# Quantum Matter Influence on Normal Matter **URL:** \ **Category:** Factual Questions\ **Created:** [December 27, 2003, 9:43pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/quantum-matter-influence-on-normal-matter/221309 "2003-12-27T21:43:32Z")\ **Posts on this page:** 9\ **Page:** 4
**Author:** ![Joe\_Random](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/j/e8c25b/32.png) [@Joe\_Random](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Joe_Random)\ **Post date:** [December 30, 2003, 6:22am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/quantum-matter-influence-on-normal-matter/221309/61 "2003-12-30T06:22:56Z")
> [@](#): > > _Originally posted by Question \* > \*\* i am personally convinced in the truth of reincarnation. all of this is an attempt to put a logical spin on something i have already accepted._\* So, basically, you reached your belief in reincarnation without using logic, and now you’re trying to fumble with different difficult-to-understand areas of science in an attempt to find something that will lend weight to your admittedly illogical belief. Is that about right? Sorry, but for science to examine something, you need a little bit more than “I’m positive that it’s true even though I have no evidence, so it should be studied more.” Before we can begin to scientifically examine reincarnation, we need something to actually, you know, _examine_. At the very least, there should be some falsifiable predictions that your “theory of reincarnation” makes that we can put under the microscope. As things stand, however, you’re grasping at straws. ---
**Author:** ![Question](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/q/ecc23a/32.png) [@Question](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Question)\ **Post date:** [December 30, 2003, 7:46am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/quantum-matter-influence-on-normal-matter/221309/62 "2003-12-30T07:46:10Z")
> [@](#): > > \*Originally posted by Baldwin \* > \*\ ***Question** , look, if you believe you’ve been reincarnated, fine. However all the information that’s been offered in this thread boils down to this: no, current scientific thinking doesn’t include any mechanism that could achieve reincarnation, nor is there any good evidence that reincarnation has ever happened. > > It’s hard to accept the idea that everything that makes up our minds, our memories, our thoughts, feelings and dreams, exists in the physical (normal matter) structure of our brains. Three pounds of soft tissue. If it’s destroyed, we go out like a light. If a belief in some sort of afterlife gives you comfort, I’m not going to try and argue you out of it; but you’ve got nothing that qualifies as a scientific theory. \*\* i used to believe this and i came to conclusion that that was a very sad way to be going about life. if nothing exists beyond what my brain has recorded then frankly i would rather be dead. so what do i do? kill myself? i was going to, but i figured i would at the very least make sure that the end is the end. ---
**Author:** ![kferr](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/k/71e660/32.png) [@kferr](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/kferr)\ **Post date:** [December 30, 2003, 8:16am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/quantum-matter-influence-on-normal-matter/221309/63 "2003-12-30T08:16:18Z")
From early on the first page of this thread … > [@](#): > > But it might. One of the things I find really remarkable about the rise of the dark matter theory is that AFAIK, no enterprising SF or Fantasy author has used it as a premise for a book. A Dark Matter update on, for example, the Lovecraft universe, would make a great read! See [Starplex](http://www.amazon.com/exec/obidos/tg/detail/-/0441003729/qid=1072770825/sr=1-1/ref=sr_1_1/102-6586320-9876150?v=glance&s=books) by Robert J. Sawyer. ---
**Author:** ![Diz](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/d/87869e/32.png) [@Diz](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Diz)\ **Post date:** [December 30, 2003, 9:04am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/quantum-matter-influence-on-normal-matter/221309/64 "2003-12-30T09:04:13Z")
There was also a series of, I think, four Star Trek novels centered on dark matter. ---
**Author:** ![umop\_ap\_sdn](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/u/dbc845/32.png) [@umop\_ap\_sdn](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/umop_ap_sdn)\ **Post date:** [December 30, 2003, 9:24am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/quantum-matter-influence-on-normal-matter/221309/65 "2003-12-30T09:24:27Z")
On the subject of dark matter, I present the cover story of Discover magazine, October 2003. > [@](#): > > Pioneer 10, launched in 1972 on what was expected to be a 21-month voyage to Jupiter, is now some 8 billion miles from home. > > \ > > As project scientists listened to that final fading whisper, they were left to ponder a mystery: The spacecraft seems to be defying the laws of gravity. > > \ > > In every single galaxy ever studied, the stars and gas move faster than Newton’s laws say they should… To make the calculations agree with what is observed, astronomers have been forced into an embarrassing situation. They have to assume that immense amounts of invisible matter surround all galaxies. Other probes besides Pioneer are also exhibiting such unexpected motion. Apparently, a slight modification of Newton’s equation, applied to microgravity environments, accurately explains the motion of galaxies and the probes. I’ll dig up specifics when the SDMB isn’t engaged in its daily backup. Dark matter explained? ---
