E-mail updates
Follow on Twitter
Subscribe to RSS
Bruce Rolff / FeaturePics.com
Some argue that the same quantum processes seen in the universe around us have an effect on consciousness as well, but physicist Lawrence Krauss says that's highly debatable.
Can the weirdness of quantum mechanics make you well, or make you wealthy? Presentations ranging from "The Secret" to "What the Bleep Do We Know?" suggest that science allows you to capitalize on quantum possibilities, but theoretical physicist Lawrence Krauss says it's just a load of bleep.
Krauss has dealt with factual and fictional weirdness for decades — as the author of "The Physics of Star Trek," as the head of Arizona State University's Origins Project, and as the author of a "Quantum Man," a soon-to-be-published biography of pioneering physicist Richard Feynman.
"I begin the book with a quote from Feynman that says, 'Reality takes precedence over public relations, for nature cannot be fooled,'" he told me. "I think the point is that Feynman realized that people can be fooled, but nature can't."
Krauss worries that a lot of people can be fooled by appeals to the admittedly weird world of quantum physics — a world in which particles are said to take every possible path from point A to point B, in which the position and velocity of particles are necessarily cloaked in uncertainty, in which the mere act of observation changes the thing being observed.
In the last of a series of columns written for Scientific American, Krauss says "no area of physics stimulates more nonsense in the public arena than quantum mechanics." His list of "worst abusers" includes inspirational author Deepak Chopra, the best-selling book "The Secret" and the whole field of Transcendental Meditation. So what constitutes quantum quackery? Krauss discussed his criteria ln our interview last week. Here's an edited transcript:
Cosmic Log: Every once in a while, you'll hear about something like "The Secret," or some other reference to quantum mechanics as explaining how you can change your universe, or even perhaps why it's in the realm of possibility that a globe-gobbling black hole could be created — because "anything can happen" in quantum mechanics. But I assume that's not quite right, and that sometimes quantum mechanics' name is taken in vain.
Lawrence Krauss: I think it's probably one of the most abused concepts in physics among the public. You should be wary whenever you hear something like, "Quantum mechanics connects you with the universe" ... or "quantum mechanics unifies you with everything else." You can begin to be skeptical that the speaker is somehow trying to use quantum mechanics to argue fundamentally that you can change the world by thinking about it.
Q: But isn't everything really connected? Doesn't the quantum world pervade everything that we see around us?
A: Of course it does. So does classical physics. The quantum world does pervade everything around us, but as Richard Feynman liked to say, "Scientific creativity is imagination in a straitjacket." Not everything is possible. That's what makes the world so interesting. It is true that quantum mechanics is extremely strange, and on extremely small scales for short times, all sorts of weird things happen. And in fact we can make weird quantum phenomena happen. But what quantum mechanics doesn't change about the universe is, if you want to change things, you still have to do something. You can't change the world by thinking about it.
We are connected to the world by many things: by light and sound and heat. We do, at subatomic scale, behave quantum mechanically. But we behave like classical objects for a reason: We're big, we have lots of particles, they interact. All the weirdness of quantum mechanics gets washed out on the scale that we can experience. That's why we experience a classical world.
The weirdness of quantum mechanics is reserved for either very specially prepared configurations in the laboratory, or scales that are so small that quantum-mechanical effects are significant.
We're also connected to the universe by gravity, and we're connected to the planets by gravity. But that doesn't mean that astrology is true. With quantum mechanics, there's a notion that observers affect the things that they're observing. That's not always true, but it's often true. That's one of the very strange properties of quantum mechanics. Therefore people get the notion that there's no objective reality, and that you can literally impact on the external world just by doing things internally. That's not the case. If you want to affect something in the external world, you have to do something to it. You can't just hope for the best. You can't bring good things to you by thinking about them.
The quantum mechanical correlations, the spooky action at a distance that quantum mechanics brings up, is true only for very specially prepared systems that are isolated from the rest of the world, completely. And we are certainly not isolated from the rest of the world. We're bombarded by many things every second of the day, and a result, we're not specially prepared quantum mechanical systems, nor can we exert weird quantum powers over other objects.
Q: Some scientists, such as Sir Roger Penrose, have talked about neurons as quantum systems. And a lot of people talk about quantum consciousness ... that even if the everyday world we see is not a system that can be changed, our consciousness about the world can be changed.
A: Well, Roger Penrose has given lots of new-age crackpots ammunition by suggesting that at some fundamental scale, quantum mechanics might be relevant for consciousness. When you hear the term "quantum consciousness," you should be suspicious. The reason you should be suspicious is because we don't even understand classical consciousness. If we don't understand classical consciousness, how can we understand quantum consciousness? Many people are dubious that Penrose's suggestions are reasonable, because the brain is not an isolated quantum-mechanical system. To some extent it could be, because memories and thoughts are stored at the molecular level, and at a molecular level quantum mechanics is significant. Quantum mechanics may play a role at some level in the way the brain works ... just as it may play a role in photosynthesis.
But that still doesn't mean that, at a global level, the weirdness of quantum mechanics is manifest. It's certainly not. If it were manifest, you could run at a wall a lot of times, and every now and then you'd spontaneously appear on the other side of the wall.
Q: You do see that in some science-fiction shows — for example, last season on "Fringe." And quantum mechanics is often used as the explanation for that.
