A Universe from Nothing?

[Regolith Based Lifeforms]

Nothing. The spin of my electron was determined when you measured yours originally.

Then the descriptions of entanglement are far overblown. Not very interesting or useful.
So the spin of my entangled electron can never affect the spin if your electron after my initial measurement?

 

[Polymath257]

Then the descriptions of entanglement are far overblown. Not very interesting or useful.
So the spin of my entangled electron can never affect the spin if your electron after my initial measurement?

Your measurement determines the spin at that point. Anything you do after that has no effect.

 

[Regolith Based Lifeforms]

Your measurement determines the spin at that point. Anything you do after that has no effect.

Then how is QM and entanglement actually important?
Aside from a curious guarantee that your electron will have the opposite spin, it's classical Newtonian physics with NO spooky action at a distance at all.

 

[godnotgod]

The purpose of peer review is for other scientists in the same field to evaluate the work and test the methodology for themselves and determine if the paper is actually based on facts or not. To simply say "the paper was submitted for peer review, therefore it is proof" misses the entire point of peer review, to say nothing of exactly which "peers" are reviewing it, or the validity of the publication it was published in. If it has been seriously peer reviewed then where are the other scientists who examined and replicated the methods used in the paper and where are their results? So far, the only indication I've received that this paper was evaluated at all was from a link you posted that said the paper was "highly criticised". Where is the independent evaluation of their methods and where is the response?

Man, oh, man! You sure love to bend the truth to fit your teeth, don'cha?

First of all, the whole idea of submitting a paper in the first place is that one is lending it to scrutiny by 'peers'. Whether such peers actually review the paper is another issue. IOW, Jacobo and his team, in submitting the paper, demonstrates their honesty to the same degree as any other scientist who submits their work, by knowing it is now open to critical examination.

Secondy, I never said that: "the paper was submitted for peer review, therefore it is proof". You're just making up more crap to suit your beliefs. What I actually said, and read carefully, now, lest erroneous thoughts creep into your brain, was that Jacobo and his team, in submitting the paper for peer-review, are offering it up as proof that their experiment represents fact, based upon the scientific principles and procedures they employed. Whether it is fact or not may or may not be determined by peer review and/or further testing by others. That it has been replicated several times is proof to some others. Having said that, there is at least one reference to an attempt at replication that failed.

Several months ago, I had run across an article on this topic which did provide references to replication experiments, but I did not keep track of it. I may be able to locate it once again, as my time allows, but maybe not, OK? That't the best I can do for you. If you are not satisfied with what I have provided thus far, oh, well! A good researcher will know how to ferret out the actual papers from the info I have provided.

And yet you haven't presented any of their papers or actual work on the subject, despite the fact that you said you would. Where is it?

I never said that I would present any such papers; I said that I would provide references, and I have done that.

So, to you, it's enough to simply accept what people tell you provided what they tell you confirms what you already believe? You're not even willing to show any level of skepticism at that point?

I don't entertain beliefs about nonlocal consciousness. It is not a doctrine; it can only be experienced. Experiences are not beliefs. But, yes, if I were a prisoner in Plato's Cave, and the one who escaped returned with stories about a Sun that existed outside the cave walls, I would be skeptical, based upon the fact that I have been conditioned to believe that the cave wall shadows I have been subjected to since birth represent reality. So until I go outside the cave and go see for myself that there is indeed a Sun, I would continue to be skeptical.

But, you see, Jacobo is not just telling us a story he expects us to believe on his word; he is using the language and methods YOU would employ called 'the scientific method' to show you that what he claims has merit. I already know it to be the case from an experiential POV, and so require no further 'proof', but if replications of his proof come about, that is fine, but it doesn't add anything to what I already know to be the case.

No, it is not.

You are the one who presented the paper and claimed it was peer reviewed, that its results were replicated, and that it constitutes proof. I am asking you to justify these positions with evidence. The burden of proof is on you.

The reference to the paper which was submitted for peer-revew to Physics Essays I presented IS proof. Now it's YOUR turn. Stop attacking the finger pointing to the moon and go take a look at the moon.

So the results of the experiment are irrelevant because you believe what you want to believe anyway?

The experience of nonlocal consciousness is not a belief; it is an experience. Experiences are not beliefs. The results of the experiment are irrelevant to my experience of what the experiment demonstrates, but are not necessary to the experience. The experiment is just a description of the experience, and so is secondary to it. Descriptions of reality are not the actual reality they describe. You don't go to a restaurant and eat the menu, do you?

So you admit that this is all psuedo-scientific nonsense and you're just confirmed your preconceived bias because you desperately feel a need to validate your prior conceptions and what you want to believe?

It would be helpful if you learned how to read and then interpret correctly what you put into words. But since you insist in putting words into other people's mouths, your erroneous input cannot be taken into serious consideration. Don't call us; we'll call you. Now go to your room, and remain there until further notice.

