Added: 1 year ago
From: trulyhelpful
Views: 82,870
Sort by time | Sort by thread (beta)

Link to this comment:

Share to:

All Comments (438)

Sign In or Sign Up now to post a comment!
  • How do you know an electron ceases to exist when you stop looking at it? It might stop existing for you because you are not looking at it but for other obsevers it is still existing.It may or may not be. Have more faith in your reality. Reality goes on on existing wheather we are looking at it or not. What about the light we see from a star 19 light years away. Does it stop existing because we stop observingit?Idon'tthinksoYouwi­llstopexistingbuttheUniverseWI­LLgoon.Youareplayinggameswithy­ourself.

  • @loveflowers39 You might find it uncomfortable or hard to comprehend, or to deal with, but yes, quantum physics says exactly that.

    regards

  • @KTK401 I don't find it uncomfortable. I find it impratical. Go bang your head againist a wall & keep telling yourself that matter does not exist.At our level of reality matter exists.Thanks.

  • Why question the nature of reality, if that makes us question if our LIVES matter? Once you begin to fool yourself with "magical" questions, then the ultimate question arises, "Why should I continue to TRY to accomplish anything?" And then you stop working for a living, (because nothing really matters, right?), and you begin to collect welfare, and sit at home, and someone else is suddenly taking care of you. And you create a slave, who you will never meet. LIFE IS STRUGGLE, GET OVER IT!

  • Maybe our brains are just little balls of enriched consciousness.

  • You know what chemistry students joke about while doing lab work? We say physicists have gone mad.

  • @dom214 If you're referring to someone like Michio Kookoo, then I would agree.

  • @Mick0722MX

    It's a common thing for people to call someone crazy when they're ignorant of the reasons behind that persons claims. Michio Kaku has a Ph.D from Berkeley in physics. Maybe you should get one too before you start claiming that what he says is "koo koo" The ONLY people who get to a call a physicist crazy when it comes to physics is other physicists!

  • @itzahazylife Get off your high horse, proper guy. Have you ever listened to some of his wacky ideas? Just because someone has a PhD from Berkely doesn't mean that all of their marbles are intact, and you don't need a PhD from Berkely to see that.

  • @Mick0722MX

    Get off MY high horse? I'm not the dude sitting in his computer chair questioning a physicist who has over 70 published physics articles. And no, I haven't heard his wacky idea. I don't have the credentials to have ANY opinion on whether or not what Michio says about physics is "wacky" or not. Until I hear other physicists calling Kaku's ideas wacky, then you opinion is meaningless.

  • @itzahazylife "I haven't heard his wacky idea."

    Maybe you should, and THEN you might realize that a PhD doesn't automatically make somebody rational.

  • @Mick0722MX

    "a PhD doesn't automatically make somebody rational."

    But it means they know a hell of a lot more about physics than you do. His opinions are based on his knowledge of physics. So, how do you know what he says is irrational, or if it just seems irrational since you don't have the depth of understanding of physics that he does? Many times people say something is crazy purely because they don't fully understand it. This is probably the case with you. I'd sure bet on it.

  • @itzahazylife But the FACT is, you have absolutely no clue of how much Physics I know! Pffffffffffffffffft!

  • @Mick0722MX

    OK, then cite me an example of another physicist calling Kaku's ideas wacky besides you.

  • True science occupies itself with hard facts - it does not include nonsense like mysticism or spirituality. Scientists laugh about this kind of thing at conventions.

  • The substance of (all) everything, is ONE vibrating-spiritual-energy, which is infinite expanding God-consciousness, with one accord and infinite vibrational substance which is (God) love, it is the physical-vibrating-consciousne­ss that becomes twisted and distorted when it is out-of-alignment with it's non-physical-vibrating-spiritu­al-consciousness, counter-part or essence.

  • @WITNESSMINISTRIES

    I love when you people use all of these mystical sounding words and act like you're explaining some kind of truth. You have no fucking idea what you're talking about. This is my favorite part. When I start asking you to define words lol. Define "spiritual energy"

  • Comment removed

  • YEP!...no matter...no particles...just compressed waves of electricity..which only occur because of motion!..so actually there is NO UNIVERSE..only the illusion of substance as caused by motion...Walter Russell taught us this in 1927..THAT'S THE FACT JACK!

