Are Plants Spooky, Or Is The Science Kooky?
Here are some highlights:
1. "As for quantum physics, please don't use ideas that you don't understand. Also in your second article, where you used Heisenberg uncertainty principle. Don't do that, please."
2. "Please don't missguide people that you know anything about it [QM] and don't confuse people."
The basic motivation behind science is that of curiosity, positing thesis', and seeing how you could be wrong. That's how you learn and grow. And I certainly don't have an education or background in quantum mechanics, except for a long-standing interest in it. Feynman, if you read the biography on him, "Genius", knew the fundamentals of the mathematics very well. I certainly don't, and this is something I definitely need to work on. Innovation is impossible without an understanding of the basics and fundamentals.
So, I looked up some of the terms she used, such as infinite potential well, and came to quantum well:
A quantum well is a potential well with only discrete energy values.
What I see them pointing to with this and what I see implied by the pattern of the subject, is that these four points relate to two different quantum orbits of potential, and could possibly be correlated with DNA pairing. I could be full of it, too. It's what I see.
So, what I'm understanding from this is that a quantum well is energy that is held/stuck due to insufficient energy to change position/orbit, and this is called potential.
I'm trying to collect all the information together and form a base plan of what to check out, look at, and read.
One thing I'm finding interesting is the sources referenced in regard to debunking Backster's claims:
Kenneth Horowitz, Donald Lewis and Edgar Gasteiger. (1975). Plant Primary Perception: Electrophysiological Unresponsiveness to Brine Shrimp Killing. Science, 189. pp. 478-480.
Kmetz, John. (1975). An Examination of Primary Perception in Plants. Parapsychology Review, 6. p. 21.
Schwebs, Ursula. (1973). Do Plants Have Feelings?. Harpers. pp. 75-76.
I zoomed in on Kmetz because Cleve Backster explicitly mentions him in his book on page 70.
I checked into the Brine Shrimp one but am not sure how to access it. I'm also not able to find Ursula's article online.
The last thing I'll address for right now:
"This is not science because Backster claims were checked by others and no one could replicate his findings and he hasn't been following the scientific method - no control group. These are 50 years old claims that were already heavily discussed. It's not new. Holding on to already negatively falsified claims is called pseudoscience by definition."
I contrast the above, with the below:
Quantum mechanics fascinates me for a number of reasons, and this is not the first time that I've been called a quack. I don't claim to understand how quantum mechanics works. I claim to know why the universe exists, based on what quantum mechanics reveals via non-locality, and what that means in terms of energy.
Non-locality and energy It was when watching the Nova video on quantum leap that the idea of non-locality was introduced to me. I'd seen videos about the universe being holographic, but I hadn't really thought of what that meant. It means that, like with DNA (and DNA is holographic too), everything exists everywhere. That doesn't mean that everything expresses equally, just as you aren't all toes.
Non-locality is a drastic revision to the assumptions that we've had with our understanding of Newtonian physics. Quantum mechanics do not replace Newtonian physics, but instead add a layer of subtlety: The quantum chaos is the background of possibilities to the actualized realities in Newtonian space. This matches with dreams and waking life, and I bring this up because the world is holographic, meaning that patterns of life repeat fractally, in light driplets (and yes, I'm being poetic with that).
I've had a hard time with choosing between using her name, and using "you". I kind of just want to put all of this stuff in the same spot so I don't have to search around for it, but I wanted to give out some initial responses too...
No one has reviewed this piece of content yet