 

[gnostic]

Man, oh, man! You sure love to bend the truth to fit your teeth, don'cha?

First of all, the whole idea of submitting a paper in the first place is that one is lending it to scrutiny by 'peers'. Whether such peers actually review the paper is another issue. IOW, Jacobo and his team, in submitting the paper, demonstrates their honesty to the same degree as any other scientist who submits their work, by knowing it is now open to critical examination.

Secondy, I never said that: "the paper was submitted for peer review, therefore it is proof". You're just making up more crap to suit your beliefs. What I actually said, and read carefully, now, lest erroneous thoughts creep into your brain, was that Jacobo and his team, in submitting the paper for peer-review, are offering it up as proof that their experiment represents fact, based upon the scientific principles and procedures they employed. Whether it is fact or not may or may not be determined by peer review and/or further testing by others. That it has been replicated several times is proof to some others. Having said that, there is at least one reference to an attempt at replication that failed.

Several months ago, I had run across an article on this topic which did provide references to replication experiments, but I did not keep track of it. I may be able to locate it once again, as my time allows, but maybe not, OK? That't the best I can do for you. If you are not satisfied with what I have provided thus far, oh, well! A good researcher will know how to ferret out the actual papers from the info I have provided.



I never said that I would present any such papers; I said that I would provide references, and I have done that.



I don't entertain beliefs about nonlocal consciousness. It is not a doctrine; it can only be experienced. Experiences are not beliefs. But, yes, if I were a prisoner in Plato's Cave, and the one who escaped returned with stories about a Sun that existed outside the cave walls, I would be skeptical, based upon the fact that I have been conditioned to believe that the cave wall shadows I have been subjected to since birth represent reality. So until I go outside the cave and go see for myself that there is indeed a Sun, I would continue to be skeptical.

But, you see, Jacobo is not just telling us a story he expects us to believe on his word; he is using the language and methods YOU would employ called 'the scientific method' to show you that what he claims has merit. I already know it to be the case from an experiential POV, and so require no further 'proof', but if replications of his proof come about, that is fine, but it doesn't add anything to what I already know to be the case.




The reference to the paper which was submitted for peer-revew to Physics Essays I presented IS proof. Now it's YOUR turn. Stop attacking the finger pointing to the moon and go take a look at the moon.



The experience of nonlocal consciousness is not a belief; it is an experience. Experiences are not beliefs. The results of the experiment are irrelevant to my experience of what the experiment demonstrates, but are not necessary to the experience. The experiment is just a description of the experience, and so is secondary to it. Descriptions of reality are not the actual reality they describe. You don't go to a restaurant and eat the menu, do you?



It would be helpful if you learned how to read and then interpret correctly what you put into words. But since you insist in putting words into other people's mouths, your erroneous input cannot be taken into serious consideration. Don't call us; we'll call you. Now go to your room, and remain there until further notice.

Grinberg had his results published at Physics Essays, not that peers had evaluated his works before publication.

And you have presented Peter Fenwick as one person who has replicated Grinberg’s experiment, but no where have you presented any of Fenwick’s test results for comparison.

So we have only your words that Grinberg’s tests were replicated.

And you have ignored all of ImmortalFlame’s requests to present such replication of the experiments.

So how can anyone trust what you have to say?

So nothing in your reply show anything but your belief in nonlocal communication.

 

[godnotgod]

Grinberg had his results published at Physics Essays, not that peers had evaluated his works before publication.

And you have presented Peter Fenwick as one person who has replicated Grinberg’s experiment, but no where have you presented any of Fenwick’s test results for comparison.

So we have only your words that Grinberg’s tests were replicated.

And you have ignored all of ImmortalFlame’s requests to present such replication of the experiments.

So how can anyone trust what you have to say?

So nothing in your reply show anything but your belief in nonlocal communication.

No one is claiming that 'peers had evaluated his works before publication'. That's not the point, which is that Jacobo and his team submitted their paper for peer-review to the journal called Physics Essays.

If you have been paying attention, you would have known that I have referenced 4 researchers who have reportedly replicated Grinberg's experiment.
I never promised to present any of their actual test results. I did not present Peter Fenwick; Amit Goswami did. I merely referenced the article where Goswami mentioned him. And I provided other references to those who did replicate the experiment.
You do not have just my words re: replication. You have the words of other competent responsible people.

I don't entertain any beliefs in nonlocal communication. Nonlocal communication is not a doctrine one establishes a belief system about. In this case, it is a phenomena which is being demonstrated by a scientific experiment, and then published in a peer-reviewed journal.

You did say you liked science, did you not?

 

[godnotgod]

Your measurement determines the spin at that point. Anything you do after that has no effect.

