoms, particles within cells, and particles within two different
brains. And a thought in one (or, more precisely, the physical effect
that corresponds to a thought in one) can affect one such electron,
which affects the electron in the other; which could be sufficient
(along with the existing background conditions of that brain) to cause a
physical event that produces a corresponding effect in that second
brain.
Why would the elementary particles that represent knowledge in a
telepath's brain stand in a 1:1 correspondence with particles in another
party's brain? Let alone be entangled with them?
And if that did happen, why would it just transfer static knowledge rather
than skills, behavior, and even specific decisions?
More to the point, why can't purported telepaths do their tricks in
controlled circumstances under observation by skeptics?
--
Bobby Bryant
Austin, Texas
.
|
|
|
| User: "George Dance" |
|
| Title: Re: Quantum entanglement and telepathy |
16 Jan 2004 10:32:19 AM |
|
|
"Bobby D. Bryant" <bdbryant@mail.utexas.edu> wrote in message news:<pan.2004.01.15.07.13.32.422382@mail.utexas.edu>...
On Wed, 14 Jan 2004 11:26:38 -0800, George Dance wrote:
Let me say at the outset that I'm no scientist, and have made no
observations of my own wrt quantum mechanics. I'm just taking the
following author's word that what he says is experimentally confirmed
fact is such:
snip
It looked to me as if the factuality of this makes the idea of telepathy
more credible than previously. If moving particles can be entangled,
irrespective of size, then so can particles (electrons, eg) within
atoms, particles within cells, and particles within two different
brains. And a thought in one (or, more precisely, the physical effect
that corresponds to a thought in one) can affect one such electron,
which affects the electron in the other; which could be sufficient
(along with the existing background conditions of that brain) to cause a
physical event that produces a corresponding effect in that second
brain.
Why would the elementary particles that represent knowledge in a
telepath's brain stand in a 1:1 correspondence with particles in another
party's brain? Let alone be entangled with them?
Hmmm ... as I said, I'm not a scientist, so I have to speculate. But
you are asking me to speculate here ...
First off, I don't think that elementary particles do correspond to
knowledge; it's more likely that thoughts correspond to changes in
state of brain cells, and what happens to their atoms, let alone the
particles in the atoms, is not experienced by the person at all in
normal cases.
My idea was more that a thought in one brain could change a particle
in that brain, which would change a particle entangled with it; and
that could be enough to modify other events in the brain, and so
produce a thought.
That assumes that the brain is a chaotic system, but I think that is a
fair assumption (as it's the only one I've seen that allows for the
possibility of human creativity; and as there is such a thing as
creativity, it is possible).
As for how the particles get entangled; who knows what particles do
within atoms? Physicists study isolated, accelerated particles,
because that's the only way to observe them; so they don't have any
data on that. As well, their own equations tell them that unobserved
particles don't have precise locations. i think there's an assumption
that particles inside atoms 'behave' and stay in their atoms, because
of the nuclear forces or whatnot (as I said, I don't know that much
physics; and, I should add, I'm writing about this mainly in the hope
of learning from those who know more).
But I don't see that one can assume that. AIUI, a physical object's
being where it 'should' be - I mean, where Newtonian physics predicts
it will be - at any time, is not an absolute, but a probability (1:
PC/mass, where PC is Planck's Constant) that it will be; the larger
the object's mass, the more likely that the object will be in that
space; and even on the cellular level, the odds that it will be
somewhere else are infinitesimal (less than 10^-20 to one).
This sounds to me as if non-accelerated particles within atoms are
even more likely than accelerated particles to be places other than
where they 'should' be. If a particles has no mass; then it's
impossible to even estimate the probability of its being anywhere
using PC/mass, as that is dividing by zero. And if a particle has
mass, then accelerating it means increasing its mass (and therefore
decreasing PC/mass); yet even in that state, particles can be in
places that they shouldn't, and even (if some interpretations are to
be believed) in more than one place at one time. So why not the same
for non-accelerated particles?
That's a weird idea (particles of atoms flitting around the universe
from atom to atom and thing to thing), but no weirder than some of the
stuff QM has found to be actually the case.
And if that did happen, why would it just transfer static knowledge rather
than skills, behavior, and even specific decisions?
I'd say that would be possible, but *very* improbable. There are a
lot of separate brain events that take place in skills like operating
a keyboard, behaviors like having a conversation, and decisions like
planning an RRSP. For something like that to be transmitted, one
would need several pairs of entangled particles, each with one in one
brain and one in the other, all changing their behaviour at one time,
and all having a butterfly effect that produces precisely the right
thought in the right order. I'm not sure how one would calculate the
probability of that happening, but I'd guess that it would be on the
order of the probability of my computer not being here in the next
minute; it's logically possible, but most likely is never going to
happen.
More to the point, why can't purported telepaths do their tricks in
controlled circumstances under observation by skeptics?
Well, that's easy enough; a butterfly effect in a chaotic system isn't
something one can predict, much less control. If any of this actually
happens, then it just happens; it's not something anyone can
deliberately choose to do.
.
|
|
|
|
| User: "Rick Russell" |
|
| Title: Re: Quantum entanglement and telepathy |
15 Jan 2004 01:01:43 PM |
|
|
In article <pan.2004.01.15.07.13.32.422382@mail.utexas.edu>,
Bobby D. Bryant <bdbryant@mail.utexas.edu> wrote:
Why would the elementary particles that represent knowledge in a
telepath's brain stand in a 1:1 correspondence with particles in another
party's brain? Let alone be entangled with them?
