Brace Yourself: Bell Inequality – Consciousness Test Planned

Source: GizaDeathStar.com
Dr. Joseph P. Farrell Ph.D.
June 2, 2017

When Ms. K.M. found this short article and sent it to me, I knew I’d be blogging about it.

We’ve all heard of the phenomenon of “entanglement,” i.e., that when information of a particular sort is modulated or induced into a pair of particles, which pair are then shot in different directions, that modification of that information in one particle instantaneously is transferred to the other.  But there’s another problem: the observer. In quantum mechanics, because of its now well-known observer effect, or, to give it its proper name, its uncertainty principle, one cannot measure certain types of attributes of things at the same time. These are called conjugate attributes: one cannot measure the position of an electron, and its velocity, at the same time. Couple these two things to entanglement, and what is measured at one end is translated to the other. The problem, of course, that all this suggests the observer/experimenter may have a much more important role in the actual creation of reality than was dreamed possible just a little over one hundred years ago.

Now, according to the article Ms. K.M. sent me, scientists now want to test these two principles directly:

Scientists Are About to Perform an Experiment to See if The Human Mind Is Bound by Physics

Now, for those who’ve been following this website, and particularly some of the discussions we’ve had in our members’ vidchats, and some of the members’ webinars, this will sound familiar:

Simply put, the Bell test involves a pair of entangled particles: one is sent towards location A and the other to location B. At each of these points, a device measures the state of the particles.

The settings in the measuring devices are set at random, so that it’s impossible for A to know the setting of B (and vice versa) at the time of measurement. Historically, the Bell test has supported the spooky theory.

Now, Lucien Hardy, a theoretical physicist from the Perimeter Institute in Canada, is suggesting that the measurements between A and B could be controlled by something that may potentially be separate from the material world: the human mind.

His idea is derived from what French philosopher and mathematician Rene Descartes called the mind-matter duality, “[where] the mind is outside of regular physics and intervenes on the physical world,” as Hardy explained.

To do this, Hardy proposed a version of the Bell test involving 100 humans, each hooked up to EEG headsets that would read their brain activity. These devices would be used to switch the settings on the measuring devices for A and B, set at 100 kilometres apart.

“The radical possibility we wish to investigate is that, when humans are used to decide the settings (rather than various types of random number generators), we might then expect to see a violation of quantum theory in agreement with the relevant Bell inequality,” Hardy wrote in a paper published online earlier this month.

If the correlation between the measurements don’t match previous Bell tests, then there could be a violation of quantum theory that suggests A and B are being controlled by factors outside the realm of standard physics.

This comes very close to the experiments of Dr. William Tiller, though the latter were on consciousness or intentional manipulation of macro-effects rather than quantum effects. However, it is the same in that (1) it involves a group of people, presumably for the purpose of statistical measuring and sampling, and in that (2) it involves direct human intentional manipulation. Unlike Tiller’s experiments, however, there’s no indication of any written out specific intention, which, in Tiller’s opinion, is crucial in order to avoid conscious incoherence, and which, as I pointed out in a member’s webinar, bears explicit and specific resemblance to the formulation of western theological sacramental theory.

Additionally, the experiment also resembles similar intentionality experiments already conducted on random number generators. In the case of those experiments, the results for the most part have suggested that there is indeed a a measurable effect of conscious intention on physical systems otherwise not directed in physical contact with the “intender.” These results would seem to predict that, in so far as Mr. Hardy’s experiment – if it is ever performed – might be concerned, there will be a similar effect, so long as the participants are coherent, i.e., agreed in intention on the outcome. Time will tell, of course, but if so, it will be another experimental confirmation that the merely material cosmology is in drastic need of supplementation and expansion.

Of course, the result, if they go as I suspect they will go, as indicated by such consciousness experiments on random number generators as have already been performed, will be hotly contested and debated(just as those random number generator tests have been contested and debated).  If Mr. Hardy performs his experiments carefully, and if there is indication of such mind-over-matter correlation, then the real thing, at that point, is to begin to investigate any group multiplier effect(if any): does this vary in its effects with age groups? Males? Females? Do the number of people agreed on a specific intention intensify the effect? And so on.

Of course, all this is, for the moment, guess work. The experiments have not been performed, but this is definitely one to watch.

