A Universe from Nothing?

[godnotgod]

Where has this paper been published? I can't find any references to it in PubMed, PubPsych or ArXiv. So far, I can only see that it was included in "Physics Essays" in 1994, but that journal's reputation is somewhat suspect at best.

Just wondering...is it 'suspect' because it accepts scientific papers from researchers whose material is about shamanism or other psychic phenomena, for example? Any scientist who ventures into these fields is immediately looked upon as shady or 'suspect', and dabbling in 'pseudo-science', no matter how scientific their experiments are conducted. Even Nobel Prize winning and very prestigious physicists, like Sir Roger Penrose, or Dyson Thomas, and Stuart Hameroff are considered somewhat rogue and 'off' by other members of the scientific community. Much of the work done in these fields is simply ignored for years on end. But that is slowly changing, as findings in consciousness studies and Quantum Physics have become more and more inter-related.

 

[`mud]

All of that.......and what happens to a photon when it strikes a void, (nothingness),
quantum that !

 

[godnotgod]

So, why do you believe it?


I asked for peer-reviewed scientific journals this specific paper was published in. You said it was. So what are the journals?

I believe the findings as shown in the graph of the experiment shown in post #5313, above.

I did not say I would provide references to peer-reviewed journals; I said the article referenced provided references to similar experiments. However, there is one reference to the experiment by Peter Fenwick, who has apparently replicated the original Jacobo experiments. I do not currently have any link to a peer-reviewed essay of the experiment by Mr. Fenwick. You will need to do some footwork on your own if you want to go fetch it.

 

[`mud]

Consciousness only exists in one's mind,
imagine that !

 

[Polymath257]

OK, so we are just going to have to agree to disagree. There is a body of information on the net contradicting your position.

If what you say is true, no one would be in amazement at the findings.

Actually, you are changing the meaning of what I said. I did not say that 'the other changes direction of spin';, which implies that they spin in opposite directions. I said that, when you change the direction of spin on one, 'the other simultaneously changes direction as well.'

In most of the experiments with entangled particles, the spins are opposite. But *changing* one after a measurement doesn't *change* the other. Measuring one will allow the determination of the other.

There are many things on the internet, especially having to do with QM, that are wrong. In fact, most popular treatments are wrong in detail. It is *much* better to learn enough to read a textbook and *then* read a technical treatment. Most popular versions just have too many ambiguities and 'fluff' to give an honest viewpoint.

 

[godnotgod]

All of that.......and what happens to a photon when it strikes a void, (nothingness),
quantum that !

it goes home

 

[ImmortalFlame]

Just wondering...is it 'suspect' because it accepts scientific papers from researchers whose material is about shamanism or other psychic phenomena, for example?

It's more to do with the fact that they are never cited and their review process is extremely lax.

Any scientist who ventures into these fields is immediately looked upon as shady or 'suspect', and dabbling in 'pseudo-science', no matter how scientific their experiments are conducted. Even Nobel Prize winning and very prestigious physicists, like Sir Roger Penrose, or Dyson Thomas, and Stuart Hameroff are considered somewhat rogue and 'off' by other members of the scientific community. Much of the work done in these fields is simply ignored for years on end. But that is slowly changing, as findings in consciousness studies and Quantum Physics have become more and more inter-related.

You said their work was published in peer-reviewed, scientific journals and has been replicated elsewhere.

Please present evidence of these claims.

 

[ImmortalFlame]

I believe the findings as shown in the graph of the experiment shown in post #5313, above.

Why? What makes you think it's credible or even meaningful?

I did not say I would provide references to peer-reviewed journals; I said the article referenced provided references to similar experiments. However, there is one reference to the experiment by Peter Fenwick, who has apparently replicated the original Jacobo experiments. I do not currently have any link to a peer-reviewed essay of the experiment by Mr. Fenwick. You will need to do some footwork on your own if you want to go fetch it.

So you're not willing to support your own assertion that the articles have been published in peer-reviewed journals and their results have been replicated? I've already done the legwork and searched three well-known libraries of academic papers and found no mention of this paper anywhere. So, where are they?

 

[godnotgod]

Why? What makes you think it's credible or even meaningful?


So you're not willing to support your own assertion that the articles have been published in peer-reviewed journals and their results have been replicated? I've already done the legwork and searched three well-known libraries of academic papers and found no mention of this paper anywhere. So, where are they?

Peter Fenwick, for one, is reported to have replicated the experiment. I don't have access to the publication where his experiment would be published. You can do further research if you wish. I'm satisfied that the report is true.

Did you bother to take a look at some of the references I pointed to?

