conciousness at supposedly non-living molecular level

WELL ,i am writing this on this the basis of an assumption,i dont know if that is true...if not please rectify me.
ASSUMPTION:"Whenever any particle is created from energy(E=MC^2)it has an anti-particle associated with it,this is universally true.what this means is that for universal balance stays only when these particle and antiparticle stay in the same state."
NOW FOR MY RANDOM THOUGHT!"

Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!

KAY if this theory is correct then say if i have a NON LIVING-particle that has an anti-particle associated with it which is say 6-light years away from the particle itself.
NOW,if the particle undergoes a change then the antiparticle MUST and WILL undergo a change SIMULTANEOUSLY,to keep the universal balance,BUT the antiparticle is 6-light year away from the particle...therefore it will take 6 years for light to reach the antiparticle to report the change,but it occurs only SIMULTANEOUSLY,so is there a chance that my original particle is concious!!!???since it is the only thing that has travelled faster than the velocity of light....any comments guys?

 

Log in or Sign up to hide all adverts.

Log in or Sign up to hide all adverts.

I've just came here from http://www.sciforums.com/showthread.php?s=&threadid=15987

Where you pulled James up.

he said

"Every fundamental partical has an antiparticle"

which is presumably different to

"Also, there is much more matter in our universe than antimatter, so it is not true to say that every particle in the universe has a corresponding antiparticle."

I think the crux of the matter lies on 'fundamental particle' not every particle in the Universe is a fundamental one. They're not all fundamental building blocks in the thing.

Hope that helps.

 

Log in or Sign up to hide all adverts.

i read an article which i vaguely remember. it alluded to something (molecule? cell? atom?) having a memory of a previous state. this is not exactly consciouness.........

any ideas?

 

if a particle is split, there are up-spin and down-spin peices. likewise, if a particle is create, an anti-particle is also created. If the spin of particle a is checked 5 hours after it is created, then particle b, half way across the universe, suddenly "receives" it's opposite spin. This cannot be explained by common physics, but it has been observed in the labrotory.

String theory deals with this problem by explaining the world in 10 dimensions- 4 spacial dientions which we live in (though we can only recognise 3 of them), and 2 groups of three dimentions that curled up into small balls during the big bang.

how can a dimention"curl up" in one book I read (forget which one, sorry), they talk about a bottom sheet for a bed. This sheet is too small for the matterss, and so while you may be able to stretch the sheet into place, it won't stay there. The elesticity force of the sheet will cause it to 'pop' off eventually; once it has, it will stay in a clump on the bed, because now, the sheet is in a lower energy state. similarly, the universe 'popped' into two 3 dimentional clumps and one four dimentional sheet, simply because those shapes were the lowest energy state for those dimentions to fall into.

it's really confusing I know, I'm not great at explaining it. the most confusing part is then 3-dimentional gravity in 4d space- it's really only a warp in the forth dimention, with some external force. just like Einstine's idea of gravity 'warping' 3d space requires an external (to the 3 dimentions) force to make it work- fun but mind boggling stuff.

 

Steven Hawkings has been trying to prove that when an object falls into a black hole, the bit of radiation that is given off can tell you what the object originally was. It goes against standard theory about black holes, but it looks like it may be correct.

 

Re: Particles & antiparticles

Everything thing i have read upon antimatter subject states the opposite of what you said......i am confused....it is believed that antimatter makes up 90% of the mass of the universe and the other 10% is the visible matter in the universe. That is why Galaxys are moving apart from each other faster and faster because of the antigravity created by the antimatter.

 

If i understood this correctly and what you posted is true then that would mean that the change in the spin had to travel way beyond faster than the speed of light. If the animatter particle recieves the opposite spin suddenly half way across the universe that would mean that it had to use some sort of method to travel there...maybe this goes into whole another realm of physics that is not yet known to man.....

 

think u r refering to shape-memory alloys which take predetermined shape in response to external stimulus like temperature. it is a material property..

Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!

 

First off all. There was just about as much Antimatter as Matter in the early universe.. There was a tiny fraction more matter then antimatter. (Why??? unknown)..

