UFO Conjecture(s)

Friday, November 11, 2011

Quantum Non-locality and UFOs

Copyright 2011, InterAmerica, Inc.

book11.jpg

Discussions here indicate a loathing, by some, to accept UFOs (and flying saucers) as tangible objects; some interpretations centering on psychical manifestations, others centering on a mental interaction between percipient and the UFO (image).

There are other hypotheses, and one that should be addressed is the possibility that UFOs are intrusions of a quantum kind from other places in the Universe or psychic ether, if you want) that appear because of quantum non-locality.

To get a grasp of the thought and theorizing about quantum non-locality, click HERE for a 1997 paper about the topic by John G. Cramer of the Department of Physics, University of Washington, Seattle, Washington.

One paragraph focuses on what Bruce Duensing and Jose Caravaca call “observer-created reality” (which I eschew). Here’s that paragraph:

The nonlocality of the quantum mechanics formalism is a source of some difficulty for the Copenhagen interpretation. It is accommodated in the CI through Heisenberg's "knowledge interpretation" which views the quantum mechanical state vector (y) as a mathematically-encoded description of the state of observer knowledge rather than as a description of the objective state of the system observed. For example, in 1960 Heisenberg wrote, "The act of recording, on the other hand, which leads to the reduction of the state, is not a physical, but rather, so to say, a mathematical process. With the sudden change of our knowledge also the mathematical presentation of our knowledge undergoes of course a sudden change." The knowledge interpretation's account of state vector collapse and nonlocality as changes in knowledge is internally consistent, but it is rather subjective, intellectually unappealing, and the source of much of the recent misuse of the Copenhagen interpretation (e.g., "observer-created reality").

I’m asserting that UFOs may become present when an object tangentially connected to our area of the Universe is made visible because an observer here is conveniently in situ to see the non-local inspired manifestation.

The UFO may even come about by a quantum intersect across dimensions or parallel universes, ours and theirs.

pilgrim11.jpg

The quantum possibilities strike me as more reasonable (feasible) than the psychic hypotheses.

Psychical hypotheses are prosaic and mundane for me.

The human mind is given too much credence and power in the psychical response, and we all know, intuitively and intellectually, that psychism leaves a lot to be desired in repetitive and scientific experimentation.

UFO mavens want some control over the UFO phenomenon and applying a mind/UFO interaction allows that control to remain intact, somewhat.

This is akin to the Einstein approach about quantum mechanics, and John Cramer’s paper will take you through Einstein’s caveats and the quantum renunciation.

einstein11.jpg

Einstein couldn’t accept the quantum quirkiness, and those in the UFO community can’t accept the UFO quirkiness, unless they keep control of the phenomenon by saying that it’s the human mind that is needed for a manifestation of UFOs.

That view is unimaginative and errant.

The human mind is hardly able to deal with practical reality, let alone incomprehensible reality (such as that in the quantum world).

(Schizophrenics and paranoiacs display examples of what happens when the human mind accesses realities outside the norm.)

While quantum non-locality is best represented by light photons, there are indications that quantum artifacts can exceed the atomic level and are manifested macrocosmically.

(I’ve provided some of that information online here earlier and at the RRRGroup blog.)

More importantly, perhaps, is the notion that UFOs may derive from intrusions, accidental or purposeful, across dimensions or between parallel universes, as string theory allows.

string11.jpg

This would keep intact my preference for UFO tangibility, which is obvious and well-witnessed.

The psychic view of Jacques Vallee and his devotees is old-hat for me. It’s something like the hysteria of the Salem witch trials or the insanity of the Catholic Inquisitional thrusts.

More on this approach to the UFO phenomenon will be ferreted out from other sources and pertinent quantum theorizing, and will be presented here upcoming.

Meanwhile, you “UFOs as psychic phenomena” people can have at it.

RR

19 Comments:

  • You may or may not want to revise what you construe as Vallee's view of the phenomenon that provided one of many contexts to your post.

    http://www.jacquesvallee.net/bookdocs/Vallee-Davis-model.pdf

    By Blogger Bruce Duensing, at Friday, November 11, 2011  

  • Hard to see at this point why we can't all agree that, at a minimum, SOME UFOs are real physical objects. Why do we need exotic theories when the accumulating evidence over the last 60 years is that some UFOs are real physical objects that occupy real space and have weight? These "some" show up on photographic film; they provide a radar return and evidence of great accelerations and turns and hovering; they leave physical traces, i.e. ground indentations, where even weight has been approximated; they interfere with electronics. If it looks like a duck and walks like a duck and sounds like a duck, it is in all likelihood....a duck. I know that this is "nuts and bolts" but nuts and bolts works for me. Now this is not to say that there might not also be a strangeness or "magic" to their technology which confuses us and which we currently do not understand. That,however, does not make them less real, less physical; just more complex.

