Have you ever had an experience of something not known to or accepted by the scientific community? It is so bizarre to know something is possible that is considered impossible by mainstream sources of information. I'm confident that it will be studied and accepted in the future but due to the stigma of my position I would not disclose the experience to those outside of my closest confidants.*

*In an effort not to seem paranoid, woo, or spiritual, I will disclose that I'm not getting probed by aliens, seeing Bigfoot in my backyard, communing with ley lines, or self-diagnosing "morgellons disease."

Views: 1198

Reply to This

Replies to This Discussion

How about witnessing the same particle in 2 different places at the same time and take a picture of it. Then look closer and see the same particle, just 1 particle in 4 or 10 different places at the same time. All at a quantum level of course. How can something exist in the same exact time in 2 or more different places? Oh it's so lovely it makes me happy just to think about it. then pull out and the farther away you the particle the less places it exists in. Science is wonderful. and this is not the weirdest quantum discovery. Quantum gravity may well be the weirdest reality shift ever if proven true. Makes the god particle seem like small potato's.

There's that and the phenomenon called "entanglement" where something happening to a local particle can have a simultaneous effect on another particle a vast distance away.

Particles don't come with serial numbers. What makes two particles "the same." Likewise, I'd like to know how they know that two particles are entangled?

They suspend the particle in a field of energy and focus in on one like a photo paper, its an image of the particle because the actual particle is in and out of existance to quickly. But that does bring up a more amazing possiblity that no matter how close in you get on a particle that there truely is not one.

I do like entanglement although not so sure I get behind completely the multiverse theory. I think that its more of an attempt to narrow things down to hard and fast rules. I do lean toward waves of possiblities as a better explanation of quantum mechanics.

Sorry, an explanation I can't understand doesn't really answer my question. In fact, I think you're denying the possibility that one can know two particles in different places are the same particle. Like I said, they don't come with serial numbers, and I assume one particle of a type looks like any other particle of the same type. "All electrons look the same to me!"

Am I wrong?

Single Particle Explorer (SPE)  enables you to reliably determine
the chemical composition, number, shape and size, of each individual particle larger than 0.5 µm.

The above is an industrial application they now have detectors developed for the accelerator that may go much smaller. They are sure this is the same particle.

Oh, really? So, subatomic particles are made of chemicals. Do you think they are elements, compounds, or mixtures?


Nothing whatsoever to do with entangled electrons.

Go read up on what an electron is in relation to an atom, and an atom in relation to a molecule.  At which point you will understand why Unseen laughed.

I'm not sure what superiority dance you guys are are on a trip about, but its cool with me. you guys taking some time to bust my balls I take as a compliment that you took the time:) I was not discussing entanglement btw. I was talking about the duality of particles at a quantum level. How do you supposed the hadron collider knows one particle from the other? Is the instrument I posted above ficticious somehow? instead of laughing learn me sumthin.

"where something happening to a local particle can have a simultaneous effect on another particle a vast distance away."

Sadly, due to the popularization of the subject, people making this point have not looked deeply into the 'details'. In the theory part, they mention that no effect propagation faster than the speed of light is implyed. This limit is still assumed. I do have to say though, that it would be very nice to have atleast one allowable violation. LOL

Quantum entanglement is a form of quantum superposition. When a measurement is made and it causes one member of such a pair to take on a definite value (e.g., clockwise spin), the other member of this entangled pair will at any subsequent time[6] be found to have taken the appropriately correlated value (e.g., counterclockwise spin). Thus, there is a correlation between the results of measurements performed on entangled pairs, and this correlation is observed even though the entangled pair may have been separated by arbitrarily large distances. In Quantum entanglement, part of the transfer happens instantaneously. Repeated experiments have verified that this works even when the measurements are performed more quickly than light could travel between the sites of measurement: there's no slower-than-light influence that can pass between the entangled particles. (source)

The emphasis is mine.

I think I may have been wrong to have used the term "vast distance." Rather, far enough away that the simultaneity could not be have accomplished at slower than light speeds.

Unseen thank you!

I found my reference from another source, that seemed to suggest that the rather newage implications/interpritation of quantum mechanics was false. That no C violation was to be implied. The Wikipedia posting seems to be a qualification only. Till I know other wise, I shall stand corrected. I doubt that this affects the cost of beans in China much...


Support T|A

Think Atheist is 100% member supported

All proceeds go to keeping Think Atheist online.

Donate with Dogecoin



A fun test for all you ex-Christians

Started by Emperor Milos in Music. Last reply by Gallup's Mirror 4 minutes ago. 3 Replies


  • Add Videos
  • View All

Services we love

We are in love with our Amazon

Book Store!

Gadget Nerd? Check out Giz Gad!

Into life hacks? Check out LabMinions.com

Advertise with ThinkAtheist.com

© 2014   Created by Dan.

Badges  |  Report an Issue  |  Terms of Service