A: Quantum mechanics is often quoted as the explanation for many things, because it's so weird that people latch onto it as a hope, to explain everything that they would like to believe about the universe. Everything from the possibility of disappearing and reappearing, to the possibility of having strange new forms of communication. We'd like to be able to influence things just by thinking about them, we'd like to transport ourselves elsewhere without getting on an airplane. All those things can be attributed to quantum mechanics — first of all, because it's so poorly understood by the public, and especially because it's so verifiably weird. It's used as an excuse to be even weirder. I think of what Niels Bohr said to Wolfgang Pauli about theories that are "not crazy enough to be true." Quantum mechanics is crazy, but it's just crazy enough to make the world still be sensible at a macroscopic level, the level that we experience.
It's truly amazing that you can separate two elementary particles that were originally tied together, and often make a measurement of one particle that instantly affects the other, even if it's on Alpha Centauri. That sounds like magic. There are lots of things in quantum mechanics that sound like magic. But sounding like magic and being magic are two different things.
Q: Obviously, quantum mechanics has lots of real-life applications, including in your television set and your microwave oven. But are there new, weird applications that people might see that have an impact on everyday life, beyond the woo-woo?
A: Absolutely. One has already been recognized: If we do carefully prepare quantum systems, and keep them isolated, we can perform quantum magic technologically — potentially on scales that we haven't been able to do before. We might be able to create quantum computers, for example, that will simultaneously do many different calculations at once, because the quantum world is capable of doing many things at the same time. We may be able to use quantum communication in ways that we haven't done before.
The debate here is that we'll be able to use quantum mechanics to break codes, in particular to determine the big prime numbers that are at the basis of the security of your credit cards and your bank cards. Right now they use a key that's based on the products of large prime numbers, and no computer could determine the prime factors in a time shorter than the age of the universe. But quantum-mechanical computers might be able to, and then of course we'd have to start thinking about how to make things more secure.
The flip side of that is that you can use quantum mechanics, again in specially prepared systems, to communicate in a way that will allow us to know when someone is eavesdropping. So on one hand you have a threat to security, and on the other you have a possible boon for security. We don't know which way it's going to go.
One other area where quantum mechanics works on a macroscopic scale is in superconductivity and superfluidity. Those are two places where the quantum world leaks into the classical world. We're not using either superconductivity or superfluidity yet on the scale that I think people thought we might. But we're certainly using them at the Large Hadron Collider, which we couldn't even operate if we didn't have superconducting magnets.
So when you hear about quantum mechanics and devices, you can say, "OK, that sounds reasonable." But when you hear about quantum mechanics and consciousness, you should assume the author is a crackpot unless proven otherwise. Moreover, assume that they want your money. ...
Q: Why do you think that people have seized upon this? I guess it's a sign that quantum physics is entering the mainstream...
A: Well, yeah, the point is that there have been these new-age desires for lots of things to make the world better: crystals, energy vortices. ... People latch onto their dreams, and they always try to match them to reality. Quantum mechanics is a replacement for the phrase "anything goes." Once anything goes, you can have anything you want. So what better thing to have than something that gives you everything you want? The point is, with quantum mechanics, everything doesn't go. On certain scales, for certain times, in certain regions, everything goes and strange things happen. But it's not true for the universe at large.
Often, people who are trying to sell whatever it is they're trying to sell try to justify it on the basis of science. Everyone knows quantum mechanics is weird, so why not use that to justify it? ... I don't know how many times I've heard people say, "Oh, I love quantum mechanics because I'm really into meditation, or I love the spiritual benefits that it brings me." But quantum mechanics, for better or worse, doesn't bring any more spiritual benefits than gravity does.
More quantum fluctuations:
- Tales from the quantum frontier
- JZ Knight goes beyond the 'Bleep'
- Is the grand design within our grasp?
- Biocentrism: The universe in your head
- Paul Davies on the self-made universe
- Why great minds can't grasp consciousness
Join the Cosmic Log corps by signing up as my Facebook friend or hooking up on Twitter. And if you really want to be friendly, ask me about "The Case for Pluto."
Leave a Comment:
The very word Quantum comes from the word quantity and the key point about quantum effects is that they are measurable quantities, often to an extreme level of precision.
They are not just "mysterious actions at a distance" as the Woo-meisters proclaim; they are precisely repeatable & measurable actions based on the descriptive laws of physics.
Sadly, Woo is a quantity that appears infinite.
In physics, a quantum (plural: quanta) is the minimum unit of any physical entity involved in an interaction. Clarifying the definition.
Thank you, now elucidate, please! Maybe some references or websites would be in order.
If I remember correctly, it was due to there being discrete energy "packet" sizes. In other words, an electron could jump up or down from a given orbit to an adjacent orbit, thus absorbing or giving off a certain amount of energy. However, the electron could not move to an orbit say, halfway between those two orbits. There were discrete "steps" that it could occupy, which was proportional to the quanta of energy absorbed/released related to the move.
Mitteemo : Definition is from wikipedia. Didn't want to use one involving the planck length and frequency. Tried to keep it simple.
I can get inside your mind using Quantum Consciousness. Beware!
Funny!
I can block you from my mind using quantum consciousness. Aware!
It believe the quantum power theory will dreams come true someday by someone can use it properly.
Someone set up us the quantum bomb!