    Oh Tesla concurred from his EMPIRICAL evidence which concurred with ALL NATURE and EVERY BRANCH of SCIENCE.

  • Richard Dawkins?

  • Matter has the tendency to exist, thus so does all of existence. - Tao of Physics

  • BS hahaha

  • Sooooo....each time a scientist looks at an atom....we all must stop existing? Cus if that atom is keeping everything in place by being spread out...theyre saying it just goes to where the observer is measuring it....That atom was all like "Oh brb universe someone watching me" and just drops us all? That makes no sense

  • @BlinkinFirefly, Yyou are trying to apply what you have percieved to this. If matter does not exist then that does not mean that we do not exist it just means that the nature of our existence is not what it appears to be. it just means that we do not exist as matter. Matter may not exist but we have conciousness(well i do anyway but i can't be sure that you or anyone else has conciousness) that is something you can be certain of.

  • @BlinkinFirefly You may see a atom using a electron scanning micro, but that's it.. Nothing is truly see-able at a smaller scale. Theory of Gravity breaks down, everything get really strange down there. Almost like there are different rules for stuff we can not see or detect.. Very very odd. Why is it not simple.

  • @MASTERPPA "You may see a atom using a electron scanning micro, but that's it"

    That isn't even close to what an electron microscope does.

  • @Mick0722MX Hey, what I mean is they can see what is a atom using a electron scanning microscope. I take it you never saw that little plate IBM did about 10-20 years ago.. They spelled IBM without about 50-100 atoms and you could see dots on the substrait where IBM was written. But their is no resolution. They were not seeing the atoms is the visual sense

  • Idiot !

    -

    The universe evolved, and will evolve exactly the same way

    when a consciousness mind look at it or not.

    -

    So the universe isn not a consciousness mind is it ?

  • @baptsan I wonder, as little cells make up us, so we act like cells that make up a larger being of some type.. hmm.. A life so large and complex, we are not truly aware it is there..

  • well, if existence just mean bumping ones head in the pavement, then one should say "oh, yeah well, it hurts, does it mean it does not exist at all?" lol funny though

  • @lightning6779 lol, i wonder those things too. So when I was drunk the other night, was I falling over because I liked it or because i was drunk?

  • Particles popping in and out of reality is mind blowing enough, but they change when we look at them, I give up.

  • just one thing more, dont mistreat aristotele he is dead

  • everything but not the hz pineal gland activator again, please

  • @upinarms79 Constructive arguments and articulated opinions provoke thought. Mindless name-calling just stirs up petty bigotry and hate.

  • The true substance of the universe is consciousness. Man says that God does not exist when in reality, God is the only thing that really does. Everything else is only a reflection of God's mind projected to the opposite extremes.

  • Is no video on YouTube safe from flame wars?

  • @XeroGees Argument is human nature. Even flaming has Life is never free of strife, as well it shouldn't be. Discourse, argument and debate lead to understanding and new ideas. Without them, we'd all just sit around agreeing with each other about what we already know. In other words, stirring up emotions gets shit done.

  • @itzahazylife Yes, but that wasnt the entire point. I was simply saying that it doesn't matter what we as a species accomplish, because our race will be doomed eventually. With that said, our journey to seek knowledge and inventions, holds no real value for us in the distant future.

  • Why do human brains fall for this shit?

    The picture is obviously hypnotic in intent, the voice overs are part of the act.

    I'd say the origin of this particular video is Hindu in nature.

    I wouldn't waste my time posting comments on Q.E.D.

    That is not what this guy wants.

  • So matter must be made of these standing waves!

  • Forget us 'looking'. How do we account for the history of the universe based on 'looking' when there was a time before 'looking' happened - when no-one was looking. Yet it leaves a history as though it had been 'looked at' from the future. To be true, it must then rewrite history to appear looked at from inception. If it happens once it shuould exitst in an infinite amount of forms or histories. People that I can't see are rewriting me every single moment from the future.