**Author:** ![umop\_ap\_sdn](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/u/dbc845/32.png) [@umop\_ap\_sdn](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/umop_ap_sdn)\ **Post date:** [December 30, 2003, 10:42am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/quantum-matter-influence-on-normal-matter/221309/66 "2003-12-30T10:42:40Z")
> [@](#): > > \*Originally posted by Crown Prince of Irony \* > \*\*If reincarnation is defined as: the concept of some conscious essence of one sentient being passing through time and space in a non-corporeal state to be deposited in another being after the first being has died - then, no. No scientist can study that which by definition generates only anecdotal, and not empirical, data. \*\* What? No scientist is studying reincarnation? What about the International Association for Regression Research and Therapies? What about [Dr. Ian Stevenson](http://www.psychicinvestigator.com/demo/reincn.htm), [Roger Woolger](http://www.spinninglobe.net/roger.html) or [Michael Pollack](http://www.wel.net/michaelpollack/) who maintains a [Yahoo group](http://groups.yahoo.com/group/pastlifetherapy/) on the subject? The [University of Virginia](http://www.virginia.edu/)’s psychology department, out of which Dr. Stevenson conducted his research, is still interested in collecting cases of confirmed past life memory. So yes there are scientists studying reincarnation. Now as to the argument that it is anecdotal and not empirical, let me first provide a little background by describing the scientific study of reincarantion as I understand it. The first step is cataloguing the subject’s memories and other information (e.g. names, places, dates). Once that is done, the next step is to search for any kind of proof that shows such a person actually existed. If record of such a person is found, the case is investigated further so as to determine how much of the subject’s memories and facts corroborate with the facts of the person in question. This may include analysis of handwriting, which is often identical; analysis of birthmarks, which often correspond to the site of a fatal injury, and in many cases the subject is reunited with his/her prior family. Dr. Stevenson alone has investigated and confirmed thousands of cases. In theory it is possible to experiment on just about anything. In the process of investigating a case, the subject may be given some information about the other family that is correct and some that is incorrect, to determine if he or she can separate the truth from the fallacy. As for providing evidence that any kind of non-corporeal consciousness 1.) exists, and 2.) makes the transition from one person to another, it is first necessary to devise a means of detecting consciousness. We don’t know what consciousness is yet, in fact there is a debate going on in [this thread](http://boards.straightdope.com/sdmb/showthread.php?threadid=230294) about the nature of consciousness. Until one can detect it, there will be only anecdotal evidence. Still, must science reject all anecdotal evidence? What about the [“Wow!” Signal](http://www.bigear.org/wow.htm) detected in 1977 by the Big Ear Radio Observatory? Does it prove that there s extraterrestrial life? No. Should science ignore it completely? No. Or what about every nova or supernova type event? What about [gamma ray bursts](http://imagine.gsfc.nasa.gov/docs/science/know_l1/bursts.html) or the occasional high-energy particle that is detected slamming into our atmosphere? Those are non-repeatable, and just as anecdotal as any reincarnation case. Okay, I promised more info on the dark matter thing. Israeli physicist Moti Milgrom claims that modifying Newton’s laws of gravity so that below a certain amount of gravitational acceleration, the force of gravity might be proportional to the square of the acceleration rather than to the acceleration itself. (This is how it is explained in the Discover article, which is a bit too layman-ish for me and doesn’t give enough information about the equations themselves.) In fact, according to the article, Milgrom’s equation gives figures that are exactly in agreement with the observed motions of galaxies without the need for dark matter. Oh and how is it that this thread has 2 unrelated topics? 😃 ---
**Author:** ![Crown\_Prince\_of\_Irony](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/c/ed655f/32.png) [@Crown\_Prince\_of\_Irony](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Crown_Prince_of_Irony)\ **Post date:** [December 30, 2003, 5:18pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/quantum-matter-influence-on-normal-matter/221309/67 "2003-12-30T17:18:53Z")
> [@](#): > > \*Originally posted by cityboy916 \* > \*\*What? No scientist is studying reincarnation? What about the International Association for Regression Research and Therapies? What about [Dr. Ian Stevenson](http://www.psychicinvestigator.com/demo/reincn.htm), [Roger Woolger](http://www.spinninglobe.net/roger.html) or [Michael Pollack](http://www.wel.net/michaelpollack/) who maintains a [Yahoo group](http://groups.yahoo.com/group/pastlifetherapy/) on the subject? The [University of Virginia](http://www.virginia.edu/)’s psychology department, out of which Dr. Stevenson conducted his research, is still interested in collecting cases of confirmed past life memory. So yes there are scientists studying reincarnation. > > Now as to the argument that it is anecdotal and not empirical, let me first provide a little background by describing the scientific study of reincarantion as I understand it. . .