Is the theory of the Quantum Hologram reasonable?

Question

http://www.edmitchellapollo14.com/QHFAQs.htm

http://www.edmitchellapollo14.com/naturearticle.htm

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Edgar_Mitchell

Answer 1

Ah, Quantum Mechanics comes to the rescue again.

I'm not saying it's unworthy of study.  Perhaps there's something to it.  If someone wants to study the possibilities I am all for it, assuming the experiment is free as possible from bias and the people draw conclusions based on the evidence.

However, QM is the new catch-all wheeled out by paranormal apologists to explain just about anything, from the Secret's power of positive thinking to an inter-dimensional explanation of ghosts.

Answer 2

My opinion, very reasonable,really nothing considered paranormal. A hologram is created by the merging of two perpendicular laser beams with an image on a photographic plate and projecting it outwards as a three dimensional form of light. Physical matter is made of electron with its antimatter counterpart known as the positron. The electron-positron pair are formed from the merging of two photons or light particles.

Quantum physicist David Bohm describes the physical universe of matter as “frozen light”. The entire universe from the innermost to the outermost planes is a grand holographic projection with everything and everyone an integral and inseparable aspect of the Universal Hologram. It really comes down to perception. When I touch this mouse it looks like theirs physical interaction, but at a sub-atomic level its just particles exchanging information. Everything we see is photons carrying information to the brain.

Edit: speaking of Holograms, check this out: http://www.smh.com.au/articles/2008/05/2... ... if two photons of the holgram combined it would become a electron-positron pair forming a solid image, but we don't have the tech to do that. Well...its makes sense that our Universe is one condensed hologram of "Light".

Answer 3

It seems very well reasoned to me. I do think that it's relation to psi phenomena needs further experimental testing before any claims of being "the explanation" are made. The difficulty I see is in the testing just like there are still parts of super string theory that our technology doesn't yet give us the ability to test. However, entanglement was not experimentally supported until well after it was theorized and Einstein had died before his objections could be answered.

So, yes it is reasonable, if it ultimately turns out to be completely correct or partially correct or mostly incorrect it is still reasonable and deserves to be researched.

Of course that's just my opinion.

Thank you for the informative links.

Psi