Dismiss Notice
Join Physics Forums Today!
The friendliest, high quality science and math community on the planet! Everyone who loves science is here!

The nature of the supernatural

  1. Mar 4, 2005 #1
    The nature of the "supernatural"

    I am sure that most of you here do not believe in supernatural ocurances and I would agree with you for the most part. What I would like to say is that certain things do happen that are sometimes hard to explain, and are blindly labled under 'supernatural' without anyone looking into them.

    We all know that our brain and nerves use electrical impulses. We give off slight radio waves as a result. What not very many people know is that sometimes we can control the elctrical field of our body. For example, it is not very hard to generate a magnetic field inbetween your hands, both hands acting as identical poles. These are facts.
    The supposed supernatural comes in when the aformentioned facts act in ways that we do not control and ost of the time are not even aware of. Thoughts in the brain, being electrical impulses, might be converted to small radio waves. While these would be extremly small and not even coherent in a language they could be picked up by someone close, maybe someone they are conversing with. While this person could not 'hear', or even be aware of this, they would get the general idea of the thought through their own subconscious prosessing of the recieved comunication. I am sure all of us here have been talking with someone and known ahead of time what they would say, sometimes down to the exact word.
    Again, consider the control of our electrical field. If it can be controled then it can be focused into a receiver or a transmitter. This would enable it to either influence someone's subconscious mind, or to "hear" someone's thoughts.
    This basically deals with telepathy, which is certanly shrugged off by most people. Please do not confuse what I am saying with wild atempts to explain superstition, I am simply trying to find a logical and scientific way to discover a common phenominon. If you think I am way off base, or simply been hit in the head one to many times with a baseball bat, please let me know and explain where I am wrong.
  2. jcsd
  3. Mar 5, 2005 #2
    Things are nowhere as clear cut as you might imagine, but what you will find is that your common thread falls apart. 'Supernatural' phenomena are notoriously difficult to analyse using normal science, and there are special reasons for this.
    The one everyone knows is that consciousness gets involved and this causes problems with the subjective / objective barrier, which breaks the scientific method.
    Even more obvious is the behaviourists answer that you can't observe what doesn’t exist.
    A third answer is related to something called transience : a wizard can't cast a real fireball because transience simply wont let him - the fireball’s reality simply doesn’t have enough energy. The same effect routinely stops psychic phenomena working in the laboratory - not enough energy. Everything in the world generates transience - including scientists.

    ‘Transience’ explains things like pre-cognition because it allows almost anything to occur even time travel, as long as the energy involved stays below critical limits. The way to understand transience is in terms of energy : the ‘transient’ energy I am talking about is actually generated every time ANY transformation of energy occurs, as I said before - practically everything in the universe generates it. (The transience of ordinary reality itself is a very complex subject.)
    My terminology is pretty obsolete of course, ‘transience’ is usually talked about today in terms of quantum superpositions. The old version had a lot of ‘military’ applications that frightened silly people. There, I’ve told you the real reason science isn’t very good at all this.
    Last edited: Mar 5, 2005
  4. Mar 5, 2005 #3


    User Avatar
    Staff Emeritus
    Gold Member
    Dearly Missed

    I've never heard of this transience. It sounds like you are trying to describe the uncertainty principle, which says among other things that a fluctuation of energy could be arbitrarily large, if its duration was arbitrarily short. But when you do the math, the shortness necessary to enable a noticable flow of energy is truly short indeed; the Planck energy is about equal to a mosquito taking off, and the corresponding time is the Planck time, around 10-43 second. Doubtful this could be perceived.
    Last edited: Mar 5, 2005
  5. Mar 6, 2005 #4

    Ivan Seeking

    User Avatar
    Staff Emeritus
    Science Advisor
    Gold Member

    I think Tsu and I have entangled thoughts. When I think spin up she thinks spin down. The longer we're married the more entangled we become. :biggrin:
  6. Feb 1, 2008 #5
    Ooops I'm trying to be a little more honest now 'transience' has a far less reputable source than the ordinary military - like the Stargate program (Wiki 'Stargate Project'). I use it a lot because it is very useful. In actual fact what it is talking about is the amount of energy in the relevant light cone.
  7. Feb 1, 2008 #6


    User Avatar

    First of all, the electric signals from the brain are so tiny that in order to make an electroencephalogram you must put the electrodes over the skin and use power amplifiers to register them. The electromagnetic field generated is too small to be detected by any elaborate receiver a few centimeters away. Do you say that our non specialized brain can detect this field hundreds or thousands of meters away?
    And for the alleged magnetic field between your hands, can you provide a reliable source for this phenomenon?
    Telepathy has been studied for more than 100 years and no serious study showed its existence.
    It is true that people with great affinity like spouses or close friends can sometimes know what the other is thinking, but this comes from the knowledge each has of the other personality.
Share this great discussion with others via Reddit, Google+, Twitter, or Facebook