\*\* Sorry, I really should have clarified that. Being that the OP and the conversation up to that point seemed a physics question, I meant to say that no physicist (or for that matter, chemist, biologist, etc) could study it in a scientific manner - by its nature, reincarnation (and most paranormal “events”) cannot be proven or disproven with certainty, and so physical experiments, mathematical calculations, etc. are useless. That’s not to say that the supposed phenomenon of reincarnation does not warrant physchological study. The problem I have with most “scientists” who study reincarnation or other so-called “paranormal” events, is that they have already formed their conclusion and are looking for supporting evidence. Of the links you provided above, the only “scientist” who does not seem to be in the regression therapy business is Stevenson, but even with him, since he focuses on the study of paranormal events, it’s likely he’d drawn his conclusions long ago, and he knows where his bread and butter is. Of course the elephant in the room when talking about regression “experiments” is that the vast majority of published test subjects are children (between the ages of 2-5, so sayeth Dr. Stevenson, Dr. Woolger). Children are very easily manipulated in to telling you whatever you want to hear - a while ago, my 3 1/2 year old daughter said something about “before I was born, I was a boy”. I thought this was odd, and so gently questioned her about this; I didn’t really get anywhere, it was just one of those odd things kids say that makes them so damn cute. But I could have easily steered her to further describe her “memories” in great detail. An even bigger elephant in the room is that if past life memories can be confirmed with certainty using the methods you describe, why has this remained on the fringe of science? [James Randi](http://www.randi.org/research/index.html) is offering $1m to anyone who can prove any paranormal event. Don’t you think if regression were provable, that someone would have taken that cool mil by now? > [@](#): > > **We don’t know what consciousness is yet, in fact there is a debate going on in this thread about the nature of consciousness.** As for **debates** about consciousness such as the thread you point out, hey I’m all for that. In fact, I hold beliefs that cannot be explained by science as we know it, and I’m known to get into a long-winded midnight philosophy/sprituality **debate** now and again with friends. But this is GQ, not GD. > [@](#): > > \*\*Still, must science reject all anecdotal evidence? What about the “Wow!” Signal detected in 1977 by the Big Ear Radio Observatory? Does it prove that there s extraterrestrial life? No. Should science ignore it completely? No. Or what about every nova or supernova type event? What about gamma ray bursts or the occasional high-energy particle that is detected slamming into our atmosphere? Those are non-repeatable, and just as anecdotal as any reincarnation case. > \*\* The examples you give above are not strictly anecdotal. The respective events have been measured and observed first-hand by those studying them. And while scientists cannot repeat the events (just as I cannot make a supernova into being), they can, for the most part, scientifically analyze the events, study similar future events, and build on the existing body of knowledge. I think that what this whole discussion boils down to is that physics, especially quantum physics, can require some pretty out of the box thinking to even partially understand. Starting with the theory of general relativity, and on through quantum physics, the average layperson is not equipped with the mathematical and scientific training to grasp many concepts such as four-dimensional spacetime, non-locality, Heisenberg’s Uncertainty Principle, etc. So we realize physics concepts in whatever medium is comfortable to us. Some of us attempt to grasp these concepts in visual terms, some of us in spiritual terms, some of us in religious terms (thus Einstein’s famous quote when confronted with quantum probablity theories: “(God) does not play dice.”). While I subjectively envision space-time as a saddle-shaped parabolic plane, I objectively know this not to be scientifically true. It is true in my mind, since that is how I “see” space-time, for lack of any significant scientific training (which I’ve probably made painfully obvious in this thread). But I objectively know that my truth is not universal. If one must visualize quantum behaviors (non-locality, waveform collapse, etc.) on a macro, spiritual scale, hey, whatever helps. But to put some kind of universal truth to it, and expect science to validate armchair theorizing, well, that’s not science. And \*\* Punoqllads\*\*, thanks for elaborating on non-locality/Bell’s Inequality. I see I had some of the concepts a bit mixed up. However, I still believe the whole particles-linked-by-a-wormhole thing, cause it sounds real cool. Why isn’t anybody researching this? 😉 ---