Before the measurement is executed, the particles exhibit randomness; but at the moment of measurement, the entangled particles become synchronized, is that correct? If so, it means the act of measurement is causing a change from random behavior to synchronized behavior. There has been a change. This change is what Einstein was calling 'spooky action at a disttance'. He thought there was a hidden variable causing the spookiness.

 

[Polymath257]

Before the measurement is executed, the particles exhibit randomness; but at the moment of measurement, the entangled particles become synchronized, is that correct? If so, it means the act of measurement is causing a change from random behavior to synchronized behavior. There has been a change. This change is what Einstein was calling 'spooky action at a disttance'. He thought there was a hidden variable causing the spookiness.

No, before the measurement, the particles are synchronized, but random. After the measurement, the particles are synchronized with a specific value.

 

[Regolith Based Lifeforms]

No, before the measurement, the particles are synchronized, but random. After the measurement, the particles are synchronized with a specific value.

So what does this really do for us besides. a possibly unhackable communications system?
QM seems to have no other particular use in everyday real life, so why all the hype on all the science websites?
It's a waste of time and effort to publish all those lies and fluff about it if it's of no use i REAL LIFE.
Does someone think they're gonna sell me something?
I'm not paying any more for the misinformation than just my normal monthly internet bull.

 

[Regolith Based Lifeforms]

Well, i could see the story about the Chinese building that unhackable quantum com system last night on IFL Science, but it's gone now . *POOF!*
I KNOW IFL is mostly bull, but's a good example of what l'm calling BULL on.
WHYYYYY BOTHER ?

 

[ImmortalFlame]

Man, oh, man! You sure love to bend the truth to fit your teeth, don'cha?

First of all, the whole idea of submitting a paper in the first place is that one is lending it to scrutiny by 'peers'. Whether such peers actually review the paper is another issue. IOW, Jacobo and his team, in submitting the paper, demonstrates their honesty to the same degree as any other scientist who submits their work, by knowing it is now open to critical examination.

Except it was submitted to a journal that has little to no academic credibility, incredibly few citations, and a reputation for publishing dubious papers. Is there any record of them attempting to submit it to any other journals?

Secondy, I never said that:

"the paper was submitted for peer review, therefore it is proof". You're just making up more crap to suit your beliefs. What I actually said, and read carefully, now, lest erroneous thoughts creep into your brain, was that Jacobo and his team, in submitting the paper for peer-review, are offering it up as proof that their experiment represents fact, based upon the scientific principles and procedures they employed. Whether it is fact or not may or may not be determined by peer review and/or further testing by others. That it has been replicated several times is proof to some others. Having said that, there is at least one reference to an attempt at replication that failed.

So, in other words, the paper alone is proof because it "sounds" scientific and credible, regardless of whether or not it has been actually peer reviewed and their methodology has actually been independently verified? It is pointless for you to keep telling us that it has been "replicated several times" if you cannot find absolutely any evidence of that whatsoever (despite the fact that you earlier said you could).

Several months ago, I had run across an article on this topic which did provide references to replication experiments, but I did not keep track of it. I may be able to locate it once again, as my time allows, but maybe not, OK? That't the best I can do for you. If you are not satisfied with what I have provided thus far, oh, well! A good researcher will know how to ferret out the actual papers from the info I have provided.

I absolutely love how you turn your inability to support your own claims into a way to insult me. That demonstrates an incredibly unhealthy pathology.

I never said that I would present any such papers; I said that I would provide references, and I have done that.

So, to you, "references" literally means "mentions" of the experiments, not the actual REFERENCE MATERIAL RELATING TO THE EXPERIMENT?

I don't entertain beliefs about nonlocal consciousness. It is not a doctrine; it can only be experienced. Experiences are not beliefs.

But you HOLD BELIEFS about what those experiences actually WERE. That's the point.

But, yes, if I were a prisoner in Plato's Cave, and the one who escaped returned with stories about a Sun that existed outside the cave walls, I would be skeptical, based upon the fact that I have been conditioned to believe that the cave wall shadows I have been subjected to since birth represent reality. So until I go outside the cave and go see for myself that there is indeed a Sun, I would continue to be skeptical.

But, you see, Jacobo is not just telling us a story he expects us to believe on his word; he is using the language and methods YOU would employ called 'the scientific method' to show you that what he claims has merit. I already know it to be the case from an experiential POV, and so require no further 'proof', but if replications of his proof come about, that is fine, but it doesn't add anything to what I already know to be the case.

So the experiment is irrelevant, then?

The reference to the paper which was submitted for peer-revew to Physics Essays I presented IS proof.

Except that I have repeatedly called into question, on the basis of all the evidence I have presented, the credibility of the journal it was published in, and the fact that you are unable to find even a single successful replication of the experiment indicates that the paper is suspect. It's not proof of anything.

Now it's YOUR turn. Stop attacking the finger pointing to the moon and go take a look at the moon.