    Surely?

  • The universe has no meaning. As a matter of fact, any 'meaning' that someone might create is completely imaginary. It is pointless to talk about such primitive ideals, when regardless one day, nobody and no thing will look back. Your life will end, and so will humanity. The things we accomplish will eventually wash away. Its like writing a long book, and then when you finish, you throw it in the fire. There was no reason to write the book in the first place

  • @salviab123

    Meaning only comes from consciousness. Only conscious beings can exercise intention. And only intention can invoke meaning or purpose. So, you're right. The universe has no known purpose. Only we can make it have purpose or find purpose within it.

  • wait so at this moment in time nothing that I can see exists ? ffs I thought I was gettin a 5 story house now your telling me i get a cubical, god damnit I have been jibbed by the house sales man.

  • i am constantly blinking in and out of existance...

  • is a robot an observer?

  • "The substance of the Universe is consciousness." Matter does not exist unless and untill a conscious observer observes it to do so. Soooo, the obvious question is, how did the universe exist before there were any conscious observers? Quantum physics says that conscious observation and intention actually creates the universe. Is God so hard to believe in NOW? If so, then you believe what you want to believe, and not what the evidence suggests.

  • I think if this were true I would be able to melt myself into a wall or put my hand through a wooden plank. No matter how much you push against a wall you will never be able to go straight through it. I can understand how an atom is everywhere until you look at it but it is still there and that's why you are looking at it. Saying matter doesn't exist is not at all accurate.

  • “The first gulp from the glass of natural sciences will turn you into an atheist, but at the bottom of the glass GOD is waiting for you.” WERNER HEISENBERG, Nobel Laureate in Physics for contributions in Quantum Mechanics.

    Check out the book: '50 NOBEL LAUREATES AND OTHER GREAT SCIENTISTS WHO BELIEVE IN GOD'.

  • @zz911wasInsideJobzz (which GOD?) are you talking religion based God, or just some very very advanced lifeforms. When can people separate the idea of a God-Like being from the GODS of religions. Their very well could be beings so far advanced they are like a GOD to us.. Maybe we are in a dish or science experiment . We do not know. We are Gods to computer programs will be the Gods of advanced robots in the far future..etc..

  • @MASTERPPA I just quoted a Nobel Prize winning scientist. I think he was referring to the only God; the all mighty creator of everything.

    “God is Truth. There is no incompatibility between science and religion. Both are seeking the same truth. Science shows that God exists.” SIR DEREK BARTON, Nobel Laureate in Chemistry

  • everything we think we know is wrong.

    There is a reason why 'science' had to just make up "dark matter" and "dark energy."

    All the equations are flawed from the ground up. We can't even figure how how far away Belegeuse is but we claim we know how old the universe is.

    And, we base 1/2 our time/distance BS on the claim that all Type IA Supernova are the same.

    Why? What proof is there that they are all the same?

    Oh and my favorite: "Nothing can travel faster than the speed of light."

  • @toromusic

    You don't understand science at all. Scientists don't just make shit up. They develop theories. A theory is NOT just pulled out of peoples assholes. It is an explanation that best accounts for what we observe. There is evidence behind theories. We have actually found great evidence that dark matter exists. We can indirectly detect it via it's gravitational influence.

  • @toromusic

    "Oh and my favorite: "Nothing can travel faster than the speed of light."

    If you knew anything about relativity, you'd know that it has made many predictions that have come true to great detail. It has been so successful at accounting for what we observe. And part of relativity is that nothing can go faster than light. We have great reason to believe this to be so. It has nothing to do with proof or knowledge. It has to do with belief based on great evidence.

  • @itzahazylife Nothing can move faster then light, except nothing, as in space. Space, pure space can move, travel, whatever you want to call it, faster then light, it can expand faster then light. Truth is, if something was mass-less or had negative mass (I am not saying this is possible, their maybe no such thing) then it could move/travel faster then light. Honestly, relativity explain the large very well, it falls apart at the quantum level.