Did you see the bio I provided about Jacobo Grinberg-Zylberbaum? Not only are his credentials sufficient enough to establish his credibility, but Amit Goswami, a very notable Quantum physicist was involved in the experiments. I provided his description as to how the experiment was set up. Do you see anything out of order in how it was set up and executed?

The EEG graph proves that the sensory input Subject A was subjected to was transferred nonlocally to the brain of Subject B.

Here is more information for you:

Integrative Biophysics

 

[godnotgod]

Consciousness only exists in one's mind,
imagine that !

You can imagine it all you like, but the mind is just an illusion, and is incapable of maintaining consciousness. In fact, the exact opposite is the case: the mind exists only in consciousness. You can prove this for yourself: just stop thoughts completely. You will still be conscious, and there will be no 'mind' present thinking its thoughts. If you are attentive enough, you will also find that the mind is self-created. You can watch it come into being as it tries to assert itself over and over again.

 

[ImmortalFlame]

Peter Fenwick, for one, is reported to have replicated the experiment. I don't have access to the publication where his experiment would be published. You can do further research if you wish. I'm satisfied that the report is true.

But why? If you can't find the evidence of his results, why do you believe his report?

Did you bother to take a look at some of the references I pointed to?

No, because they're irrelevant to what I requested of you. I want you to substantiate your claim that this specific paper was successfully submitted for scientific peer-review and its results were replicated. You have repeatedly said this, and you also previously said you would "find references to other versions of this experiment if you wish" (post 5311), and yet you have provided nothing in spite of me repeatedly asking.

Did you see the bio I provided about Jacobo Grinberg-Zylberbaum? Not only are his credentials sufficient enough to establish his credibility, but Amit Goswami, a very notable Quantum physicist was involved in the experiments. I provided his description as to how the experiment was set up. Do you see anything out of order in how it was set up and executed?

Credentials are irrelevant to the factual basis of a given experiment. I'm interested in the experiment itself and its publication, not the credentials of those involved.

The EEG graph proves that the sensory input Subject A was subjected to was transferred nonlocally to the brain of Subject B.

Anyone can make a graph of whatever they want. Whether it's actually factual or based on anything real is what really matters. Where is your evidence that these graphs are credible?

Here is more information for you:

Integrative Biophysics

Why do you keep trying to change the subject?

 

[godnotgod]

It's more to do with the fact that they are never cited and their review process is extremely lax.
.

I don't see that you've presented any credible evidence to demonstrate that. A cursory check on Google shows nothing negative about Physics Essays.

 

[godnotgod]

But why? If you can't find the evidence of his results, why do you believe his report?


No, because they're irrelevant to what I requested of you. I want you to substantiate your claim that this specific paper was successfully submitted for scientific peer-review and its results were replicated. You have repeatedly said this, and you also previously said you would "find references to other versions of this experiment if you wish" (post 5311), and yet you have provided nothing in spite of me repeatedly asking.


Credentials are irrelevant to the factual basis of a given experiment. I'm interested in the experiment itself and its publication, not the credentials of those involved.


Anyone can make a graph of whatever they want. Whether it's actually factual or based on anything real is what really matters. Where is your evidence that these graphs are credible?


Why do you keep trying to change the subject?

Look here: you can stamp your feet and get apoplectically red in the face all you like, but I told you: I am satisfied that what I have presented is factual. If you want to make a federal case to the contrary, be my guest. I am not going to accomodate your silly demands.

So now tell me something, dearie. I'm all ears.

 

[ImmortalFlame]

Look here: you can stamp your feet and get apoplectically red in the face all you like, but I told you: I am satisfied that what I have presented is factual. If you want to make a federal case to the contrary, be my guest. I am not going to accomodate your silly demands.

So now tell me something, dearie. I'm all ears.

How am I getting red in the face? You are aware that this is an internet forum, right?

And you are also aware that all I have done is ask you for things you have repeatedly said you were able to provide? And your response is to insult me, patronize me, and avoid answering any of my questions directly?

Are you just trolling?

 

[godnotgod]

I want you to substantiate your claim that this specific paper was successfully submitted for scientific peer-review and its results were replicated.

