Theos-Talk Archives (May 2007 Message tt00034)

 In a message dated 5/1/07 9:23:47 AM, yanniru@netscape.net writes:

> Well Leon, you are a true believer in Einstein. He and Rosen and Poldolsky 
> originally proposed the EPR experiment to prove that quantum mechanics is 
> incorrect as nothing can go faster than the speed of light. When the experiments 
> were finally done, it turned out that QM is correct. Yet you seem to believe 
> still that nothing can go faster than the speed of light.
> 
But that only applies to the physical matter itself, and has no relationship 
to the higher order fractally involved hyperspace fields that are associated 
with every particle point and material form.  There are no physical things on 
those higher frequency-energy orders (6 or more) of hyperspace.  But packets of 
information can travel there at whatever speed is proportional to the higher 
order frequency level of the hyperspace field carrying them. 

Therefore, Einstein is correct and QM is wrong -- right down to the 
indeterminacy that he disagreed with -- which only applies to objective physical 
observation on the apparently illusory quantum field level...  But has no 
relationship to subjective observation of determinate information on the metaphysical 
(or should I say "Etheric";-) field level...  Thus, accounting for our inner 
access to mind and memory images, in as precise resolution as our sense 
mechanisms allow, or our higher levels of zero-point inner perception can discern and 
discriminate -- which could be almost down to zero.  Thus, as Einstein said, 
"Imagination (constructive and creative inner vision) IS more important than 
knowledge." (Referring, I presume, to what we can learn by observation or 
symbolic description on the objective/physical plane of classical or quantum reality. 
;-) 


> 1. How can a classical argument explain a quantum effect? No other 
> physicist has been able to.
> 
> 
How can a quantum effect be considered as separate from the vibrating space 
it is composed of?  And, isn't that "space" explained by classical relativity 
theories?

Naturally, quantum physicists can't really explain (since they can only 
describe) a quantum effect... Because they don't recognize the complemetarity 
between classical space and quantum matter.  The primary reason being that they are 
blind to the real nature of the hyperspace zero-point energies within the 
quantum vacuum and their origin from the spinergy of metrically empty and 
inneffable ground SPACE -- which is the Mother-Father of everything in the universe 
that came out of the Big Bang.  Father being the creative zero-point 
consciousness and Mother being its surrounding abstract motion or spin momentum.


> 2. Have you read my recent post on selectrons of dark energy being the 
> basis of a form of consciousness rather than dark matter.
> 
> 
Yes, but such speculations have no explanatory value with respect to 
answering the hard questions of; what is consciousness, and where does it come from?  
Haven't you read all my explanations of why neither light or dark mass-energy 
or any of their particles or microparticles (which may be the result of 
opposite spin forces on the two perpendicular or opposite axes of our spherical 
space time continuum) cannot be the cause of ubiquitous nonlocal zero-point 
consciousness (i.e., awarenesss, will, etc.) -- which can have no physical basis 
whatsoever?  Any claim for such, so far seems to be nothing more than hand waving 
nonsense.


> 3. http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/sci/tech/3308109.stm ;
> http://www.nytimes.com/2007/02/08/science/08quantum.html?ex=1328590800&;
> en=c727820630ee92b4&ei=5088&partner=rssnyt&emc=rss 
> The second reference uses two entangled BEC media. So it's in theory 
> equivalent to the EPR experiments.
> 
> 
But what do those experiments have to do with explaining consciousness, mind, 
memory, sense mechanisms, etc., or even explaining the transformation, 
storage, reconstruction and perception of the holographic sensory or memory image 
information of consciousness?

>  
> My personal explanation for the violation of the speed limit is based on 
> superstring theory and the hypothesis that the compactified dimensions produced 
> during fermion creation maintian entanglement via a thread of them from one 
> particle to the other. However, split photons would not require ten dimensions 
> for creation of the particle/anti-particle pair. So I guess that falsifies 
> my hypothesis.
>  
> However, it is the EM waves that are split, not the particle. The EPR 
> effects only occur when the intensity level of the EM waves are so low that the 
> experiment is in the quantum regime. With high intensity and coherent EM waves, 
> there are no quantum effects. The polarizations are pre-determined and 
> rotating the polarizer of the detector has no effect not predicted from Maxwell's 
> equations. In the EPR experiments the polarization detector must be rotated 
> after the photon is split to violate Bell's inequality. That only happens when 
> the intensity of the EM waves is so low that we can say the one photon at a 
> time is launched.
>  
> But my personal explanation for the wave/particle duality is that particles 
> do not really exist. They are just a good approximation for what happens when 
> particles interact with each other as in detection.
>  
> But you are correct. There is no scientific explanation for EPR effects. But 
> that makes me wonder if Feynman's QED formalism which 
> includes anti-particles coming back from the future might work to explain entanglement. But Bell 
> must have considered that.
>  
> I still do not accept your ABC theory because it includes infinities at a 
> point (singularities) which are not allowed in physics. However, your 
> hyperspace concept seems consistent with my belief that our universe (and all others) 
> is a 4-d (spacetime) brane embedded in a megaverse 4-d spacetime where only 
> gravity exists, an extrapolation of the work of Harvard's Lisa Randall.
>  
> But even those extra dimensions do not seem to explain entanglement, as far 
> as I can tell. Your tendency is to say that (for example) hyperspace explains 
> something without ever specifying the hyperspace mechanism which is the 
> explanation. This is particularly so with your explanations of consciousness or 
> intelligence. You say it comes from ABC theory without explaining how or even 
> defining what consciousnes or intelligence is. How can a theory predict 
> something that is not defined in the theory?
> 
> 
With reference to all the above, my ABC concept does explain the EPR effect 
and all the other characteristics of the hyperspace fields (intelligence, mind, 
memory, etc.) as well as consciousness (awareness, will, etc.)... Since, the 
entire basis of the proposition that consciousness and matter are dual 
properties or aspects of fundamental ground SPACE (that is the source of everything) 
-- along with the essential conclusion, based on the fundamental zero-point 
cyclic spinergy or G-force that all fractally involved fields emanate and 
ultimately, spherically radiate from, are vibratory in nature... And, therefore, act 
electrodynamically (obeying the same fundamental laws of electricity such as 
magnetic inductance, resonance, etc.).  We might even be able to apply 
Maxwell's laws on these levels using different constants.