  • @MASTERPPA "Space, pure space can move, travel, whatever you want to call it, faster then light, it can expand faster then light."

    You have absolutely no understanding of what space is.

  • @Mick0722MX Yes, I do. I know it is not a substance like matter. It is more like a medium where matter resides. But yes, space, as in the space between thing, can, and does expand. Esp on the macro level, not seeing it on the micro. It is very well possible space is expanding faster then light. Their may no speed limit on how fast it can expand (not proven)

  • @MASTERPPA

    Of course relativity falls apart at the quantum level. That's why they have quantum theory lol

  • @itzahazylife You mean quantum swiss cheese. And when they can unify them, I will be impressed. But their are so many theories out there and they none are elegant (maybe this is the way it is, or maybe we just have to make up stuff to make it all fit, don't know.) Anyone who says we have a really good understanding of the micro level is fooling themselves. We do not. We can predict, but we dont understand it as we do the macro.

  • @toromusic

    That's all science is saying. The evidence points to all of our theories being the best possible explanation with the data we've collected. Have you come up with something better?

  • This ends with: "The substance of the universe is consciousness". Consciousness IS ... matter, energy, space and time may or may not exist without consciousness, but without consciousness nothing matters.

    Substance: the most important or essential part of something; the real or essential meaning.

    Jasinna, from my point of view in the universe we share, you are essentially correct. Well done! Good to have you here sharing.

  • @Funandconsciousness YOUR point of view doesn't make it correct. Just for the record.  I would love to hear anyone explain how they can be so sure that the basis of all existence is consciousness. They speak of it as being fact, with no evidence to even suggest the possibility.

  • @Mick0722MX The evidence that works for me is that I experience consciousness, and through my experiences with other living beings, I perceive that all those beings also experience consciousness. And if my own consciousness were to be completely gone, my existence would only matter to someone who still retained conscious awareness of me as I once was. To me, the most basic quality we all share is consciousness, and that tells me that we are all part of a greater consciousness, which is timeless.

  • @Funandconsciousness I understand what you're saying, but the point I'm making is that just because we experience something does not mean we understand it. Yes, we are all conscious, but what does it mean? Well, exactly how it's stated. It says nothing about HOW it connects with the universe as a whole, nor does it give sufficient evidence to conclude rationally that the universe itself is a grand consciousness.

  • @Mick0722MX - in your case it means you aren't conscious at all. mass matter no real difference dumbcunt. now kill yourself.

  • @NWOareScum Mass is a property of matter. There's your DISTINCT difference, dumb ass.

  • @Mick0722MX - matter and energy are interchangable, you said they weren't. it's the basis of relativity and suchlike that they are. the m in the equation refers to matter. it's not like you change x amount of nuclear material into energy - oh except for some leftover non-mass bits. this isn't to do with combustion efficiency so don't bother going there.

    kill yourself you thick useless-eater stalker cunt.

  • @NWOareScum Hey idiot. E = mc^2 is Energy = MASS times the speed of light squared. What part of the word MASS are you not getting?

  • @Mick0722MX - right scum so as i already made clear -

    once that mass turns into energy - what is left of matter then?

    you're saying he left a part out of the equation.

    show your revised over-unity formula then, with like gravity in it etc.

    kill yourself fucktard.

  • @NWOareScum I'm not here to be your fucking teacher. Look it up for yourself, scumbag.

  • @Mick0722MX - lol you sick stalker faggot, like hell do you have a gravity-inclusive fuck-all.

    kill yourself you sick cunt, and stop fucking trying to insert yourself into my life like i need scumfuck evil cunts like you to exist at all for anything.

  • @Mick0722MX Mass is just energy slowed down ;)

  • @MASTERPPA Mass is pretty well understood. Maybe you should just read up on it. :)

  • @Mick0722MX Did you see the ;) at the end of my statement? In concept is it correct, but as we already know, you can take A LOT of energy and MAKE a little mass from it. People don't talk about that side.

