Mind over Matter?

Discussion in 'Science and Technology' started by outthere2, May 4, 2013.

  1. outthere2

    outthere2 Senior Member

    Mind over Matter?

    As I've been trying to understand the physics of the double slit experiment it seems to suggest that "mind over matter" is not only possible but it is an undeniable fact:

    https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=EWMLtE85VFM"]Dr Quantum - The Double Slit Experiment: Mind over Matter!- YouTube

    https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=LW6Mq352f0E"]Explained ! The Double Slit Experiment - YouTube

    According to scientists, the double slit experiment demonstrates that consciousness affects matter at the quantum or smallest levels; consciousness cannot directly affect matter at macro (or humanly observable) levels. However, Tom Campbell goes on to state that the effects of human consciousness over matter at quantum levels are cumulative so that, over time, macro reality is affected by human consciousness.

    https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=akgCb85PG-A"]Physics, Metaphysics & the Consciousness Connection 1 of 18 - YouTube

    How do you understand the relationship between the "conscious observer" and matter as it pertains to the double slit experiment?
     
  2. relaxxx

    relaxxx Senior Member

    Pseudo-science bullshit.
    This is what happens when morons twist and butcher science to support their biased superstitions.
     
  3. outthere2

    outthere2 Senior Member

    ^ Can you explain?
     
  4. relaxxx

    relaxxx Senior Member

    First video, Dr Quantum's misinformation:

    Electrons are NOT a "tiny bit of matter" (2:10), they are a tiny bit of mass POTENTIAL when applied with others in atomic orbits.
    "The single electron leaves as a particle, becomes a wave of potentials..." (3:17) False assertions, "particles" are really theoretical centers of complex wave/magnetic fields.

    Part of it's extended FIELD passes through the adjacent slit and forms its own interference BASED specifically on on the parent field, not an abstract range of possibilities.

    "when they observed, the electron went back to behaving like a marble" (4:05). Particles can ONLY every be "observed" when they are destroyed by colliding with a sensor. That's the only time a position can be recorded. The video is misguided and omitting critical experiment information.


    Here is a better video explaining double slit (forward to ~ 45min):

    https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=5QsFBxCR8CY"]The Primer Fields Part 3 - YouTube


    I'll be adding more when I get the time.
     
  5. outthere2

    outthere2 Senior Member

    thanks for the video, I'll have to watch...

    Matter- physical substance in general, as distinct from mind and spirit; (in physics) that which occupies space and possesses mass, esp. as distinct from energy.

    Question: does an electron possess mass?
     
  6. relaxxx

    relaxxx Senior Member

    Well that's another problem with the video, the double slit is about photons which are said to be massless. It incorrectly refers to electrons. Some sub atomic particles are linked with mass values and some are not. These particle masses are the building blocks of classic matter mass, which is different.

    When the PHOTON (which again is a electro-magnetic field with an extended field) hits a sensor, it's center position is approximated. It is only this center point which is referred to as the particle. This point (particle) is smaller than an atom, when it hits the atom of the sensor it's energy is transferred to the electron energy level of that atom. If the sensor film is a photo type, that atom glows brighter than the surrounding atoms.

    It is essential to understand that the particle is a center of a larger EM Field to understand how one photon tuns into two "points" in the double slit. A secondary EM field is generated in the adjacent slit, with it's own center, offset from the original particles field. You then have two fields, with two centers ("particles") impacting on a sensor.

    These electro-magnetic particle fields are complex waveforms. There is no real particle in a sense that it's a tiny piece of something. The particle is just a theoretical center of an EM Field. E=mc^2, matter is nothing more than energy and time. Well, aside from being mostly space that is.
     
  7. relaxxx

    relaxxx Senior Member

    About the observer problem. The main problem here is anyone who talks about it fails to reference any actual credible scientific publication and detailed experiment information. There is no way to detect one photon without destroying it. When you hear anyone talk of adding "detectors" that don't affect the outcome of an experiment, BS alarms should be going off in you head. Observe and detect mean the same thing when sensing particles, the video is trying to trick you. The second video does this trick, plus this "physicist" has been linked to astral projections and spirituality. BS (Bad Science) often has hidden agendas.

    Spirituality has no place in real science. Spirituality is superstition and fantasy, until someone can prove otherwise. And by proving I don't mean mangling and perverting science theories to trick people like this Thomas W. Campbell is doing.

    Consciousness IS NOT REALITY. Not the real physical universe reality anyway. We all live in our own detached egocentric worlds. We are ignorant, delusional, fanciful people. Each of our worlds are interpreted from our senses. Our brains approximate, interpolate and fill in the blanks with fantasy. It's like one of those TV shows where every character recounts an event and they all have different versions. Life is like that because none of us live in true REALITY. Science deals with true reality, it grounds us, it needs to be accountable and replaceable and empirical. Otherwise it becomes another anecdotal religion.

    Mr Campbell's "reality" Chart (3rd video) is COMPLETELY backwards! Where would he suggest these contradictions in our individual realities lie then if consciousness is so huge. The physical universe is the big picture. My brain is a spec inside the physical, it operates according to physical laws. My brain can not comprehend the total physical world so it gathers what limited sensory information it has and makes up the rest. If my physical brain gets damaged my consciousness is drastically altered. Just a few milligrams of chemicals can shut down my mind. The real universe can not shut down from chemicals. Consciousness evolved out of the physical, not the other way around. People buy into the BS because it's telling them what they want to hear, it's masturbating their ego's, just like religion.
     