Therefore, all fields of space in motion, both in hyperspace or configuration 
space, that constitutes the essential nature of all particles and 
microparticles -- are holographically coenergetic with each other.   Thus, ABC is 
explanatory of all those effects, conditions and qualities of matter (and its 
fundamental wave nature) -- as well as consciousness as a separate aspect of 
zero-point space itself -- by definition alone...  And, besides their hyperspace and 
configuration space geometry's and electrodynamic field interrelationships for 
the storage and transfer of encoded holographic information -- there's no need 
for any conventional scientific explanation... Since, quantum physics is 
based on an entirely different and false proposition -- that matter is primary and 
causative while assuming consciousness (awareness, will, etc.) must be 
epiphenomenal.

When physics recognizes this wrong standpoint and accepts this new 
holographic fractal field paradigm, and that consciousness is a fundamental property of 
the zero-point of absolute space, they will then be able to arrive a unified 
field theory explaining everything that is a mystery to conventional science -- 
now burdened with a morass of conflicting theories that explain nothing about 
the transcendental nature of matter, or the cause and nature of both 
consciousness and life -- that together, animate matter :-)

Leon

>  
> Richard
>  
>  
> -----Original Message-----
> From: leonmaurer@aol.com
> To: MindBrain@yahoogroups.com
> Cc: yanniru@netscape.net
> Sent: Tue, 1 May 2007 12:44 AM
> Subject: Re: [Mind and Brain] Paper: An experimental test of non-local 
> realism
> 
> 
> In a message dated 4/30/07 4:46:45 PM, yanniru@netscape.net writes:
> 
> 
> 
> Leon,
>  
> 1. I do not believe Dr Milo Wolff is correct
> 
> 
> What better rationale is there for explaining wave-particle duality? 
> 
>  
> 2. Alan Aspect did not use fermions which require creation of a 
> particle/anti-particle pair. Fermions cannot be split into such a pair. Photons are a 
> special case.
> 
> 
> I never said he did.  But he did use photons that were optically split and 
> did measure the effects of their quantum entanglement instantaneously over a 
> great distance...  That was what I was talking about, and trying to explain 
> through the unity of their common higher order hyperspace fields of 
> consciousness surrounding their singular zero-point center of awareness/will -- that 
> cannot be split apart physically.  Of course, that's only a well thought out 
> hypothesis based on the ABC model and its new scientific paradigm, assuming 
> consciousness as a fundamental aspect of primal SPACE out of which comes 
> everything, including mass, energy, awareness, will, that are everywhere in intimate 
> interrelationship through one medium of information or another.
> 
>  
> 3. At Harvard they are able to transmit a light pulse into a medium and have 
> it leave the medium before it gets there. That's more than instantaneous. 
> I'll get you the link if you are interested.
> 
> 
> Please do.  However I did hear about it.  But, as yet, have not found the 
> clear explanation of how they did it and to what law of nature it is attributed 
> to.  Personally, I think, there is no real scientific explanation that 
> violates the speed limit of a particle mass or information -- other than possibly 
> twisting the wave length of a multiply enhanced and retarded light pulse at a 
> refractive barrier plane so that the trailing edge appears to pass through 
> and exit before the leading edge enters, or something like that.  As I see it, 
> the experiment's conclusions could very well be the usual smoke and mirror 
> misinterpretation of fundamental reality by some quantum physicists just to 
> get a little publicity and a paper published. ;-)  Not that such experiments 
> might not lead to possible hi tech applications in quantum computers or 
> nanotechnologies, etc.  In fact, they usually do add something to our knowledge of 
> how light optics actually work at micro particle scales or dual transfer 
> medium interfaces.  BTW, optical engineering used to be one of my interests when I 
> was working with professional camera designs and motion picture special 
> optical effects.
> 
>  
> I just do not believe the "standing wave quantum" theory. It's a classical 
> theory and not a quantum theory.
> 
> 
> What is your authority for that bald statement?  How does that determine its 
> truth or falsity?  What's wrong with describing a quantum particle 
> classically or otherwise, as the result of a unity between space, energy, mass, and 
> motion?  Especially, when it answers questions that quantum theory can't get a 
> reasonable or understandable handle on explaining.  Both special and general 
> relativity are also "classical," and not quantum theories.  So what?  Does 