  • "If space is,it will be in something;for everything that is is in something;and to be in something is to be in space.Space then will be in space,and so on ad infinitum. Therefore space does not exist." - - "..there will be no such part that could serve as a limit. And there will never be one part save in reference to another part. Thus,if the many have being,they must be both large and small - so small as to have no size at all,and so large as to be infinite." - Zeno (about 465 B.C.)

  • Matter does exist, but it is made of nothing. (+n -n = 0). Of course, you need energy to spin it all up, but you don't need anything to actually spin!

  • how can you not observe .... and know that they are not there ?????

  • before normalization the vacuum of space appeared infinity dense ?

  • It is necessary, absolutely positively necessary, to believe in nothing. That is, we have to believe in something which has no form and no colour: something which exists before all forms and colours appear. This is a very important point! That “nothing” is something which is always prepared for taking some form, and it has rules, or truth in its activity This is not just theory. This is not the teaching of Buddhism. This is the absolutely necessary understanding of our life. Suzuki Roshi.

  • @TexLex53 That is an interpretation, an illusion of what reality is like for you. With quantum physics it is easy to create your own illusion about what the nature of it is. Scientists do have difficulty understanding it themselves. If you're not a scientist you have to understand how brain works so that you don't get into formulating ideas that look as if they are real when they actually are sourced in your imagination.

  • the mind is not in the head, in reality is one mind having a dream of separation, the Bible say that God Son fall sleep, the Son of God is all powerful as His Father is, the truth is where science joint with religion the real religion which is to know who or what you are, what is your origen your real-legion

  • new age religion bullshit

  • @GuntheraWow what of we were all trees... O.O

  • If a tree falls in the forest and no one is around, does it make a sound?

  • @SatanistSin yes, and a rock on a far far planet where noone sees it is still a rock.

  • @VarykGerai this video implies something different.

  • @SatanistSin So once we look at objects lightyears away means were creating them in the past? Do you not realize this sounds abit ridiculous?

  • @VarykGerai Yes I do... that was my point. You are so argumentative with someone that agrees with you. lol

  • @VarykGerai On a quantum scale that seems true.. Crazy thought.. When you study teh quantum level, things seem more magical.  Particles phasing in and out this universe or existenance, then reappearing somewhere else.. WTH?? LOL What is really interesting, given enough time, even a macro object will eventually phase in and out existence. May take 10 198power years (the more particles in the object, less chance they will all phase out at the same time, etc)

  • @VarykGerai "A rock is a rock," But a sound is different. I sound is giving meaning by someone or something hearing it. But, the tree does produce vibrations.. If you define sound by just the vibrations, then yes. But if you define sounds by something heard, then no it does not.. It is all about definitions of the words.

  • @SatanistSin NO, but it does vibrate any air, water or ground it has around it. For it to be a sound, a conscience mind has to HEAR IT.

  • @MASTERPPA Sound is defined as a vibration in a medium. NO ONE has to be there for it to happen. Wow, you have so much to say with these posts and yet you don't know anything.

  • @Mick0722MX That is why I said, depends on the definition of SOUND. And explained it that way. If you place sound with noise, etc.. Changes the meaning. This example by the way is more about philosophy, that is where it stems, not as a scientific principal. Someone here tried to use it like if the cat is not seen alive is it alive and such. Also, in reference to the electron upon observations. About when a sentinel beings perceives something

  • @Mick0722MX This is the definition I used for SOUND.. Noise does work better

    "Vibrations that travel through the air or another medium and can be heard when they reach a person's or animal's ear." That is the other problems with just posting stuff here. You can never go into any detail, and the devil is the definitions, and happy faces. Like if for me I call it bleu, and you call it blue. (PS they do call blue BLEU where I live.

  • intention is everything

  • I think there's something more to take from this, other than "matter does not exist." The beautiful thing is that consciousness is a big part of everything. Without an observer, there is no one to hear the tree fall. And without a sound being heard, or light to be seen, the universe has no meaning...no purpose. To give purpose to the Universe is the meaning of life.