    1 person likes this.
  8. tpstrat14

    tpstrat14 Guest

    Right on. The double slit experiment has an explanation for it. Maybe I'm mistaken, but I believe it's the test light shone on the electron that makes it change. It's not consciousness.

    You said it. This is superstitious pseudo-science. It's not backed at all by science, but it makes people feel some (misplaced) sense of importance and therefore they believe it.
     
  9. tpstrat14

    tpstrat14 Guest


    Holy shit that was a good read, but I am a habitual troll, so naturally I am going to pick on the one error I found in your post. It might inject some hope into your pessimism about spirituality. You say "None of us live in true reality". I would rather say that none of us fully understand true reality. Consciousness evolved so that we (and other animals) can have SOME level of understanding of the physical world so that we don't charge into boulders, run off of cliffs or casually approach hungry lions. And now that we have evolved to a point where we don't have to scratch and claw for our next meal, we have the perfect opportunity to explore this magnificently crafted consciousness. That's when so-called "spirituality" occurs.

    No other animals have this luxury. Go watch them. Birds, squirrels, deer, worms. All of them are constantly foraging for food or looking out for predators. And here we are debating about the meaning of consciousness. We have the capability of becoming the most conscious (or "spiritual") because we have a myriad of options for how we spend our time.

    You can easily turn this hope for higher, more acute forms of consciousness on its head if you're not careful. I mean, here I sit indoors for hours, separate from the world that cradled my 4 billion years of evolution. How can I really become one with true reality if I'm staring at a screen, thinking about my own mind, ignoring the wonders of nature on the other side of the walls?
     
  10. relaxxx

    relaxxx Senior Member

    I'm atheist and I know when 95% of people talk about spirituality, their talking about this fantasy or this feeling that their consciousness extends supernaturally far beyond their physical brain. For myself, my spirit can only refer to the physical electro-chemical state of my brain. I can be in a bad mood or as much as I hate to say "bad spirit", take a pill and in an hour be in a good mood or "spirit".

    My brain is 6-7 inches wide, but my consciousness feels much larger, almost as if my consciousness is taking up half of this room. I know it's not, I know it's a resulting sensation of my minds eye processing all my sensory information and thoughts. In a sense it's an illusion but also in an informational sense your mind IS much bigger than your brain. This is because consciousness is like a mosaic of all your neurons. The whole is much greater than just the sum of its parts. All information is like this, it's the nature of complexity.

    Say you have two magnetic tapes, one could be pure static and the other could be the most profound video you could ever see. Both weigh the same, contain the same amount of metal oxides... just one has electrons arranged in patterns and the other does not. The tape with the video contains information. Animal brains evolved over millions of years specifically to process information. Consciousness is information processing information. Our brains are a billion trillion times more complex than most advanced computer processor.
     
  11. MeAgain

    MeAgain Dazed and Confused Staff Member Super Moderator

    Here is a good The Science Forum discussion about that (those) Primer Field videos.

    Scroll down the page from the top, it's a long exchange.

    I won't comment on it.
     
  12. Mike Suicide

    Mike Suicide Sweet and Tender Hooligan

    there is no spoon.
     
  13. relaxxx

    relaxxx Senior Member

    They're arguing about math proofs which is laughable really.

    Eleven dimension string theory supposedly has math but string theory is utter BS because time is not a dimension, time is the progress of movement. This fact make string more fantasy than theory but you'll never hear that from particle physicists vying for millions in government and corporate funding.

    I had my own issues and questions for David Lapoint but he never replied. I don't think his videos are right about everything but there are also some key things I tend to agree with.
     
  14. Lekkerding

    Lekkerding Guest

    This thread is about 'mind over matter' but i am sure that with 'mind' the 'soul' is included to. Its the selfpower over matter thats refered to. If it matters i am unsure but it should be mentioned at least wether or not some believe it exists or not. Heck if it doesnt exists that it won't matter to their formula's to refer to it.

    And aside from the short and clear explanation on matter itself (thanks, not into it but love the short drills about it) no-one actually refered to the selfpower aspect. There have been experiments that show some effects of influence.

    Influence on water crystals

    Remote physical state binding (quick snatch, there is a more detailed one)

    That test of influencing the generated electric from bacteries was a interesting one as well.

    Aside from such above experiments i will not be surprised if some of these 'abilities' can have their effect on the smaller elements of this universe. Especially while knowing that if all matter is energy because energy can be influenced by various fields and our body emits some fields ;)

    Gr.
    LD
     
  15. lively_girl

    lively_girl Member

    That water memory theory is at best a pseudoscience.
    I read Masaru Emoto's book and all I got from it was a headache.

    PS: Some photos were pretty, though.
     
  16. Lekkerding

    Lekkerding Guest

    The question is if the expiriments are valid though. The docu's and webpages look interesting but unless i'm there its hard to tell. I could understand that we have an influence on crystals just from the short range fields we emit. I seen only one measurable test though and thats the bacterie test.

    All that science and so few solid answers :p
     
  17. lively_girl

    lively_girl Member

    Well, you would need a good hypothesis first and then some well designed experiments.

    That water crystal thing has neither.

    Do you have a link for the bacteria test?
     
  18. All that matters is the mind, if you don't mind that matter is mindless.
     
  19. lively_girl

    lively_girl Member

    Nice :2thumbsup:
     
  20. This is true(/metaphorically accurate)--as long it actually involves action. =)
     

Share This Page


  1. This site uses cookies to help personalise content, tailor your experience and to keep you logged in if you register.
    By continuing to use this site, you are consenting to our use of cookies.
    Dismiss Notice