See you on the flip side…

Read More At: GizaDeathStar.com
________________________________________________

About Dr. Joseph P. Farrell

Joseph P. Farrell has a doctorate in patristics from the University of Oxford, and pursues research in physics, alternative history and science, and “strange stuff”. His book The Giza DeathStar, for which the Giza Community is named, was published in the spring of 2002, and was his first venture into “alternative history and science”.

At The End Of The Twig: Are There Limits To Entanglement? Is…


Source: GizaDeathStar.com
Dr. Joseph P. Farrell Ph.D.
May 23, 2017

As I indicated yesterday, this has been a very strange week for me, for people have sent many articles detailing recent discoveries in technology and science, and as might be expected, many of them come from the wild and weird world of quantum mechanics, which seems to grow weirder by the week (as if it wasn’t weird enough already). Mr. J.K., Mr. V.T., and Mr. A. and a few others sent the following three articles:

Scientists Have Set a Limit For Quantum Entanglement – And It’s Really Freaking Powerful

Space time ‘fluctuates wildly’ claims new theory that could shed new light on how the universe is expanding

Scientists Achieve Direct Counterfactual Quantum Communication For The First Time

Now, as one might expect, I’m going to crawl way out onto the end of the twig of high octane speculation here, where the weight of the speculation far exceeds the ability of the twig to support it. I can’t help it; I’m a hack from South Dakota, and it’s what hacks from South Dakota do. Besides, I’m also a Capricorn, and crawling way out onto the end of tree branches is also what goats do:

So, with that huge caveat in mind, there are a few statements in these articles that have me wondering. Consider this statement, when scientists subjected entangled particles to micro-gravitational, and then hyper-gravitational, acceleration:

“Our results show that quantum entanglement is unaffected by non-inertial motion to within the resolution of our test-system,” the researchers conclude.

“This represents the first experimental effort exposing a genuine quantum system to milli-g and hyper-g, and extends the experimental regime in which quantum effects can be said to exist in harmony with relativity.”

Consulting my Scientismese to Hack English dictionary, this translated to my simple mind as:

“entanglement is not affected by inertial systems”, or, “entanglement is not affected by gravity.” Now, granted, the scientists conducting this odd, but very important, experiment, are not saying that. What they want to do is scale it up, and see if in fact there is some limit or “boundary condition” where under extreme gravitation entanglement might be affected or perhaps broken. Would it break, for example, in the extreme conditions of a black hole? Or, conversely, would the conditions in a black hole actually be the matrix for a kind of “hyper-entanglement”? I suspect (here comes that standing on the end of the twig part) that no such boundary condition will be found, or, that if it is, under certain inertial or gravitational conditions, entanglement might actually be enhanced, and that as such, entanglement (which, let us remember, is the entanglement of information) might be a clue, perhaps, to anti-gravity or contrabary.

Which brings me to the second article, and these ideas:

New calculations suggest space-time is wildly fluctuating, swinging back and forth between expansion and contraction at a scale ‘billions and billions’ times smaller than an electron.

The researchers from the University of British Columbia suggest there is a huge density of vacuum energy in the universe, as predicted by some – but, in their calculations, oscillations between expansion and contraction cause it to nearly cancel itself out.

But, it doesn’t, and instead gives rise to a tiny net effect that slowly causes the universe to expand at an accelerating rate, they say.

Again, to my simple hack-goat-from-South-Dakota-on-the-end-of-the-twig mind, this sounds a bit like what we’ve heard before: the lattice of space-time is not a static phenonemon: it appears to be that way but upon analysis, those “nodes” in the lattice result from a kind of zero-summing at the node, but with a slight residual leading to a translation, and as a result of that, there is a slight asymmetry driving the expansion of the universe. If that even more wild and woolly speculation is true, then connect it with the first phenomenon: manipulation of that contraction and rarefaction might also be a clue to the engineering of that lattice directly (and note, a contraction or compression and rarefaction such as the authors are speaking is a longitudinal wave form… and who does that sound like?).

Then we have the following statements from the third article:

Quantum communication is a strange beast, but one of the weirdest proposed forms of it is called counterfactual communication – a type of quantum communication where no particles travel between two recipients.

Theoretical physicists have long proposed that such a form of communication would be possible, but now, for the first time, researchers have been able to experimentally achieve it – transferring a black and white bitmap image from one location to another without sending any physical particles.

If that sounds a little too out-there for you, don’t worry, this is quantum mechanics, after all. It’s meant to be complicated. But once you break it down, counterfactual quantum communication actually isn’t as bizarre as it sounds.