  • kill the song, get better audio

  • If matter does not exist, and it's all imagery formed in the mind....then it would not be possible for two people to be looking at the same object at the same time.

  • is one mind having a dream of separated bodies in a time frame, the mind is all powerful,, we are consciousness experiencing itself, our rol is to be the observers of creation, created to create, creation is a win win situation

  • @xeliker conciousness experiencing itself? realy? :D

  • well no not really, it doesn't have to be a consious observer an electron will travel as a wave yes(sometimes) but whenever it interacts with another form of matter it will act as a particle. Using the double slit experiment the image you see isn't a single electron but a many many electrons which while as wave diffract around the corners of a slit but then when hitting the luminous surface only hit one point...thats nothing to do with an observer

  • So when we die. The world ceases to exist.

  • Collective unconscious spherical positron in-wave fronts "multiplying time" enfolding at right-angle's forming+/-breaking at every point of space thus virtual pair's zero-now (Space or Energy=Mass Spherical electron out-wave fronts dividing time unfolding at right-angle's. What seems to be a conversion, is the ratio between opposite vectors interpreted as distance and time, matter and anti-matter (mass and energy) or interference and resonance within the abstract arrow of time of consciousnow.

  • this is bullshit. a tree that falls in the forest that no one sees still falls this is the kinda shit that holds science back. Its called object permanence look it up we learned about it when were less than a year old most of us. and oh yeah wind moves too. and you cant ever see that explain it to me?

  • @Zanzabarism but i have an answer to this......confounding variable.....electrons are things not waves not bits of energy but bits of things we cant see and so are photons......its all ballistics not quantum theory. tiny balls that form a composite to our perception and they move exceptionally fast so we cant see them.....these scientists are just so egotistical they think the world doesnt exsist when they are not looking....also probably drug use was involved here.

  • it doesnt make sense, can u proof it? some how ? lol

  • The VOICE created anything out of CONCIOUSNESS/experienced this in NDE after huge car-crash/You ARE consciousness without thinking,without TIME because you create only in the NOW moment/no past no future....ENJOY....NOW!

  • So if a tree falls in the forest and no one is around it really does not make a noise?

  • @Horde4th3win Yes, it makes a sound because sound is a vibration of molecules in a medium. An observer does not need to be present in order for that to happen.

  • @Horde4th3win

    No. When there's no one watching, there is no tree and there is no forest... ;-))

  • @grozde so when we go into a forest where there's been a fire recently all the debris just instantly appears infront of us? and what of cctv that no one watches do the images suddenly appear on the screen in front of us when we watch? this is ludicrous

  • @TheLordInglip

    Yep.

    And the monitors themselves do not exist when we are not looking at them...

    ;-)))

  • Holy moly way to misunderstand physics.

  • The standard mathematical framework for QM was CREATED by von Neumann, a STAGGERING intellect, an AMAZING GENIUS, with INCREDIBLY broad and deep knowledge. Google him and be humbled. In his book "Mathematical Foundations of QM" he stated CONSCIOUSNESS collapses the wave function. Do you think von Neumann missed some simple refutation that an untrained poster here knows? There are other ways of phrasing it than talking about "consciousness," but you can't avoid the dependence on the observer.

  • Have you ever wondered, if I were alive in the time of a great scientific discovery, would I have taken it seriously, or would I have been one of the fools who ridiculed the scientists? Would you have ridiculed Copernicus, Galileo, Darwin, Einstein ...? If you ridicule the idea that observation affects reality, you have your answer.

    Here's a fairly recent experiment, at a major institution, published in a major journal:

    Google: "quantum theory demonstrated: observation affects reality"

  • suggestion for title: "Crackpot Physics - The Existence does not matter"

    Fuck this stupid shit! This is an example how a bunch of retards demonstrate their false understanding of scientific statements.

  • @neoneoneofu Indeed.

  • Many comments are skeptical, but I know QM and this video is correct. This is standard, mainstream QM, nothing exotic. If you doubt, learn about QM!