I think the suggestion -- whacky as it may be -- is that this quantum
entanglement is happening all the time, and that there are all sorts
of entangled particles that make up objects in the macroscopic world.
So, if some of the particles in my brain are entangled with particles
in your brain, and I think something that causes those particles to
enter a determined state, then the particles in your brain might pop
into a determined state.
How would that transfer information? No idea. Since the entangled
particles aren't ordered in any particular way (an electron in my
brain might be entangled with an electron in your foot... or a duck,
or a pork chop, or a rock), it's hard to see how sudden collapse of
the particle waveform would convey anything.
Rick R.
.
|
|
|
| User: "Jim Hutton" |
|
| Title: Re: Quantum entanglement and telepathy |
15 Jan 2004 02:02:23 PM |
|
|
"Rick Russell" <rickr@is.rice.edu> wrote in message
news:bu6o2n$rta$1@joe.rice.edu...
So, if some of the particles in my brain are entangled with particles
in your brain, and I think something that causes those particles to
enter a determined state, then the particles in your brain might pop
into a determined state.
or my atoms might become entangled with your vcr's atoms.
Or the atoms in my belly-button lint might become entangled with the atoms
in your brain.
Yea, try to know what I'm thinking with all of *that* going on. :)
.
|
|
|
| User: "Bobby D. Bryant" |
|
| Title: Re: Quantum entanglement and telepathy |
15 Jan 2004 07:51:06 PM |
|
|
On Thu, 15 Jan 2004 14:02:23 -0600, Jim Hutton wrote:
"Rick Russell" <rickr@is.rice.edu> wrote in message
news:bu6o2n$rta$1@joe.rice.edu...
So, if some of the particles in my brain are entangled with particles
in your brain, and I think something that causes those particles to
enter a determined state, then the particles in your brain might pop
into a determined state.
or my atoms might become entangled with your vcr's atoms.
What do you want to watch tonight?
--
Bobby Bryant
Austin, Texas
.
|
|
|
|
|
| User: "George Dance" |
|
| Title: Re: Quantum entanglement and telepathy |
16 Jan 2004 11:02:11 AM |
|
|
(Rick Russell) wrote in message news:<bu6o2n$rta$1@joe.rice.edu>...
In article <pan.2004.01.15.07.13.32.422382@mail.utexas.edu>,
Bobby D. Bryant <bdbryant@mail.utexas.edu> wrote:
Why would the elementary particles that represent knowledge in a
telepath's brain stand in a 1:1 correspondence with particles in another
party's brain? Let alone be entangled with them?
I think the suggestion -- whacky as it may be -- is that this quantum
entanglement is happening all the time, and that there are all sorts
of entangled particles that make up objects in the macroscopic world.
So, if some of the particles in my brain are entangled with particles
in your brain, and I think something that causes those particles to
enter a determined state, then the particles in your brain might pop
into a determined state.
How would that transfer information? No idea. Since the entangled
particles aren't ordered in any particular way (an electron in my
brain might be entangled with an electron in your foot... or a duck,
or a pork chop, or a rock), it's hard to see how sudden collapse of
the particle waveform would convey anything.
Rick R.
I'm not saying that it could transfer information, just be sufficient
to start a new causal chain in the other brain that could result in a
thought. And, as you note, it's a thoroughly random process - the
second particle could be in a frozen pork chop, with the result that
nothing happens; or it could be in a foot, same thing - or it could be
in a brain, and the resulting thought is just experienced as random
noise.
(For instance, when I was thinking about this, another thought popped
into my head, of a little girl in a burning building. Normally, I
wouldn't for a minute think that that apparently idle and random
thought gave me any information about anything. Why should I?)
.
|
|
|
|
| User: "Martin Thomas" |
|
| Title: Re: Quantum entanglement and telepathy |
15 Jan 2004 09:03:34 PM |
|
|
On Thu, 15 Jan 2004 19:01:43 +0000 (UTC) in alt.atheism
rickr@is.rice.edu (Rick Russell) wrote:
In article <pan.2004.01.15.07.13.32.422382@mail.utexas.edu>,
Bobby D. Bryant <bdbryant@mail.utexas.edu> wrote:
Why would the elementary particles that represent knowledge in a
telepath's brain stand in a 1:1 correspondence with particles in
another
party's brain? Let alone be entangled with them?
I think the suggestion -- whacky as it may be -- is that this quantum
entanglement is happening all the time, and that there are all sorts
of entangled particles that make up objects in the macroscopic world.
So, if some of the particles in my brain are entangled with particles
in your brain, and I think something that causes those particles to
enter a determined state, then the particles in your brain might pop
into a determined state.
How would that transfer information? No idea.
It would not be necessary for information to be conveyed, merely that
the pattern arising in one brain should be correlated with the pattern
in the other brain. But, of course, this happens anyway all the time -
and does not need quantum mechanics to explain it. If I know someone
well I can often guess what they are thinking; and it is easy to sense
people's feelings, even complete strangers.
But what happens when the brain builds up a complex model of
something? Presumably most of the relevant particle are entangled with
each other in a very complex way - nothing I have read suggests that
anyone understands how this works. All the examples I have read about
involve just a small number of particles, except where many particles
are moving in sync, in a laser beam for instance.
Since the entangled
particles aren't ordered in any particular way (an electron in my
brain might be entangled with an electron in your foot... or a duck,
or a pork chop, or a rock), it's hard to see how sudden collapse of
the particle waveform would convey anything.
-
Martin Thomas
Official "Teddy Bear" Atheist
mart666t@netscape.NO.GHASTLY.HAWKERS.net (Posted via Google)
.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Related Articles |
|
|
