Se até a expansão da singularidade, nada se observava ou seja não havia um Universo anterior e o conhecimento desse campo original se deu porque houve a expansao sem que possamos provar o que havia antes e porque se expandiu podemos falar de um nada

Se até a expansão da singularidade original, nada se observava, ou seja, não havia um Universo anterior e o conhecimento desse campo original se deu porque houve a expansao, sem que possamos provar o que havia antes e porque se expandiu podemos falar de um nada, um limite cognitivo da fisica, o que existem são especulações, importante lembrar que até aquela época, a concepção de Newton de um universo eterno era a dominante


 No caso do EPR, se você observar os fotons que saem do mesmo atomo e se você medir o spin ou posição de um na Terra, a posição do outro, mesmo que ele esteja em Andromeda, ou seja, a 2,5 milhoes de anos luz, vai assumir a posição simetrica inversa daquela que voce mediu na Terra, instantaneamente, acima da velocidade da luz. No caso da escolha atrasada de Wheeler se um foton passar na fenda e voce fechar a fenda, ele volta no tempo e não passa. Se voce colocar um eletron passando numa fenda, ele se transforma em onda, e nao se pode saber onde vai estar, existe apenas na mente, ou na estatistica, uma particula pode estar em qualquer lugar do universo antes da medição ou colapso, tem movimento holista, ver Capra, Goswami, Maharishi, Dana Zahar, multiplos universos paralelos da BBC, Universo Holografico de Bohm, ver Efeito Zenão, ver Amigo de Wigner
Violação das desigualdades de Bell e de Legget inviabilizaram se as teorias com variaveis ocultas locais e nao locais sobrando o realismo nao local ou a nao localidade do universo
realismo nao local variaveis ocultas


Tunelamento Bra Ket
Salto



Question: Does Quantum Physics prove God's existence? The observer effect in quantum mechanics indicates that the quantum wavefunction collapses when an observation is made by an observer. It is a consequence of the traditional Copenhagen interpretation of quantum physics. Under this interpretation, does that mean that there must be an observer in place from the beginning of time? Does this prove a need for God's existence, so that his act of observing the universe would bring it into being?
 There are several metaphysical approaches to use quantum physics to try to "prove" the existence of God within the current framework of physical knowledge and, of them, this is one which seems among the most intriguing and most difficult to shake, because it's got a lot of compelling components to it. Basically, this takes some valid insights into how the Copenhagen interpretation works, some knowledge of the Participatory Anthropic Principle PAP, and finds a way to insert God into the universe as a necessary component to the universe.

O Ser Holistico

Luiz Rogerio Carvalho Fernandes

Sociedade Quantica Teoria Quantica/ Fritjof Capra

O Ponto De Mutação

A Teia Da Vida

Sabedoria Incomum

Conexoes Ocultas

The VedasAre A Large Body Of Texts Originating In Ancient India. Composed In Vedic Sanskrit, The Texts Constitute The Oldest Layer Of Sanskrit Literature And The Oldest Scriptures Of Hinduism.

Guida Quantica All'illuminazione. L'integrazione Tra Scienza E Coscienza 

Quem Somos Nos

Dana Zahar

Maharishi

Mentes Brilhantes Mentes Treinadas Augusto Cury

Quantum Physics Física Quântica John Gribbin

Chopra Cura

É Uma Forma De Energia Niels Bohr:Salto Quântico Descontínuo Heisenberg:Princípio Da Incerteza Nicolescu:Teia Dinâmica De Eventos Capra:Tao Da

Livro Teoria Quântica De John Polkinghorne Novo 

O Presente Estudo Tem Como Meta Elucidar Um Breve Diálogo Entre A Complexidade Apresentada Por Edgar Morin E A Física Quântica Por Fritjof Capra Aplicadas 

Http://Images.Slideplayer.Com.Br/1/339846/Slides/Slide_5.Jpg

Bhor Real De Elementos Nao Reais 

Realismo Nao Local Bell Leget

 Origens Do Intelecto: A Teoria De Piaget  John Phil

Veda,  Sanskrit: “Knowledge”A Collection Of Poems Or Hymns Composed In Archaic Sanskrit And Known To The IndoEuropeanSpeaking Peoples Who Entered .

Dra.Adriana Kátia de Oliveira5 NOVOS PARADIGMAS Max Planck1900:Teoria dos Quanta Einstein1905:Teoria da Relatividade *Equação:Massa é uma forma de energia Niels Bohr:Salto quântico descontínuo Heisenberg:Princípio da Incerteza Nicolescu:Teia dinâmica de eventos Capra:Tao da Física,Ponto de Mutação,Teia William Tiller:Espaçotempo  David Bohm,Pribham,M.Ferguson:Holograma Sheldrake:Campos Morfogenéticos Hernani Guimarães


  http://www.invincibleireland.org/images/physics1large.jpg
Dailymailcouk, Quantum physics proves IS afterlife claims scientist


 The idea of conscienceness creating particles
That because the tiny quantum particles are able to spontaneously reproduce, and that the Big Bang was able to randomly occur, there must be a superior being.
The observer effect in quantum mechanics indicates that the quantum wavefunction collapses when an observation is made by an observer. It is a consequence of the traditional Copenhagen interpretation of quantum physics. Under this interpretation, does that mean that there must be an observer in place from the beginning of time? Does this prove a need for God's existence, so that his act of observing the universe would bring it into being?
There are several metaphysical approaches to use quantum physics to try to "prove" the existence of God within the current framework of physical knowledge and, of them, this is one which seems among the most intriguing and most difficult to shake, because it's got a lot of compelling components to it. Basically, this takes some valid insights into how the Copenhagen interpretation works, some knowledge of the Participatory Anthropic Principle PAP, and finds a way to insert God into the universe as a necessary component to the universe.

 There is a single, intelligent Consciousness that pervades the entire Universe - the Universal Mind. It is all knowing, all powerful, all creative and always present. As it is present everywhere at the same time, it follows that it must also be present in you - that it is you. Your mind is part of the one Universal Mind. This is not simply a philosophical ideal passed down to us through the ages. It is an exact scientific truth. Know it, believe it, apply it and you will see your life transform in miraculous ways.

Albert Einstein told us that "everything is energy"; that "a human being is a part of the whole called by us [the] Universe". His words echoed the most ancient of spiritual and philosophical teachings and still underpin today's cutting-edge scientific discoveries. The Universal Mind goes by many names. In the scientific world we know of the Unified Field, in spiritual philosophy we refer to The All or Universal Consciousness and in religion we call upon God who Himself goes by many names - Jehovah, Allah and Brahman to mention but a few. The name is relevant only in so far as it resonates with you.

Whichever way you cut it, you come to this one unavoidable conclusion: there is but One Consciousness of which your consciousness must be a part and "a part", as Charles Haanel said, "must be the same in kind and quality as the whole, the only difference being one of degree".

The nature of the Universal Mind is Omniscience (all knowing), Omnipotence (all powerful), Omnificence (all creative) and Omnipresence (always present). Know that this too is your nature. You have access to all knowledge, known and unknown; you have access to an infinite power for which nothing is impossible; you have access to the limitless creativity of the One Creator. All these attributes are present within you at all times in their potential form.

Not in any direct way. That is, it doesn’t provide an argument for the existence of God.  But it does so indirectly, by providing an argument against the philosophy called materialism (or “physicalism”), which is the main intellectual opponent of belief in God in today’s world.

Materialism is an atheistic philosophy that says that all of reality is reducible to matter and its interactions. It has gained ground because many people think that it’s supported by science. They think that physics has shown the material world to be a closed system of cause and effect, sealed off from the influence of any non-physical realities --- if any there be. Since our minds and thoughts obviously do affect the physical world, it would follow that they are themselves merely physical phenomena. No room for a spiritual soul or free will: for materialists we are just “machines made of meat.”

Quantum mechanics, however, throws a monkey wrench into this simple mechanical view of things.  No less a figure than Eugene Wigner, a Nobel Prize winner in physics, claimed that materialism --- at least with regard to the human mind --- is not “logically consistent with present quantum mechanics.” And on the basis of quantum mechanics, Sir Rudolf Peierls, another great 20th-century physicist, said, “the premise that you can describe in terms of physics the whole function of a human being ... including [his] knowledge, and [his] consciousness, is untenable. There is still something missing.”

How, one might ask, can quantum mechanics have anything to say about the human mind?  Isn’t it about things that can be physically measured, such as particles and forces?  It is; but while minds cannot be measured, it is ultimately minds that do the measuring. And that, as we shall see, is a fact that cannot be ignored in trying to make sense of quantum mechanics.  If one claims that it is possible (in principle) to give a complete physical description of what goes on during a measurement --- including the mind of the person who is doing the measuring --- one is led into severe difficulties. This was pointed out in the 1930s by the great mathematician John von Neumann.  Though I cannot go into technicalities in an essay such as this, I will try to sketch the argument.

It all begins with the fact that quantum mechanics is inherently probabilistic. Of course, even in “classical physics” (i.e. the physics that preceded quantum mechanics and that still is adequate for many purposes) one sometimes uses probabilities; but one wouldn’t have to if one had enough information.  Quantum mechanics is radically different: it says that even if one had complete information about the state of a physical system, the laws of physics would typically only predict probabilities of future outcomes. These probabilities are encoded in something called the “wavefunction” of the system.

Norton James Does Quantum Physics Prove God's Existence?
The observer effect in quantum mechanics indicates that the quantum wavefunction collapses when an observation is made by an observer. It is a consequence of the traditional Copenhagen interpretation of quantum physics. Under this interpretation, does that mean that there must be an observer in place from the beginning of time? Does this prove a need for God's existence, so that his act of observing the universe would bring it into being?
There are several metaphysical approaches to use quantum physics to try to "prove" the existence of God within the current framework of physical knowledge and, of them, this is one which seems among the most intriguing and most difficult to shake, because it's got a lot of compelling components to it. Basically, this takes some valid insights into how the Copenhagen interpretation works, some knowledge of the Participatory Anthropic Principle (PAP), and finds a way to insert God into the universe as a necessary component to the universe.
The Copenhagen interpretation of quantum physics suggests that as a system unfolds, its physical state is defined by its quantum wavefunction. This quantum wavefunction describes the probabilities of all possible configurations of the system. At the point when a measurement is made, the wavefunction at that point collapses into a single state (a process called decoherence of the wavefunction). This is best exemplified in the thought experiment and paradox of Schoredinger's Cat, which is both alive and dead at the same time until an observation is made.

Does Quantum Physics Prove God's Existence?
The observer effect in quantum mechanics indicates that the quantum wavefunction collapses when an observation is made by an observer. It is a consequence of the traditional Copenhagen interpretation of quantum physics. Under this interpretation, does that mean that there must be an observer in place from the beginning of time? Does this prove a need for God's existence, so that his act of observing the universe would bring it into being?
There are several metaphysical approaches to use quantum physics to try to "prove" the existence of God within the current framework of physical knowledge and, of them, this is one which seems among the most intriguing and most difficult to shake, because it's got a lot of compelling components to it. Basically, this takes some valid insights into how the Copenhagen interpretation works, some knowledge of the Participatory Anthropic Principle PAP, and finds a way to insert God into the universe as a necessary component to the universe.
The Copenhagen interpretation of quantum physics suggests that as a system unfolds, its physical state is defined by its quantum wavefunction. This quantum wavefunction describes the probabilities of all possible configurations of the system. At the point when a measurement is made, the wavefunction at that point collapses into a single state  a process called decoherence of the wavefunction). This is best exemplified in the thought experiment and paradox of Schoredinger's Cat, which is both alive and dead at the same time until an observation is made.http://physics.about.com/od/physicsmyths/f/QuantumGod.htm
http://physics.about.com/od/physicsmyths/f/QuantumGod.htm
 https://www.bigquestionsonline.com/content/does-quantum-physics-make-it-easier-believe-god
 http://www.huffingtonpost.com/peter-baksa/who-is-god-can-he-be-expl_b_894003.html
 http://www.huffingtonpost.com/peter-baksa/who-is-god-can-he-be-expl_b_894003.html
 http://physics.about.com/od/physicsmyths/f/QuantumGod.htm


http://www1.folha.uol.com.br/folha/livrariadafolha/819942-cientista-usa-fisica-quantica-para-provar-que-deus-existe.shtml
http://www.cruzeirodosul.inf.br/materia/547124/fisico-quantico-afirma-ser-possivel-provar-a-existencia-de-deus
http://patosonline.com/post.php?codigo=39715


 most notably to the work of Hendrik Lorentz for special relativity, and to the work of Gauss, Riemann, and Mach 4 Special Relativity Minkowsky

    4.1 Historians of special relativity
    4.2 Comments by Lorentz, Poincaré, and Einstein
        4.2.1 Lorentz
        4.2.2 Poincaré
        4.2.3 Einstein

5 General Relativity

    5.1 Did Hilbert claim priority for parts of General Relativity?
    5.2 Did Einstein develop the field equations independently?

6 Attackers and defenders

    6.1 Special relativity
        6.1.1 Sir Edmund Whittaker (1954)
        6.1.2 Gerald Holton (1960)
        6.1.3 G. H. Keswani (1965)
        6.1.4 Arthur I. Miller (1973)
        6.1.5 Abraham Pais (1982)
        6.1.6 Elie Zahar (1983)
        6.1.7 John Stachel (1995)
        6.1.8 Peter Galison (2002)
        6.1.9 Olivier Darrigol (2004)
        6.1.10 Anatoly Alexeevich Logunov on special relativity (2004)
        6.1.11 Harvey R. Brown (2005)
        6.1.12 Roger Cerf (2006)
        6.1.13 Shaul Katzir (2005)
        6.1.14 Scott Walter (2005, 2007)
    6.2 General relativity
        6.2.1 E.T. Whittaker
        6.2.2 Albrecht Fölsing on the HilbertEinstein interaction (1993)
        6.2.3 Cory/Renn/Stachel and Friedwardt Winterberg (1997/2003)
        6.2.4 Anatoly Alexeevich Logunov on general relativity (2004)
        6.2.5 Wuensch and Sommer (2005)

Concerning special relativity, the most important names that are mentioned in discussions about the distribution of credit are Albert Einstein, Hendrik Lorentz, Henri Poincaré, and Hermann Minkowski. Consideration is also given to numerous other scientists for either anticipations of some aspects of the theory, or else for contributions to the development or elaboration of the theory. These include Woldemar Voigt, August Föppl, Joseph Larmor, Emil Cohn, Friedrich Hasenöhrl, Max Planck, Max von Laue, Gilbert Newton Lewis and Richard Chase Tolman, and others. In addition, polemics exist about alleged contributions of others such as Olinto De Pretto, and Einstein's first wife Mileva Marić, although these are not considered to have any foundation by serious scholars.

Concerning general relativity, there is a controversy about the amount of credit that should go to Einstein, Marcel Grossmann, and David Hilbert. Many others (such as Gauss, Riemann, William Kingdon Clifford, Ricci, and Levi-Civita) contributed to the development of the mathematical tools and geometrical ideas underlying the theory. Also polemics exist about alleged contributions of others such as Paul Gerber. Main articles: History of special relativity and Lorentz ether theory

    In 1889, ([Poi89]), Henri Poincaré argued that the ether might be unobservable, in which case the existence of the ether is a metaphysical question, and he suggested that some day the ether concept would be thrown aside as useless. However, in the same book (Ch. 10) he considered the ether a "convenient hypothesis" and continued to use the concept also in later papers in 1908 ([Poi08], Book 3) and 1912 ([Poi13], Ch. 6).
    In 1895, Poincaré argued that experiments like that of Michelson–Morley show that it seems to be impossible to detect the absolute motion of matter or the relative motion of matter in relation to the ether. In [Poi00] he called this the Principle of Relative Motion, i.e., that the laws of movement should be the same in all inertial frames. Alternative terms used by Poincaré were "relativity of space" and "principle of relativity".

Wk

 Várias soluções das equações de Einstein admitem curvas tipo-tempo fechadas (CTCs). Estudamos o comportamento deste tipo de curva quanto à estabilidade linear. Analisando as CTCs no universo de Gödel, encontramos que elas são linearmente estáveis, assim como as curvas desse tipo encontradas em um exemplo particular de métrica tipo-Gödel com fundo plano. As CTCs que aparecem no modelo contendo uma única corda cósmica girante também apresentam estabilidade linear. Estudamos todos os exemplos conhecidos de soluções das equações de Einstein que possuem geodésicas tipo-tempo fechadas (CTGs). Encontramos que a CTG apresentada pelos autores da solução dos dois perjeons não é linearmente estável, mas obtivemos condições, para os parâmetros desse modelo, sob as quais ela admite outras CTGs e, sob condições mais restritivas, obtivemos CTGs linearmente estáveis. As CTGs apresentadas por Soares em seu modelo topológico e por Grøn e Johannesen em seu modelo da núvem de cordas não possuem estabilidade linear. Já as CTGs de uma das soluções dada por van Stockum foram analisadas e verificamos que são linearmente estáveis. Encontramos CTGs em um exemplo particular de métrica tipo-Gödel com fundo conformemente plano, e estas também são estáveis. Analisamos, também, a deformação provocada pelo buraco negro de Schwarzschild ao ser colocado em um espaço-tempo com uma corda cósmica girante. Encontramos as CTGs desse espaço-tempo e determinamos as condições para que estas sejam estáveis  Valeria Mattos da Rosa