Sunday, February 26, 2017


The following headline appeared on Mother Nature Network yesterday:
Large Hadron Collider Disproves the Existence of Ghosts
Many people believe in ghosts despite the fact that scientific proof of their existence is tenuous at best. After all, science hasn't exactly disproven the existence of ghosts yet either, has it? Well, perhaps it has. According to renowned theoretical physicist Brian Cox, science has essentially already built the ultimate ghost detector — the Large Hadron Collider — and it has failed to detect anything that could explain ghosts. As he points out on The Infinite Monkey Cage on BBC radio, there's simply no more room left for ghosts in the Standard Model of Particle Physics.
Actually, there never has been any room in the Standard Model of particle physics for ghosts. And, even if ghosts could be revealed in terms of physical parameters, evidence from the LHC would hardly be expected. Why in the world would a ghost hang around the LHC anyway?
However, the proof that there could be something not detected by the high-energy particle smasher may be right under their noses. They haven’t found dark matter particles or dark energy in the LHC, have they? And yet dark matter and dark energy make up more than 95% of the universe.
They go on to quote Brian Cox as saying:
"If we want some sort of pattern that carries information about our living cells to persist, then we must specify precisely what medium carries that pattern, and how it interacts with the matter particles out of which our bodies are made. We must, in other words, invent an extension to the Standard Model of Particle Physics that has escaped detection at the Large Hadron Collider.
OK, that’s exactly what we’ve done with True quantum unit analysis and the third form of reality (gimmel, not detectable as matter or energy) which is indirectly detectable because it affects angular momentum and atomic stability. Mainstream particle physicists have missed it completely because they don’t believe there is anything other than matter and energy.
Brian Cox goes on to say: “That's almost inconceivable at the energy scales typical of the particle interactions in our bodies."
The article continues:
The Large Hadron Collider (LHC) is the most complex experimental facility ever built; the largest single machine in the world. It's a particle collider that smashes particles together at incredible speeds to reveal any tinier particles that might emerge from the collisions. While the LHC can't be said to be definitively powerful enough to have detected every particle in the universe, it's certainly powerful enough to have penetrated to the fundamental levels that pertain to how our cells use energy.
‘I would say if there's some kind of substance that's driving our bodies, making my arms move and legs move, then it must interact with the particles out of which our bodies are made," continued Cox. "And seeing as we've made high-precision measurements of the ways that particles interact, then my assertion is that there can be no such thing as an energy source that's driving our bodies.’
In other words, there's simply nothing that's been identified by the LHC that could possibly carry on after our bodies die, not within the Standard Model.”
The writer of the article seems to redeem himself a little:
But what about outside the Standard Model? After all, the Standard Model has been shown to contain some glaring holes, and many physicists today acknowledge that it's an incomplete theory as currently constructed.
Cox anticipates this rebuttal. He admits that there are plenty of problems with the Standard Model, but firmly contends that ghosts don't fall within the ‘known unknowns’ of the theory. In other words, the Standard Model explains enough of the universe to rule out an afterlife.
NO, IT DOESN’T! This argument is just plain silly. It’s like saying atoms don’t exist because I’ve never seen one, and then saying since my theory explains enough for me, it rules out atoms.
The article goes on: “Cox's argument, if considered valid, might not be enough to convince those who believe in supernatural forces beyond what can be observed by science, but it at least backs such believers into their very own corner.
And perhaps there's still room for ghosts in the minds of the rest of us too. After all, just because ghosts aren't the stuff of physics doesn't mean they can't still haunt us.
This ending to the article just shows that the writer has not thought very much about such things. It is the materialists who occupy a very small corner of reality.


  1. Also, Ed, what about our nightly dream-states, lucid or otherwise? Mine, (coincidentally?) even last night, regularly feature ‘revitalized spectres’ of personalities, long since expired, from my chequered past; even though I have never seen such ‘ghostly apparitions’ during the light of day – All part and parcel of our learning-curve to a life-after-life, consciously perfected future, ad infinitum, I would mystically-opine, Ed! IJN!



    Unlike the factual events in my life detailed in ‘On the Square plus One’, much of what follows is fictitious; and yet, it could easily have been fact. Like my lucid dreams, these simulated tales lay bear powerful underlying influences that cling to haunt me and from which there seems no escape.


    (Foreword to ‘Episodes in the Life of Brian’, currently unpublished – And, perhaps, never likely to be!)

  2. Edward your argument has completely failed to counter Brain Cox's point. The best you could come up with was that frankly terrible strawman about the existence and atoms. The rest of your reasoning amounts to a God of the gaps argument. You have present no compelling arguments here.

    While you are entitled to your own opinion you are not entitled to your own facts. Science doesn't care about you beliefs either. And this is shown through the complete lack of evidence for ghosts. They do not exist, if they did they would interact with reality and we would be able to detect them.

    1. You are also entitled to your own opinion Andrew. But when you make such absolute statements as: "the complete lack of evidence" and "They do not exist", statements that you cannot prove, and that many honest and sincere people do not agree with, you are apparently calling many, including some very skeptical and meticulous scientists researching phenomena that suggest that consciousnes can exist outside the physical body and survive the destruction of the physical body, at best misguided, and at worst liars, and that is rather offensive. At any rate, such absolute statements are not the statements of someone willing to follow the evidence wherever it leads; they sound more like statements of someone trying to defend a materialistic belief system.

  3. I've seen spirits. One of the reasons why I am here is because I want to learn how to interact with them in a fashion that is orderly and respectful.

    1. And there is a significant difference between real spiritual experiences and active imagination.