|
Word Gems
exploring self-realization, sacred personhood, and full humanity
Double-Slit Experiment
|
Physicists in the materialist camp have resisted the implications of the consciousness-based Double-Slit experiment. Tom Campbell discusses the history of this denial and also what happened when a new experiment was performed which eviscerated the materialists’ basis for refusal.
|
return to "Double-Slit experiment" main-page
Editor’s note: The following is based on discussion in the above-listed Australian National University lecture at 1:02:52. Allow me to paraphrase Tom’s presentation:
Tom Campbell: In 1999, at the University of Maryland and Texas A&M, a physics experiment was conducted which took away a long-standing excuse of materialistic physicists not to accept the Double-Slit findings.
Some history: Going back almost a hundred years to the time when quantum physics was new, materialists were searching for a way to marginalize the consciousness-based findings of the Double-Slit. It was claimed that when a particle goes through a slit, a detector often interacts with the particle, and this interaction will add or subtract energy from the particle, which will affect its behavior. And it is this detector interference, they maintained, which accounts for the strange behavior of the particle, sometimes a wave and sometimes a particle.
Editor's note: There is no "sometimes wave, sometimes particle." It's one or the other. It's a wave before the collapse of the probabilities, and it's a particle thereafter. This notion of "it's both" was invented as a means for materialists to avoid consciousness-based answers and implications.
The quantum founders said that this interference, if it existed, would be so slight, and so small, that it was not possible that the results of the Double-Slit could be affected. Any physicist who specialized in quantum mechanics had to agree, even those of the materialist camp.
However, the average physicist, who knew only an outline of quantum mechanics, or didn't want to know more, along with cheerleading science textbook writers, leapt upon this idea as a great savior of the materialist cause. Just like in dirty politics, for many years thereafter, this contrived excuse was quickly brought up as standard party-platform to marginalize and diminish the stature of the Double-Slit.
However, in 1999 a new experiment was conducted concerning the Double-Slit which totally side-stepped the detector issue and did not use a detector at all. The particles did not interact with any foreign element.
With this new development, honest science would have made amends and admitted errors, but no contrition was forthcoming. The materialist science camp continued right on with their old paradigm, offering new lame excuses, to the effect, we’ll answer this someday, we know we're right. And, in some quarters, the old excuse is still broadcasted, even today, though it's been thoroughly discredited.
Editor's note: This same disingenuous dynamic is found in Darwinism. See the "Evolution" article. High school and college textbooks continue to preach what the specialists within the field know to be false.
Says Tom: Physicists are people, too. They have their belief systems, their fears, their prejudices. They are afraid that an acceptance of consciousness-based science would lead us back to the bad old days when the narrow-minded Church ran everything.
Editor’s note. See my article on the Evolution page concerning how this aversion of anything that hints at God or religion affects the evolution debate; at the core of this trepidation is the fear of death.
|
a room filled with a battery of electronic sensing devices, monitoring every nuance of motion, heat, and sound, but the evidence is summarily rejected by radical skeptics
Professor Eckhard Kruse reports via youtube video (March 6, 2022) of his investigations of physical mediumship. In an effort to preempt radical skeptics’ immediate charges of fraud, Professor Kruse employed an impenetrable array of high-tech electronic equipment.
The psychic medium was tethered to several motion detectors which would offer reading of the slightest twitch. A voice analyzer routed claims of ventriloquism as it detected four separate and distinct signature voices of discarnates. Further, infra-red sensors monitored activity of the entire room.
With all this surveillance, but, even so, with stellar results of communications from the other side, what did the skeptics have to say.
Professor Kruse submitted his investigation to a scientific journal and the response from critics issued as something embarrassing from so-called scientific peers. You’ll need to see the video for yourself and Professor Kruse laughing at the comments: a childish display of “violations of clear thinking”.
