Einstein did not recognise the principal of Quantum Non-locality and as you correctly state the uncertain and probabilistic nature of QM but this IS the defining nature of Quantum Entanglement. He felt that entangled particles must have had an inherent 'DNA' within them that allowed the state of these particles to be determined before hand. The notion that the spin state of one particle could instantaneously effect the spin state of another across infinite distances was an anathema to him, it violated his general theory of relativity that states 'Nothing could travel faster than light'. '' it appears however that on the Plank scale Space/time does not exist in the classical sense. .. Einstein argued for years about this with Niels Bohr.
Yep, I remember all that Einstein showed some surprising rigidity in his attitudes for a dude that was famous for going against convention himself.
Einstein also felt reality existed independent of the observer.
It does. No one seriously thinks that the universe didn't exist before sentient creatures evolved, or that to cosmos would disappear if sentient creature weren't around to observe it...
But the so called 'facts' of 'objective reality' ARE debateable. This was what Niels bohr and Einstein argued about throughout their lives. Bohrs felt there was no objective reality that is knowable or that reality on the atomic scale didn't even have any meaning. The mere act of observing a particle would change the state of the particle. .. So when new-agers/freethinkers discuss the relationship between consciousness and matter I tend to believe this is in the tradition of the great physcist, Niels bohr.
This is where understanding breaks down for the layman, and what Chopra and his ilk capitalize on: the observer effect only takes place on a quantum scale, it has no effect on our classical or macro world. The reason why observing particles has an effect is much like why measuring our tires air pressure has an effect; we have to let some air out of the tire while measuring the pressure, so the tire's pressure ends up being lesser because of the act of measuring. Similarly, measuring electrons requires firing photons at it in order to see where it is for the measurement. By observing things in this way, we necessarily alter the object being measured. Nothing far out or supernatural about it. What does seem far out is that measuring quantum systems seems to make them choose a definite state in which to exist: before measuring these systems, they exist in more than one state, but the act of measuring collapse the probability waves and the state of the system becomes concrete. New age charlatans state that since this is true in certain quantum occurrences, it must be true for the macro world as well. Fail. Also, the ignore the fact that probability waves also collapse whenever they interact with ANY object from our classical/macro world, so the observer is not even necessary for the collapsing of probability waves. Which is why reality exists independent from any observer…
..... When Einstein stated 'God does not play dice' he was basically saying the Universe is ultimately deterministic, Bohrs reply was 'Einstein should stop telling God what to do'.
Love the back and forth between these two giants. It really was not even a debate, Einstein was dead wrong. It seemed like a debate at the time because they did not have the tech we do today to run experiments to show Bohr was correct on everything concerning this theory. It was basically Bohr attempting to convince Einstein about the probabilistic reality of QM...
In 1963, John Bell (physicist) proved the non-deterministic, non-localised nature of photons with his experiment using polarized light. This was in keeping with Niels Bohr view of the nature of reality.
This is true, and very cool. Again, the phenomenon only exists on the quantum scale…
I never said I was a fan of Chopra, I enjoy listening to the guy and pondering his ideas. I think I would like having a drink with him and talking about his concepts. I suspect calling me a 'fan' suggests by you that I blindly follow his teachings, an attempt to disparage and stiffer debate perhaps?. I'll certainly watch that video later.
I used the term fan simply because you stated that you like Chopra. I don’t think the term fan denotes a blind devotion, and no disparagement was meant. Strange that you would take it that way…
I don't think it's useful if we get bogged down too much discussing Chopra, he is but one individual and exponent of this 'new-age', 'non-scientific' thinking of which you seemingly have such disdain for. I just say, that in our attempts to form an understanding of our physical world we cannot rely on empirical raw data alone. There is a place in this discussion for meta-physical freethinkers.
I feel that we can and do rely solely on logical and objective conclusions based on empirical, raw data to understand our physical world. It is explaining our subjective experience in the physical world where empirical raw data falls short. For this, we may need some brand of meta-physics. It is important to note that these are two very different things; the physical world, and our subjective experiences of it…
Niels Bohr (physicist) wrote - 'We must look towards thinkers like Buddha and Lao Tzo who try to harmonize our position, both as spectators and actors in the great drama of existence'.
This quote seems to be referring to understanding our subjective experience, not of understanding the objective physical world. Beside, Bohr didn’t go to university on a poetry scholarship
Below is a worthwhile documentary on the topics discussed here. I have quoted from this video.
and here is a short video (5 min) from David Bohm, physicist and protege of Einstein on perception and reality
Thanks for posting these vids, I will make time to watch them this weekend. Gotta reply to all the posts first…[/QUOTE]