Matter Antimatter relationship that’s been mentioned can/is mostly Matter Matter. When two things interact they are for ever linked. (BIG BANG. Every thing was in contact with every thing. So everything is linked. To change the path of a single photon will change the state of everything). Light speed has nothing to do with it... Hence String theory, in it many forms.. 10 Dimensions or is it 11..


Use of this entanglement has been exploited to produce the first teleporter.. (Made in my home state)... Teleports information in light.

Conscious!!!??? Is, must be linked to that.. We are all made up of inanimate (NON LIVING) particles. They (we) are all linked..

Conscious has many levels..One brain. Two half brains.. Two brains. Or even the mob. Just because we cant communicate or relate does not mean it does not exist.

Long live mother earth. May she have many children.

 

true, but not entirely, hawking radiation is made from quanta of light. Hawking states that, when a photon hits the event horizon, its splits into quanta of energy, and part excapes, while the other gets sucked in

 

oops. thanks

I was under the impression that this was still open to debate, it hadn't been decided one way or the other?

 

theres no proof... yet, there is an experiment planned to simulate a quantum singularity and see if they can produce hawking radiation

 

Well thank you for clearing that up....you're right i did confuse it for Dark Matter.

 

Entanglement

Your theory or "random thought" is basically true. However, the effect is not necessarily between a particle and its antiparticle. The effect you are describing, however, does occur and is known as quantum entanglement. It is one of the unsolved mysteries of spacetime when being described through the filters of relativity and quantum theory. The phenomenon is basically that two particles in space which have interacted continue to react according to one another even after the light travel distance between them has become so far that any change must occur before the amount of time needed. The theoretical explanation that I have to offer is this, and please someone shoot me down if I have turned out to be a blithering idiot.

According to quantum theory a particle only has a certain probability of being in a certain position in space at any given instant. This probability is governed by the schrodinger wave equation which demonstrates universal probability distribution. Now, a measurement of the particles precise location in space at any given instant effectively collapses this probability wave. This gives the effect that the particle is only in the position in which it was measured because it was measured there. Sound weird? It is. Now, this brings up an interesting question. Where was the particle before it was measured? The answer is somewhere within its field of probabilistic existence. This is relevant because the two objects which have interacted have effectively "measured" each other into conscious existence. The two particles which interacted will remain connected through the fields of force and energy spanning the universe. I believe that the consciousness exhibited here could be another one of those forces. My Email is Turamarth4@gmail.com if there are any confusions or questions.

 

any science rule regardless of how fixed can be broken. einsteins e=mc^2 is one of those rules. one day someone will either find a way to break it or it will have variants of those rules. as far as this thread about anti-matter and particles being conscious. look around you it could be possible that this universe is just one neuron in someones brain!!!! just a thought. i came to this conclusion because the work that i'm doing kind of reminds me of the planets in our solar system. the way that gravity affects the planets is like how neurons have associaton with other neurons.

 

So, does quantum entanglement mean that information can be transmitted faster than light?

Consciousness is just information.

 

That's exaftly what I was thinking with quantum entanglement. Your theory is pretty much exactly like mine, based on the same ideas.

The people at this forum however don't want to hear that particles may be conscious, so you wont get far and people will not be fair in how they treat your theory as many people here do not want atoms to be self aware or conscious.

 

Consciousness is NOT information, thats the whole point. The reason quantum entanglement works is because consciousness is NOT information.

My opinion is, consciousness IS the universe and is all that is real. The information is just junk information and is fake and exists only due to our ability to be conscious and aware of it.

You already know my theory on this, and you know the science backing it, and you know how I explained non-locality. So no, consciousness is what controls the universe and therefore it's real, and everything else is fake. This would mean that whatever controls the atoms in quantum entanglement to allow for pairs of particles to do that, is real, and thats why it can occur over unlimited distance, because it's more real than distance/timespace.

That's really the only theory which makes sense to explain non-locality and the non-existence of time/space limits for consciousness.