outhouse
Atheistically
this only has to deal with submicron levels and is in no way shape or form anything but perverting the term levitation
-
Welcome to Religious Forums, a friendly forum to discuss all religions in a friendly surrounding.
Your voice is missing! You will need to register to get access to the following site features:- Reply to discussions and create your own threads.
- Our modern chat room. No add-ons or extensions required, just login and start chatting!
- Access to private conversations with other members.
We hope to see you as a part of our community soon!
Quantum physics can account for miracles
- Thread starter Surya Deva
- Start date
this only has to deal with submicron levels and is in no way shape or form anything but perverting the term levitation
Surya Deva
Well-Known Member
We could indeed use the same principle to develop a more powerful firework that could blow up Jupiter
What I find interesting here is how many scientists I have cited so far have actually admitted the very real possibility that humans can indeed be teleported. You keep falling back on how currently our technology cannot do it, because we have only been able to quantamize smaller objects, but the fact is we are increasingly increasing the size of objects we can quantumize.
That is like saying several decades ago because we needed to build massive computers the size of garages to perform simple calculations which today can be found in a pocket calculator, that will never be able to able to build a computer large enough to perform complex operations like weather forecasting, because it would have to be the size of a planet lol
Today we are quantumizing micro-meter sized objects, tomorrow we will do it with larger objects, and then at some point we will be doing it with human sized objects. The fact remains NOTHING in quantum physics precludes the possibility of teleportation of human bodies, absolutely nothing.
PolyHedral
Superabacus Mystic
As you repeat incessantly in this and other threads, (Everything really is a wavefunction. Nothing every ceases being a wavefunction.) the human body is already built of quantum stuff. You just don't seem to understand the amount of it involved, and how that compares to how hard it is to get stuff to tunnel.
Chemistry of any scale will never be able to blow up Jupiter. Hence, the principles behind a firework will never work.We could indeed use the same principle to develop a more powerful firework that could blow up Jupiter
Surya Deva
Well-Known Member
Why is a mind-matter interaction not explainable by a naturalistic explanation?
The Vedic explanation does indeed explain it purely as a natural phenomenon, the reason any 'mircale' is possible is because mind is matter, it is just a very subtle form of matter(quantum matter) and hence they can interact with one another. Just as the brain can interact with the body, because they are both made out of the same matter.
Experiments in OBE research have also shown that the subtle body of the OBEr is a kind of matter, because the subtle body can be isolated by an electric field.
That isn't a problem but at that point it fails to qualify as a "miracle".
Surya Deva
Well-Known Member
A firework is a chemical reaction, and chemical reactions happen between atom and atoms are made out of energy...... and that in turn is all quantum.
Nuclear physics did indeed evolve out of chemistry, only we found better technological means to extract more energy from atoms. TNT was the best we had from chemistr,y but we found that by splitting the atom itself we could extract millions of tons of TNT energy. More technology will allow us to split quarks and extract even more energy which might be able to destroy a planet the sized of Jupiter. If we could find ways to tap the ZPE energy field we could probably destroy the universe
Similarly, we will find technological means to quantumize larger and larger objects. We are indeed doing just that. As our technology improves we will be able to bring any sized object under quantum mechanics. Because in fact as you just said everything already really is quantum anyway!
Last edited:
Do you know the difference between fireworks and a nuke?A firework is a chemical reaction, and chemical reactions happen between atom and atoms are made out of energy...... and that in turn is all quantum.
Nuclear physics did indeed evolve out of chemistry, only we found better technological means to extract more energy from atoms. TNT was the best we had from chemistr,y but we found that by splitting the atom itself we could extract millions of tons of TNT energy. More technology will allow us to split quarks and extract even more energy which might be able to destroy a planet the sized of Jupiter. If we could find ways to tap the ZPE energy field we could probably destroy the universe
Similarly, we will find technological means to quantumize larger and larger objects. We are indeed doing just that. As our technology improves we will be able to bring any sized object under quantum mechanics. Because in fact as you just said everything already really is quantum anyway!