"In 1994, Grinberg came up with an even more compelling way to demonstrate this effect. Most of the experiment was the same–two people meditated together for twenty minutes and then went into separate, shielded rooms. Now, however, he flashed bright lights in one participant’s eyes–causing them to expeience sudden shocks. Each time he ran the experiment, one hundred different flashes of light were given at random. Twenty-five percent of the time when he flashed the light in one person’s eyes, the other person had a very similar brainwave “shock”–at the exact same time. Grinberg’s control subjects did not show any such connections. This was a stunning discovery–and the results were published in the prestigious, peer-reviewed journal Physics Essays. (9)"

Consciousness, Eternity and Universal Mind
*****

"Grinberg published these results in Physics Essays, a highly respected, peer-reviewed journal. And though this evidence was painstakingly collected in more than fifty experiments over a five-year period, he received a great deal of criticism."

http://www.iawaketechnologies.com/connecting-matrix/
*****

Physics Essays is a peer-reviewed scientific journal covering theoretical and experimental physics.

Physics Essays - Wikipedia

 

[godnotgod]

How am I getting red in the face? You are aware that this is an internet forum, right?

And you are also aware that all I have done is ask you for things you have repeatedly said you were able to provide? And your response is to insult me, patronize me, and avoid answering any of my questions directly?

Are you just trolling?

No.

Yes, 'red in the face', as in 'apoplectic'.

I have stated my position, and am satisfied that the Jacobo Grinberg-Zylberbaum experiments, and the several replicated versions, are valid.

So go ahead. Prove them erroneous.

 

[godnotgod]

Credentials are irrelevant to the factual basis of a given experiment. I'm interested in the experiment itself and its publication, not the credentials of those involved.

I disagree. Credentials are an important aspect. While you deny this, you make a point of denegrating the credentials of Physics Essays, don't you, but have shown nothing credible to prove your assertion.

 

[ImmortalFlame]

"In 1994, Grinberg came up with an even more compelling way to demonstrate this effect. Most of the experiment was the same–two people meditated together for twenty minutes and then went into separate, shielded rooms. Now, however, he flashed bright lights in one participant’s eyes–causing them to expeience sudden shocks. Each time he ran the experiment, one hundred different flashes of light were given at random. Twenty-five percent of the time when he flashed the light in one person’s eyes, the other person had a very similar brainwave “shock”–at the exact same time. Grinberg’s control subjects did not show any such connections. This was a stunning discovery–and the results were published in the prestigious, peer-reviewed journal Physics Essays. (9)"

Consciousness, Eternity and Universal Mind
*****

"Grinberg published these results in Physics Essays, a highly respected, peer-reviewed journal. And though this evidence was painstakingly collected in more than fifty experiments over a five-year period, he received a great deal of criticism."

http://www.iawaketechnologies.com/connecting-matrix/
*****

Physics Essays is a peer-reviewed scientific journal covering theoretical and experimental physics.

Physics Essays - Wikipedia

Here's a link to a Wikipedia discussion on whether or not Physics Essays even counts as a "journal", and there is some debate:

Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Skepticism/Pseudoscience/Archive 2 - Wikipedia

Using lots of woo-espousing sites to support your assertion that a particular journal (that has very little citation or reputation) has credibility doesn't help your argument. The Wikipedia article doesn't do a thing for you either.

As for Physics Essays being "prestigious" and/or "highly respected", here is a link to Physics Essay's page on SJR - an independent site that reviews and ranks academic publications and gives them an "impact rating" based on their overall citations per year:

Physics Essays

As you can see, Physics Essays currently sits at an SJR rating of 0.223 as of 2016, with an average of 0.276 citations per essay for the whole year. Not only that, but over half of those citations since 1999 are self-citations. It currently ranks as the 811th most influential journal on physics.

Doesn't exactly sound "prestigious" or "highly respected" to me.

 

[ImmortalFlame]

I disagree. Credentials are an important aspect. While you deny this, you make a point of denegrating the credentials of Physics Essays, don't you, but have shown nothing credible to prove your assertion.

I'm asking you for information regarding the credibility of a paper and its submittal for peer review. I did NOT say credentials aren't important in research, I said that they aren't relevant to whether or not there is credibility in a given paper or the statements you made about it.

Once again, this is you desperately scrabbling to distract from my simple requests. I really don't understand what you're trying so hard to not answer my questions when you made such a big song and dance earlier about how easily you could do that very thing.

 

[ImmortalFlame]

No.

Yes, 'red in the face', as in 'apoplectic'.

Obviously. But I'm not. I've not used invective or insults or any language that would indicate any level of anger or frustration. You're just being insulting for the purpose of patronizing and denigrating me. Don't do that. It makes you look childish and desperate.

I have stated my position, and am satisfied that the Jacobo Grinberg-Zylberbaum experiments, and the several replicated versions, are valid.

Why?

So go ahead. Prove them erroneous.

Burden of proof is with you. Prove that they were submitted for peer review and have been replicated by other scientists.