How is it attacking someone to ask them for the information they said they had? If you didn't want your claims being questioned, don't make the claims. Or, make claims that can actually be supported and not ones that crumble at the slightest inquisition.

The experience of nonlocal consciousness is not a belief; it is an experience. Experiences are not beliefs.

Once again, you hold a BELIEF about an EXPERIENCE you had, and that BELIEF is that the EXPERIENCE represented or is explained by the concept of "nonlocal consciousness". This isn't even a matter of facts or evidence, it's basic language.

The results of the experiment are irrelevant to my experience of what the experiment demonstrates, but are not necessary to the experience. The experiment is just a description of the experience, and so is secondary to it. Descriptions of reality are not the actual reality they describe. You don't go to a restaurant and eat the menu, do you?

Since you fail to grasp the distinction between beliefs and experience and see the two as mutually exclusive, you're not really in a position to lecture me on semantics.

It would be helpful if you learned how to read and then interpret correctly what you put into words. But since you insist in putting words into other people's mouths, your erroneous input cannot be taken into serious consideration. Don't call us; we'll call you. Now go to your room, and remain there until further notice.

Wow. Insults. How impressive. Did your mystical teachers tell you that the best way to debate someone is to patronize and personally insult them? If so, they obviously did a bang up job.

 

[godnotgod]

No, before the measurement, the particles are synchronized, but random. After the measurement, the particles are synchronized with a specific value.

Right, so something has changed.

 

[godnotgod]

Except it was submitted to a journal that has little to no academic credibility, incredibly few citations, and a reputation for publishing dubious papers. Is there any record of them attempting to submit it to any other journals?

Other journals probably would not accept it due to the subject material, and the fact that Physics Essays did accept it automatically resulted in the negativity associated with it. No matter that Jacobo may have employed strict guidelines in conducting his experiments, the entrenched bias of mainstream science against what it has already decided is 'pseudoscience' and 'quackery' has resulted in years of relegating such experiments to the proverbial trash bin. I don't know, of course, but from what I've read so far, Physics Essays may have been the ONLY journal that was willing to accept it for publication, which is actually to their credit. It appears that PE may have become somewhat of a scapegoat, if not a pariah in the world of peer-reviewed journals.

So, in other words, the paper alone is proof because it "sounds" scientific and credible, regardless of whether or not it has been actually peer reviewed and their methodology has actually been independently verified? It is pointless for you to keep telling us that it has been "replicated several times" if you cannot find absolutely any evidence of that whatsoever (despite the fact that you earlier said you could).

I have already shown you just a few others who are also saying it has been replicated by at least 4 researchers. I earlier said I would provide references to those replicated studies, which I have done.

Why is it that you keep missing what I have been trying to communicate to you? Are you deliberately ignoring my message, replacing it with only what you want me to say? I never said that: " the paper alone is proof because it "sounds" scientific and credible". Again, you keep trying to put words in my mouth, and I keep spitting them out. What I said, is that, from the POV of Jacobo and his team, what they submitted was proof to them, as per accepted scientific principles and methods. So far, you have not pointed out a single shred of evidence to indicate any flaws in their procedures.

Submission of the paper is one thing; whether anyone wishes to critically examine it is quite another. Jacobo and his team have done their work. Physics Essays has done its work. Just because you are having difficulty in finding what you want does not mean the actual papers describing replication do not exist. I have full confidence that they do. As I told you, I had access to at least one article with references to those papers at one point, but did not keep track of it. Besides, the layman has little or no access to the actual papers, as one must be a paid member of those journals, in most cases.

I absolutely love how you turn your inability to support your own claims into a way to insult me. That demonstrates an incredibly unhealthy pathology.the paper alone is proof because it "sounds" scientific and credible

And your persistent, recalcitrant, and twisted interpretations of what I am saying is not an unhealthy pathology, accompanied by the fact that you feel personally insulted? So again, if what I have provided is insufficient for you, well, that is just too, too bad, now isn't it? Why don't you stop going round and round in the same rut and use a more creative approach to getting what you are after? I'm sure you've heard the little story about what constitutes insanity. Try another pathway and give yourself a break. Bottom line is that no links to the exact peer reviewed papers are going to materialize on my end, unless I get lucky and find the one article I lost track of. Do you understand?

So, to you, "references" literally means "mentions" of the experiments, not the actual REFERENCE MATERIAL RELATING TO THE EXPERIMENT?

It means both, of course, but if I am referencing an article by Amit Goswami, for example, where he is pointing out a researcher by name at a particular university or lab in a particular year, (and maybe even the journal where it was published,) who has replicated the Jacobo Grinberg set of experiments, then that is what I meant I would provide in terms of 'references'.

But you HOLD BELIEFS about what those experiences actually WERE. That's the point.

