Quantum Theory and Tarot Inquiry...

Umbrae

“Anyone who is not shocked by quantum theory has not understood it.” Niels Bohr

It was Newton’s clockwork universe, following lovely laws that helped create the ‘free will’ problem of a deterministic universe.

In 1906 JJ Thompson received the Nobel Prize for proving that electrons are particles.

In 1937 his son was awarded the Nobel Price for proving that electrons are waves.

But electrons can’t be both?!? Yet both are correct. Protons, neutrons also posses the same properties.

Further…

Perhaps the way to a better understanding of the nature of the universe lies in the part of the physical world that has largely been ignored in quantum theory so far. Quantum mechanics tells us a lot about material particles; it tells us scarcely anything at all about empty space. Yet as Eddington remarked more than fifty years ago in The Nature of the Physical World, the revolution that created our picture of solid matter as very largely empty space is more fundamental than the revolution brought about by relativity theory. Even a solid object like my desk, or this book, is actually almost all empty space. The proportion of matter to space is smaller even than the proportions of a grain of sand compared with the Albert Hall. The one thing quantum theory does seem to tell us about this neglected 99.99999 ...percent of the universe is that it is seething with activity, a maelstrom of virtual particles. Unfortunately, the same quantum equations that yield infinite solutions in QED also tell us that the energy density of the vacuum is infinite, and renormalization has to be applied even to empty space. When the standard quantum equations are combined with those of general relativity to attempt a better description of reality, the situation is even worse-infinities still occur, but now they cannot even be renormalized. Clearly, we are barking up the wrong tree. But which tree should we be barking up?

John Gribbion – In Search of Schrödinger’s Cat

One does not have to go very far to find that modern physics refutes the Newtonian view, that once we begin to move to the particulate and sub-particulate world – reality as we know it, breaks down.

Sources?

Heisenberg, Schrödinger, Einstein, de Broglie, Jeans, Planck, Pauli, Eddington…all agreed without exception embraced the opinion that the mystical, transcendental view of the world as spiritual as opposed to material was valid and true. Any quantum teacher, or student - knows that.

...You can fly the starship Enterprise wherever you wish - it's not real. Just like the desk your monitor is sitting on...

The crowned one said:
…but time and space still exist, …
Einstein described how moving clocks run slow. At the speed of light, time stands still…the clock stops. For a photon that’s been traveling through space since the big bang (let’s say 15 thousand millions years or so), the moment of the big bang and our time are the same time to the photon. Because motion through time has no meaning for the photon – it is it’s own antiparticle.

Because of Einstein’s work, we now know that there is no ‘universal time’ that permeates the universe – it is all relative (“it depends”). If we have two events that occur at the same time in one frame of reference, they will occur at different times when seen from other frames of reference.

“Sooner”, “later”, “Simultaneous” are relative terms. Which is why I always tell folks to journal with Tarot. Your very concept of time and mine may vary in real life.

Einstein, when working with his relativity theory, stated that there is no such thing as space and time, only that there was space-time, which is a continuum (meaning that it cannot be broken down into components).

According to Newtonian physics, our three-dimensional reality is separate from, and moves forward in, a one-dimensional time.

Relativity blows this out of the water. Our reality is four-dimensional!

Newton saw space and time as a dynamic picture. Things develop with the passage of time (which is one-dimensional and moves forward). Our traditional three-card spread mirrors this paradigm (past-presnt-future).

Relativity says that it’s more practical and useful to think in terms of a static non-moving picture of space, the space-time continuum. In this model, things do not develop, they simply are. If we were able to view our personal reality in the four-dimensional model, we would see that everything that seems to unfold is actually in toto, and presents itself to us as it is.

In 1908, Minkowski said, “Henceforth space by itself and time by itself, are doomed to fade away into mere shadows, and only a kind of union of the two will preserve an independent reality.”

Add to this the improbable and unbelievable (yet true) fact that photons can move in a direction that we perceive as backwards on the continuum, affecting particles in the past…

Buddhist literature does not speak of learning new things about reality, but about removing veils of ignorance that stand between us and what we already are.

