Planes of Existences

There are many theories to suggest multiple dimensions that range far beyond our spectrum with four dimensional space-time. Although we can not quite understand it, yet, the thought of it is quite astounding. What do you think these dimensions and entirely new planes of existences could hold? What types of properties? Some of my friends have suggested that colors could have sound or even a taste, but not to the sense of a human body, but in a different way. Others have suggested that there are new colors beyond our spectrum of light.

Even then, we can go deeper into how far up these dimensions expand. Let alone, it is difficult to also comprehend other universes as vast as ours that could be either stacked on our very own plane or are in a completely different space time. These could be parallel universes or new ones entirely with different properties.

What do you think? Any other perspectives on this?

Are you talking about string theory or super gravity? Those are the only theories that I'm aware of.

String theory and M-theory are some of the things I'm talking about, yes. But I don't want to just talk about those theories, I want to talk about what individuals on this forum think.

i wonder sometimes how big the glass of juice is,
assuming we are the bubbles.

What if there is no size of the glass?

i cannot believe that to be true.
seeming infinite yes but ultimately finite.

here's a question, what is outside the glass and then outside that

Believe is not necessary for the glass to be infinite. If it is finite then that would mean that other aspects of design are also finite, which would bring limitations to existence, possibilities, and the designer, if there is one.

But, to take in your hypothetical scenario: the glass could be in a glass in an infinite amount. It's always a glass inside of a glass.

Absolute, have you ever looked into the Law of One. It's channeled information, but extremely interesting and resonates a lot with the stuff I've read on spirituality, mythology, religion, and science.

True, belief isnt necessary for something to exist.

Just so we're clear before we debate the situation can we agree if we are to include alternate and parallel realities or simply planes of existence such as the negative energy plane?

if we look deeply enough we'll find them to be the same however for sake of sanity if you'll allow me to split the hairs?

Quote:

---

Absolute, have you ever looked into the Law of One. It's channeled information, but extremely interesting and resonates a lot with the stuff I've read on spirituality, mythology, religion, and science.

---

No I haven't! Would you please enlighten me on it? It sounds quite fascinating. Perhaps through a PM or something? Or on another thread?

Quote:

---

Just so we're clear before we debate the situation can we agree if we are to include alternate and parallel realities or simply planes of existence such as the negative energy plane?

if we look deeply enough we'll find them to be the same however for sake of sanity if you'll allow me to split the hairs?

---

By all means, speak your peace.

when i think of "alternate planes of existence" it makes me think of more of a consciousness based plane rather than a "matter" or scientifically provable plane

as long as we agree there is a difference then im happy without needing to separate then im happy.

here are my thoughts on why i want there to be other planes.

in however many years into the future this 'verse will be out of energy, the stars will run out of juice and the ones that have a low ember left will be literally spaced soo far apart that we'll have to rely on a technology that doesnt require ANY energy input forever,
all that will exist is rocks and a shed load of black holes.

i want my future sons and daughters to escape by means of either ascending or physically just hauling ass..

...maybe they'll find a 'verse filled with friendly faces and blue tomatoes or a plane with rapturous vibes that fill your body.

That's interesting about how you say the suns will burn out. This is common and usually they can either become a black hole or they will be reborn and give birth to new stars and planets. You conceive of the possibility that all stars will die and become nothing or just black holes?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Avatarus

as long as we agree there is a difference then im happy without needing to separate then im happy.

here are my thoughts on why i want there to be other planes.

in however many years into the future this 'verse will be out of energy, the stars will run out of juice and the ones that have a low ember left will be literally spaced soo far apart that we'll have to rely on a technology that doesnt require ANY energy input forever,
all that will exist is rocks and a shed load of black holes.

i want my future sons and daughters to escape by means of either ascending or physically just hauling ass..

...maybe they'll find a 'verse filled with friendly faces and blue tomatoes or a plane with rapturous vibes that fill your body.

---

First - LOL

Second - You think the human species will last that long? :?

Law of one says that there are different planes of existence, or scientists are calling dimensions ( M-theory or string theory ). The highest ( or 8th density ) being completely at one, with the universe, or the source ), which some OBEr's have experienced. I think "Cusp" said he had one of these in a lucid dream, being totally at one with the universe.

3rd density is where we supposedly are. Bound by time and space.