Surya Deva
Well-Known Member
Obviously I do, there is a quantitative difference. A firework produces a small amount of energy, TNT even more, and a hundreds of thousands or millions of times more
They are all based on breaking down atomic aggregates to release energy. A nuke goes one level up by breaking the nucleus itself.So then you understand that blowing up Jupiter with something other then fireworks doesnt mean you can blow it up with fireworksObviously I do, there is a quantitative difference. A firework produces a small amount of energy, TNT even more, and a hundreds of thousands or millions of times more
?And by the way, just wanted to point out you just mentioned "levels"
.
PolyHedral
Superabacus Mystic
But I said "chemistry." I did not say, "nuclear physics."A firework is a chemical reaction, and chemical reactions happen between atom and atoms are made out of energy...... and that in turn is all quantum.
Nuclear physics did indeed evolve out of chemistry, only we found better technological means to extract more energy from atoms. TNT was the best we had from chemistr,y but we found that by splitting the atom itself we could extract millions of tons of TNT energy. More technology will allow us to split quarks and extract even more energy which might be able to destroy a planet the sized of Jupiter. If we could find ways to tap the ZPE energy field we could probably destroy the universe
Similarly, we will find technological means to quantumize larger and larger objects. We are indeed doing just that. As our technology improves we will be able to bring any sized object under quantum mechanics. Because in fact as you just said everything already really is quantum anyway!
Incidentally, quarks are not splittable, being fundamental particles. And vacuum energy can't do work.
Last edited:
Surya Deva
Well-Known Member
Chemistry deals with molecules which are atomic aggregates, they are made of atoms
Nuclear physics deals with atoms which are also atomic aggregates, they are made out of subatomic particles protons, electrons and neutrons
Protons and neutrons are also also atomic aggregates, they are made out of quarks
So quarks is as far as we have got, but how can you be so certain that the quark is the smallest fundamental unit possible?
Just as we now understand the diverse elements to be combinations of only three particles (protons, neutrons, and electrons), the Eightfold Way explained protons, neutrons, kaons, pions, etc. as combinations of particles that we now call quarks. Only five years after Gell-Mann proposed his theory, these quarks were observed at the Stanford Linear Accelerator Center.
And this is where it stands today. As far as we know, quarks are indivisible; i.e., quarks are the smallest unit matter in the nucleus. But wait! We do observe there to be six quarks arranged in three generations:
I know what you’re thinking: But this is another table! This looks just like the Periodic Table or the Eightfold Way! Isn’t this therefore a hint that even quarks (and leptons) are made up of something smaller still?
That is certainly a very reasonable guess, but only experiment can tell us for sure, and unfortunately, it gets progressively more difficult to see these small particles: roughly speaking, the atom is one million times smaller than a human hair, and the proton is 100,000 time smaller than the atom. Our current understanding is that the quark is a point-like particle with no spatial extent!
And this is where it stands today. As far as we know, quarks are indivisible; i.e., quarks are the smallest unit matter in the nucleus. But wait! We do observe there to be six quarks arranged in three generations:
I know what you’re thinking: But this is another table! This looks just like the Periodic Table or the Eightfold Way! Isn’t this therefore a hint that even quarks (and leptons) are made up of something smaller still?
That is certainly a very reasonable guess, but only experiment can tell us for sure, and unfortunately, it gets progressively more difficult to see these small particles: roughly speaking, the atom is one million times smaller than a human hair, and the proton is 100,000 time smaller than the atom. Our current understanding is that the quark is a point-like particle with no spatial extent!
http://www.quantumdiaries.org/2010/11/18/but-what-are-quarks-made-of/
Thus we find that particles smaller than a quark are currently impossible to detect, but suppose we could find a way of splitting a quark, the tremendous amount of energy we could release.
