Dear Antoinette, (01)
It is firmly established that there are non-local quantum phenomena.
I think these effects are what the authors you cite are referring to.
For me to describe these nonlocal effects with any kind of accuracy
would involve arcane descriptions of experimental set-ups that make
the eyes of most non-physicists glaze over. To infer from these
scientifically well-established experimental effects that love energy
causes you to think of a loved one just as he is calling you, is a
leap of faith that goes way beyond what is scientifically
justifiable. Most scientists see red when pop-science writers do
this kind of thing. It may sell books, but it ain't science. (02)
We know very little about the physical processes involved in thinking
of or deciding to call a loved one. There are a few respected
scientists who believe it possible that the non-localities of quantum
theory provide an opening for the kind of effect you are describing.
But they are by no means in the majority. Any book that describes
this kind of serendipity as "part of quantum theory" is simply
incorrect. The most that can possibly be said is that quantum theory
may not rule out some kinds of serendipity. Even that statement
would be regarded as unjustified by many if not most physicists. (03)
At 5:03 PM +0000 12/9/07, aarsic@xxxxxxxxxxx wrote:
>So this is what this thread is about (how Kathy just explained it).
>I once read in a book (on love trying to explain love, soul mates,
>etc) and it said that when two people meet or cross paths they are
>connected by their energies forever. If it's a strong energy, such
>as love, then that is why one can pick up on another's thoughts of
>that person or feelings. This was explained as part of quantum
>theory and I've always wondered about that. Is it part of quantum
>theory when I think of a close friend the phone rings and that is
>them on the phone?
>Have a Good Day!
> -------------- Original message ----------------------
>From: Kathryn Blackmond Laskey <klaskey@xxxxxxx>
>> Pat did NOT say we can choose our science to justify our views of the
>> world! Quite the contrary. He said there are several different
>> observationally equivalent interpretations of quantum theory. That is
>> a very different thing.
>> The empirical predictions of quantum theory have, as Pat pointed out,
>> been confirmed to extremely high precision. Any theory that does
>> *not* make identical predictions for experiments conducted to date
>> would not qualify as science. That is a very severe constraint. We
>> can't just take any old worldview and make up a science to justify
>> it. It is *hard* to come up with a worldview that conforms to the
>> predictions of quantum theory.
>> As Pat pointed out, an interpretation of quantum theory is a story to
>> make sense of the mathematics. In each of these stories, the
>> experimental set-up and the experimental results observed by
>> scientists are *identical*. They must be, if the storyteller is a
>> legitimate scientist. Where they differ is in what purportedly
>> happens "behind the scenes" -- the part of Nature that the scientists
>> cannot observe directly.
>> One way of looking at this is it's just a storytelling exercise. You
>> tell your story, and I tell mine. Neither of us can be proven right
>> or wrong. Indeed, it's more likely (IMHO) that we're all wrong. Our
>> imaginations are, after all, rather limited in comparison with what
>> Nature is capable of doing. So this storytelling thing is just a
>> meaningless game. To my understanding, that was what Bohr tried to
>> do with the Copenhagen interpretation. Use quantum theory as a set
>> of mathematical rules to predict the results of experiments, but
>> don't even try to figure out what Nature is "really doing."
> > Input-output rules are all we're going to get.
>> Another way of looking at it is that it is a good thing to have
>> multiple stories, each with its passionate adherents -- because this
>> is the way science progresses. Each scientist loves her favorite
>> story, and tries to devise experiments that would support it and
>> knock holes in the others. Eventually, someone comes up with a story
>> -- and math to go with it -- that agrees with the well-validated
>> experimental evidence and predicts things the other stories don't.
>> That's real progress. We are not there yet with quantum theory, but
>> it's not for want of trying. Nevertheless, it has been less than a
>> century -- so perhaps it's just a matter of time.
>> At 8:45 AM +0100 12/9/07, Wacek Kusnierczyk wrote:
>> >Christopher Menzel wrote:
>> >> On Dec 7, 2007, at 6:59 AM, paola.dimaio@xxxxxxxxx wrote:
>> >>> ...
>> >>> http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Transactional_interpretation
>> >>> In this account, there is no 'collapse', so its a hard stretch to
>> >>> posit that consciousness causes or results from it.
>> >>> luckily we can all have our favourite choice of science to justify
>> >>> our views of the world
>> >> So, let's see, we have our worldview and then we choose the science
>> >> that fits. Great! I choose Young Earth Creationism. Man, that was
>> >> easy!
>> >provided that YEC is science...
>> >Message Archives: http://ontolog.cim3.net/forum/ontolog-forum/
>> >Subscribe/Config: http://ontolog.cim3.net/mailman/listinfo/ontolog-forum/
>> >Unsubscribe: mailto:ontolog-forum-leave@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
>> >Shared Files: http://ontolog.cim3.net/file/
>> >Community Wiki: http://ontolog.cim3.net/wiki/
>> >To Post: mailto:ontolog-forum@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
>> Message Archives: http://ontolog.cim3.net/forum/ontolog-forum/
>> Subscribe/Config: http://ontolog.cim3.net/mailman/listinfo/ontolog-forum/
>> Unsubscribe: mailto:ontolog-forum-leave@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
>> Shared Files: http://ontolog.cim3.net/file/
>> Community Wiki: http://ontolog.cim3.net/wiki/
>> To Post: mailto:ontolog-forum@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
Message Archives: http://ontolog.cim3.net/forum/ontolog-forum/
Shared Files: http://ontolog.cim3.net/file/
Community Wiki: http://ontolog.cim3.net/wiki/
To Post: mailto:ontolog-forum@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx (06)