Jump to content


Click Here To Visit Our Sponsor


Photo

How to Create a Ghost


  • Please log in to reply
62 replies to this topic

#61 Robot

Robot

    Villager

  • Member
  • PipPipPip
  • 213 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:Virginia
  • Interests:Physics, Flying, Guitar, Robots, Paranormal

Posted 09 August 2010 - 06:14 AM

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."


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,

paranormal phenomena entail assumptions that simply do not fit with quantum theory.

, I can find nothing that shows, 't Hooft says this. Can you give me specifics that come from him?

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???
A fool takes no pleasure in understanding, but only in expressing his opinion.(Proverbs 18:2)http://www.ghostphysics.blogspot.com./

#62 Robot

Robot

    Villager

  • Member
  • PipPipPip
  • 213 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:Virginia
  • Interests:Physics, Flying, Guitar, Robots, Paranormal

Posted 09 August 2010 - 10:38 AM

After some research I believe your "quote" can be found here:

http://www.phys.uu.n...hooft/para.html

"Question frequently asked me:
Theoretical physicists sometimes talk of particles moving backwards in time, or that the speed of light may sometimes not be truly constant. A better informed remark: in Quantum Mechanics certain features appear to happen with correlations over a `spacelike' distance ...
Can the human brain be sensitive to such phenomena, and can explanations be brought about along such lines?
The aswer to this is simple:


ABSOLUTELY NO!
Both relativity theory (special as well as general) and quantum field theory have a causality structure built in. This means that information processing takes place along extremely rigorous rules, and these rules include the mechanisms at work inside our brains. What is more, since our brains operate at body temperature (mine does), quantum correlations between nerve cells are washed away by thermal fluctuations, so you may even forget about quantum mechanics when you discuss the mechanisms active inside our brains ...
All this means that any explanation of paranormal experiences must come from psychology, not from theoretical physics ...
I am confident that you are NOT interested in my little essay explaining how a theoretical physicist imagines what paranormal phenomena really are, so do NOT click here.

I challenge anyone who believes that paranormal phenomena can be scientifically detected with a BET."


t' Hooft is the only Physicist I am aware of that has said something of this specific nature. His is the opinion of only (1) well credentialed Physicist.



It is interesting to note, on this page:

http://www.phys.uu.n...ft/parabet.html

His first link is to the Global Conciousness Project

http://noosphere.princeton.edu/

GCP was tied to Princeton University and the PEAR Lab. I personally met the orginator of this project at the June SSE Conference. It is interesting to note, GCP has a reply to t' Hooft's Challenge:

http://noosphere.pri.../thooftbet.html

It appears there is an absurdity to his "bet"


All of t' Hooft's focus appears to be on "human brain" based paranormal discussion, I see nothing addressing other potential paranormal mechanisms.

Off the top of my head I can name 10 Physicists who would disagree with this (1) person,(t' Hooft). Carl Sagan didnt believe in much, but he was open to the possibility of ESP.

t' Hooft's reference to the ilk of James Randi, diminishes his credibility in my eyes. I know people who have experience with Randi, and his "prize".

Having said all this I appreciate t' Hooft, but I prefer to agree with the many other Physicists I associate with.

I appreciate your bringing this (1) credible source to my attention, I plan on spending time studying him and his work. No doubt I will have more comments, as I learn more.
A fool takes no pleasure in understanding, but only in expressing his opinion.(Proverbs 18:2)http://www.ghostphysics.blogspot.com./

#63 Robot

Robot

    Villager

  • Member
  • PipPipPip
  • 213 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:Virginia
  • Interests:Physics, Flying, Guitar, Robots, Paranormal

Posted 09 August 2010 - 11:02 AM

Another Nobel prize winner in Physics, Brian Josephson, with a completely different opinion on the paranormal.

"a Nobel prizewinning physicist was "uninvited" from a forthcoming conference because of his interest in the paranormal"

Link:

http://www.sott.net/...-the-Paranormal

Right or Wrong, the Skeptic is the "safe" path of least resistance.

Josephson appears to be the polar opposite of t' Hooft. LOL :wub:

Edited by Robot, 09 August 2010 - 11:04 AM.

A fool takes no pleasure in understanding, but only in expressing his opinion.(Proverbs 18:2)http://www.ghostphysics.blogspot.com./




1 user(s) are reading this topic

0 members, 1 guests, 0 anonymous users