As for ZPE, we know it is there, it a potentially an infinite source of energy. As Arthur C Clarke once said, the energy in the empty space of a cup would be enough to boil all the oceans in the world. If we found a way to extract such energy we would have a tremendous source of energy.
According to the Vedic model the atom is an infinitesimal point in space and has no dimension, this fits the definition of a quark, but the quark is not infinitesimal because we know there are virtual particles that fleet in and out of the ZPE all the time. The fact that we can detect the quark is evidence that something even smaller than the quark exists.
... Anyway we are going off-topic now into nuclear and particle physics
My analogy was better of the computer. A little more than half a century ago we had to build computers the size of massive warehouses to perform simple pocket calculator functions, at that time we used vacuum-tubes instead of transistors. If we talked to a doubting thomas then that just a few decades we will be able to perform calculations at the speed of 16 quadrillion calculations per second, the current faster supercomputer, Seqouia, which in order to perform the same calculations that the Seqouia performs would take:6.7 billion people working with hand-held calculators 320 years to do the same calculation that Sequoia could power through in just one hour.
U.S. wins: Fastest supercomputer in world is right here - Los Angeles Times
... They would have obviously said impossible, for it would require building a computer the size of a planet with those vacuum tubes and that would have been practically impossible.
The early computers:
Computer History
Similarly, we can only quantumize microscale objects today, but like with the evolution of computing, every year we are progressively being able to do it with larger and larger objects, it's only a matter of time before we can do it with objects the size of humans. We can expect by at least the end the of century to see full blown quantum computers, real teleportation and levitation technologies and ZPE bombs lol
Last edited:
PolyHedral
Superabacus Mystic
You are not allowed to redefine what "atom" means halfway through an explanation.
Splitting hadrons consumes energy. Specifically, it consumes enough energy to conjure new quarks out of the vacuum.
To where? Only energy differences can do work.
Atoms, as described there as infinitely small, don't exist. The uncertainty principle forbids them.
I'm going to get back to this tomorrow and quote the numbers at you. (Note mostly to myself that I'll explain then: t>xΔxm/h ) Suffice to say, it'll never happen.
You know, it would be really easy to prove this perspective if you just showed us the scientific evidence supporting it. I am not talking logic, I am saying go beyond the (absurd) logic and test this in a lab. Then, once we have tested and observed it to the point we cannot say it is false, nobody intelligent is going to question you.
Also, quantum mysticism = pseudo-science.
Photonic
Ad astra!
I'll be happy to pitch in later, I'm too tired to get into it at this moment.
PolyHedral
Superabacus Mystic
As promised, the numbers!
The equation I quoted earlier is actually a statement, from these videos, of how long one must wait (on average) for an object of mass m to quantum-tunnel a distance x, while confined within a region Δx across. (See Brian's diamond in the box. If you trapped an electron in a wire or something, it'd be more sensible value) h is Planck's constant, one of the rather mysterious values that govern reality.
So, let's put some numbers in. The (very skinny) mystic's m is 50kg, the wall is say, 1cm thick, and confinement is...
er...
Say 1um just to make the answer's ridiculousness clearer.
t > m*x*Δx/h = (50kg * 1cm * 1um)/(6.6 x 10^-34 Js)
(Everyone who has enough math knowledge to know what's going to happen to that exponent, put on your goggles now.
)... = 7.5 x 10^26 seconds.
That's not a very useful answer, so let's divide it by the current age of the universe, which is (approximately) 14 billion years. The answer we get is 1.7 billion universe lifetimes.
Sorry to disappoint you, but physics does not let you do what you want.
Surya Deva
Well-Known Member
But as the above article I cited suggests, we can fudge the quantum lottery
PolyHedral
Superabacus Mystic
I've already outlined why all of your articles don't imply that. The examples they are using are imaginably smaller than a live human. It's sort of like trying to build a space elevator out of twine.But as the above article I cited suggests, we can fudge the quantum lottery