Mod+ Edgar Mitchell: Quantum Hologram and Remote Viewing

#3
I was hoping that Mitchell's talk would answer my problems listed here and in earlier posts on that thread.
He claims that many papers will be published soon, but in fact all the issues I saw earlier are still unresolved.

Still, to his advantage, he does try to explain the properties of the quantum hologram clearly. Even if he in the end never says what a QH actually is!

For example, he insists on a nonlocality that can allow instantaneous transmission throughout the universe (29:00), and seeks support from this from Bell's inequality and Aspect's experiments (around 30:00). However, the nonlocality from quantum physics (and supported by those experiments) does not allow any information to be transmitted at all! He is completely incorrect on this topic!! He claims this nonlocality is the reason for psychic experiences! But that is a blatantly wrong conclusion! He claims that the QH is a mechanism for carrying information nonlocally, but then he claims that ordinary quantum mechanics is the reason. But ordinary QM cannot carry information at all in a nonlocal way.

I think he has swallowed whole the strange ideas of Peter Marcer! Peter's ideas were wishful thinking from the start, 20 years ago.

He claims that quantum physics applies at the macro (everyday) scale, from the QH. But never gives any reason for that! If true, it would have many consequences in physics, not just in parapsychology.
 
#4
Mitchell mentions Sue Benford as a collaborator in his talk, but she died in 2009 (see bio details here, and website here).
That means that the talk is at least 5 years old.
So: where are all the papers he said were being written?? Was he bluffing?

He did mention a paper "Nature's Mind: The quantum hologram", and made a big play that this was peer-reviewed.
HOWEVER, he tried to publish it at www.frontierscience.us, a 'journal' that had a 'public peer review' system. Mitchell's paper is listed here, but with NO comments! The website of the main Frontier Science journal no longer exists: it died early in 2011 (see here for its final form).

I think he was bluffing. Wishful thinking, or both.
 
#5
Schild says that Quantum Hologram "expresses all things that are conceptual in the universe" (31:20). They are 3-dimensional waves that spread out in space from the the sources of information, and carry information.
At 33:20: "by Quantum Hologram, we mean that thing which can carry and describe the information of anything in our universe. By 'thing' I mean, hot, cold, up, monkey, any concepts of our mind... can be expressed as a quantum hologram".

Such a general term!
It sounds practically like the soul of dualism, or the astral body of psychics!
There is no good reason given to think that anything like a 'quantum hologram' can be actually produced by quantum physics.
Even at 35:00 he a s slide with 'divine purpose', 'soul', 'brain' all linked by the quantum hologram !!
 
#7
However, the nonlocality from quantum physics (and supported by those experiments) does not allow any information to be transmitted at all! He is completely incorrect on this topic!! He claims this nonlocality is the reason for psychic experiences! But that is a blatantly wrong conclusion! He claims that the QH is a mechanism for carrying information nonlocally, but then he claims that ordinary quantum mechanics is the reason. But ordinary QM cannot carry information at all in a nonlocal way.
Your assertions here are incorrect. And that you make them so emphatically suggests that you have a personal strong attachment to those views. Even if we are to use only what the status-quo recognizes the most that can be accurately stated is that there remains a debate about it.

Researchers working at TU Delft's Kavli Institute of Nanoscience in the Netherlands claim to have successfully transferred data via teleportation. By exploiting the quantum phenomenon known as particle entanglement, the team says it transferred information across a 3 m (10 ft) distance, without the information actually traveling through the intervening space.
 
Last edited:
#8
Your assertions here are incorrect. And that you make them so emphatically suggests that you have a personal strong attachment to those views. Even if we are to use only what the status-quo recognizes the most that can be accurately stated is that there remains a debate about it.
  1. Mitchell claims his results are based on standard quantum mechanics.
  2. Standard quantum mechanics allows distant correlatlons, and does not allow instantaneous transmission of information (see here or here).
  3. So Mitchell is wrong in arguing from standard quantum mechanics to instantaneous transmission of information
  4. If he wants instantaneous transmission of information, he has to go beyond ordinary quantum mechanics.
What is incorrect?
 
#9
Your assertions here are incorrect. And that you make them so emphatically suggests that you have a personal strong attachment to those views. Even if we are to use only what the status-quo recognizes the most that can be accurately stated is that there remains a debate about it.
Researchers working at TU Delft's Kavli Institute of Nanoscience in the Netherlands claim to have successfully transferred data via teleportation. By exploiting the quantum phenomenon known as particle entanglement, the team says it transferred information across a 3 m (10 ft) distance, without the information actually traveling through the intervening space.
Thanks for the link above. It was a very interesting report about entanglement as expressed in systems. http://www.gizmag.com/quantum-entanglement-ubiquitous/27836/

However, you did not understand the quote you posted - where you imply that transmission (a signal) is possible in teleportation. It isn't, as I. Thompson says. Your own citation goes on to say it specifically: "without the information actually traveling through the intervening space."

The information transferred (teleported) is not semantic or meaningful stuff, but bits of data represented by entangled states.
 