That's ridiculous. Why would you hold a belief, for example, of your experience of suddenly falling into a cold mountain lake? Or the experience of a meal at a restaurant? If you are fully present, you experience the event fully in the here and now, and then it's over. To carry residue of the experience into the present is to contaminate the present with the past. To formulate a set of beliefs about your experiences is to add something to the experience that is not part of the original experience. Actually, it means you were not fully attentive to what was going on at the time of the event. Your mind was somewhere else.

So the experiment is irrelevant, then?

It's statements like this that make it difficult not to be insulting. You keep regressing into the same pattern of erroneous logic, and indicates the fact that you are not paying attention, as well as revealing your knee-jerk bias against content like that of Jacobo Grinberg. The experiment is relevant for those who require scientific proof of non-local consciousness. For those who experience non-local consciousness, it is relevant since they now have a tidbit of information to present in the language that the ordinary man can understand. But it changes nothing for the mystic. But that does not mean the information is insignificant or meaningless.

Except that I have repeatedly called into question, on the basis of all the evidence I have presented, the credibility of the journal it was published in, and the fact that you are unable to find even a single successful replication of the experiment indicates that the paper is suspect. It's not proof of anything.

See my previous comment in this post re: the above.

How is it attacking someone to ask them for the information they said they had? If you didn't want your claims being questioned, don't make the claims. Or, make claims that can actually be supported and not ones that crumble at the slightest inquisition.

Nothing has crumbled. I say now what I said before; that I have satisfied the request for references to the replication experiments, and so continue to stand by my claim that the references are valid.

Once again, you hold a BELIEF about an EXPERIENCE you had, and that BELIEF is that the EXPERIENCE represented or is explained by the concept of "nonlocal consciousness". This isn't even a matter of facts or evidence, it's basic language.

I hold no such beliefs. The experience of nonlocal consciousness is not in the past, but is always in the present, where beliefs have no place. Here, there is only pure experience. The moment one enters into the realm of belief, one has left the present moment, and is now dwelling in the dead past.

Since you fail to grasp the distinction between beliefs and experience and see the two as mutually exclusive, you're not really in a position to lecture me on semantics.

I have already defined that distinction. You cannot understand that one need not entertain beliefs regarding one's experience. To do so means that one is still living in the area of the conditioned mind. The experience of transcendent consciousness is to go beyond the conditioned mind, and return to one's original consciousness, which is unconditioned.

But I just want to give you a taste of your own medicine:

So when going to a restaurant, you eat the menu instead of the meal, do you?

Wow. Insults. How impressive. Did your mystical teachers tell you that the best way to debate someone is to patronize and personally insult them? If so, they obviously did a bang up job.

They said nothing of the sort. It's just that when someone insists and persists on repeating their erroneous statements, when it has been repeatedly been pointed out as such, then there is no point in continuing to present a reasonable argument, as such attempts are just being ignored in favor of the other party's entrenched bias. So instead of continuing the banging of head against the proverbial wall over and over again, quietly going to one's room and reflecting on the errors of one's seemingly rational mind is the best remedy.

 

[godnotgod]

Except it was submitted to a journal that has little to no academic credibility, incredibly few citations, and a reputation for publishing dubious papers. Is there any record of them attempting to submit it to any other journals?

Brain to Brain
In 1965, researchers T. D. Duane and Thomas Behrendt decided to test anecdotal reports that identical twins share feelings and physical sensations even when far apart. In two of 15 pairs of twins tested, eye closure in one twin produced not only an immediate alpha rhythm in his own brain, but also in the brain of the other twin, even though he kept his eyes open and sat in a lighted room.3

The publication of this study in the prestigious journal Science evoked enormous interest. Ten attempted replications soon followed by eight different research groups around the world. Of the 10 studies, eight reported positive findings, published in mainstream journals such as Nature and Behavioral Neuroscience.4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10, 11, 12, 13 In the late 1980s and 1990s, a team headed by psychophysiologist Jacobo Grinberg-Zylberbaum at the University of Mexico published experiments that, like most of the previous studies, demonstrated correlations in the electroencephalograms (EEGs) of separated pairs of individuals who had no sensory contact with each other.14, 15, 16 Two of the studies were published in the prominent journals Physics Essays and the International Journal of Neuroscience, drawing further attention to this area.17, 18, 19 Experiments in this field became increasingly sophisticated. In 2003, Jiri Wackerman, an EEG expert from Germany's University of Freiburg, attempted to eliminate all possible weaknesses in earlier studies and applied a refined method of analysis. After his successful experiment he concluded, “We are facing a phenomenon which is neither easy to dismiss as a methodological failure or a technical artifact nor understood as to its nature. No biophysical mechanism is presently known that could be responsible for the observed correlations between EEGs of two separated subjects.”20