…It does apply, however to molecules, which are quite complex compared to subatomic particles; to living cells, which are more complex than molecules; and to people, who are made of billions of cells. It is only at the subatomic, or quantum, level that the forward flow of time loses its significance.

However, there is speculation, and some evidence, that consciousness, at the most fundamental levels, is a quantum process. The dark-adapted eye, for example, can detect a single photon. If this is so then it is conceivable that by expanding our awareness to include functions which normally lie beyond its parameters (the way yogis control their body temperature and pulse rate) we can become aware of (experience) these processes themselves. If, at the quantum level, the flow of time has no meaning, and if consciousness is fundamentally a similar process, and if we can become aware of these processes within ourselves, then it also is conceivable that we can experience timelessness.

If we can experience the most fundamental functions of our psyche, and if they are quantum in nature, then it is possible that the ordinary conceptions of space and time might not apply to them at all (as they don't seem to apply in dreams). Such an experience would be difficult to describe rationally ("Infinity in a grain of sand/ And eternity in an hour"), but it would be very real, indeed. For this reason, reports of time distortion and timelessness from gurus in the East and psychotropic drug users in the West ought not, perhaps, to be discarded peremptorily.

Zukav, on de Broglie, de Wit, Feynman et al.
 

firemaiden

So sorry... I could offer words of conciliation, but my second passion is dinosaurs not quantum mechanics. I love the practise of "thought makes your world", but I also love the scientific-ness of science.

For me, it is not necessary to try to pin our spiritual thoughts on what we think is quantum mechanics in order to make them legitimate. They are legitimate in their own terms. I do not think there is any scientist who will recognise what the spritual gurus are calling "quantum mechanics" as actual quantum mechanics. I have asked a bunch: the term " pseudo-science" and "quantum mystics" and "fiction" invariably comes up.

Scientific or not, it does by no means pull the rug out from under the spiritual teachings, to say they is not founded by legitimate science. Any attempt to mix the two is bound to lead to absurdities.
 

Manjusri

a

valeria said:
Easily...

Our physical bodies are made up of the same molecules/atoms whether we are "alive" or "dead."

The Law of Conservation of Mass (matter/energy is neither created nor destroyed) is very true in that the life processes in the macro world we live in is the ultimate recycling program. (yes energy can be created with the destruction of matter - but there is still an equilibrium maintained... maybe the topic of another thread). :D

For example, who knows how old the carbon atoms (or the molecules they are part of) that are in my body are? Guaranteed they will be around after I am done with my body... maybe floating about to get taken up into something else.

:love: valeria

I think my opinions had not been clear.
I did not speak about molecules being sustained for a relatively long time.
It is rather- how would you describe a molecule without time?

you can observe conservation law because you observe in the context of time. My question was rather... rhetorical. I don't think anyone would satisfactorily explain world without time concept.
 

Manjusri

a

fferyllt is keeping silence,
and finally do I see his wisdom.

To those who know so much about quantum physics,
Can you explain what "quantum" means, even?
or, have you ever solved "particle in a box" problem?

Without proper education, your statement in this matter is null and void,
as it is apparent from many meaningless articles above.
No one would recognize it as science.
It is your own personal "philoshophy", which is not supported by actual phenomena. And, as it is not internally complete, and is not revealing, it is not even good philoshopy.
To put it in a rough simile, it's something like this :
One obstinately insisting that Rider Waite Tarot did not include Fool card, and the current Fool card is vile conspiracy of the publisher, etc etc.

Please do proceed as "thou wilt".
I shall not interfere from now on.
 

Sheri

Manjusri said:
I think my opinions had not been clear.
I did not speak about molecules being sustained for a relatively long time.
It is rather- how would you describe a molecule without time?

you can observe conservation law because you observe in the context of time. My question was rather... rhetorical. I don't think anyone would satisfactorily explain world without time concept.

I don't think you need time in order to describe a molecule. I think time only matters to us.
 

Splungeman

Manjusri said:
fferyllt is keeping silence,
and finally do I see his wisdom.