    So many people in this age have a mechanistic, mundane worldview, they think an observer can't be part of science, can't be "real." The world is "out there" independent of us. Not so. Science doesn't say that. This world began with an incredible burst of energy, and consciousness is the most "real" thing in it.

  • @rockysmitt Prove that consciousness goes beyond the human aura and then MAYBE it will become mainstream.

  • @Mick0722MX The concept of an observer is, and has been, part of mainstream QM for the better part of a century.

    I don't know what "goes beyond the human aura" means.

  • @rockysmitt The concept of the observer had been considered as a remote possibility, and then refuted successfully for the better part of the century.

    If you don't know what "goes beyond the human aura" means, then you don't know much about consciousness, let alone it being part of the "incredible burst of energy" you speak of.

  • @Mick0722MX Can you give a reference to any legitimate QM source where the concept of observer has supposedly been refuted?

    And before we go on, please tell me what you consider a legitimate account of QM. What book(s) did you learn it from? I own many QM texts, and if I don't own it, I live on the edge of the campus of a major university, about a block from the physics library. Just tell me what book and I'll give you a page ref to where the issue of observer is addressed.

  • @rockysmitt Sure, every legitimate text book available in colleges and universities.

    You own many QM texts? You're a liar too. With the nonsense that you've been posting, you're not speaking Quantum Mechanics at all.

  • @Mick0722MX I'm not surprised that you can't come up with a book. It's become quite apparent that you have never studied QM at all, neither the technical foundations, nor even popular accounts. Your only purpose here is to try to mislead others into accepting some simplistic and naive world view that is contradicted by modern physics.

    By why? What scientists have discovered about the world is awe inspiring. Why would you want to ignore it and lead other people away from it?

  • @rockysmitt What do you mean I can't come up with a book? Open ANY credible Physics text book, and ANY of them will confirm that you talk nonsense and I don't.

    You're just a quack who tries to sound intelligent. Give it up. You've already proven to being an ignoramus.

  • @Mick0722MX Google and Amazon searches on "Q Ml Textbook" both turn up Shankar's "Principles of Q M" #1, and I do own it. Chapter 4 begins with the 4 postulates of QM. Postulate III: If the particle is in a state |\phi>, MEASUREMENT of the variable ... \Omega will yield one of the eigenvalues \omega with probability ... THE STATE OF THE SYSTEM WILL CHANGE FROM |\phi> to |\omega> ...

    Built into the very postulates, measuring (observing) changes the state (world), alters the future.

  • @rockysmitt Go ahead.  Keep googling. I'll keep relying on ACTUAL text books

  • @Mick0722MX No, my background is in the mathematical side and hard physical sciences. "Goes beyond the human aura" sounds like a New Age idea to me. That's not my thing and I doubt many, if any, physicists are into New Age stuff. If it's not a New Age concept, where is it from?

    The "incredible burst of energy" is what's known as the big bang. It is also part of the mainstream of physics, though its acceptance is more recent than the foundations of QM.

  • @rockysmitt Your background is in bullshit. "Aura" may sound new age, but you're the one asserting that the big bang was a conscious event. Again, where is your proof?

    The big bang was not a burst. It's an expansion. Get your facts straight.

  • @Mick0722MX Yes, what was I thinking. Calling something with the energy of 100 quadrillion quadrillion quadrillion hydrogen bombs in a space smaller than an atomic nucleus, expanding in less than a trillionth of a second to something trillions of times as large, a "burst" might be a bit of an exaggeration.

    By the way, why do they call it the "big bang"?

  • @rockysmitt I don't know. You're the so-called PhD. You tell me.

  • Matter does exist. Just not inherently. Try standing in front of an oncoming train and you will find out as soon as it hits you.

  • @9KPhalak LOL yeah but are you truly dead, or is it a just a "matter" of Opinion...ha ha..

  • @MultiplicityMe2 It depends on what you mean by truly?

  • @9KPhalak the physical world is just an illusion. its not real. just symbols. the only thing real is our senses experienced. but thats proves we all one. the very fact we all have the exact same experience. an fps experience. all living things. consciousness seeing what is has created. which explains all living things. for at quantum level. matter can be everywhere at once whilst only being in one particular place. it explains how we all use the word 'I exist'. have a think. hehe.