There is nothing weird about quantum mechanics if you really understand it. The concept of "non-local motion" (a.k.a. "temporal motion") clarifies a lot of mysteries and weirdness. Here is an excerpt from "The Basis for Intuitive concepts" in Quantum Mechanics found at http://scripturalphysics.org/qm/qmconcpt.htm
******
* Because a particle has two types of position (one in coordinate space and another in coordinate time), there are also two types of "mechanics" to describe its motion. Spatial motion (s/t) is described by Newtonian mechanics in terms of paths, trajectories, and forces. A particle's temporal motion component, however, has no path or trajectory as seen from a spatial reference system. A path in three-dimensional time simply cannot be described directly with spatial terminology. Instead, its description requires "non-path" mathematical tools like the expression for total energy and potentials as found in the Hamiltonian. Changes in location, rather than the locations themselves, can also be described, and this leads to differential equations like Schrödinger's wave equation. Temporal locations are "non-local" in the spatial system (the temporal origin is anywhere/everywhere because it is a "when" description, not a "where" description. It just "doesn't care" about spatial locations.) This requires mathematical tools that have "infinite reach" like Schrödinger's wave equation, Heisenberg's infinite matrices, and Feynman's method of "sum over all possible paths". These characteristics also lead naturally into the concepts of superposition of multiple states, probability amplitudes, and of "reality" being intertwined with the measurement system, rather than existing in an independent way. The type of mechanics that addresses these temporal aspects is called "Quantum Mechanics".
* The two kinds of locality offer a conceptual framework for single photon interference in a two-slit appartus. The spatial version of the photon goes through one or the other slit. But the temporal version is delocalized (is anywhere/everywhere from the spatial standpoint) and "encounters" both slits. The effects combine in a way that results in what is called "single photon interference". (see discussion below)
* Intrinsic temporal motion (t/s) may be attached to a spatial object. The most obvious example is gravitation. Again, such a motion has no path in space. It simply does not know or care about spatial direction. Hence, the motion is non-directional in a spatial reference system. It can be described as a spherically distributed motion, or as an inverse square force that causes such motion. Such motions are described with "field equations" like Maxwell's instead of force equations like Newton's.
* Phenomena that seem to be connected, but not in or through space ("non-locality" ), have their connections in coordinate time which simply cannot be seen in a spatial reference system. The EPR paradox is a good example of this. Two correlated photons can remain in the same temporal location even though their spatial locations become widely separated. They are "together" in one sense and "apart" in the other.
*****
If you want to know more, there is plenty in the original article. There is also more about temporal motion and gravity at:
http://fqxi.org/data/essay-contest-files/Fraser_NatureOfTime.pdf
yea....everything he says is true...except, that humanity has not discovered how to take the quantum effects on the micro-level to the macro-level.
The only reason the quantum world behaves the way it does is due to its motion. Its undefined and the resonance of the waves or strings at that level, call it whatever you like, is what determines the behaviour of atom, electrons and photons. New particles and 'effects' can be created, simply by alternating from different states so fast and through resonance on the system itself, it 're-enforces' the reality. For example, One is the state created by alternating really really quickly between exciton and photon in a photonic resonance cavity. Basically what it is, is a bunch of photons in a small cavity (recently enhanced with nanotech), that from time to time excit an electron to a higher energy level, leaving a 'hole' where such an electron had been previously. The imbalance causes the electron to go back into the hole really quickly, releasing a phohton in the process. In what could be the equivalent of a quantum mirror, physicists have been able to reflect back the photon back to the electron, creating a 'hole' and subsequent photon again when the electron goes back to the hole...But by adjusting the mirrors this process can be turned into a sort of trillion switch ping pong game to the point that many exitons (holes) and photons are created with such a mirror, all alternating really realyl fast, and hence creating an 'echo' on the entire system. Because the exciton-photon state alternates so quickly, it effectively becomes a new state of matter, because it becomes virtually indistinguishable from an exciton individually or an electron individually as the resonance causes it to self-re-enforce this new state to a point that it becomes 'real'...especialyl when you combine the rapid back and forths of all the other excito-photon states. I don't remmember what the state of matter is called, but it is DISTINCT from other forms, to the point that physicists have characterized it such and detected different properties that would be expected of normal matter...such as...the superfluidity mentioned by this guy in the article. So by simply using resonance, self-renforcement of patterns, and a quantum mirror, you can create a new 'effec't or a new state of matter...
My theory, is that the equivalence of the quantum on the macro will be found with something called bose-einstein condensates. These are essentially materials that resonate so perfectly whithin themselves, that they effectively become one huge 'atom'...due to their exhibited behaviour in motion.
If we could mimic the resonance and motion exhibited on the micro, somehow on the macro, I think the properties we observe on small scales could be observed in our classical world. If such happens, then I think we could create a world more like alice in wonderland, perhaps unmasking its nature as such already, especialyl if we take the higher dimentional effect of reality itself (string theory).
I think inertia, if used correctly, especially with highly energetic beams, could turn resonance and motion into something that re-enforces itself, and create a 'macro' atom on our level, say, a bose-einstein condensate but not as matter....for that would mean the matter itself, but it would exhibit the properties of the condensate.
And then I think we could 'iterate' this very complex geometry, to well yes, transport ourselves anywhere we would wish and perhaps create mind bending effects that would be very hard for us to understand at our present stage.
However, I think such effects will be noticed not so much due to quantum mechanics but due to the systems we will create by 'tricking' reality and re-enforcing our own geometric creation (Inertial resonant motion) through the aid of additional dimentions created or discovered, through the iteration of such complex geometry.
What I think this guy is saying, is that he doesn't want the likes of the astrologers and buggie men, that often have corrupted science for their own personal reasons, to take prescedent. Science has after all always used the scientific method to verify the falsehood of its theories, and he doesn't want this mechanism to be delegated to anyone but trained scientists that understand the scientific method.