> that make them wrong? 
> 
> Anyway, I appreciate your acceptance of some of my ideas, although I still 
> don't know if you agree with the ABC model in general or its fundamental 
> premises.  I'm constantly trying to explain new things that come up in 
> conventional physics in terms of this model, and I'm glad you gave me the opportunity to 
> begin putting into words my thoughts on quantum entanglement.  It's now 
> become much clearer in my mind, that the ABC theory is fundamentally correct, and 
> that someday, hopefully in the near future before I check out, an 
> acceptable, and peer reviewable scientific theory of everything might evolve from it. 
> :-)
> 
> Best wishes,
> Leon
> 
>  
> Respectfully,
> Richard
>  
>  
> -----Original Message-----
> From: LeonMaurer@aol.com
> To: yanniru@netscape.net
> Sent: Mon, 30 Apr 2007 12:48 AM
> Subject: Re: [Mind and Brain] Paper: An experimental test of non-local 
> realism
> 
> 
> In a message dated 4/24/07 6:17:43 PM, yanniru@netscape.net writes:
> 
> 
> > Leon,
> > 
> > Violations of the fundamental laws of physics:
> > 1.Quantum particles are not standing waves
> 
> Check out: 
> http://www.spaceandmotion.com/Physics-Particle-Wave-Duality-Paradox.htm ;
> 
> http://www.spaceandmotion.com/physics-mechanics-bells-inequality-non-locality-epr.htm
> 
> 
> > 2. Particle pairs are created together and do not come from splitting a 
> single particle
> 
> But their creation together requires lasers and nonlinear crystals for 
> splitting and sending the particles in opposite directions and then observing the 
> change of state of one particle instantaneously affecting the same state 
> change in the other -- This was proven by Alain Aspect when he tested Bell's 
> inequalities in i975 and later in 1982. These paired particles, are in effect 
> similar to a single photon that is split by sending it through a partially 
> silvered mirror forcing the particle to pass through and be reflected at the same 
> time.  Although Aspect's molecular crystal prism apparatus was much more 
> complex than that, so he could make accurate quantum measurements.
> 
> > 3. In addition, particles whose wavefunctions overlap sufficiently
>   such as in superconductors and superfluids are entangled, even
>   though they do not come from the same particle. Information is
>   transmitted instantly in such media without the need for hyperspace,
>   which has never been observed anyway.
> 
> There is no proof that the information exchange between the separated 
> particles -- which apparently is instantaneous, and thus violates the limit of 
> light velocity that precludes such transmission -- is transmitted by any physical 
> medium.  Therefore the hyperspace fields are the only alternative for 
> explaining the action-at-a-distance of physically separated particles.
> 
> As for superfluids and super conductors, they are (like a BE condensate) in 
> effect, a single particle and their supposed entanglement (like all the 
> condensed mass inside a black hole "singularity") is due to the overlap of their 
> formerly separated standing waves, as if they were one singular field. 
> 
> Thus, there is no apparent separation... And the supposed entanglement of 
> such separate particles is NOT the same as the entanglement between split pairs 
> of single photon particles, as in the Aspect experiment. 
> 
> Of course, the standing wave theory, which is part of the new scientific 
> paradigm, that also assumes consciousnes and matter as dual aspects of 
> fundamental SPACE, also blows all the quantum calculations related to quantum wave 
> function, wave collapse and decoherence, etc., into a cocked hat.  As Feynman 
> said, "Anyone who claims to understand quantum physics is either lying or 
> crazy." :-) So, there is no such thing as matter (which is proven to be composed 
> of pure mass-energy) that independent of fundamental space itself.
> 
> So my ABC theory is as good as anyone else's, meshes perfectly with all of 
> Einstein's relativity and quantum theories, and depends on which physics 
> paradigm we are going to believe, and how our reasoning and logic stands up to 
> careful scrutiny and well crafted counter arguments or experimental evidence. 
> 
> For one thing, no matter what paradigm is considered, pure image or 
> structural information is carried and transmitted solely on the surfaces of 
> electrodynamic fields -- whether they are physical or metaphysical, and whether they 
> are modulated on radiant fields, or on those standing waves encapsulated in 
> all forms of mass-energy -- from simple quantum (or sub quantum) particles and 
> complex atoms and molecules, to black holes, etc.
> 
> Best regards,
> 
> Leon
> 
> > Best wishes,
> > 
> > Richard
> 
> 
> 



**************************************
 See what's free at http://www.aol.com.


[Non-text portions of this message have been removed]