As functional magnetic resonance imaging brain-scanning techniques matured, these began to be used, with intriguing results. Psychologist Leanna Standish at Seattle's Bastyr University found that when one individual in one room was visually stimulated by a flickering light, there was a significant increase in brain activity in a person in a distant room.19 In 2004, three new independent replications were reported, all successful—from Standish's group at Bastyr University,18 from the University of Edinburgh,21 and from researcher Dean Radin and his team at the Institute of Noetic Sciences.22

References (see next post)

 

[godnotgod]

References

1. Bohm, D. and Hiley, B.J. The Undivided Universe. in: Reprint ed. Routledge, London; 1995: 389
   • View in Article
2. Pizzi, R., Fantasia, A., Gelain, F., Rossetti, D., and Vescovi, A. Non-local correlations between separated neural networks (SPIE Digital Library) . (Accessed November 8, 2012)
   http://faculty.nps.edu/baer/CompMod-phys/PizziWebPage/pizzi.pdf
   • View in Article
3. Duane, T.D. and Behrendt, T. Extrasensory electroencephalographic induction between identical twins. Science. 1965; 150: 367
   • View in Article
   • | Crossref
   • | PubMed
4. Hearne, K. Visually evoked responses and ESP. J Soc Psychical Res. 1977; 49: 648–657
   • View in Article
5. Hearne, K. Visually evoked responses and ESP: failure to replicate previous findings. J Soc Psychical Res. 1981; 51: 145–147
   • View in Article
6. Kelly, E.F. and Lenz, J. EEG changes correlated with a remote stroboscopic stimulus: A preliminary study. ((abstracted in: J Parapsychol. 1975;39:25)in: J. Morris, W. Roll, R. Morris (Eds.) Research in Parapsychology 1975. Scarecrow Press, Metuchen, NJ; 1975: 58–63
   • View in Article
7. Lloyd, D.H. Objective events in the brain correlating with psychic phenomena. New Horiz. 1973; 1: 69–75
   • View in Article
8. May, E.C., Targ, R., and Puthoff, H.E. EEG correlates to remote light flashes under conditions of sensory shielding. in: C. Tart, H.E. Puthoff, R. Targ (Eds.) Mind at Large: IEEE Symposia on the Nature of Extrasensory Perception. Hampton. Roads Publishing Company, Charlottesville, VA; 1979: 112–122
   • View in Article
9. Millar, B. An attempted validation of the “Lloyd effect,”. in: J.D. Morris, W.G. Roll, R.L. Morris (Eds.) Research in Parapsychology 1975. Scarecrow Press, Metuchen, NJ; 1975: 25–27
   • View in Article
10. Millay, J. Multidimensional Mind: Remote Viewing in Hyperspace. North Atlantic Books, Berkeley, CA; 2000
    • View in Article
11. Orme-Johnson, D., Dillbeck, M.C., and Wallace, R.K. Intersubject EEG coherence: is consciousness a field?. Int J Neurosci. 1982; 16: 203–209
    • View in Article
    • | Crossref
    • | PubMed
    • | Scopus (24)
12. Rebert, C.S. and Turner, A. EEG spectrum analysis techniques applied to the problem of psi phenomena. Behav Neuropsychiatry. 1974; 6: 18–24
    • View in Article
    • | PubMed
13. Targ, R., Puthoff, H., and Crumpton, M.J. Information transmission under conditions of sensory shielding. Nature. 1974; 252: 602–607
    • View in Article
    • | Crossref
    • | PubMed
    • | Scopus (63)
14. Grinberg-Zylberbaum, J. and Ramos, J. Patterns of interhemispheric correlation during human communication. Int J Neurosci. 1987; 36: 41–53
    • View in Article
    • | Crossref
    • | PubMed
    • | Scopus (30)
15. Grinberg-Zylberbaum, J., Delaflor, M., and Attie, L. The Einstein-Podolsky-Rosen paradox in the brain: the transferred potential. Phys Essays. 1994; 7: 422–428
    • View in Article
    • | Crossref
16. Grinberg-Zylberbaum, J., Delaflor, M., Sanchez, M.E., and Guevara, M.A. Human communication and the electrophysiological activity of the brain. Subtle Energies Energ Med. 1993; 3: 25–43
    • View in Article
17. Sabell, A., Clarke, C., and Fenwick, P. Inter-subject EEG correlations at a distance — the transferred potential. in: Parapsychological Association, New, York; 2001: 419–422
    • View in Article
18. Standish, L.J., Kozak, L., Johnson, L.C., and Richards, T. Electroencephalographic evidence of correlated event-related signals between the brains of spatially and sensory isolated human subjects. J Altern Complement Med. 2004; 10: 307–314
    • View in Article
    • | Crossref
    • | PubMed
19. Standish, L., Johnson, L.C., Richards, T., and Kozak, L. Evidence of correlated functional MRI signals between distant human brains. Altern Ther Health Med. 2003; 9: 122–128
    • View in Article
20. Wackermann, J., Seiter, C., Keibel, H., and Walach, H. Correlations between brain electrical activities of two spatially separated human subjects. Neurosci Lett. 2003; 336: 60–64
    • View in Article
    • | Crossref
    • | PubMed
    • | Scopus (65)