    By Blogger Dominick, at Friday, November 11, 2011  

  • Bruce:

    I have the Vallee/Davis paper.

    Vallee always overlays his alternative hypotheses with a hint of psychism, as he does in the conclusion of this paper.

    Or he is deferring to Davis as he deferred to Aubeck in Wonders in the Sky.

    Vallee is one of my favorite conjecturers...

    However, there is always that patina of "anonymous others" hovering around his theses.

    Our colleague and friend, a RRRGroup member, Jose Caravaca presented me with his views, privately, which don't differ very much from your views, as best as I can discern.

    But I asked him, as I would ask Vallee (and you) -- Who or what are the progenitors of this UFO activity that befuddles us?

    Whether the phenomenon stems from intercessions via a multiverse link or a mental input, who or what is the causal agent?

    Or do UFO generate from projections of the human mind, minds apparently addled if we follow the Jungian model?

    RR

    By Blogger RRRGroup, at Friday, November 11, 2011  

  • Dominick:

    I'm with you a thousand percent.

    RR

    By Blogger RRRGroup, at Friday, November 11, 2011  

  • My view of the phenomenon is un-sexy to most. Boring. Lacks that sort of adrenal driven wow factor. It is only in the form of general principles or postulates.

    My best guess is that it represents a cellular rather than sentient intelligence.

    It is a composite in nature.

    The phenomenon is prone to certain conditional precursors in the environment that are both random in coinciding and structured as to what allows the phenomenon to occur.

    If there is any "message", it is the modality of the phenomenon.

    There is no intent, there is no aim in the phenomenon.

    The rest outside of it is bias projections, psychological games of twister, and anthropomorphism.

    The phenomenon in of itself points elsewhere to a state that exhibits clues to it's nature through it.

    The state itself or the third state of relations it represents remains unknown.

    By Blogger Bruce Duensing, at Friday, November 11, 2011  

  • Dominik
    The answer to why we don't all see it alike is that all of this in sum total is opinion and not science.
    People share opinions randomly. Sometimes they agree more. Sometimes less. Opinions are formed regardless of their veracity. Unless Gwork from Planet X wants you to know, you won't ..even if you think you do.

    By Blogger Bruce Duensing, at Friday, November 11, 2011  

  • So, Bruce...

    We're left with an enduring mystery that is philosophical in nature, not amenable to science.

    That is depressing.

    RR

    By Blogger RRRGroup, at Friday, November 11, 2011  

  • Rich
    I think for our generation it is depressing but if those who are around long after we cease to be memories keep exploring physics, I think they will have answers we don't.

    We have ufology but no one knows what a ufo is, outside of a body of conflicting opinions based on inference, suggestion and propaganda.

    Having said that, this current scenario does not discount physics providing answers as a side effect, if you will, by way of their efforts in other areas.

    It will never be studied directly because "ufology" has insured that it won't be due to the goofy fantasy language of most.

    By Blogger Bruce Duensing, at Friday, November 11, 2011  

  • Could explain some sightings but I'm not sure how it works on cases back up by radar hits.

    By Blogger Frank Stalter, at Friday, November 11, 2011  

  • Yes, Bruce, physics may well stumble upon the UFO answer as a by-product of other studies.

    We can only hope.

    Frank...

    You know that most of us think UFOs are a multi-phenomenon or phenomena -- different things (for different people?)...

    There is no one answer I bet, just as there is not one physical law to sum up all physical laws, as the great Einstein found out (or, rather, didn't find out).

    RR

    By Blogger RRRGroup, at Friday, November 11, 2011  

  • Frank

    "A ship from Tokyo University's Ocean Research Institute was in the Pacific when its radar equipment located a large object travelling more than four times the speed of sound. The radar discounted it as an aircraft because of its size, 400 metres across, and it sped northwards.

    "The Japanese scientists identified the object as a plasma vortex, caused by freak weather. The phenomenon is similar to ball lightning and believed to be generated by 'mini-tornadoes' of electrically-charged air.

    "Plasma vortices can be luminous at night. 'They are often mistaken for UFOs,' says Dr Terence Meaden, director of the Oxford-based Tornado and Storm Research Organization."

    By Blogger Bruce Duensing, at Friday, November 11, 2011  

  • Rich,

    You wrote:

    So, Bruce...

    We're left with an enduring mystery that is philosophical in nature, not amenable to science.

    That is depressing.


    Well, you must get really depressed about "God" then... or whatever we choose to call an advanced non-human intelligence.

    I think the "physical reality" idea about UFOs (that is, the ones that don't come from here, i.e. uber-secret military craft), is the least likely explanation. The older I get, and the more I look at things in a broader context, the more I'm convinced that we're dealing with such an intelligence, and it has nothing to do with little grey men from Zeta Reticuli.