But between you and I....in reality, the surest known fact is that you know nothing. Its the most bulletproof self-confidence. And in reality, physics is a lot more complex and strange than anyone expected. You can construct your own realities, but these are effects that are so rare and so strange, that in everyday life, they are rationally delegated to the realm of alice and wonderland and science fiction..
but once we start becoming more complex....1000 years, a million years...perhaps 50 years from now due to the singularity.
All those little assumptions start going awry. All bets are off.
All he is stressing is that you shouldn't start thinking the new age folks have some sort of 'intuition' on reality....because such 'intuition' cannot be falsified. As the philosopher popper once said, the demarcation line between science and 'everything else'...is that you can disprove a theory...'pseudo-science' has more to do with theories that in any context, use reality to justify itself, and hence, it becomes impossible to disprove the theory..read popper if you want more.
Thats all he is saying. But when your really come down to it....(dont tell any physicist I told you this but you essentially live in alice and wonderland...don't watch out for that wall, its only temporary).
Huh? Semiconductors are devices that use quantum effects as the basis of their operation, as do lasers; both are well established macro-level effects. Helium at near absolute zero also demonstrates readily observable macro-level effects.
Spectroscopes also measure quantum effects (excited electrons jump between quantum energy levels and produces photons of specific measurable energy/and vice-versa), and have been in use for hundreds of years.
What a great article!!! Bringing two sides of the issue together. Thanks, Jonah, for your ideas. I do believe that Pagans long ago perceived this quantum side of our universe, and were keenly aware of potential capabilities that this would bring. As many qualms as I have with Gary Zukav, I cannot deny the brilliance of the Dancing Wu Li Masters. Geeze, what if Wilbur and Orville gave up because people told them they were a bit bonkers?
I certainly believe the connection between micro and macro will, and actually has, been made. We just need to remember it. BTW I don't care if it's called science or hocus pocus. I prefer hocus pocus because it's not so confining and restricted. Recall the wasted years humans spent assuming other life forms had no rational form of communication because they supposedly lacked certain portions of the brain, or this or that. Now, science, belatedly, and embarrassingly, is "discovering" what Pagans have always known - consciousness manifests in all sorts of forms of communication - let us not dishonor what we do not understand.
Blessings to the seekers of greater and more benevolent wonderful stuff!!!
DS - I'm glad that your personal beliefs are bolstered by this information, in fact I happen to feel that Wicca and the so called "new-age" beliefs are much more in tune with reality than the traditional organized religions. But with that being said, I have had the opposite effect from this article. I feel like my belief system just got greatly deflated. Almost like a Christian finding out Jesus wasn't the Messiah.
Anyway, I have a lot of books about Quantum consciousness, mind, spirituality, etc. etc. After reading this article, I feel like I should just chuck them all in the garbage.
Leee1102
Sorry to hear of your condundrum. Consider not believing everything you read - including the books you want to toss and this article. I think the crux of true paganism - (pagan means poor person btw) - is the idea that we create our own reality. That is proven day after day as we use science, technology, thought, perception and other resources to shape the planet we live on. To say there is no proof that thought shapes reality is silly. The path it takes from our "minds" to "manifestation" may vary (science, writing, etc), but it does occur. Pagans just believe we don't need all that "material" stuff to accomplish these goals. I'm sure no physicist would deny the existence of anti-matter???!!! :-) Much luck to you in your upcoming manifestations.
DS: Here is a link to the actual meaning of pagan, http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/pagan?show=0&t=1285195744, didn't see anything of being poor?
Here is a better site/ w/ definition. I used poor to signify the plight of the rural peasants who had to deal with a religion demanding their conformance and subjecting them to a typecasting of "rustics". http://www.asiya.org/bos/paganmeaning.html
Hope this helps
Basically human beings are uncomfortable with uncertainty. We don't know where we came from (before birth)and we don't know where we are going (after death). This is, for most people, impossible to deal with. So, life remains a mystery, mystery, mystery.
God put eternity in our hearts so we would seek Him!
No, the "search for God" sidebar pretty much just leverages fear and stupidity. As it turns out, things attributed to "God" are better designated the results of quantum cosomological wave equations...
Pete introduced the idea of life and death and uncertainty. I am more certain of God than all that. Fear and stupidity are the result of closing the door on the possibility of God or the evidence that He has visited us in the form of Jesus Christ. Ask how many scientific discoveries were not accepted because of the same mistake. The so-called Christian religion dismissed the idea that the earth revolved around the sun. This was not related to scripture or revealed truth, but our false understanding of it. It was based on Ptolemy, who in no stretch of the imagination can be called a Christian. It was just an accepted idea and was perpetuated by people who were convinced he was right and called themselves Christians. The purpose of science is to study and use the physical world, but God is beyond that. He is not just a concept, He is real and deals in love and hate and various other human emotions we all have. We die a physical death but He can give us a life beyond that. It is a choice and most choose not to go there. The word 'attributed' is accurate since most of what passes for God has nothing to do with Him. At least He gives us a choice, not dismissing us out of hand.
Mitteemo, How exactly does God (of the Bible) give us a choice? The only thing he gives us is an illusion of Choice.
God Cannot be an Omnipotent being, if God (of the Bible) is all knowing then he already knows ahead of time what choices we will make. If that is the case then we humans have no free will at all and are destined to be cast into a fire or put in the happy place per his choice.
How can a God that at least is supposed to be at a near perfection level (taking into account that he would not be all knowing) have made such a stupid humanistic mistake with the Bible. There are so many holes and contradictions in the bible that it could only have been written by man.