(continued next post)

 

[godnotgod]

1. Kittenis, M., Caryl, P., and Stevens, P. Distant psychophysiological interaction effects between related and unrelated participants. in: Parapsychological Association, Vienna; 2004: 67–76
   • View in Article
2. Radin, D.I. Event-related electroencephalographic correlations between isolated human subjects. J Altern Complement Med. 2004; 10: 315–323
   • View in Article
   • | Crossref
   • | PubMed
3. Fowler, J.H. and Christakis, N.A. Dynamic spread of happiness in a large social network: longitudinal analysis over 20 years in the Framingham heart study. BMJ. 2008; 337: a2338
   • View in Article
   • | Crossref
   • | PubMed
   • | Scopus (540)
4. Belluck, P. Strangers may cheer you up, study shows. (New York Times online) (Accessed December 4, 2008)
   Strangers May Cheer You Up, Study Says
   • View in Article
5. Stein, R. Happiness can spread among people like a contagion, study indicates. (Washington Post online) (Accessed December 5, 2009)
   Happiness Can Spread Among People Like a Contagion, Study Indicates - washingtonpost.com
   • View in Article
6. Bond, M. Three degrees of contagion. New Sci. 2009; 201: 24–27
   • View in Article
   • | Crossref
   • | Scopus (9)
7. Christakis, N.A. and Fowler, J.H. Connected: the Surprising Power of Our Social Networks and How They Shape Our Lives. Little, Brown and Company, Boston, MA; 2009
   • View in Article
8. Christakis, N.A. and Fowler, J.H. The spread of obesity in a large social network over 32 years. N Engl J Med. 2007; 357: 370–379
   • View in Article
   • | Crossref
   • | PubMed
   • | Scopus (2181)
9. Kaplan, K. Happiness is contagious, research finds. (Los Angeles Times online) (Accessed December 5, 2008)
   Your whole world smiles with you
   • View in Article
10. Bobrow, R.S. Evidence for a communal consciousness. Explore (NY). 2011; 7: 246–248
    • View in Article
    • | Abstract
    • | Full Text
    • | Full Text PDF
    • | PubMed
    • | Scopus (5)
11. Schwarz, B.E. Possible telesomatic reactions. J Med Soc N J. 1967; 64: 600–603
    • View in Article
    • | PubMed
12. Gurney, E., Myers, F.W.H., and Podmore, F. in: Phantasms of the Living. Volume 1. Trübner, London; 1886: 188–189
    • View in Article
13. Gurney, E., Myers, F.W.H., and Podmore, F. in: Phantasms of the Living. Volume 2. Trübner, London; 1886: 132
    • View in Article
14. Lorimer, D. Whole in One. in: Arkana/Penguin, London; 1990: 72–105
    • View in Article
15. Stevenson, I. Telepathic Impressions: A Review of 35 New Cases. University Press of Virginia, Charlottesville, VA; 1970
    • View in Article
16. Rush, J.H. New directions in parapsychological research, Parapsychological Monographs No. 4. in: Parapsychological Foundation, New York; 1964: 18–19
    • View in Article
17. Rhine, L.E. Psychological processes in ESP experiences (Part I. Waking experiences) . J Parapsychol. 1962; 29: 88–111
    • View in Article
18. Priestley, J.B. Man & Time. in: W.H. Allen, London, UK; 1978: 211–212
    • View in Article
19. Playfair, G.L. Twin Telepathy: the Psychic Connection. Vega, London, UK; 2002
    • View in Article
20. Playfair, G.L. Twin Telepathy: the Psychic Connection. in: Vega, London, UK; 2002: 12
    • View in Article

 

[godnotgod]

