Hi there. This post lists a few ideas behind the
document "A few new discoveries in physics" by
Alain Stalder (http://www.exactphilosophy.net),
which had been first published in June 2002.

The fundamentals of the document are about physics
in the narrower sense of the word. But its observable
consequences are seen essentially in properies of
human culture, in psychology and sociology. In other
words, the claims made can only be verified in an
interdisciplinary manner when several experts with
different fields of expertise bring their knowledge
together. I hope this help a bit to it

I am going through all ideas in the abstract, one after
the other. Note that I am a real physicist with a PhD
in physics, not just a hobbyist.

A new physical effect is described. Human brains are emotionally
interconnected. The connection is directional with spin 1
symmetry and can be felt across global distances and through the
earth. The exact physical nature of the effect remains unknown.
Selective sensing of virtual photons, i.e. of electro- or
magnetostatic forces, might be part of a future theoretical
explanation.

Fundamentally, static forces are never shielded, they only cancel.
(For example, in the Faraday Effect, charges redistribute such on
the cage that forces inside vanish, i.e. forces sum up to zero).
Of course, this does not seem to make a difference, because all
that can apparently be measured is the sum of the forces anyway.
However, at a microscopic scale physics might be different,
cancelation might not be perfect. In other words, I am proposing
(without presenting a specific theory) that some properties that
only appear at small scale, i.e. in quantum mechanics, are
related to forces not always canceling perfectly at a microscopic
scale. EPR-style experiments and the Aharonov-Bohm Effect point
somewhat into the same direction.

What do I mean by "emotionally interconnected" ? I mean a
connection that cannot be controlled by the individual, a
connection that cannot be consciously used to send information
from A to B, but only shares information between A and B, in the
way that measurements are correlated in EPR-style experiments.

The symmetry properties of the effect point to electromagnetism,
i.e. to selective "sensing" of virtual photons. The strength of
electromagnetic forces would make it in principle easily possible
to feel forces even when A and B are several thousand kilometers
apart (see Gedankenexperiment inside the document).

Based on the discovered effect, a plausible explanation of
phenomena like telepathy and precognition is given.

Telepathy in that sense, could not be consciously used to transmit
information, there would merely be correlations between spacially
separated places. Unconsciously, things could possibly be different;
i.e. what I just said might be a workable definition of unconscious.

Precognition might either come about on a fundamental level
(spacelike correlation A-B and B-C can imply a timelike correlation
A-C) or by the hypothesis that billions of human brains create
a collective being, a thinking and feeling entity which develops
its plans. In other words, in the latter case precognition would
only be apparent to the individual, because he/she would not be
aware of the collective plans. Example with the analogy of brain
cells in the brain: Imagine you are in a dark room, just about to
switch on the light. Then you might already picture the room when
it is lit, so that a brain cell in the part of the brain where
things are visualized would precognize the light by a few seconds.

It is also made plausible how astrology and other ancient
mythological beliefs have persisted unconsciously until today
and continue to influence our fates by means of collective
emotional feedback.

Here it is hypothetized that astrology is to first order
essentially a gigantic Placebo Effect. It is suggested that
unconsciously everybody believes in astrology (and other ancient
ideas). It is obvious that astrology has no *immediate*
correlation to the planets and stars in the way in which
astrologers say (precession, equally spaced astrological signs
compared to constellations of various sizes, etc.).

Side remark: Astrology has emerged out of the experiences of
hundreds of generations. In my estimation and personal
experience, it does contain deep and interesting insights into
human existence and into nature. I will be interested to see
what scientific exploration will yield concretely.

The western astrological system is shown to be essentially
composed of simple, opposing principles which originate from
ancient greek philosophy.

The views of Aristoteles, especially his way of composing the
four elements out of properties "dry/wet" and "hot/cold" is
interpreted psychologically. Water is identified with feelings,
for example, Air with logic, etc. Out of some very basic
psychological properties, like e.g. open/secretive, a more
complex structure is constructed that reproduces many things
which psychological astrologers (i.e. astrologers mainly based
on C.G. Jung's depth psychology) recognize from their experience
in psychological counseling and analysis.

There are two main discoveries. Meanings associated with the
star sign, different inner planets were in at birth time,
influence how one relates to different classes of people.

Nothing to add here, see document for specifics.

The meanings associated with star signs themselves derive from
different mixtures of the four classical elements, more
specifically, from meanings associated with transitions from
one element to another.

This constitutes a crucial simplification. A very simple model
based on 4 elements and their mutual (psychological)
transformations produces psychological properties of the 12 signs
of the zodiac that are in practically all aspects compatible with
current astrological beliefs.

The discoveries are simple and specific enough to be verified
quantitatively.