This experiment by Dr. Kruse becomes an excellent example of kangaroo-court proceedings by those who are afraid of afterlife evidence. The charge “extraordinary evidence required” is just a smokescreen for “We don’t care what evidence you present, we’ll vilify and discredit it in order to save our materialistic world paradigm.”
|
|
all facts are important
J. Arthur Hill: "Facts differ in importance, but it is a fundamental article of ... science that all facts are important in some degree.
all facts are important for, as they gather, an underlying tapestry of reality is revealed
"The import of some of them may not be clear at first, but continued collection brings about the possibility of valuable inferences. An orbit cannot be computed from one or two points given; many are necessary.
all facts are important and none of it is 'minor', for all knowledge is connected, Nature is of a piece and unfurls seamlessly, but only to the mind patiently assembling the data
"Similarly a number of facts — the more the better — may be required before we see their meaning. But there is a meaning, and it is worth our while to amass details patiently. This is the modern spirit [of science] — to inquire of Nature instead of building philosophic word-structures into the blue. Observation and record are the watchwords.”
|
|
Editor's last word:
In some of the variations of the Double-Slit and related experiments, as Tom explains, the particle enters the testing apparatus to be met by a reflecting mirror or the absence of it, which will affect the outcome.
Materialistic physicists, so intent upon avoiding any deference toward an involvement of consciousness-based outcome, speak of the particle “knowing,” in advance, as it enters the testing apparatus, whether the reflecting mirror is up ahead or not. In others words, amazing psychic abilities are granted to inanimate matter!
Consider the jarring anomaly: Normally, materialists posit things of a psychic nature to be utterly taboo, to be eschewed and vilified as hocus-pocus. But if believing in psychic powers is now the only way to avoid admission of consciousness-based result, then, suddenly, the materialists are big fans of psychic energy. In others words, they will say anything, or believe anything, in order to maintain their materialistic paradigm.
We saw this same untoward flip-flop concerning the work of Dr. Gary Schwartz and the Biophoton Experiment, which offers evidence of the afterlife and survival of consciousness. In this case, the materialists immediately adopted a belief in so-called “Super ESP,” right on the spot, to salvage their threadbare theories. Normally, they hate anything having to do with extrasensory communication, but if it will save a materialistic belief-system, now, in a moment, they’re all smiles with it. There is no such thing as "Super ESP." But, again, they will say anything, or believe anything, in order to maintain their “one true” doctrines.
This is not science but the same old tired cultish dogmatism that has burdened humankind for centuries.
Further...
Leonora Piper, one of the most accomplished mediums ever, was investigated by a debunker, who got himself debunked
Michael Tymn offers another example of materialists willing to say or believe anything to maintain their world paradigm. An afterlife skeptic-debunker, Dr. Richard Hodgson, set out to discredit the famous medium Mrs. Leonora Piper. Eventually, the evidence presented was so astonishing to Hodgson that not only was he convinced but he became an advocate of spiritualism.
However, prior to this change of heart,
"Hodgson, Professor William James, and other researchers were reluctant to accept the spirit hypothesis. No [contrary] evidence could be found … and they theorized that [she] was somehow able to telepathically tap into the mind of the sitter. When information came through that was unknown to the sitter but later verified as correct, they further theorized that it was possible for Mrs. Piper’s secondary personality to read the mind of anybody in the world or to tap into some kind of cosmic reservoir in the ethers and extract information, then feed it back to the sitters. As far-fetched as that seemed, any explanation was preferable to spirits …The mere suggestion of spirits of the dead was cause for smirks, scoffs, and sneers among educated people."
Consider the irony. These notable figures of science of the day found themselves suddenly waving the flag for an ability to “read the mind of anybody in the world” or, even more fantastic, “to tap into some kind of [informational] cosmic reservoir in the ethers”!
shotgun wedding answers
They would say anything or believe anything in order to save their materialistic paradigm. Strangely, this “shotgun wedding” acceptance of wild answers did not save them very well as these new solutions, too, if true, hinted at some form of non-physical reality.
As footnote to this incident, it’s very interesting concerning the evidence that finally convinced them. Firstly, it had to do with a friend who had passed over who knew things about them, things of the researchers' personal lives, embarrassing things, that should not be known. Moreover, mass telepathy was finally ruled out. It happened when a large number of sitters were brought to Mrs. Piper: those who had known the crossed-over person in question were addressed personally from the other side, while the others who did not know “the dead” received no personalized interaction.
|
|