How could God have not gotten it right the first time, In the old Testament he is a vengful God full of hate and destory unbelievers, murder in my name, take slavers, and sex slaves, rape as you will and pillage as you will, then he changes his mind and sends his "Son" to get nailed to a cross so all sins can be forgiven?
If God of the bible was so powerful and smart why couldnt he have just told people to repent and ask forgivness, was the old testament Gods Puberty?
The bible is way too unclear, doesnt translate into todays terms and knowledge base, wouldnt a God already know that man would eventually reach a level of understanding and knowledge as we have today, so what happens in 100 years when our knowledge is even more expansive?
Religions are only around for the following (and I may have left some out)
Due to fear of death
Lonliness
a desire to find a meaning in something
A means to control people
A means to make money
A way to gain power
Pirate C - I agree with you for the most part, but there are a few things to consider. When the bible was written (by men), they may have in fact been in touch with a higher intelligence, but who knows what they really said after hundreds of retellings and translations.
Religion was originally created so man could have some spirituality and morality in his life. What used to be a simple thing (like the 10 Commandments) has been perverted into a political, money-making machine just like any other business.
Even the word "God" has been perverted into this thing that is so unrealistic and in my personal opinion so far from the true nature of a supreme being, it's almost laughable.
I do believe in a higher intelligence but it's nothing like what the traditional religions teach us. Christians tell us that if we repent our sins and accept Jesus as our savior, we will go to heaven. So how can I (being raised Jewish, and not believing in Jesus), never hurt anyone in my life, be turned away from heaven, while a mass murderer/rapist sits in jail and "finds God" and is told that his soul WILL go to heaven?!?!
Again it's just my opinion (none of us know for sure) but to me that doesn't make a whole lot of sense and it's not the kind of god that I would think runs this universe.
If you take a step back and look objectively at all the world's religions and sub-religions, each claiming that THEIR way is the ONLY way, you really have to see it for what it is. As you said, people looking for comfort and to lessen their fear about dying.
I believe in an afterlife, but my beliefs are based more on scientific facts and personal experience than what the bible tells us. In my mind, there is definitely something more than the physical out there, but it's probably like nothing we've ever imagined.
So, apparently it's NOT THE THOUGHT THAT COUNTS! And it drills down to this being a results-oriented world. The only thing I can change by thinking about it is my perspective of the world around me, my attitude, my outlook. I still have to actually do something to make something happen!
Great conclusion, cudos! Others should take a lesson, ha!
How to spot quantum quackery? The same way you spot global warming quackery. Follow the money.
You know Chicago has a bad reputation of mixing money and politics, not to forget everyplace else.
In Chicago, we have the worst politicians that money can buy.
Thought produces action. Action produces results. Thought without action is simply wishful thinking, like sitting in a closet a praying for a hot dog instead of going to the fridge, taking one out, cooking it and eating it. Rhonda Byrnes, the quack who wrote "The Secret," had a thought: to write a book that would make her rich by capitalizing on the gullibility of the public. She acted on that thought. It produced a book that people bought and made her rich. The real "secret" of "The Secret" is that she kept the part about acting on one's thoughts...a secret. I mean, after all, could you imagine if everyone actually *did* something to make their desires come true?
from the article: I've heard people say, "Oh, I love quantum mechanics because I'm really into meditation, or I love the spiritual benefits that it brings me."
... I love gravity because it keeps me grounded.
Gravity - It's not just a good idea , it's the Law
Excellent article - I have been debating this notion on blog pages for years now. Some people just don't get it. It is amazing how many people will go along with an imaginative ideal just because it fits in some mathematical computation. Specific mass entities can not be accelerated to even close the speed of light or beyond because of the consequences of warping SpaceTime. For increasing acceleration to be maintained, mass takes on its own gravitational inertia. This is not just a warp in SpaceTime, but rather a trap in SpaceTime (liken to a black hole) in which the accelerated matter turns in on itself relative to its warping of SpaceTime (or at least from the perspective of our SpaceTime reference). So while matter is internally accelerated, it is externally decelerated within its own dilated Time.
Any such acceleration beyond light speed renders the specificity of the mass entity, reorganizing its matter to compensate for its inertial frame of SpaceTime reference. In a sense, it doesn't matter how one reaches such an accelerated state, its consequences are the same. Time stops and the radiated energy matter is lost to the pre-existing fabric of SpaceTime in which it resides. There is no longer a uniqueness to the matter that was once a specific mass entity, and there is no blueprint to reassemble what's left of the residual density of matter that is now maintaining the integrity of its black hole.
As a side note, there are no wormholes as well because the very existence of wormholes relies on the pairing of black holes or a black hole and a white hole. There is no escape from a black hole (save the lost energy of matter being radiated), so paring black holes is an inept conception of travel. And the co-existence of a black hole and a while hole pairing imposes a SpaceTime paradox.
Such science fiction fantasy is fueled by the mechanics of mathematical proofs presented for the relativistic characteristics of subatomic matter, and these concepts are then manipulated as possible at a multimolecular level of existence. I love magic and science fiction as well, but you have to temper fantasy with some real basis of what is possible. So enjoy the magic of science fiction because you'll never survive the reality of such imaginative ideals for Space, SpaceTime, or even Time travel.
I think you meant protons not photons. Photons are particles that make up light while protons are in nucleus of an atom.
Now, if only a stake could be driven through the heart of one of life's most mis-used, non-understood and tired comparisons: "It's a quantum leap!"
Yup - small, precise and easily calculated.