1. Playfair, G.L. Twin Telepathy: the Psychic Connection. in: Vega, London, UK; 2002: 55–56
   • View in Article
2. Playfair, G.L. Twin Telepathy: the Psychic Connection. in: Vega, London, UK; 2002: 12–13
   • View in Article
3. Vanderbilt, G. and Furness, T. Double Exposure: A Twin Autobiography. in: Frederick Muller, London, UK; 1959: xi–xii
   • View in Article
4. Playfair, G.L. Twin Telepathy: The Psychic Connection. in: Vega, London, UK; 2002: 16
   • View in Article
5. Playfair, G.L. Twin Telepathy: The Psychic Connection. in: Vega, London, UK; 2002: 51
   • View in Article
6. Kincheloe, L. Intuitive obstetrics. Altern Ther Health Med. 2003; 9: 16–17
   • View in Article
   • | PubMed
7. Bobrow, R.S. The Witch in the Waiting Room. in: Thunder's Mouth Press, New York, NY; 2006: 244
   • View in Article
8. Rae, C. Tales of a reluctant psychic. (Accessed July 15, 2012)
   Joyflow.com
   • View in Article
9. Dean, S.R., Plyler, C.O. Jr, and Dean, M.L. Should psychic studies be included in psychiatric education? (An opinion survey) . Am J Psychiatry. 1980; 137: 1247–1249
   • View in Article
   • | PubMed
10. Survey of physicians' views on miracles. The Louis Finkelstein Institute for Religious and Social Studies of the Jewish Theological Seminary, New York, NY; 2004
    • View in Article
11. Schwartz, S.A. An American profile. Explore (NY). 2005; 1: 338–339
    • View in Article
    • | Abstract
    • | Full Text
    • | Full Text PDF
    • | PubMed
    • | Scopus (1)
12. Evans, C. Parapsychology—what the questionnaire revealed. New Sci. 1973; 57: 209
    • View in Article
13. Bem, D.J. and Honorton, C. Does psi exist? (Replicable evidence for an anomalous process of information transfer) . Psychol Bull. 1994; 115: 4–8
    • View in Article
    • | Crossref
14. Hansen, G.P. The Trickster and the Paranormal. in: Xlibris, Philadelphia, PA; 2001: 148–161
    • View in Article
15. Hansen, G.P. CSICOP and the skeptics: an overview. J Soc Psychical Res. 1992; 86: 19–63
    • View in Article
16. Carter, C. Parapsychology and the Skeptics. Sterlinghouse, Pittsburgh, PA; 2007
    • View in Article
17. Plato, Q. Quoted. in: K. Wilber (Ed.) Eye to Eye: the Quest for the New Paradigm. Anchor/Doubleday, Garden City, NY; 1983: 234
    • View in Article
18. Lindley, D. Response to Robert Lanza. (Accessed July 13, 2012)
    http://www.usatoday.com/cleanprint/?129899283637
    • View in Article
19. Weinberg, S. The First Three Minutes. in: Basic Books, New York, NY; 1993: 154
    • View in Article
20. Planck, M. The Observer. (London, UK); 1931
    • View in Article
21. Feinberg, G. Precognition–a memory of things future. in: L. Oteri (Ed.) Quantum Physics and Parapsychology. Parapsychology Foundation, New York, NY; 1975: 54–73
    • View in Article
22. Lawrence, D.H. Quoted. in: Michael Bell (Ed.) D. H. Lawrence: Language and Being. Cambridge University Press, New York, NY; 1992: 51
    • View in Article
23. Jahn, R.G. and Dunne, B.J. Margins of Reality: the Role of Consciousness in the Physical World. in: Harcourt Brace Jovanovich, New York, NY; 1987: 343
    • View in Article
24. Schweitzer, A. Quoted. (Accessed November 8, 2012)
    Albert Schweitzer Quotes
    • View in Article
    
    
    http://www.explorejournal.com/article/S1550-8307(12)00219-4/fulltext#back-bib19

 

[Darkstorn]

In 1965, researchers T. D. Duane and Thomas Behrendt decided to test anecdotal reports that identical twins share feelings and physical sensations even when far apart. In two of 15 pairs of twins tested, eye closure in one twin produced not only an immediate alpha rhythm in his own brain, but also in the brain of the other twin, even though he kept his eyes open and sat in a lighted room.

1. You are quote mining; the proper way to quote a source is to link to the article or quote the entire text.

2. The bolded part doesn't fill me with great confidence.

Furthermore:

Explore: The Journal of Science & Healing - Wikipedia

My personal opinion of your sources is that they are not trustworthy. And that they are peer-reviewed in much the same way as bible groups peer-reviewing scripture.

Basically: It doesn't matter how many posts you fill with "sources" when 99% are in fact from the same source, and i predict people won't really approve of the source once they read about it in general. You can't blame people for not believing sources that are commonly described as "sham masquerading as a real scientific journal" which publishes "truly ridiculous studies" as per the Wikipedia article.

 

[Polymath257]

Right, so something has changed.

Yes, a measurement was done. That gave the entangled pair a definite value. They were *always* synchronized.

 

[Polymath257]

Then how is QM and entanglement actually important?
Aside from a curious guarantee that your electron will have the opposite spin, it's classical Newtonian physics with NO spooky action at a distance at all.

No. QM is randomized. Inherently so. Newtonian physics is deterministic. before a measurement is done, in QM, the particles have no definite value for their spin. They are guaranteed to be opposite, but the specific spin isn't determined. Once the measurement occurs, the spins on both sides are determined.

Like I said before, QM is at the heart of our understanding of things as varied as chemical bonding (ever hear of s and p orbitals? Those are quantum wave functions), to solid state physics (semi-conductors?) to how lasers work (which seem to be pretty useful).