Last edited:
#10
  1. Mitchell claims his results are based on standard quantum mechanics.
  2. Standard quantum mechanics allows distant correlatlons, and does not allow instantaneous transmission of information (see here or here).
  3. So Mitchell is wrong in arguing from standard quantum mechanics to instantaneous transmission of information
  4. If he wants instantaneous transmission of information, he has to go beyond ordinary quantum mechanics.
What is incorrect?
#2 (and hence 3 and 4) is incorrect. And citing cases/article that support it being so doesn't help. I can cite, and did quote from, articles that hold the opposite. So to use only the status-quo methods we a re left with what I stated - there is still a debate about it.
 
#11
Thanks for the link above. It was a very interesting report about entanglement as expressed in systems. http://www.gizmag.com/quantum-entanglement-ubiquitous/27836/

However, you did not understand the quote you posted - where you imply that transmission (a signal) is possible in teleportation. It isn't, as I. Thompson says. Your own citation goes on to say it specifically: "without the information actually traveling through the intervening space."

The information transferred (teleported) is not semantic or meaningful stuff, but bits of data represented but entangled states.
I understand perfectly. We don't agree - which is different. The notion of "intervening space" is irrelevant. As is your categorization of information. You cannot posit that the information transferred isn't meaningful therefore it isn't information. Either you argue as IT (lol) is that information isn't being transmitted or you don't.

What's strangest about your reply is that you quote "without the information actually traveling through the intervening space." as if it were a refutation when it is the major point that said research and I are making. If it was traveling through "intervening space" (if there is in such thing in a fundamental sense) in a detectable way, we'd be dealing with CM not QM.
 
#12
I understand perfectly. We don't agree - which is different. The notion of "intervening space" is irrelevant. As is your categorization of information. You cannot posit that the information transferred isn't meaningful therefore it isn't information. Either you argue as IT (lol) is that information isn't being transmitted or you don't.

What's strangest about your reply is that you quote "without the information actually traveling through the intervening space." as if it were a refutation when it is the major point that said research and I are making. If it was traveling through "intervening space" (if there is in such thing in a fundamental sense) in a detectable way, we'd be dealing with CM not QM.
Signals travel through space, typically as radiation. Quantum teleportation is not a signal. You simply don't have a handle on this.

The categories of information are not mine. They are basic to an understanding of the subject matter in hand. Information (as Shannon entropy) is measured in bits and formally excludes semantic meaning.

Semantic meaning is defined in the science of linguistics, and in informational philosophy.

http://plato.stanford.edu/entries/information-semantic/figure1.jpg
 
Last edited:
#13
Signals travel through space, typically as radiation. Quantum teleportation is not a signal. You simply don't have a handle on this.
What is wrong with you? You're arguing with yourself. Try and understand what I posted. At least that way, even if you disagree it will have some sense. At the moment it's much like me posting "White walls are highly reflective" and you replying "Black walls absorb a lot so reflectivity isn't the point."

As for me not having a handle on it . . lol.
 
#14
I was hoping that Mitchell's talk would answer my problems listed here and in earlier posts on that thread.
He claims that many papers will be published soon, but in fact all the issues I saw earlier are still unresolved.

Still, to his advantage, he does try to explain the properties of the quantum hologram clearly. Even if he in the end never says what a QH actually is!

For example, he insists on a nonlocality that can allow instantaneous transmission throughout the universe (29:00), and seeks support from this from Bell's inequality and Aspect's experiments (around 30:00). However, the nonlocality from quantum physics (and supported by those experiments) does not allow any information to be transmitted at all! He is completely incorrect on this topic!! He claims this nonlocality is the reason for psychic experiences! But that is a blatantly wrong conclusion! He claims that the QH is a mechanism for carrying information nonlocally, but then he claims that ordinary quantum mechanics is the reason. But ordinary QM cannot carry information at all in a nonlocal way.

I think he has swallowed whole the strange ideas of Peter Marcer! Peter's ideas were wishful thinking from the start, 20 years ago.

He claims that quantum physics applies at the macro (everyday) scale, from the QH. But never gives any reason for that! If true, it would have many consequences in physics, not just in parapsychology.
While the Non-Communication Theorem is the hard wired accepted scheme of QM. It does allow that one side of the universe can affect the other side. However, QM can't tell us how that happens. One problem is most physicists don't care. So we have people on the fringes trying to figure the big stuff out. Reality itself may be viewed as non-local as an interpretation of Bell's theorem. http://tinyurl.com/q6qrer8

QM doesn't rule out the possibility of psi and we know that psi exists.
Is there a non local way to communicate information instantaneously? Well, we know there has to be because it exists as telepathy and other anomalous forms of information exchange that occurs between conscious beings.
Heres a Chinese physics paper which attempts to reverse engineer the point. Telepathy exists, heres how it occurs. Just take it for granted it has to be suppositional.
http://archived.parapsych.org/papers/44.pdf
 
Last edited:
#15
Telepathy exists, here's how it occurs. Just take it for granted it has to be suppositional.
There are scientists of all types, including senior research scientists like Ian Thompson, who do care. While arriving at the personal conclusion that there is an ability for meaningful information (not bits associated with material representation) to transcend physical space - it does not mean that one must go with supposition. I am sure about transcendent meaning and higher level communication of love and wisdom.

However, I see no reason to leave logic and empirical research behind.
 
Top