4th, 5th, 6th, and 7th density, matter is less dense allowing more light to pass through, but it has to do with love and light, and cannot properly be put into words.

Quote:

---

Density = a density of consciousness — or density of vibration. Frequently used by Ra as an analog to what is currently thought of as “dimensions” in the Universe. The densities are organized into an eight-fold “octave” system, analogous to the musical octave and the visual light spectrum. Therefore the higher the density, the higher the level of consciousness, and the more light passes through.

---

It's channeled information but still interesting.

http://www.lawofone.info/

If you didn't Know, Ra was the ancient Egyptian Sun God. My avatar pic is a fictitious drawing of him.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by HaRd_WiReD

Law of one says that there are different planes of existence, or scientists are calling dimensions ( M-theory or string theory ).

---

Hard Wired, that's a bunch of garbage. What you are talking about has nothing to do with string theory or M-theory or Quantum Mechanics or Quantum Field Theory or Special Relativity or General Relativity and I doubt that you could tell the difference between any of the above.

Please stop posting this garbage.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Absolute

Believe is not necessary for the glass to be infinite. If it is finite then that would mean that other aspects of design are also finite, which would bring limitations to existence, possibilities, and the designer, if there is one.

But, to take in your hypothetical scenario: the glass could be in a glass in an infinite amount. It's always a glass inside of a glass.

---

brain does not compute.

Yes i do.

i wonder P'Stoned what are these theories about?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Avatarus

i wonder P'Stoned what are these theories about?

---

They're not about "different planes of existence" in anything remotely resembling anything hard wared was talking about.

Do you have specific questions about them?

I can answer questions about special relativity, general relativity and quantum mechanics pretty well. I know the math for QFT but don't know the theory yet other than it's general structure and I have about the same level of understanding of string theory. M-theory doesn't exist. It's what they think string theory is pointing at. Depending on who you ask, the M stands for "mother of all theories" or nobody knows what it stands for because nobody knows what it is.

Whether the plane concept is real or not, one thing is for sure:

We live in a universe made of energy which can be shaped and manipulated by thoughts. This is the implication of both Quantum Physics and ancient Metaphysics.

Quantum physics does not imply that energy can be shaped by thought.

The only interpretation that has anything to do with consciousness is the Copenhagen Interpretation. In CI, they claim that the wave function represents the state of knowledge of the observer and that wave function collapse represents an updating of that knowledge.

It may leave open the possibility but it does not imply it. They are two very different things.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by HaRd_WiReD

Whether the plane concept is real or not, one thing is for sure:

We live in a universe made of energy which can be shaped and manipulated by thoughts. This is the implication of both Quantum Physics and ancient Metaphysics.

---

No it isn't. You don't know anything about quantum physics. What's the wavelength of a particle mass 5kg moving at 10ms^-1? If you don't know what quantum physics is how can you claim to know its implications? The answer is that you are repeating what somebody told you based upon blind faith. The person who told you this information was unfortunately a crazy liar.

2h meters

There is also the possibility that the person he's listening to is just stupid or taking some informal remark by a quantum physicist in the wrong way.

@Hard Wired. Here's the first in a series of lectures that Leonard Susskind has on youtube. He's one of the three people that independently invented string theory. He's really smart, but that goes without saying. He teaches the math as he goes along. It's for a continuing education class that he teaches. I'll be happy to answer any questions. These lectures have helped me a lot as I haven't taken classes on it so they're a good substitute for the lecture part of a class. They're very slow paced so they shouldn't be too hard.

I don't understand, why does the photon/electron get knocked in a random direction when it goes through the slit? Does it bump off the inside lip of the slit?

Matter interacts via the electromagnetic force. The electron, if it is an electron, will be repelled by the negatively charged electrons which surround the atoms which constitute the material which surrounds the gap.

For this to work the wavelength of the particle has to be the same order of magnitude as the size of the gap.

Ok. I fail to see why it would be random if the deflection was caused by a known source though. Am I missing something?

In other words, what Xei refuses to admit because of it's implications, is that consciousness affects the matter. The observer. Because consciousness is an electromagnetic force

It's not random, and it doesn't bump off the lip of the slit. The electron goes to whichever spot on the target "the observer" expects/intends for it to go through either consciously or subconsciously. When there is "not" an observer, it goes to all of the possible spots on the target at the same time. Nothing is random or chaotic and is intended/expected on some level.

