i was thinking that something on the quantum level influences the creation(shape, etc) of synapses…
How’d Thomson’s toast work out Exapno?
“To the electron – may it never be of any use to anybody.”
-JJ. Thomson, discoverer of the electron (1897)
Can you give us an example of non-normal matter? If you are considering “quantum matter” to be non-normal, can you give a definition of quantum matter?
Not quite true. “Dark matter” is an astronomical term referring to any mass that can be detected by its gravitational influence, but not by light. That basically means any mass that isn’t a star. Planets are definitely dark matter. We are definitely dark matter. The remaining mystery is: is all dark matter in the form of planets, asteroids and other “compact objects”? (i.e. Are there enough planets, etc. to account for the observed mass?) Or is a significant fraction of it in the form of massive subatomic particles, like neutrinos?
qunantum matter could be matter that is not influenced by space and time…
I’ve never heard of any such matter. If you read about it somewhere, perhaps you should tell us where so we have a better idea of what you’re asking.
What does it mean to be “not influenced by space and time” anyway?
would’nt matter “not influenced by space and time” be stuck in a nonchanging dimentionless point?
question, I know you really, really want there to be some kind of scientific magic to be working its mojo, but today’s body of knowledge says there ain’t. No matter how you twist your words and throw around terms you don’t understand that’s the only answer you’ll get.
scr4, it’s nice to back into the realm from science and out of question’s head , but you are ignoring my explicit qualifications. I think very few astronomers believe today that MACHOs are the source of the vast abundance of dark matter in the universe. But even if it is, then certainly we know that it is not “in, on, or around Earth in reasonable amounts.” And therefore it isn’t affecting our brains.
Squink, I am a science fiction writer and I can throw around fake gobbledygook science as well as anybody. But I know when to use it, and it ain’t in GQ. Troublemaker.
Yes your right Exapno Mapcase most dark matter (IIRC 90%) must be non-baryonic. If it was all baryonic it couldn’t all be dark as well.
how do synapses form to store long-term memories? could particles on a quantum level influence their shape?
Particles on a quantum level do influence their shape. They influence the shape of everything, because they are everything. “Quantum” isn’t some mystical buzzword to describe some supernatural realm, it just describes the elementary particles of which everything is composed of, like protons, electrons, etc.
Everything in the brain, including long-term memories, is completely gone when you die. You only have memories because of neurons flowing a certain way through some chunk of gray matter sitting in your head. Once your body dies, your brain dies, the neurons stop flowing, and your personality and memories cease to exist forever.
Hmm… Well, you’re thinking about it aren’t you? And you use your brains to do that thinking, don’t you? And thinking creates memories which are stored as physical changes in the brain, right? Therefore it is physically affecting your brains! 
i thought that quantum non-locality meant that at the quantum level everything in the universe is interconnected and time is irrelevant. why is it not possible that our physical brains could have some understanding of this interconnectedness and that this knowledge could lead to reliving past experiences?
this is what i mean by quantum matter. in this article they use the term “dark energy”… whatever it is, it’s outside of the infleunce of time because time is just change and you can’t see if something is changing without light, so i guess “dark energy” == quantum matter …
we must exist in a quantum state as well but our perception is based within the constraints of space and time. if some portion of our mind exists in this quantum state, before the subconscious translates it so that it can be peceived, then our consciousness must exist to some extent outside of time because time is just something our physical brain creates to understand the raw data that is “reality”. clearly reality is not derived from the concept of time, rather time is a part of reality. it seems to me that the only thing that limits our ability to envision past lives is the influence of ego on our perception of the data that our brain is constantly trying to make sense of. i don’t think that the possibility of experiencing past lives is at all unscientific…
With all due respect, Question, your definition of quantum non-locality leans toward the vaguely metaphysical. I’m not a physicist by any remote stretch, but AFAIK, quantum non-locality refers for the most part to the peculiar behavior of two quantum particles observed with different, but dependent, properties (spin direction, charge, etc). When one simultaneously observes two separate but dependent particles (say a photon singlet) separated by some distance, and changes the state of one particle, the other is observed to undergo a corresponding change, seemingly instantaneously. This “communication” between particles seems to violate a basic physical law, that nothing can travel faster than light.
First, let’s make a huge assumption - let’s say that the measurement apparatus available today is sufficient to detect instantaneous actions involving multiple vectors – not actually the case (which leads us to consider invalidating the experiments in question, but that’s just academic), but let’s say it is, just to get that out of the way.
Physicists (and quacks galore) have proposed any number of explanations for quantum non-locality, ranging from plausible to downright insane. One I’ve heard that makes some sense is that quantum non-locality can be seen as supporting evidence for the existence of wormholes. In other words, the distance that we perceive to be separating the particles is not the actual distance - the two particles, by nature of their creation as dependent particles, are connected by a thread, tunnel, or other apparatus that (in layman’s terms) pierces the curve of space-time to allow the two particles to remain in proximity to each other. In other words, from the relative point of view of either particle, they are behaving ordinarily, because they are perpetually linked by some strong or weak force (similar to gravity, or EM) that seems to subvert normal space-time in a way that as of yet, we may not understand.
Depending on how you interpret this or other particular hypotheses, it could fall right in line with the predictions and bounds of Einsteinian, or even Newtonian physics, with allowance for the whole wormhole thing (which physicists are not totally discounting as of yet, with the advent of string/superstring theory). Or it could be proof (as some of the quacks say), that the human “consciousness” is interconnected with “reality” in some inexplicable way that lends itself to the type of observations noted, as well as to the burning of stinky candles and the listening of awful New Age music.
