| This
section is under development
CURRENTLY ONLY THE ACUTES AND DYSCRASIA
PAGES HAVE CONTENT
insert new article here
with javalinks
By John Adam
A recent television
programme highlighted an almost global misunderstandings
perpetuated by what I call 'media science' and also the
huge difference between scientists and physicists.
Being a physicist let me first define some constants for
this argument. I will define a scientist as someone who
has some training in empirical scientific techniques (note
that this can include a physicist). A physicist I will define
as someone who possesses some of the deeper insights into
truth and reality gained from the study of the disciplines
of theoretical physics such as statistical mechanics, general
relativity and string theory but mostly quantum mechanics.
First the programme's glaring omission I hope anyone with
the ability to think clearly would have noticed. They failed
to observe that in a carefully controlled experiment it
was clearly shown that the participants awareness of what
they were doing clearly influenced the result.
Now to the vagaries perpetuated by media science.
In the terms of a physicist: WE DO NOT LIVE IN A NEWTONIAN
UNIVERSE. This is true, provable and leads inexorably to
the next big statement: WE LIVE IN A QUANTUM UNIVERSE. What
the second statement means is that if you to want accurate
model the processes which govern the way our universe works
you have to use quantum mechanics. Newtonian physics adequately
describes the behaviour of large things that we can see,
but as soon as you want to talk about small things or ask
more subtly questions about those large things, Newtonian
physics falls apart - it doesn't accurately describe what
we can clearly measure (see to be true). Quantum Mechanics
on the other hand passes every test that has been devised.
So what does it mean to live in a 'Quantum Universe?' With
regard to understanding the mechanism behind homeopathy
there are two fundamental factors.
1. Nothing is absolute. Nothing. You can't say someone or
something is exactly 'here'. You can't say someone or something
is exactly 'now'. There is a range of probability for the
position in time and space for any event with the most probable
position being the one that corresponds to its position
in the Newtonian view. It's a bit like having furry edges
with the fur getting thinner and thinner but extending right
to the end of the universe. I'll leave you to imagine what
that means in terms of the ability for humans to feel and
interact with each other.
2. An infinite set of non-zero probabilities collapses into
a single reality when you make a measurement. Seeing, touching,
experiencing something constitutes making a measurement.
This is very subtle and very important - it means that you
have to abandon a deterministic view of the universe. Louise
Hay has a far more accurate view when she says that you
create your universe as you go along.
The last piece in this jigsaw is conjecture. Some of the
greatest mind alive (possible some of the greatest that
have lived) are fairly confident that consciousness is a
Quantum phenomena. I maintain that our consciousness has
a degree of control as to the reality into which the universe
collapses when we make those measurements. Bear in mind
that no energy is needed to make any change, no beam or
connection is needed, the result is merely one of the infinite
set of possible results. (This by the way, is how an alpha
particle escapes from the nucleus of an atom in radioactivity).
I would firmly draw two conclusions.
1. Contrary to 'media science' mechanisms to accommodate
homoeopathy exist and are clearly understood.
2. Being a scientist doesn't necessarily imply the ability
to think clearly or have any grasp of the subtleties of
life, the universe and everything.
3. Theoretical physicists are privy to the most exciting
insights into reality but generally can't count.
Regards,
John Adam
|