Look up electromagnetic theories of consciousness.

http://www.unisci.com/stories/20022/0516026.htm
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Electro..._consciousness

Haha, you've almost turned into a parody of yourself now... trust me; you're completely wrong.

- What are the implications and why wouldn't I want to admit them?
- Consciousness is not an 'electromagnetic force' because the presence of consciousness does not cause electromagnetic effects (the electromagnetic force is a single thing btw, saying 'an' electromagnetic force shows that you are clueless as usual). Please explain to me exactly what the electromagnetic force is and what it affects because I have a suspicion that you are just using the word because you heard it somewhere from some nutjob and it sounds cool. We can assume that consciousness is the result of brain activity, which is the result of neuron activity, which is the result to a large extent of the movement of ions, but such fields are extremely localised (otherwise the brain wouldn't work).
- It's impossible for it not to bump off the lid of the slit. The electromagnetic force has infinite range. Completely and utterly incorrect.
- Please give an experiment which has shown that intention affects quantum mechanics. Note that your claim that subconscious intentions have an effect is demonstratably bullshit because it is completely impossible to test. Seriously, how can you possibly detect a subconscious intention when by definition you aren't conscious of it? And how then can you perform an experiment and reach a conclusion? Patently bollocks.

SpecialInterests; look up electron clouds. They're a good example of a quantum phenomenon. Basically the electron whizzes around extremely quickly so you never know quite where it's going to be at any one moment; so fast that it forms a kind of cloud of probabilities around the nucleus.

Of course it's impossible to test, that's why it they can't figure it out. Oh, but let me guess, the great Xei has figured out the most confusing things in quantum mechanics while no one else can, you don't even know how out-of-whack your ego is do you.

The point is that electrons behave as particles when they are observed/measured, and a wave when they are not being observed/measured. That's the bottom line of it, that's as simple as it gets and scientists do not know why this happens. Most scientists are afraid to even talk about this because what it could imply. What more advanced civilizations than us knew thousands of years ago is just coming to light today. All we can do is speculate why this happens, so stop pretending that you know why it happens, because your just speculating yourself, as well as I. Get over it. It can't be proved, because it's subjective, IMHO.

Let's be civil, my friends. It's just a topic for discussion. =)

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Xei

Matter interacts via the electromagnetic force. The electron, if it is an electron, will be repelled by the negatively charged electrons which surround the atoms which constitute the material which surrounds the gap.

For this to work the wavelength of the particle has to be the same order of magnitude as the size of the gap.

---

What concept/idea/experiment are you referring to?

SS; that's just diffraction.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by HaRd_WiReD

Of course it's impossible to test, that's why it they can't figure it out. Oh, but let me guess, the great Xei has figured out the most confusing things in quantum mechanics while no one else can, you don't even know how out-of-whack your ego is do you.

The point is that electrons behave as particles when they are observed/measured, and a wave when they are not being observed/measured. That's the bottom line of it, that's as simple as it gets and scientists do not know why this happens. Most scientists are afraid to even talk about this because what it could imply. What more advanced civilizations than us knew thousands of years ago is just coming to light today. All we can do is speculate why this happens, so stop pretending that you know why it happens, because your just speculating yourself, as well as I. Get over it. It can't be proved, because it's subjective, IMHO.

---

Congratulations on not answering any of my questions...

If it's impossible to test, then why do you believe in it? If there's no empirical evidence then the only reason in believing in something is bias, which is what you possess a huge amount of. You still don't understand this basic concept of science, do you? Science isn't about oppression of freethought, it's the exact opposite; you belive something because of evidence, and that's the only reason; not because somebody else says so, or because you want to. As far as I'm concerned anybody who is anti-science such as yourself belongs in the dark ages. How can you possibly oppose it?

Please stop with your strawman ad hominems, I know very little about QM actually, but I at least know enough to know that you're wrong.

Scientists aren't afraid to talk about issues which they themselves discovered (how stupid...). They even have a name for the problem you're talking about; it's called the 'measurement problem'. I ask you again; what are the implications you keep alluding to but failing to explain, and why wouldn't scientists like them? And where have I claimed to know the answer to the measurement problem? Looks like you've confused it with totally different areas of QM yet again. Have you learnt everything from conspiratory youtube videos or something?