To those who know so much about quantum physics,
Can you explain what "quantum" means, even?
or, have you ever solved "particle in a box" problem?

Without proper education, your statement in this matter is null and void,
as it is apparent from many meaningless articles above.
No one would recognize it as science.
It is your own personal "philoshophy", which is not supported by actual phenomena. And, as it is not internally complete, and is not revealing, it is not even good philoshopy.
To put it in a rough simile, it's something like this :
One obstinately insisting that Rider Waite Tarot did not include Fool card, and the current Fool card is vile conspiracy of the publisher, etc etc.

Please do proceed as "thou wilt".
I shall not interfere from now on.

Please don't call the articles above "meaningless". No statement is "null and void" just because someone doesn't have a "proper" education. What does "proper" mean anyway? Some degree granting institution must declare someone "properly" able to discuss their thoughts on something?

If you are "properly" educated, unlike the rest of us, why don't you try to teach us instead of declaring the majority of us unworthy to post on the topic and then leaving the discussion? Just because some people don't seem to maybe get it doesn't mean they can't post their thoughts on it, no matter how incorrect they are.

Sorry to give you hard time, because I agree that many who do not understand quantum theory or quantum mechanics are out there using it to validate anything they can come up with in order to fleece people out of their money. The thing is, they aren't even really TRYING to understand it, they are simply using vague concepts they've only heard about to increase their clout.

If people here don't understand quantum theory, help them! Tell us what "quantum" means. Tell us about this "Particle in a Box" concept. We're here to learn from and help each other, not inform other people of their lack of education on a topic and storm off in a huff.
 

philebus

Umbrae, I have a problem with this statement: "Add to this the improbable and unbelievable (yet true) fact that photons can move in a direction that we perceive as backwards on the continuum, affecting particles in the past…"

The problem is the bit about "true" - no! There are hypothetical particles that move faster than light - tachyons NOT photons (which move at the speed of light). According to theory, they cannot transmit information, ie be a source of reverse causation.
 

Splungeman

philebus said:
Umbrae, I have a problem with this statement: "Add to this the improbable and unbelievable (yet true) fact that photons can move in a direction that we perceive as backwards on the continuum, affecting particles in the past…"

The problem is the bit about "true" - no! There are hypothetical particles that move faster than light - tachyons NOT photons (which move at the speed of light). According to theory, they cannot transmit information, ie be a source of reverse causation.

Sorry...a bit off topic. But remember how in Star Trek: The Next Generation EVERYTHING was solved by hitting it with a Tachyon pulse!! Ha ha! "Hit it with a tachyon pulse Number One!" Hee hee!!

erm...ahem...

Conversation may continue as normal....sorry....
 

Dave.vdv

lol splungeman

I hope we can see this conversation more open then those who are knowledgeable about quantum theory, quantum theory is no more then a moving idea at the moment anyhow, with experiments done that "could" prove a certain theory under certain conditions.
I think it's always good to see something from many different viewpoints, as it is phylisophical, metaphysical, newtonian are whatever.

Yes with a free simple partical there can be measurments of probability as to what will happen at a moment.
As to tarot and quantum theory, there is where the interesting thing lays i think, the quantum world is one of probabilities where particals under that condition and time will probly do that.
In ways in contradicts free will and a goal orientated universe.
I believe even einstein had problems with that as he believed in god and a universe that was going somewhere "a goal" .
I don't think by dissecting everything in to the smallest things you'll get a more real view of what is.
If you move from a single partical to a large symbyose classic physical laws seem to take over, does the single partical then adhere to a greater force ?
Yes you could then say it is a verry complex interaction of probabilies that is not measurable.
I would say even in evolutionast view i feel we live in something goal orientated.

Tarot in a way also is about probabilities but also of choices and determination.
 

Sulis

Moderator note

Wow, I'm thoroughly enjoying this discussion...

I just want to remind you all to please try not to make this personal. I really don't think we need comments about the level of education some folks have or do not have.

Sulis - co-moderator - Talking Tarot