This is the crucial point. So far astrology has just been so
complex, has been so fluffily defined (and differently by different
astrologers), that testing it quantitatively has been limited
only to some variant chosen essentially by the experimentator.
My suggestions are significantly more coherent and specific than
anything I have seen so far in astrology.

I would like to thank Peter Lynds for the refreshing style of his
paper "Time and Classical and Quantum Mechanics : Indeterminancy
vs. Discontinuity", which influenced also the style of this text.

*

--
* ("Delphi Twentine") is a pseudonym
for Alain Stalder, which I have been using exclusively
for usenet posting since about July 2003.

PS: I have posted this post to various newsgroups that
are concerned by it, but not cross-posted. Simply go
to groups.google.com, search for "exactphilosophy",
and sort by date. Then you should see all related posts.
(Maybe a physicist will say something about psychology
that is not state of the art, or vice versa. Might be
a good opportunity to jump in, or just to observe how
the same post is received in different places...

Direct link to google search:
http://groups.google.com/groups?q=ex...ing=d&filter=0

wrote:

A new physical effect is described. Human brains are emotionally
interconnected.
[...]
You're describing experimental predictions that have no measurable
effects in physical science.

John Anderson

What exactly do you have in mind ?

I see no problem with measuring brain activities in
the brains of two people who are spacially separated
and then to try to find correlations.

Feelings are connected to electrical and chemical
activity in the brain, or do you see that differently ?

In article ,
(Bilge) wrote:

Delphi Twentine:
wrote:

A new physical effect is described. Human brains are emotionally
interconnected.
[...]
You're describing experimental predictions that have no measurable
effects in physical science.

John Anderson

What exactly do you have in mind ?

I see no problem with measuring brain activities in
the brains of two people who are spacially separated
and then to try to find correlations.

Feelings are connected to electrical and chemical
activity in the brain, or do you see that differently ?

Figure out the 1/r fall off of the potential and the level of
activity needed to have not been seen with simple measuring devices.


I am not quite sure what you are referring to.
Could you be more specific about what you have in mind ?

I wrote:
In article ,
(Bilge) wrote:

Delphi Twentine:
wrote:

A new physical effect is described. Human brains are emotionally
interconnected.
[...]
You're describing experimental predictions that have no measurable
effects in physical science.

John Anderson

What exactly do you have in mind ?

I see no problem with measuring brain activities in
the brains of two people who are spacially separated
and then to try to find correlations.

Feelings are connected to electrical and chemical
activity in the brain, or do you see that differently ?

Figure out the 1/r fall off of the potential and the level of
activity needed to have not been seen with simple measuring devices.


I am not quite sure what you are referring to.
Could you be more specific about what you have in mind ?



Sorry, I was too quick.

Well, if a test mass could detect a field between the
two brains, then it would be just the normal case of
an electrostatic field, i.e. since the test mass would
react to it, also all other charged particles between
the two brains would be affected by the field. Hence
a connection across large distances through matter
would be impossible (see section 1.2 of the document
http://www.exactphilosophy.net/discoveries.pdf, the
main document to the abstract that I presented).

Hence, either there are no such correlations, or they
come about in a different way than current physics
allows. There are several approaches here (which are
a matter of taste):

a) Experimentally test for correlations. Only if they
are detected, bother to find an explanation. I have not
done any formal experiments so far, and I am myself
not sure if such correlations can be detected
experimentally. Maybe yes, maybe no.

b) Try to find a theory that reproduces the effects
before experimental confirmation. I have no theory,
only a somewhat speculative idea based on a
Gedankenexperiment (see section 1.3 in the above
document), namely "selective sensing" of forces in
the sense that only certain particles in the
respective brains would interact, but test masses
between the brains would feel no force.

c) Tentatively explore the consequences that such
long-range interactions between people would have.
That is what I have done in the largest part of
the document above. That has lead me to a model of
psychological properties of people connected to their
birth time (as explained in my original post).

d) This is only possible after c): namely try to test
the astrological model that I proposed. Note also that
d) does *not* require long-range connections between
people in the way in which I tentatively proposed it.
Normal everyday connections (talking, body language,
television, etc.) could be used just as well to explain
most of the consequences that I propose*. A way to
experimentally distinguish the two, would be to test
how much people who live in isolation are affected by
astrology (assuming influence of astrology had already
been proven for people who do not live in isolation).

* I say that also in my self-review, which I wrote just
after writing the main document:
http://www.exactphilosophy.net/reviews/review.pdf

I hope this answers you reply sufficiently, and I
hope you essentially agree with my statements above.

Thanks for the remark,

Delphi Twentine:

Well, if a test mass could detect a field between the
two brains, then it would be just the normal case of
an electrostatic field, i.e. since the test mass would
react to it, also all other charged particles between
the two brains would be affected by the field. Hence
a connection across large distances through matter
would be impossible (see section 1.2 of the document
http://www.exactphilosophy.net/discoveries.pdf, the
main document to the abstract that I presented).