And we are the first civilisation to discover quantum mechanics. Indeed we are the first civilisastion to properly discover classical mechanics. Unless you provide me with evidence to the contrary, your above claim was a lie.

Ah yes its becoming more clear now. I suppose considering the we can only predict the position of the electron by probability, there is no telling the forces magnitude and direction exerted on it... until we detect where it went. But if we detect where it went we changed the experiment.

Am I getting warmer?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Xei

SS; that's just diffraction.

---

Ah fine, I thought it might had been the double slit experiment, where electromagnetic disturbance is not a valid "explain away" :)

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by SpecialInterests

Ah yes its becoming more clear now. I suppose considering the we can only predict the position of the electron by probability, there is no telling the forces magnitude and direction exerted on it... until we detect where it went. But if we detect where it went we changed the experiment.

Am I getting warmer?

---

yea, observation has an effect on electrons. When an electron is not observed, it behaves like a wave. A wave is a disturbance in some type of substance - i.e. water, air. Only when observed will a particle snap into a definite position. Just as relativity forced people to change their views of time and distance, quantum physics is forcing people to come to grips with a new concept of space, that on small scales is very different than what we intuitively grasp from our experiences.

In the experiment, when the display screen is off (i.e. the thing that the observers look at) but the detectors are still in place and everything else is the same, the interference pattern remains. When they turn the screen on again (and change nothing else), it collapses. See this guy's lecture: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_OWQildwjKQ


Consciousness is the cause of why this happens. Ancient civilizations like the Mayans knew about consciousness thousands of years ago. They actually mapped the evolution of consciousness and have been correct for thousands of years even to this very day.

Consciousness cannot be proved, or tested or any of that, because it is subjective(mind). Anyone who considers the issue philosophically at all will have to admit this fact: there is no such thing as one of a pair of opposites without the other of the pair. So there is no such thing as objectivity without subjectivity that is equally real and irreducible. And scientists want to reduce the entire universe to objective matter or processes; through its history science has assumed that subjectivity is not real. Just considering it in this very simple light we can see that cannot possibly be true.

The Western world is stuck in this perspective, that the mind isn't really real. And that is because the Western mind has become split in two--the left-brain, objective, rational, logical side, and the right-brain, subjective, feeling, intuitive side. And we are stuck in the left-brain side, so we can only really experience the objective aspect of ourselves and the world. And thus scientists, who are for the most part even more left-brained then the average person, start with the assumption that the mind, the subjective aspect of life, is not real. And it IS an assumption--even though science is supposed to be assumptionless.

Congratulations yet again on making no attempt to answer my questions. Doupleplusgood doublethink.

Any conscious being can easily confirm their own consciousness; cogito ergo sum?

It remains to be seen if consciousness can be scientifically tested for (i.e. the 'neural correlates of consciousness found). Currently almost nothing about the fundamental workings of the brain is known. It is an open issue; it is not the case at all that scientists 'answer' the problem by denying the existence of consciousness. That would be idiotic, as I said above, the existence of consciousness is patently obvious. Studying consciousness scientifically is actually becoming quite fashionable at the moment.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by HaRd_WiReD

yea, observation has an effect on electrons. When an electron is not observed, it behaves like a wave.

---

When an electron is not being observed, the probability amplitudes behave like a wave. We're not observing the electrons so we have know idea what's going on. There are a lot of interpretations.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by HaRd_WiReD

Just as relativity forced people to change their views of time and distance, quantum physics is forcing people to come to grips with a new concept of space, that on small scales is very different than what we intuitively grasp from our experiences.

In the experiment, when the display screen is off (i.e. the thing that the observers look at) but the detectors are still in place and everything else is the same, the interference pattern remains. When they turn the screen on again (and change nothing else), it collapses. See this guy's lecture: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_OWQildwjKQ

---

What display screens? There were no display screens when the double slit experiment was first done. Detecting which slit the photon goes through changes the behavior of the photon. The reason is clear. There is no 'neutral' measurement in QM. Performing any measurement changes it. When you interact with a particle, you change it's position and velocity. This is because the only way to measure the photon is to bounce something off of it (or vice versa) and this changes it's momentum.

It's like trying to use sonar to measure something so small that the sound waves move it. Does that make sense? Consciousness is not necessary at all for this to occur.