**Author:** ![MC\_Master\_of\_Ceremonies](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/m/bb73d2/32.png) [@MC\_Master\_of\_Ceremonies](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/MC_Master_of_Ceremonies)\ **Post date:** [December 30, 2003, 7:02pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/quantum-matter-influence-on-normal-matter/221309/68 "2003-12-30T19:02:52Z")
> [@](#): > > \*Originally posted by Exapno Mapcase \* > \*\*To oversimplify a bit, the notion that an observation of some type is needed to collapse the wave function is an outgrowth of the Copenhagen Interpretation of Quantum Theory. > > However, there are other interpretations (the Many-Worlds Theory is one gaining acceptance) that do **not** require this and provide other mechanisms for the wave functions collapse. > > All of these Interpretations are mathematically equivalent to one another, so it is a metaphysical choice at the present to choose one over the others. > > There is also no good explanation at present for why the quantum world sees effects that are not apparent in the macro world, like non-locality. This is also a matter of much argument and controversy. But the consensus is that one cannot use quantum explanations for macro world behaviors. > > And let’s not even get into consciousness or the way the brain works. For all the wordage spilled on this, nobody has any compelling argument that has gained the high ground. We need to get a grip on how our current lives happen before we can start throwing around mechanisms for a past life recurring. \*\* Many-worlds theory doesn’t provide any mechanisms for collapse as the defining feature of it (or more precisely Everett’s relative-state interpretaion which provided the basis for the many-worlds interpretion) is that collapse does not occur. There are other interpretaions which provide diffrent mechanisms for collapse, the most obvious being GRW theory in which collapse happens spontaneously in a simlair manner to radioactive decay. Also, not all interpretaions are mathematically equivalent. Decoherence (which can be viewed as an interpretion in it’s own right, but it can also be added to other interpretations to create new usually better interpretaions) explains pretty well why macroscopic objects exhibit classical behaviour. > [@](#): > > _Orginally posted by Punoqllads_ > \*\*I believe you are speaking about Bell’s Inequality, but the change in state that you mention does not get communicated across the distance as you say. > > What happens is that you get information about a system at a distance, which then theoretically collapses the wave equation of that distant system. This would seem to imply that either you are causing this collapse at a distance by faster-than-light means, which is unlikely, or that there are some “hidden variables” that fully describe each system’s state, and the wave equation is merely a mathematical construct. > > Here, physicists usually lose me in explaining how the collapse of the distant system doesn’t really contradict special relativity, but in any case, by measuring the local system, you are in no way altering the remote system, just altering your knowledge of the remote system.\*\* While Bell’s inequality is associated with entangled systems, what it proves is that a local hidden variable theory cannot produce the same results as quantum mechanics. Qunatum entanglment means basically that spatially seperated objects are part of the same quantum system. Non-loclaity is a problem for realist interpretaions (e.g. Bohm’s) in relativistic quantum mechanics. ---
**Author:** ![umop\_ap\_sdn](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/u/dbc845/32.png) [@umop\_ap\_sdn](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/umop_ap_sdn)\ **Post date:** [December 31, 2003, 8:23am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/quantum-matter-influence-on-normal-matter/221309/69 "2003-12-31T08:23:31Z")
> [@](#): > > \*Originally posted by Crown Prince of Irony \* > **Of course the elephant in the room when talking about regression “experiments” is that the vast majority of published test subjects are children (between the ages of 2-5, so sayeth Dr. Stevenson, Dr. Woolger). Children are very easily manipulated in to telling you whatever you want to hear - a while ago, my 3 1/2 year old daughter said something about “before I was born, I was a boy”. I thought this was odd, and so gently questioned her about this; I didn’t really get anywhere, it was just one of those odd things kids say that makes them so damn cute. But I could have easily steered her to further describe her “memories” in great detail.** Well I have not met the children in question, nor have I observed the dialog that goes on between them, the psychologists, and the “other” family. So I cannot vouch for their authenticity. I also have not met Dr. Stevenson who is AFAIK the most credible figure in the field. I want reincarnation to be a fact even if all we have is anecdotal evidence. Who knows, your daughter may be on to something. I once told my parents I used to be a woman. Mother thought for sure I used to be somebody she knew but it doesn’t feel right and I never gave in. Just throwing that out as the only case I can personally vouch for, even if it is anecdotal. > [@](#): > > **An even bigger elephant in the room is that if past life memories can be confirmed with certainty using the methods you describe, why has this remained on the fringe of science? [James Randi](http://www.randi.org/research/index.html) is offering $1m to anyone who can prove any paranormal event. Don’t you think if regression were provable, that someone would have taken that cool mil by now?** Very good point. I don’t know. Have to ask the kids with the supposedly confirmed past lives. 😃 I’ve never heard of the Randi Organization before the SDMB (before this thread though) so maybe they never have. [Previous page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/quantum-matter-influence-on-normal-matter/221309.md?page=3)