Huh? None of that makes any sense.

Hence, either there are no such correlations, or they
come about in a different way than current physics
allows. There are several approaches here (which are
a matter of taste):

I have to go along with john on this regarding his
skepticism of your claim of having a ph.d in physics.

(Bilge) wrote:
Delphi Twentine:

Well, if a test mass could detect a field between the
two brains, then it would be just the normal case of
an electrostatic field, i.e. since the test mass would
react to it, also all other charged particles between
the two brains would be affected by the field. Hence
a connection across large distances through matter
would be impossible (see section 1.2 of the document
http://www.exactphilosophy.net/discoveries.pdf, the
main document to the abstract that I presented).

Huh? None of that makes any sense.

Sure does.

Hence, either there are no such correlations, or they
come about in a different way than current physics
allows. There are several approaches here (which are
a matter of taste):

I have to go along with john on this regarding his
skepticism of your claim of having a ph.d in physics.

See for example these three posts to sci.physics.research,
all dealing with rather fundamental questions in QM. The
first one (point 2 there) is maybe most closely related
to this thread. The two other posts are about decoherence.

http://groups.google.com/groups?selm...ews.bluewin.ch
http://groups.google.com/groups?selm...ews.bluewin.ch
http://groups.google.com/groups?selm...ews.bluewin.ch

wrote:

See for example these three posts to sci.physics.research,
all dealing with rather fundamental questions in QM. The
first one (point 2 there) is maybe most closely related
to this thread. The two other posts are about decoherence.

http://groups.google.com/groups?selm...ews.bluewin.ch
http://groups.google.com/groups?selm...ews.bluewin.ch
http://groups.google.com/groups?selm...ews.bluewin.ch


Those postings aren't recognized physics literature. They're postings
to a newsgroup. Even though "sci.physics.research" is moderated,
it still accepts postings that are interesting but totally
speculative. It may be moderated, but it sure ain't peer reviewed.

If you want to make your name in physics, you don't
"publish" on the web. You publisn in peer reviewed
physics journals.

John Anderson

This is leading nowhere, we are completely off-topic.

Bye,

Delphi Twentine wrote:

(Bilge) wrote:
Delphi Twentine:

Well, if a test mass could detect a field between the
two brains, then it would be just the normal case of
an electrostatic field, i.e. since the test mass would
react to it, also all other charged particles between
the two brains would be affected by the field. Hence
a connection across large distances through matter
would be impossible (see section 1.2 of the document
http://www.exactphilosophy.net/discoveries.pdf, the
main document to the abstract that I presented).

Huh? None of that makes any sense.

Sure does.

Hence, either there are no such correlations, or they
come about in a different way than current physics
allows. There are several approaches here (which are
a matter of taste):

I have to go along with john on this regarding his
skepticism of your claim of having a ph.d in physics.

See for example these three posts to sci.physics.research,
all dealing with rather fundamental questions in QM. The
first one (point 2 there) is maybe most closely related
to this thread. The two other posts are about decoherence.

http://groups.google.com/groups?selm...ews.bluewin.ch
http://groups.google.com/groups?selm...ews.bluewin.ch
http://groups.google.com/groups?selm...ews.bluewin.ch


Those postings aren't recognized physics literature. They're postings
to a newsgroup. Even though "sci.physics.research" is moderated,
it still accepts postings that are interesting but totally
speculative. It may be moderated, but it sure ain't peer reviewed.

If you want to make your name in physics, you don't
"publish" on the web. You publisn in peer reviewed
physics journals.

John Anderson

"Delphi Twentine" wrote in message
...
SNIP

a) Experimentally test for correlations. Only if they
are detected, bother to find an explanation. I have not
done any formal experiments so far, and I am myself
not sure if such correlations can be detected
experimentally. Maybe yes, maybe no.

Did you never hear of Princeton's PEAR project?
I think some of their experiments came near to what you intend.
http://www.princeton.edu/~pear/ but also http://skepdic.com/pear.html
Regretfully there was just one group that did it, giving strong reason for
doubt. You may want to repeat some of it!

Harald

Harry ) wrote:

Did you never hear of Princeton's PEAR project?
I think some of their experiments came near to what you intend.
http://www.princeton.edu/~pear/ but also http://skepdic.com/pear.html
Regretfully there was just one group that did it, giving strong reason for
doubt. You may want to repeat some of it!

Harald

Thanks for the links. Yes, I have heard of it and been
to the website before. I have not done a professional
analysis of their data, but from what I could see,
there was nothing that I would consider a proof for
correlations.

Thanks again,