0
stevenedel, on Aug 8 2010, 09:05 AM, said:
Ooops, conspiracy theories seeping in again...
On the website of the Dutch society of skeptics there is an interesting article by 't Hooft, a Nobel prize winning phycist whom you can hardly call naive about quantum physics, no matter what your thoughts on the Nobel Prize are. I'm not sure if I can link to it directly, but it's here: 't Hooft on quantum explanations for paranormal events. 't Hooft addresses the possible explanations for reports of paranormal events, with special attention to the question if modern (quantum) physics could be useful in this regard. He is quite clear about it that it isn't: paranormal phenomena entail assumptions that simply do not fit with quantum theory.
It is in Dutch, unfortunately, and I lack the time to translate it, but his conclusions speak for themselves:
"To the ears of the physicist explanations [of paranormal phenomena] in terms og particle physics, quantum mechanics or the theory of relativity [...] sound absurd."
And:
"Scientists are often accused of refusing to look at paranormal phenomena with a scientific 'open mind'. It would however not be indicative of openness if we didn't try to fit the reported phenomena logically into the large array of already established natural phenomena and laws. The laws of physics, of biology and of psychology all indisputably point in the direction of by far the most plausible explanation, ie., that all paranormal phenomena occur inside people's heads, and not outside of them."
On the website of the Dutch society of skeptics there is an interesting article by 't Hooft, a Nobel prize winning phycist whom you can hardly call naive about quantum physics, no matter what your thoughts on the Nobel Prize are. I'm not sure if I can link to it directly, but it's here: 't Hooft on quantum explanations for paranormal events. 't Hooft addresses the possible explanations for reports of paranormal events, with special attention to the question if modern (quantum) physics could be useful in this regard. He is quite clear about it that it isn't: paranormal phenomena entail assumptions that simply do not fit with quantum theory.
It is in Dutch, unfortunately, and I lack the time to translate it, but his conclusions speak for themselves:
"To the ears of the physicist explanations [of paranormal phenomena] in terms og particle physics, quantum mechanics or the theory of relativity [...] sound absurd."
And:
"Scientists are often accused of refusing to look at paranormal phenomena with a scientific 'open mind'. It would however not be indicative of openness if we didn't try to fit the reported phenomena logically into the large array of already established natural phenomena and laws. The laws of physics, of biology and of psychology all indisputably point in the direction of by far the most plausible explanation, ie., that all paranormal phenomena occur inside people's heads, and not outside of them."
Unfortunately I am not familiar with 't Hooft's work. I dont doubt his credentials with regard to Quantum Mechanics, however, I do question his experience with serious investigation or research into the paranormal.
This is YOUR sentence,
Quote
paranormal phenomena entail assumptions that simply do not fit with quantum theory.
Quote
Scientists are often accused of refusing to look at paranormal phenomena with a scientific 'open mind'. It would however not be indicative of openness if we didn't try to fit the reported phenomena logically into the large array of already established natural phenomena and laws. The laws of physics, of biology and of psychology all indisputably point in the direction of by far the most plausible explanation, ie., that all paranormal phenomena occur inside people's heads, and not outside of them."
I agree with everything he says here, the most plausable explanation IS in peoples heads, no where do I see anything about "simply do not fit with quantum theory".
He says "most plausable" explanation. NOT the only explanation, or contrary to QM.
't Hooft is a "Theoretical" Physicist, often theorists are disconnected from the real world of "Experimentalist" Physicists. All that I have seen from 't Hooft is that he is stating the obvious, as most Physicists would. 't Hooft may be naive about Paranormal Research, and is only stating the obvious from his inexperienced paranormal perspective.
As I may have mentioned earlier, I correspond with "well known" Critics. I appreciate Critics who are educated in the subject matter they critique, as well as, Physics.
It is possible I may agree with ALL he says, but still maintain my "educated/experienced opinions".
Most Physicists and Highly Educated People dont speak in absolutes. They use worlds/phrases like "most plausable".
Phrases like "I know", "this is" "proof", "laws of Physics", "the fact is" set off alarm bells in my head, few people educated in the sciences use this phrases.
Something like "sounds absurd" is far more reasonable. At one time, man being able to fly "sounded absurd".
No grapes that I can see???