So I ask you folks that are smarter than I: What does this mean for the theory of multi-dimensions? I thought quantum mechanics tied (partially) into proving the existence of more than three dimensions, in some theories infinite dimensions and more than one universe. So are these theories just hogwash and science fiction as well?
SuperSting Theories of multi-dimensional existence is just another way to abstract the physical components of relativity; kind of like having a new perspective on an old model. It doesn't change the relativity of the old model, rather it intends to provide a further divisioning of the dimensional representations of quantum level physics. SuperString Theory QA reference link - http://physics.about.com/od/quantumphysics/f/stringtheory.htm
As for the abstractions of multiverse in SuperString Theory, it is just a concept that there exists other dimensional flavors of our existing universe. Example: While the universe could be comprised of a dimensional facet in which these superstrings could exist say in two dimensions, the quantum condition of our four dimensional universe could not be fully realized in only two dimensions.
As for the notions of more than one universe, it all depends on how you limit the measure of the universe. Current ideals of cosmogony state that the finite condition of the universe is expressed at the moment of the Big Bang, our SpaceTime continuum. While matter and energy can be interchanged, no new such information can be created or deleted within an already created universe. Since the qualification of the inception of a Big Bang is still in question, there is nothing to say that other Big Bangs (or other universes) can not exist outside the limits of our SpaceTime continuum. And there is nothing to say that other universes must evolve in the same fashion as our universe. So while this concept is more plausible than say than the actual existence of Time Travel wormholes, it is not really relative to our existence (i.e. our ability to be).
Leee1102,
You have a point. Fact is stranger than fiction especially when one contemplates the quantum suicide thought experiment which states that the many-worlds interpretation of quantum mechanics implies that conscious beings are immortal.
Nobody understands consciousness yet. Why should we understand the classical version of consciousness before understanding the quantum version of it? The term "quantum consciousness" indicates that quantum mechanics play a role in consciousness which is plausible since Krauss agreed that quantum mechanics may play a role at some level in the way the brain works. Therefore there's nothing suspicious about quantum consciousness.
Quantum consciouness makes as much sense as SuperString consciousness or the Theory of everything consciousness or the consciouness of our SpaceTime continuum. Everything comes from something else until it comes from nothing, where nothing is a relative term defining pre-Big Bang cosmogony. While everything is connected at the most primary level, how it translates to individuals can not be qualified or quantified. Therefore quantum consciousness falls into the realm of the spiritual view of being and has no real basis in science.
Most neuroscientists acknowledge that consciousness exists, and that at present it is something of a mystery. Twelve years ago, Cal Tech professors Christof Koch and Francis Crick presented the idea that consciousness resides in the brain's prefrontal cortex. It is plausible that the brain operates not only at a classical, macroscopic level, but also at a quantum level. Therefore, quantum approaches to consciousness is scientific and there are many theories from eminent scientists.
I think what he (Krauss) is trying to get across is that it is quite plausible that there are quantum effects that take place in the brain, but whether they can be directly attributed to consciousness is up for debate. The fact is scientists who have studied it for years aren't sure how it might work, therefore you should be skeptical of anyone who claims to know the inner workings of the quantum conscience, they are trying to sell you something.
Captainthursday,
If Krauss had worded his statements like you do, I would have no issues. What I disagree are statements like these.
"The reason you should be suspicious is because we don't even understand classical consciousness. If we don't understand classical consciousness, how can we understand quantum consciousness?"
Obviously, he disagrees with a quantum approach to consciousness which is still a scientific debate. We should not be suspicious of quantum consciousness just because there's no understanding of the classical version of it.
I would be curious to know which of the quantum consciousness theories are being discussed. Wikipedia mentions eight different theories. The one that comes closest to my thoughts is by Evan Walker and it is related to Information Theory. I have a personal interest in quantum information geometry. Consciousness is so very hard to pin down let alone try to define it.
This old Cajun has a degree in Physics. I remember an exercise I was given in the third semester Physics class (sophomore year) in Atomic. I was to calculate the de Broglie wavelength of various particles and common items in the macroscopic (human scale) world. The calculation is rather simple using the de Broglie equation:
Wavelength = (h/mv)*squareroot(1-v*v/c*c) h = Plank's Constant = 6.626*10exp-34 J-s m = mass in kilograms v = velocity in meters/sec c = velocity of light Units are SI mks
For a matter of scale: The atomic diameter is ~10exp-10 m nuclear diameter is ~10exp-14 m
A calculation for an electron (the lightest charged particle) is comparable with the atomic diameter. That is why quantum effects work for them and we now have the field of Atomic Physics with Quantum Physics used to describe the behavior of atoms. Note: Atomic Physics is NOT Nuclear Physics. An atom as stated above is about 10,000 times larger than its nucleus. Heavier particles give smaller and smaller de Broglie wavelengths. A proton's wavelength is typically about 1/10th of the nuclear diameter.
For large molecules, a good example is the fullerene (AKA buckyball or C60). Its de Broglie wavelength is about 2.5 picometers or about 25/1000ths the size of an atom. A Buckyball is about 250 times larger than each of its carbon atoms, so its de Broglie wavelength is about 1 ten thousandth of its diameter. The quantum non-locality or fuzziness of a buckyball is so small that it is essentially irrelevant. The fuzziness of an object is about 1.5 times its de Broglie wavelength (99.7% of the time an object will exist within that distance). A buckyball image expanded to fill the picture on a large hi-definition flat screen TV would have a quantum fuzziness almost exactly equal to the 1080p resolution of the TV so the hi-def TV could not display the fuzziness because it doesn't have enough resolution to do it.
