UFO Disclosure, Spooky Entanglement

Tune in to the March 1st, ’09 Paracast interview of Stephen Bassett, Executive Director of The Paradigm Research Group, an UFO Disclosure group.

I don’t hold hope of “UFO Disclosure” of any type, but this interview is as entertaining as any Gene and Dave have ever done. Enjoy.

Stephen Bassett Interview


In quantum mechanics, a vanguard of physics where science often merges into philosophy, much of our understanding is based on conjecture and probabilities, but a group of researchers in Japan has moved one of the fundamental paradoxes in quantum mechanics into the lab for experimentation and observed some of the ‘spooky action of quantum mechanics’ directly.

Hardy’s Paradox, the axiom that we cannot make inferences about past events that haven’t been directly observed while also acknowledging that the very act of observation affects the reality we seek to unearth, poses a conundrum that quantum physicists have sought to overcome for decades. How do you observe quantum mechanics, atomic and sub-atomic systems that are so small-scale they cannot be described in classical terms, when the act of looking at them changes them permanently?

Interesting conundrum. Just how does one do this?

According to the New Journal of Physics, the scientists used “a form of “weak measurement” that observes entangled photons at the same time without interfering with their path.”

So, one cannot create their own reality by just observing it?

I don’t know about that, but this little post from Physorg.com just might confirm that hypothesis:

…while scientists have experimentally observed the failure of local realism in laboratories, no one has ever observed any non-local or non-realistic system on the macroscopic scale. Physicists have usually attributed this fact to decoherence: when quantum systems become macroscopic, they unavoidable interact with their environment, causing them to rapidly lose their quantum features. More recently, physicists Johannes Kofler and Caslav Brukner at the University of Vienna in Austria have suggested an alternative view: that the classical world emerges from the quantum world because our measurements of classical systems are too fuzzy, or coarse-grained, to detect quantum features of nature.

If I understand correctly, because our rulers and yardsticks only measure to the 1/32nds, we cannot tell whether the wood quarks in the 2 x 4 we just cut exist in this Universe or the one next to us.

Makes sense to me….

It’s Easier to Observe the Failure of Local Realism than Previously Thought


But…but…what about this?

It’s almost a year since Nicolas Gisin and colleagues at the University of Geneva announced that they had calculated that a human eye ought to be able to detect entangled photons. “Entanglement in principle could be seen,” they concluded.

That’s extraordinary because it would mean that the humans involved in such an experiment would become entangled themselves, if only for an instant.

Gisin is a world leader in quantum entanglement and his claims are by no means easy to dismiss.

Now he’s going a step further saying that the human eye could be used in a Bell type experiment to sense spooky-action-at-a-distance. “Quantum experiments with human
eyes as detectors appear possible, based on a realistic model of the eye as a photon detector,” they say.

One problem is that human eyes cannot se single photons–a handful are needed to trigger a nerve impulse to the brain.

That might have scuppered the possibility of  a Bell-type experiment were it not for some interesting work from Francesco De Martini and buddies at the Universityof Rome, pointing out how the quantum properties of a single particle can be transferred to an ensemble of particles.

That allows a single entangled photon, which a human eye cannot see, to be amplified into a number of entangled photons that can be seen. The eye can then be treated like any other detector.

So which is it, does the simple act of intelligent observation affect reality or not?

Obviously the jury is still out!

Human eye could detect spooky action at a distance



8 responses

  1. This is starting to make ‘Time Traveller’s Paradox’ look simple. Another chip of thought to spice the brew

  2. Yep, I think so, but not in a quantum way. we only have one reality apiece, and evidence of solid stuff can change that in a heartbeat, yet someone else can look at the same stuff and keep on singing the same old ladedah. Whatever we are observing in the macrocosm should be observed at our highest attuation for real understanding. Could be that to observe the microcosm with clarity that we would have to be there and observe the stuff to see if it is similar, like standing on a beach by an ocean looking at the stars, but realizing that it was all part of something beyond our comprehension. If you get my drift, you’re doing better than I am cause I’m just here to rattle your cage, and the reason for my weirdness is that I just finished watching the project Camelot interview with Ralph Ring… 😎

  3. This from the guy who isn’t sure time is real, knows it has varied and is variable – and is that entropy or acceleration and what is the difference anyway ?
    And you want to state that the key to the multiverse requires size above quantum : what next ? The phenomenon of vibration allows tuning reality ? After all, time defines vibration : is the converse possible? Tuning crystals anyone ? For acceleration too ?
    We’re kinda running out of baseline phenomena – would would constitute your ‘place to observe’.
    Then again, I seem to recall a statement that if one had a long enough lever and a place to stand one could ‘lift the world’ : which is a pretty fancy.
    Now that I’ve got that off my chest I’ll give you the basic problem with realizing the nature of the Universe : coincidentally or not the same one used for that **** called *** : aka God by those who compulsively fill in the blanks – even when it’s known gibberish.
    Ability to perceive sufficient depth
    Ability to attain sufficient resolution
    Truncated period of observation

    You can tell I’m not a scientist. That doesn’t mean I prefer gabble over observation, merely that defining what is not possible gives one an edge when trying to evaluate plausibility : admittedly with dull tools.

  4. Oops. I should have read the header. This ‘cage rattling’ seems to be going around.

  5. Opit

    No offence meant, just making conversation. That’s the beauty of the philosophic viewpoint. Not worrying about the mechanics of the universe and beyond, I am free to speculate on bizaar concepts while knowing very little about the subject, much like the way an architect does an artists interpretation of an edifice without giving any dimensions and details to the builder. I was a civil engineering tech for 20 years or so, and my worst nightmare was working with an architects plan.

    Being a feet in the mud kind of duck I think that time is real, but that the perception changes with relative motion and the time frame is so profoundly different in the microcosm that it would be more easily percieved from there. Needless to mention what I think is not scientific or even fully explainable, but I have a feeling that the macrocosm and the microcosm are similar,and that there might even be a mini microcosm and/or a maxi macrocosm. The Pet Milk can concept if you will. Maybe I’ve been reading too much ouspenski…G:

  6. What I find interesting is that quantum theorists don’t know anymore than us poor everday shmucks, they just throw up a lot of mathematical mumbo-jumbo hoping to confuse people.

    The Large Hadron Collider (LHC) was supposed to come online last year and put guesswork to rest, but the damn thing blew up, ( well, part of it did ). It’s supposed to start again this year.

    Hard experimental evidence is the only way to prove some of this shit.

    Everything else is just geusswork, theory, religion, science fiction and just plan old bullshite!

  7. Heh. I seem recall some quip from a theoretical scientist that Hindu notions of 16 ‘dimensions’ preceded mathematical work in that direction. Could have been Robert Forward.
    The old joke goes that when the scientists finally get to their Unified Theory of Everything – they will find the theologians there waiting for them.
    Like you, the notion of excited engagement which restricts truly outree notions does not appeal. No offense taken.

  8. I seem recall some quip from a theoretical scientist that Hindu notions of 16 ‘dimensions’ preceded mathematical work in that direction…

    The Hindus seem to have the cosmology down pat, ‘course their culture had existed for thousands of years before Western Thought ever sprouted a sapling. Though my Christian friends would vehemently argue that point.

    Quarks and conundrums. 8)

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s

%d bloggers like this: