Comments on: Can quantum mechanics really explain the “law of attraction”?

By: Michael

Michael — Fri, 29 Apr 2016 12:35:41 +0000

I think the above quote is taken from Richard Feynham. The opinion that no-one actually understands Quantum Mechanics means that it is also unproven. The argument that Law of Attraction is based upon Quantum Mechanics is also unproven. However we do know from tests that electron fields are simultaneously particle or wave. We do know that a path of a single electron can be either here or on the other side of the universe. At essence certain concepts of space time cannot exist at a fundamental level of physical structure. This is why no-one can understand Quantum Mechanics. But, it is true that the physical world we inhabit is very clearly responsive to ways of thinking. There is the famous experiment of affecting the crystals in water by certain positive thought vibration and this is seen in other physical phenomena. Is this a case of molecules responding to thought frequency? We are composed of 65% water molecules and so the argument is yes, law of attraction can be scientifically demonstrated. But we need to remain open minded and not put our foot down just yet, as we already have determined that the universe is made of energy waves and nothing is discrete.

LikeLike

By: James

James — Thu, 22 May 2014 05:03:48 +0000

I believe society will look back on this era in 500 years and laugh at the hubris of science and its dogmatic belief in newtonian physics and begrudging attitude toward quantum weirdness. Imagine telling the intelligentsia 150 years ago we would be carrying object called an iphone and doing all the magic with it we do today. You would have been considered insane. How would those images be transported? Radio waves? Foo-foo nonsense! Con artist! Same thing here, this blog will be in a museum as an example of the fundamentalist materialist movement and it dogmatic efforts to dissuade innovative thinking in the 21st century.

Please read Rupert Sheldrake’s Science Set Free. It undeniably explains just how cloistered conventional science has become. New discoveries are not welcome if they invalidate existing beliefs. Plain and simple. No funding. No grants. Only derision for the mavericks.

The reason LOAttraction has such a following is because it works, albeit intermittently because of the variable nature of consciousness. Those that are good at it are the cutting edge of human evolution.

The physicist you quote “might” teach an introductory course and parrots the cliche that QP can’t be understood. Bless the innovators who have moved beyond the textbooks, they’re always castigated before being celebrated.

Peace out.

LikeLike

By: Palmer Eldritch

Palmer Eldritch — Tue, 15 Oct 2013 09:35:07 +0000

“Qm suggests that particles don’t exist until we realize them”. No it doesn’t. What’s your source for this assertion?
The LoA is a belief system, like prayer is, and is unrelated to QM. QM is science, LoA isn’t (it is unprovable, unfalsifiable, and makes no predictions that can be tested)
“Remember that quantum mechanics can’t make any defined statement about a particle in particular without an ‘observer’”. Again, what’s your source for this assertion?
“QM needs someone or something to choose, realize, or experience an event, otherwise it exists inexplicably.” You’re just making this stuff up aren’t you?

LikeLike

By: Carolyn Thomas

Carolyn Thomas — Sat, 29 Dec 2012 14:24:37 +0000

Hello Nick,
“…you must “believe” with all of your thoughts and emotion that you are wealthy, or famous, or whatever you’re trying to attract with the law…” My own observation is that I’ve seen some very sad cases of people “acting as if” they are already all those things (particularly wealthy) – including some truly irresponsible cases of going into heavy debt and putting one’s family into peril while living in the LaLa Land of the LoA. As Dr. Kraus reminds us, “mere thoughts can’t change external events”, or as my late Mum used to say: “You don’t spend money you don’t have.”

LikeLike

By: Nick

Nick — Sat, 29 Dec 2012 08:42:20 +0000

Regarding the film The Secret, the entire “law of attraction” process is loosely defined. Essentially, the idea is “like attracts like” and “thoughts are things.” What these quotes illustrate is that your thoughts attract things that are like your thoughts.

What The Secret fails to delve into is that of course mere thought alone will not manifest something into existence. Something that is very important to remember regarding the LoA is that thoughts alone will not produce your reality; however, they will lead you towards it. The missing ingredient is your own actions and your behavior.

The Secret actually touches this topic, too, expressing that you must “believe” with all of your thoughts and emotion that you are wealthy, or famous, or whatever you’re trying to attract with the law. It says that you must act as if it is already that way, e.g. being generous with money since you have an abundance of it.

If Quantum Mechanics suggests that particles don’t exist until you are aware of them, then perhaps certain situations (coincidences, as you’ve called them) may not exist until we realize them; through the law of attraction and focus on our thoughts, we realize these situations that lead us to what we’re thinking about.

LikeLike

By: Carolyn Thomas

Carolyn Thomas — Mon, 26 Nov 2012 22:44:46 +0000

Hi Adam – I think you meant to say Dr. Krauss, not Mr. Strauss. And no, I don’t seek to debunk many things in life, except for those quasi-scientific theories that “bring the opportunity for profit” to a few at the expense of many.

LikeLike

By: Adam

Adam — Mon, 26 Nov 2012 22:06:18 +0000

Carolyn, why so eager to endorse Mr. Strauss? If I can recall, there are several “good scientists” who delve into qm and DO find qm to explain the law of attraction. Amit gaswani, phd, physics says ” qm is defined, most succinctly, as the science of possibilities.”

Sure, we have physics and mathematics that govern what can and can’t happen, and surely we can’t change these possibilities… but we can choose from them. Qm suggests that particles don’t exist until we realize them. The rest of the time, they are undefined, as waves, or even non existent at all (electrons appear and dissappear in this state, and it’s unknown where they go or are from).

Ponder this. Do we even know what reality is? Our body, mind, and senses are only translators for us. They translate the universe around us into a language we can decipher. So what actually is the universe? .. Untranslated?

Carolyn do you seek to debunk the law of attraction? Do you believe qm and law of attr. are unrelated? Do you think either the law of a or qm itself is nonsense? Remember that quantum mechanics can’t make any defined statement about a particle in particular without an ‘observer’. QM needs someone or something to choose, realize, or experience an event, otherwise it exists inexplicably.

LikeLike

By: John Do

John Do — Thu, 26 Apr 2012 22:45:54 +0000

Why would you compare Einstein to quantum mechanics? The two theories (general relativity and quantum mechanics), have not been reconciled yet. Its like taking something Descartes said (substance dualism), to prove something Churchland said (eliminative materialism), it just wouldn’t make sense.

LikeLike

By: Carolyn Thomas

Carolyn Thomas — Fri, 28 Oct 2011 12:35:04 +0000

I think we call this phenomenon “coincidence”.

LikeLike

By: ProperEtiquette

ProperEtiquette — Fri, 28 Oct 2011 06:43:19 +0000

Well if Einstein knew anything, energy equals mass, times (the speed of light squared). What this means is, Energy, or our thoughts, are equal to matter and thus everything we are observing. (Light). This is an extremely basic explanation of this process, i believe this man simply was a stern scientist. Now when you run the odds of belief in something and it actually happening, such as getting a specific phone call,letters, etc. you can record these results and calculator the actual probability of reviving those many calls simply off thought, or whatever your experiment is.

I’ve done this several times, within 24 hours for each study with my utter belief. So “Scientifically yes, we do prove things by empirical methods”

LikeLike

By: Carolyn Thomas

Carolyn Thomas — Thu, 20 Oct 2011 21:38:09 +0000

That’s the point, Stephen. Dr. Krauss, a “good scientist”, has delved into the theory and finds its scientific evidence lacking. According to The Secret’s own website, for example: “You are a magnet attracting to you all things, via the signal you are emitting through your thoughts and feelings.” And as Dr. Krauss wrote in a 2004 SA interview:

“Science isn’t fair. It’s testable. In science, we prove things by empirical methods.”

LikeLike