My advice is to read some elementary material on both Einsteinian and Newtonian physics, then pick up some basic quantum texts. A good starting point for all of this is John Gribbin. He has written many volumes, covering the whole spectrum from Newtonian physics to quantum physics to superstring theory, in basic terms. There are probably some other good primers, I’m sure some fellow Dopers can add to my suggestion.
And a good guideline when looking at any source material having to do with physics, quantum or otherwise: If the author mentions Nietzsche, universal consciousness, or Aldous Huxley in the same sentence as Einstein and Heisenberg, bag it.
It’s a long leap to go from postulating wormholes to talking about some kind of interconnected consciousness . If that’s your religious belief, or if it’s reincarnation, past lives, Heaven, Hell, or whatever, it’s folly to try to explain it with science - these things by their very nature have to be taken on faith.
And on preview, I see that you’ve latched onto “dark energy” now as your scientific “proof”. Mayhap I shouldn’t even bother posting this, but dammit, it took forever to write, so take it for what it’s worth. Please, however, before furthering this, or any other GQ discussions on the topic of quantum anything, read up on some basic science.
It seemed in your OP that you were asking about the effects of quantum events on nuerons and how they impact thought process, thus the healthy response (for a GQ thread). But you’ve been insistent on glomming (remember: glom - grok=crock:D) onto any scientific buzzword used in this thread and steering this discussion towards philosophy, metaphysics, etc., which are all subjective, non-factual, and not at all based on empirical data - not really GQ material, in my humble, non-Mod opinion. You might have better luck heading on over to GD to pick this back up - you’ll probably have a more meaningful discussion about the varied topics you’ve brought up.
Dark energy is not outside of the influence of time (which is not “just change”). Dark energy exists within space-time just as everything else in the universe does. We know of its existence exactly because of its influence on other astronomical bodies. But we know of no effects whatsoever on bodies of smaller size, or on our brains, or our consciousnesses.
Again, you can’t use science terms as all-purpose magic wands to make things happen to your specifications. These terms have real meanings and real consequences. Pouncing on the term “dark energy” and making it suddenly mean “quantum matter” will not make it do any of the million things you have had it do so far. It just means that your understanding of metaphysics is on a par with your understand of physics.
i know i sound like i am coming from a mystical perspective, but that’s just because i’m not an expert in physics so i can’t make what i’m saying sound “scientific” … still, the ideas that i have are the result of reading books on the subject of physics, possibly some that you have referred to. i’m not just inventing terms as they come along and i’m not fooled by pseudoscience. until recently i assumed recincarnation was just another superstitious belief and it never occurred to me to question whether that belief was right or wrong until i made an attempt to understand the world by understanding science. all of my questions exist only because i have already read books that, as far as i know, are non-fiction. now that reincarnation is not so obviously false as i thought and now that i consider it to be at least a valid factual question and i figured science would at be trying to make sense of it… the board rules require that questions with a factual answer are supposed to be posted in general questions…
so that’s where i posted it…
anyway… according to the reputedly factual physics books i have read what we call reality is a collapsed wavefunction. apparently, measurement(perception in the case of humans) is required to collapse the wave function so there exists a consciousness or god or whatever you want to call it that is not effected by time(time being created by the wavefunction collapsing) that is able to observe end result of the collapsed wavefunction. basically, observation creates reality. so when you look at something it is created as you observe it, not before.
there aren’t any scientists studying reincarnation anywhere?
quantum matter being the state of matter before it is observed.
that’s a pretty good definition that is in line with my understanding of the subject…
This is really only in response to the last question, but I left your post intact to maintain context.
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.
It’s a long stretch to go from a possible (but impossible to confirm with absolute certainty) link between the behavior of two isolated particles (quantum non-locality) to the idea of coherent thought patterns and distinct memories passing from one being to another. Aside from the fact that the first has to do with simultaneous action, and the second has to do with action across time - two wholly unrelated presumptions - to study reincarnation would be to ignore the scientific evidence that our conscious minds (or “souls” if you will) are formed by specific neural patterns and organic chemical reactions that remain contained within one’s cranium. Thought patterns and memories are not capable of existence independent from the brain matter from which they arose.
Let’s go over some of the scientific terms used in this discussion:
Quantum mechanics dictate the bahavior of particles at a subatomic level.
Dark matter is that matter which makes up a significant portion of the universe, which scientists can detect due to it’s gravitational effect, but cannot detect otherwise.
Dark energy is postulated as being a heretofore unknown force believed (by some) to make up the balance of the universe’s mass not accounted for by standard and dark matter. (If you ask me, I think it’s a cheap way out of a very complex problem - personally, I believe that the weak and strong forces have measurable cumulative mass that is unaccounted for with our current understanding of physics, but will not remain so as the science of physics progresses. But then again, I’m no Stephen Hawking, it’s just an idea I had years ago when I was high.)
But do these scientific terms by their definitions lend themselves to explaining anything to do with human consciousness - reincarnation, or otherwise? No. Dark matter has no bearing on activity at human scale and dark energy seems but a placeholder in astrophysical theory till a better explanation comes along. Quantum mechanics is the only one of these terms that has any potential bearing on a human scale - but while it may dictate which electron goes where in the neural network, quantum mechanics have no impact on a larger scale. Even taking quantum non-locality into account (which only has to do with the interaction of two particles), quantum mechanics can be seen to describe either: A) the interaction, behavior and probablities of multiple particles on a subatomic level (only within a corresponding subatomic sphere of influence); or B) the interaction, behavior and probabilities of two particles separated by distance. If you are postulating that complex thought and memory patterns can be carried by a single subatomic particle, then go ahead and run with it, but you may as well be talking about Aristotle’s Aether.
I’d love to keep this discussion going, but I’ve got a higher plane to catch.