First up, let’s talk about how this differs from regular quantum communication, also known as quantum teleportation, because isn’t that also a form of particle-less information transfer?

Well, not quite. Regular quantum teleportation is based on the principle of entanglement – two particles that become inextricably linked so that whatever happens to one will automatically affect the other, no matter how far apart they are.

But wait, there’s more:

Direct counterfactual quantum communication on the other hands relies on something other than quantum entanglement. Instead, it uses a phenomenon called the quantum Zeno effect.

Very simply, the quantum Zeno effect occurs when an unstable quantum system is repeatedly measured.

In the quantum world, whenever you look at a system, or measure it, the system changes. And in this case, unstable particles can never decay while they’re being measured (just like the proverbial watched kettle that will never boil), so the quantum Zeno effect creates a system that’s effectively frozen with a very high probability.

Now, putting all this in Hack-ese again, one simply freezes the system by freezing the observation of it in a certain state. Granted, all this is at a quantum, sub-atomic particle level. But it doesn’t take much imagination to figure out that someone, somewhere, will want to test the whole idea by “scaling it up” to “see what happens”, or, in this case, what doesn’t happen. While all the focus of the experiment is on particle-less communication, I therefore cannot help but wonder the extent to which the whole thing might be tailored to the engineering of micro-timelines and “reality engineering.” (And, for those willing to crawl way out on to the end of this twig with me, I cannot help but wonder if the original Zeno paradox itself might be a legacy phenomenon of precisely this type of physics-observer-based thinking…. yea, I know, I’ve lost it. That’s too much of a whopper. But still… I can’t help but think of Plato and his “mathematicals”.)

Putting all this together, what it boils down to is that these experiments and ideas have truly cosmic implications, that mankind is taking the first faltering steps into a cosmological engineering capability.  For now, the capability is small… but… if they can be “scaled up…”

See you on the flip side…

Read More At: GizaDeathStar.com
________________________________________________

About Dr. Joseph P. Farrell

Joseph P. Farrell has a doctorate in patristics from the University of Oxford, and pursues research in physics, alternative history and science, and “strange stuff”. His book The Giza DeathStar, for which the Giza Community is named, was published in the spring of 2002, and was his first venture into “alternative history and science”.

Tom Campbell: Fireside Chat Feb 2017 [Pt 2]

Source: Tom Campbell
May 1, 2017

Tom Campbell answers questions on various subjects involving our reality and consciousness from the viewpoint of his theory, philosophy, and experience.

Tom Campbell: Fireside Chat Jan 2017 [Pt 3]

Source: Tom Campbell
March 7, 2017

Physicist and Consciousness Researcher Tom Campbell answers questions on various subjects involving our reality and consciousness from the viewpoint of his theory, philosophy, and experience.

Tom Campbell: Fireside Chat Jan 2017 [Pt 2]

Source: Tom Campbell
March 6, 2017

Physicist and Consciousness Researcher Tom Campbell answers questions on various subjects involving our reality and consciousness from the viewpoint of his theory, philosophy, and experience.

Tom Campbell: Fireside Chat Jan 2017 [Pt 1]

Source: Tom Campbell
March 1, 2017

Physicist and Consciousness Researcher Tom Campbell answers questions on various subjects involving our reality and consciousness from the viewpoint of his theory, philosophy, and experience.

Tom Campbell: Fireside Chat Nov 2016 Pt 1

Source: Tom Campbell
January 24, 2017

Tom Campbell answers questions on various subjects involving our reality and consciousness from the viewpoint of his theory, philosophy, and experience.

Tom Campbell: MBT LA 2016 [7 of 7] – Q & A

Source:Tom Campbell
January 16, 2017

MBT LA 2016

“Reality 102: How Does it Work? Why Should I Care?”
Presented by Tom Campbell
Hosted by Daghda MacCuolahan

Slides may be obtained here:
https://www.dropbox.com/s/m6gld5jiqz4…

We are fortunate. We are living in a time when our basic understanding of reality and of who and what we are is about to make a dramatic and unprecedented change.

Quantum physicist, Anton Zeilinger noted that: “we’ve had quantum physics around now for nearly 100 years and we are still working at the foundations. And that tells me that when we find it, it will be an absolute revelation. It will be something different from what we have been thinking.” *

That absolute revelation is here and it is big. It is logical, experimentally verifiable, and fully relevant to our everyday life.

In this historic lecture series, Tom Campbell presents his long-awaited variations of the double-slit experiment and calls on the next generation of scientific pioneers to help lead us into a new era of understanding.

