home | what's new | other sites | contact | about

Word Gems 

exploring self-realization, sacred personhood, and full humanity

Quantum Mechanics

return to "Quantum Mechanics" main-page

Kairissi. This QM research report is really fascinating and important.

Elenchus. And we’re still in the early stages of defining terms and haven’t even gotten to the best of it yet.

K. I’m looking forward to discussions on what all this means. Do you think we’ll be able to speak credibly to it?

E. I think we’ll be able to say some things, but, as you know, “final words” are always hard to come by.

K. Hard to come by even a million years from now, as we’ll always be learning new things. But there’s something on my mind even though we’re still in the early stages of this research.

E. Please share your perspective, Kriss.

K. It’s a problem that we also encountered in the “evolution” report. We honor scientists as rational, objective minds. We imagine them, in their white labcoats, following the truth wherever it leads. But, unfortunately, scientists are people too, and they have egos as anyone else, and this science-as-politics can really hurt the whole process of discovery – which science is supposed to be.

E. In one of the articles, the question was raised, why is the term “weird” so often attached to QM? And, as we’ve seen, it’s a propaganda device employed by materialists, as if to say, “don’t expect anything rational from QM, we can’t understand it, no one can make heads or tails of it, yes, we know it works, but just ‘shut up calculate,’ do the math, but don’t try to make sense of it.”

K. And this kind of “attorney’s last resort” ploy is very disconcerting. How can we make scientific progress for civilization if we allow ourselves to remain stuck in the metaparadigm that matter is the basis or reality? This idea was disparaged by the great quantum fathers, and yet, today, after all this time since their original work, we’re still mired in a false premise.

E. The world should be much farther ahead in its technology. Think about this. The QM revolution, the Relativity revolution, of a hundred years ago, were utterly transformative in their impact upon society. But where are the new shattering breakthroughs today? We haven’t really seen anything shockingly new in many decades. Yes, we have faster cars, faster planes, faster computers, but this is just honing and sharpening existing technology of many decades ago. Where are the new revolutionary inventions? Why aren’t we further ahead? We’re still burning oil and coal. We’re still polluting the air! There are some physicists who’ve spoken about this problem, and they say the reason we’re stuck in the past is that mainstream materialistic science has been unwilling to give up the “matter is primary” undergirding of thought.

K. The great inventor Tesla tried to tell us.

E. If Tesla were in charge, we'd be in starships today. He well understood that matter is not the basis of nature and reality.

K. He was already de-materializing battleships 80 years ago.

E. Now that's a good example of totally new tech. But men in black- coats raided his office when he died, and his work hasn't seen the light of day since.

K. We could say much about this problem, but here’s something that begins to highlight the difficulty. If one were to pick any of the major concepts of QM – “entanglement,” for example – and then to review lectures or written material by several different teachers on this subject, one finds something disturbing.

E. (silence)

K. The details are explained in different ways. Well, it’s a complicated subject, and we can expect that lectures will differ – but I’m not talking about that. What I mean is, certain aspects of the subject will be addressed from the materialistic point of view, and another will explain it, one might say, more faithfully according to the Copenhagen interpretation. Here’s what happens. The materialists’ treatment of this information becomes a propaganda piece. Certain aspects are either left out or misrepresented according to materialistic belief. The end result is more confusion for someone trying to make sense of it all.

E. Can you give us an example?

K. The electron or photon in “superposition,” that is, before a measurement is taken, is referred to as if it were a hard little bee-bee of matter. And because of this, statements are made such as “the particle is in more than one place at a time,” or “the particle goes through both slits at a time,” or the like. But it's not a particle, it's a math-wave. To compound the confusion, there is mention concerning the ghostlike aspect of the particle prior to measurement but, even so, these assertions which imply the existence of the particle as hard “bee-bee” are made all the same. It’s very confusing, and one is tempted to say that they purposefully make a hash of the explanation in an effort to support their QM is “weird” proposition. In other words, it’s very hard to get a straight answer or an honest assessment from some of the materialists.

E. I’ve noticed, too, that when two particles are compared to two spinning coins, the statement is made, “before a measurement is taken each coin is both ‘heads and tails,’ or a mixture of these.” This is not true. There is no mixture, there is no state of both here and there, or heads or tails, at the same time. That's nonsense, just propaganda, a misrepresentation of the process. Bohr would say that the “coins” or the particles don’t even exist until a measurement is taken. And the evidence supports this view.

K. These nonsense statements, or attempts at tortured explanation, are the result of insisting that the particle, in some sense, is a hard little bee-bee even before the measurement. And it’s even more confusing because even after the measurement, even then, the particle is not a hard little bee-bee.

E. What do we want to say to our readers concerning this area of study?

K. I would say this. QM is part of nature, and, when it’s properly understood, it will take its place in nature as one more element of reality’s harmony, rationality, and beauty-with-simplicity. This acknowledged, because QM often deals with the very small, it’s hard to get good information on it, it's counter-intuitive to us, it doesn't conform to "common sense," and therefore, right now, it’s not easy to understand. What I’m trying to say is, this subject will take some work to get at its mysteries, but it’s all the more difficult when we have to negotiate the half-truths, misleading statements, and sometimes deliberate deceptions, of materialists, as they hold fast to their outdated metaparadigm.

E. I’d like to also say that, unfortunately, listening to materialists explain QM is sometimes not so far afield of what political despots say and do every day. I’m thinking of something a materialist said, that, to the effect, “no one understands QM, and we never will” – which is such a pompous statement, as if we could declare this – “and, though we can't understand it, we look forward to the tech advancements in the future from QM.” All of which is perversely ironical as the scientific-materialists themselves are the ones holding up the progress, and yet bemoan the slow pace of unraveling this “weird” science. The QM science is to blame, you see.

K. I think it’s particularly disgusting at times when they say “no one understands QM,” when many physicists do understand, and do offer rational explanation that fits much or all of the data, but these counter-views are shunted to obscurity and not acknowledged, because they do not support the materialistic narrative.

E. When materialists say “there is no other explanation” or “no other research data,” what they mean is, “there is no other data or rationale that we will accept or acknowledge in public.” They shun it, black-list it. This is what the political Dear Leaders do all the time: they act as if there are no credible challenges to their policies and reign, and that it’s the dissenters who are the problem. Like the QM materialists lamenting a slow tech progress, Dear Leader bemoans the horrid state of the economy, looks for scapegoats to blame, while he himself is the cause of the economic crisis.