    Best,
    Paul

    By Blogger Paul Kimball, at Saturday, November 12, 2011  

  • "The human mind is given too much credence and power in the psychical response, and we all know, intuitively and intellectually, that psychism leaves a lot to be desired in repetitive and scientific experimentation."

    Forgive me if I seem abrupt or callous. That's not where I am coming from. But, where I am coming from is so assuredly perplexed by the mundane, if not utterly routine in failure approach to the matter, that I am forced to beg audience here.

    First off Rich, "psychism" has NOTHING to do with the basic power of perception does it? Do you yourself via serious research/education have the slightest clue just how complex the cognitive mechanics are that constitute our most BASIC powers of perception?

    Of course this seems like the "long way home". Why? Because people's sense of security, as well as their out and outright survival instincts, are entrained in response as they are threatened by considerations that we may in fact be living within an utter "scientific house of cards". This being because of an exceptionally flawed understanding of reality.

    In short, it HURTS to admit as much.

    The empirically based scientific brass are UTTER FOOLS that have kept us bogged down in the midst of a thick stagnated quagmire of mediocrity and bureaucratic GREED. As a result we are all about three steps outside the cave entrance with respect to REAL answers.

    Oh how I wish you, or anyone else, could prove me wrong.

    Naturally in an order constituting considerable understanding one must be able to hold/maintain & progressively further, opposing view points.

    The truth of the matter remains that in the last 50 years almost all cutting edge studies and real scientific progress has come to us apart from the empirical wasteland of what I refer to as "commercial science".

    Sometimes I honestly believe that a real lack of patience, is more than any other attributibg cause, at the very apex empitus of all ufological discourse.

    BTW, to underline my point, what precisely has the ufoLOGICAL approach to the phenomenon brought so far that resembles a real understanding? The ONLY thing it's results bear is utter confusion that resembles the basis for our discussion.

    There was once a man that walked around snapping pictures because he felt inclined to do so. He applied the technique to various studies and called the comparative results science. The man went to his grave not REALLY knowing much more than when he first started photographing mud puddles as a kid. He spent his entire life trying to get the shots just right in a sincere effort to get to the truth. As he lay on his death bed he was comforted by the fact that he had given the photographic process the very best he could. He was certain his work would be carried on as it already had begun to do much earlier on in his life as a result of his inspiration within the field.

    In this example, it's easy to see how manifestation can and will yield a failed understanding as a result of forgetting that everything of real value within the man's studies, occurred WITHIN the camera, not outside the camera. He had been looking at matters with the eyes of manifestation his entire life.

    It's not what we focus on, it's what we focus with.

    By Blogger Jeff Davis, at Saturday, November 12, 2011  

  • Paul:

    God has depressed me for a long time....the Evil Bastard!

    God is Dead, Paul...not metaphorically, but truly, and his evil sentience too.

    (The Mormon theology has it right, which allows that conjecture by me.)

    Whatever or whomever instigates UFOs or UFO sightings, they are (pretty much) benign.

    So it can't be an Evil divinity.

    My views on this are at our blogs:

    http://gnostications.blogspot.com

    and http://rrrgroup.blogspot.com

    RR

    By Blogger RRRGroup, at Saturday, November 12, 2011  

  • Jeff:

    I'm not in fundamental disagreement with you (or Bruce, or Paul).

    What gets me crazy, besides the idiotic Big Bang Theory, is how some ufologists throw UFOs on the psychic block and let in lie there, as if it is in a category so strange and inscrutable that it can only be labelled, and not really analyzed.

    RR

    By Blogger RRRGroup, at Saturday, November 12, 2011  

  • "What gets me crazy, besides the idiotic Big Bang Theory, is how some ufologists throw UFOs on the psychic block and let in lie there, as if it is in a category so strange and inscrutable that it can only be labelled, and not really analyzed."

    It sounds like a description of the conundrum of male menopause or what motivates people to be largely puppets.
    The Big Bang as a word sounds like a cannon shot. At the edge of the universe objects speed up. It is as if you shot a cannon ball and it went to Alpha Centuri. The Big Bang is a Newtonian misfire. I would prefer to know what is for dinner these days. Who took the last Diet Coke?
    I suppose I am the puppet I bitch about.

    By Blogger Bruce Duensing, at Saturday, November 12, 2011  

  • Bruce,

    I have a thing almost ready to post, about The Big Bang.

    It's a topic I'd like to get into a discussion about, somewhere in our blog planoply.

    RR

    By Blogger RRRGroup, at Saturday, November 12, 2011  

  • The Big Bang?

    Do you think you are venturing into a field best left to theoretical physicists, or are you one of these?

    By Blogger cda, at Saturday, November 12, 2011  

  • Astrophysics, CDA, was a major in college.

    RR

    By Blogger RRRGroup, at Saturday, November 12, 2011  

Post a Comment

<< Home