Quantum UFOs curbed by reason and good-think!

Lee Smolin’s book Time Reborn: From the Crisis in Physics to the Future of the Universe [Mariner Books, Houghton Mifflin Harcourt, Boston/NY, 2013] takes away my speculation that UFOs may be large quantum particles from an adjoining Universe or Dimension.

Smolin, on Page 154 ff., in Chapter 13 (The Battle Between Relativity and the Quantum), writing about free choices (free will), which Quantum Mechanics implies (because of the randomness, or duality, of quantum particles, stated by Heisenberg’s Uncertainty Principle: both the position and the momentum, of a particle, cannot simultaneously be measured with complete precision, and spotlighted by Schrödinger’s Cat Theory and other obtuse elements of Quantum Theory), says this:

“But in proposing [an] extension of quantum mechanics, we commit the cosmological fallacy, wrenching a theory beyond the limited domain where it can be compared to experiment. A more cautious response would be to explore the hypothesis that quantum physics is an approximation valid only for small subsystems.”

Smolin doesn’t even allow me to use philosophical application to my speculation:

“I don’t address [arguments] in the terms favored by philosophers [because they] are often bound up with linguistic analysis.” [Page 64]

Thus, my conjecture, based upon a review by Jim Holt, on Page 50 ff., in the November 10^th, 2016 issue of The New York Review of Books of George Musser’s book Spooky Action at a Distance: The Phenomenon That Reimagines Space and Time – and What It Means for Black Holes, the Big Bang, and Theories of Everything [Scientific American/Farrar, Strauss and Giroux] is without merit.

The review elaborates on John Stewart Bell’s 1970 and 1982 experimentally proved theory of Nonlocality; that is quantum particles know and react to their counterparts, instantaneously, no matter how separated they are, even a Universe apart, causing a rift among those who thought like Einstein that such “spooky action at a distance” was not feasible or reasonable.

The review caused me to think that in another dimension or universe, quantum particles might not be minute or exist at the atomic level but exist as a macro-particle, some of which may intrude upon our existence or universe/dimension.

And their movement mimics that of a partner particle in a universe/dimension that abuts ours or has some connection to ours (via a black hole or contrived glitch).

But I can’t take it further. Lee Smolin, a noted theoretical physicist, forces me to set aside the speculation as foolhardy.

Or is it?

RR

From my MediaWatch Facebook feed....

I'm wondering where that black hole leads to.

It can't be nothingness; there is no such thing.

RR

Ufology in the Zeitgeist

Everyone knows (and The Anomalist makes sure to point out) that I think “ufology” is virtually dead.

Some of you think it isn’t, and you’re right almost, to some mad extent.

But any reasonable person has to admit (concede) that “ufology” is static; it exists as an example of stasis.

Ufology can be said to be a fad, a long-running fad, but a just fad.

I’m a fan of Opera and Classical Music, but they, too, are in a decline, mouldering in the zeitgeist, being replaced by popular music and entertainment(s).

Psychoanalysis, although experiencing a mild revival, is akin to “over and done with” and yet I remain fixated on it.

(A letter in the 11/4/16 TLS, Page 6, had a response to a review by an author who was unhappy with the reviewer: “Andy Clark’s book deserves a review by someone who has escaped the Sixties and is ready to take seriously the twenty-first century issues that confront us.” That’s me, and you UFO buffs reading this.)

I’m locked into the past, like many of you, still exhorting psychiatric terms that no longer are employed; i.e. manic/depression, replaced by “bi-polar.”

Kevin Randle and I still think the 1964 Socorro event and its ballyhooed symbol is meaningful. But is that UFO case still pertinent? Not in the current zeitgeist.

I was a practitioner of graphology (handwriting analysis) back in the day and used it in my first job as a hiring consultant for banks.

But graphology is almost totally dismissed nowadays as an invalid practice, never reaching anywhere near a reputable practice (or, heaven forbid) a science. (I still think it’s useful and accurate, to a large extent, and some businesses still use it to winnow job seekers.)

Ufology is like those esoteric things – opera, graphology, psychoanalysis, et al. It’s a practice that has outlived any usefulness, and because it has produced nothing of consequence, even as psychoanalysis or opera has, it is a fossilizing activity, almost extinct.

Young people today, virtually all of them, have no idea what ufology is, nor do they care to find out. It would be an embarrassment for them to admit an interest, just as it is spoken in undertones by me and some of you in societal gatherings.

That a few UFO aficionados, like me, Randle, Rudiak, and a few others, keep flogging UFOs and the phenomenon's encompassing nonsense, doesn’t mean ufology is alive and breathing. It merely means that we are keeping it on life-support.

Ufology is dying, and dead in most human circles. That’s a reality. And to not see that reality is a kind of delusional madness.

[Image above from realitysandwich.com]

RR