SO....quantum fuzziness is a non issue for buckyballs AND...remember that stupid movie called "What the **** do we know about anything". Remember the fuzzy basketballs bouncing representing quantum non-locality for a single backetball. The be Broglie wavelength for a baseball or backetball is ~10exp-34 m. That is 100,000,000,000,000,000,000 times SMALLER than an atomic nucleus. The kid shown would be 1000 times smaller yet. This shows the scale of the stupidity of the popular media when it comes to quantum theory. I call it YOCTOSTUPIDITY or 10 to the 24th power times stupidity.
Neurons??? A neuron with all of its DNA and other cellular dreck is close to 100,000,000,000 times as massive as a buckyball. If a buckyball has virtually no influence be quantum fuzziness do you think a neuron with a wavelength one hundred billion times smaller would be affected? According to probability theory, it could happen given enough time and enough neurons but it likely hasn't yet happened even once for a single thought for all of humanity in the last 5 million years. Probability theory and thermodynamics predicts that there is a possibility that all the air molecules could all move to 1/2 of a room leaving a perfect vacuum in the other half. You might have to wait for several times the expected lifetime of the universe for it to happen but it can happen according to theory. I am not going to hold my breath waiting and all of you idiots out there that don't understand this can go and spend a lot of hard earned money for space suits and bungee cords to tie you down in case it does. I am just glad I didn't pay to see that stupid movie except for the waste of some of my precious time.
i thought 10exp-34m was 1 with 34 zeros after it. so, an atomic nucleus is 10exp20 times smaller than a basketball?? ;-P
<Removed>
.../
Quantum effects take place constantly in every atom of every bit of matter in the universe: everytime an electron jumps from one energy state to another & everytime a photon is absorbed or expelled by an electron in an atom is an example of a quantum effect.
There are multiple trillions of quantum events taking place every second within every living body. But these quantum events are almost* completely independent of each other: each event randomly follows the same statistical rules, but there is no coordination of events (except for the specific links between two quantumly entangled particles).
* When an electron in atom A ejects a photon which is absorbed by an electron in atom B there is obviously a link, but it isn't a "quantum" link. The random ejection follows classical physical rules until it is reabsorbed.
I thought that might be what you meant.
If you ever have the time, give yourself the pleasure of reading "The Emperor's New Mind" by Roger Penrose. What he states at the very end of his book is that consciousness *may* be quantum in nature, meaning the brain doesn't use neurons as logic gates *exclusively* to generate the condition known as "consciousness." Penrose admits there is still a mystery to be solved but he claims he has not solved it. In fact, he emphatically begins in the beginning of the book that the next scientific breakthrough will be unifying the classical world and the quantum world.
Anyway, the book was really written to refute Minsky's book, "Society of Mind" where Minsky literally advocates a logic gate model for consciousness and devises all sorts of instruction sets to mimic consciousness and thought. Penrose spends a good 800 pages going through all the science, physics and math behind all the theories that proponents of Strong AI depend upon, especially the ones Minsky depends upon, and says, look, there is more going on here to consciousness than the science we now have to explain it and/or model it properly.
Krauss should back off a bit from Penrose.
If you ever have the time, give yourself the pleasure of reading "The Emperor's New Mind" by Roger Penrose. What he states at the very end of his book is that consciousness *may* be quantum in nature, meaning the brain doesn't use neurons as logic gates *exclusively* to generate the condition known as "consciousness." Penrose admits there is still a mystery to be solved but he claims he has not solved it. In fact, he emphatically begins in the beginning of the book that the next scientific breakthrough will be unifying the classical world and the quantum world.
Anyway, the book was really written to refute Minsky's book, "Society of Mind" where Minsky literally advocates a computer model for consciousness and devises all sorts of instruction sets to mimic consciousness and thought. Penrose spends a good 800 pages going through all the science, physics and math behind all the theories that proponents of Strong AI depend upon, especially the ones Minsky depends upon, and says, look, there is more going on here to consciousness than the science we now have to explain it and/or model it properly.
Krauss should back off a bit from Penrose.
Mykel: I would surmise that each have points that they both agree upon and arguments for their point of views are both very valid right now. We know more now about the human brain than we did 20 years ago, but our understanding is still in its infancy. My personel view is that quantum mechanics or quantum field theory plays a roll in how infomation is packeted and passed from neuron to neuron. This topic absolutley fascinates me to the point that I am planning to start work on my PhD in Neuroscience in the next year, with an emphasis on this particual topic.
CIRCULAR REASONING
I
In his article ‘The other side of time’ (2000) scientist Victor J. Stenger has written:
“Quantum electrodynamics is a fifty-year-old theory of the interactions of electrons and photons that has made successful predictions to accuracies as great as twelve significant figures. Fundamental to that theory is the spontaneous appearance of electron-positron (anti-electron) pairs for brief periods of time, literally out of "nothing."”
From here he has concluded that our universe may also come literally out of nothing due to quantum fluctuation in the void, and therefore we need not have to imagine that God has done this job.
But is it true that electron-positron (anti-electron) pairs are appearing spontaneously literally out of "nothing"? Are scientists absolutely certain that the so-called void is a true void indeed? Because here there is a counter-claim also: God is there, and that God is everywhere. So actually nothing is coming out of "nothing", only something is coming out of something. Here we want to examine whether scientists’ claim that the so-called void is a true void can be sustained by reason or not.
There can be basically two types of universe: (1) universe created by God, supposing that there is a God; (2) universe not created by God, supposing that there is no God. Again universe created by God can also be of three types:
(1a) Universe in which God need not have to intervene at all after its creation. This is the best type of universe that can be created by God.