“For the first time in history, all the pieces of the puzzle are in place for a major paradigm shift.”
—Tom Campbell

MBT LA 2016 — Parts 1-7:

Saturday: Big TOE Science — The Implications of Virtual Reality
Part 1 (slides 1-8): Introduction, Virtual Reality, Action at a Distance
Part 2 (slides 9-24): Virtual Reality continued, Quantum Mechanics, Double-slit Experiment
Part 3 (slides 25-52: Double-slit Experiment Continued, Proposed Experiments
Part 4: (slides 53-61): Proposed Experiments continued, Chaos Theory, Q & A

Sunday: Life and Love in the Bigger Picture
Part 5: Applications of MBT to Everyday Life
Part 6: Q & A
Part 7: Q & A

Tom’s website:
http://www.mybigTOE.com

Tom Campbell: MBT LA 2016 [6 of 7] – New Experiments

Source:Tom Campbell
January 9, 2017

MBT LA 2016

“Reality 102: How Does it Work? Why Should I Care?”
Presented by Tom Campbell
Hosted by Daghda MacCuolahan

Slides may be obtained here:
https://www.dropbox.com/s/m6gld5jiqz4…

We are fortunate. We are living in a time when our basic understanding of reality and of who and what we are is about to make a dramatic and unprecedented change.

Quantum physicist, Anton Zeilinger noted that: “we’ve had quantum physics around now for nearly 100 years and we are still working at the foundations. And that tells me that when we find it, it will be an absolute revelation. It will be something different from what we have been thinking.” *

That absolute revelation is here and it is big. It is logical, experimentally verifiable, and fully relevant to our everyday life.

In this historic lecture series, Tom Campbell presents his long-awaited variations of the double-slit experiment and calls on the next generation of scientific pioneers to help lead us into a new era of understanding.

“For the first time in history, all the pieces of the puzzle are in place for a major paradigm shift.”
—Tom Campbell

MBT LA 2016 — Parts 1-7:

Saturday: Big TOE Science — The Implications of Virtual Reality
Part 1 (slides 1-8): Introduction, Virtual Reality, Action at a Distance
Part 2 (slides 9-24): Virtual Reality continued, Quantum Mechanics, Double-slit Experiment
Part 3 (slides 25-52: Double-slit Experiment Continued, Proposed Experiments
Part 4: (slides 53-61): Proposed Experiments continued, Chaos Theory, Q & A

Sunday: Life and Love in the Bigger Picture
Part 5: Applications of MBT to Everyday Life
Part 6: Q & A
Part 7: Q & A

Tom’s website:
http://www.mybigTOE.com

Tom Campbell: MBT LA 2016 [5 of 7] – New Experiments

Source:Tom Campbell
January 6, 2017

MBT LA 2016

“Reality 102: How Does it Work? Why Should I Care?”
Presented by Tom Campbell
Hosted by Daghda MacCuolahan

Slides may be obtained here:
https://www.dropbox.com/s/m6gld5jiqz4…

We are fortunate. We are living in a time when our basic understanding of reality and of who and what we are is about to make a dramatic and unprecedented change.

Quantum physicist, Anton Zeilinger noted that: “we’ve had quantum physics around now for nearly 100 years and we are still working at the foundations. And that tells me that when we find it, it will be an absolute revelation. It will be something different from what we have been thinking.” *

That absolute revelation is here and it is big. It is logical, experimentally verifiable, and fully relevant to our everyday life.

In this historic lecture series, Tom Campbell presents his long-awaited variations of the double-slit experiment and calls on the next generation of scientific pioneers to help lead us into a new era of understanding.

“For the first time in history, all the pieces of the puzzle are in place for a major paradigm shift.”
—Tom Campbell

MBT LA 2016 — Parts 1-7:

Saturday: Big TOE Science — The Implications of Virtual Reality
Part 1 (slides 1-8): Introduction, Virtual Reality, Action at a Distance
Part 2 (slides 9-24): Virtual Reality continued, Quantum Mechanics, Double-slit Experiment
Part 3 (slides 25-52: Double-slit Experiment Continued, Proposed Experiments
Part 4: (slides 53-61): Proposed Experiments continued, Chaos Theory, Q & A

Sunday: Life and Love in the Bigger Picture
Part 5: Applications of MBT to Everyday Life
Part 6: Q & A
Part 7: Q & A

Tom’s website:
http://www.mybigTOE.com