  • Nor does the god particle.

  • is there a video where this is explained in layman's terms?

  • @91Holdem This is probably as close as you're going to get to that. If you want to know more though, look up quantum mechanics, space-time, general and special relativity superstring theory. That should get you along the right track.

    And remember, nobody KNOWS anything ;)

  • @OMGtechy mad world innit, could just be everything is equal to nothing. thats the only thing i can think of that would explain everything. the only qualification i have is a C in maths so there is a chance I could be wrong.

  • Think about it: It's like we are walking on a never ending, materializing/dematerializing scaffold that we interact with, but goes somewhere else when its purpose is complete.

  • Lightness of Being is a good book by a well respected physicist whose name I forget. We've all seen E=mc^2, equating an energy to a rest mass of matter. I put it that it's most insightful to rearrange the equation, m = E/c^2. Matter is an expression of energy. Language provides a parallel "to be" is a verb. The act of having the properties of matter is energetic, is doing something. It's a failing of language that matter and energy are two words with isolated attributes.

  • yeah, even though we have arrived on the scene relatively recently(you know, within the past 2-300,000 years ago, in regards to the universe having existed for some odd 14,000,000,000 years or so) the universe doesn't exist without us. This is an astounding epiphany, a truly revolutionary idea, the product of our fantastic brains glorious use of its version of logic! Applause for the genius monkeys who can't seem to separate wishful thinking from peer-reviewed facts! assuming things=fun for all!

  • @Green01123Gold Forget 3,000 years ago. What happened 1 microsecond ago is only a cloud of possibilities until you measure something. And you means YOU, not the rest of humanity. The measurement causes what's measued to take a definite value, before which it had NO VALUE, only possibilities. This has implications that potentially go back to the beginning of time. If you measure radiation created in the big bang, you force a part of the big bang to exist in a definite state.

  • Perfect example of Shrodingers cat. lol

  • This might very well be true.

    However just few quotes can't be a good basis to hold "any kind of anything that is even remotely an opinion"

  • This is like saying that you only matter when another one becomes conscious of you for being you.

  • When I found out that atoms are mostly empty space and that the universe is roughly 95% dark matter, I wanted to rip my hairs out. I don't want to say that our universe is complex and organized because sometimes it doesn't seem like it is, but I do know that it is fucking confusing and always surprising.

  • I have heard this before, but how do they know that? It doesn't satisfy me to just be told it is so.

  • If CONSCIOUSNESS collapses the wavefunction, then how did the universe form without conscious beings to observe it?

    The correct thing to have said ( and I enjoy Al-Khalili very much) was interactions collapse the wave-function. where wave-functions collide, they interact and according to the nature of the interaction, a result is produced. QM describes and predicts these events with phenomenal accuracy, using statistical maths and probability as its flashlight in the dark

  • @QuantumChance Who is to say that consciousness didn't exist in some other state before our universe existed. I do not believe that the creation of our universe was the creation of everything. The possibilities as to what really happened is about as vast as the wave of potentials. If energy is neither created or destroyer, only transferred and transformed....then why would our entire universe be any different. We understand so little about consciousness so how can we explain outside that.

  • @G04i77A2 You can try to assert consciousness is this or that, but without any evidence or some kind of way of demonstrating what you're saying, then it could be anything else with equal probability of being correct. Consciousness is a poorly defined concept, because it is different for many people. Tell me, can you prove consciousness exists? You cannot, because you cannot prove I am conscious, nor can you prove you are conscious. Consciousness is a term for describing awareness in organisms

  • @QuantumChance I'm not even saying that I'm right, I'm sorry, but I think you missed part of what I was trying to say. Which was actually your point, that we know so little about not only consciousness but the reality it exists in(or out of). What you said is exactly right to a certain degree. what I'm about to say, I will say because it's how i feel, not because I'm right, but there is some evidence too. I truly do believe consciousness does exist. For some reason I feel as though on the most