(1b) Universe in which God has actually intervened from time to time, but his intervention is a bare minimum.
(1c) Universe that cannot function at all without God’s very frequent intervention. This is the worst type of universe that can be created by God.
Therefore we see that there can be four distinct types of universes, and our universe may be any one of the above four types: (1a), (1b), (1c), (2). In case of (1a), scientists will be able to give natural explanation for each and every physical event that has happened in the universe after its origin, because after its creation there is no intervention by God at any moment of its functioning. Only giving natural explanation for its coming into existence will be problematic. In case of (1b) also, most of the events will be easily explained away, without imagining that there is any hand of God behind these events. But for those events where God had actually intervened, scientists will never be able to give any natural explanation. Also explaining origin of the universe will be equally problematic. But in case of (1c), most of the events will remain unexplained, as in this case God had to intervene very frequently. This type of universe will be just like the one as envisaged by Newton: "Gravity explains the motions of the planets, but it cannot explain who set the planets in motion. God governs all things and knows all that is or can be done." So we can with confidence say that our universe is not of this type, otherwise scientists could not have found natural explanation for most of the physical events. In case of type (2) universe, here also there will be natural explanation for each and every physical event, and there will be natural explanation for the origin of the universe also. So from the mere fact that scientists have so far been able to give natural explanation for each and every physical event, it cannot be concluded that our universe is a type (2) universe, because this can be a type (1a) universe as well. The only difference between type (1a) and type (2) universe is this: whereas in case of (1a) no natural explanation will ever be possible for the origin of the universe, it will not be so in case of (2). Therefore until and unless scientists can give a natural explanation for the origin of the universe, they cannot claim that it is a type (2) universe. And so, until and unless scientists can give this explanation, they can neither claim that the so-called void is a true void. So scientists cannot proceed to give a natural explanation for the origin of the universe with an a priori assumption that the void is a real void, because their failure or success in giving this explanation will only determine as to whether this is a real void or not.
II
Scientists want to prove that God does not exist. Since they want to prove it, therefore they cannot claim that it is already an established fact. So the statement “God does not exist” can be given the status of a theory only and nothing more than that. Therefore its fate will be determined like any other theory of the scientific world. Like any other scientific theory it will have to prove its validity afresh at each and every new instance. So, not by assuming that the void is a real void, and thus not by assuming that there is no God, but by any other means, scientists will have to show that there is no hand of God behind the origin/birth/creation of this universe, and therefore their no-God theory is again validated here. So the scientific community all over the world should realize that the story of the origin of our universe from a vacuum fluctuation is a myth only, not a scientific truth.
CIRCULAR REASONING REEXAMINED
This is about scientists’ claim that our universe has originated from nothing due to a vacuum fluctuation. Here I want to show again that this claim cannot be sustained by reason.
Abbreviation: origin of the universe from nothing due to vacuum fluctuation (OUNVF)
We all know that the theorems in Euclidean geometry generally start with some basic assumptions that are accepted as true without any proof. These basic assumptions are called axioms. Similarly scientific theories also start with some basic assumptions. These are called postulates. So far these postulates of scientific theories were all God-independent. I am going to explain what I want to mean by the term “God-independent”. Let us suppose that P is a postulate. Now it may be the case that there is a God. Or it may be the case that there is no God. Now let us suppose it is the case that there is a God, and we find that P is not affected. Again let us further suppose that it is the case there is no God, and again we find that in this case also P is not affected. Then we can say P is God-independent. But in the case under consideration the basic assumption with which scientists start is not at all God-independent. Rather we can say that it is very much God-dependent. Their basic assumption here is this: the void is a real void, and it is nothing but a void. Now if it is the case that there is a God, then this assumption is very much affected, because the void is no longer a real void. If, and only if, it is the case that there is no God, then only it is a real void. Therefore when scientists are saying that the void is a real void, then they are also saying it indirectly that it is the case there is no God, or, that it is a fact there is no God. But my question here is this: are these scientists now in a position to say so? Have their knowledge of the empirical world and its laws and its workings up till now made them competent enough to declare at this stage that there is no God? Because here two points will have to be considered:
1) They have not yet been able to give a natural explanation for the origin of the universe.
2) Similarly they have not yet been able to give a natural explanation for the fact that our universe has become habitable for life, whereas it could have been barren and lifeless as well.
Now it may so happen that scientists completely fail to give any natural explanation for both 1) and 2). In that case will it not be too early for them to suppose that the void is a real void? Because if they are unsuccessful, then they do not know whether there is a God or not, and therefore neither do they know whether the void is a real void or not. But if they are successful, then they definitely know that there is no God. Then only they can say that the void is a real void. So we can say that 1) and 2) are two hurdles that the scientists must have to cross before they can arrive at a place from where they can boldly declare that God does not exist. This is the place that may be called scientists’ heaven. Because once they can reach there, then they will have no hesitation to deny the existence of God. Because now they have explained the alpha and omega of this universe, starting from its origin up to the coming of man on earth and further beyond, and nowhere they have found any hand of God influencing the course of events in any way. But, to arrive at that place can they take any undue advantage? Or, can they try to reach there by any unfair means? Can they already assume that there is no God, and based on that assumption, can they try to cross any one, or both, of these two hurdles? But in case of 1) they have just done that. That is why I want to say that OUNVF is a pure case of circular reasoning.
H.S.Pal
Well. That covers the wordy version of "Nuh uh! It just can't! Because!".