Sorry to come so late to this party, but I only just discovered this forum today while doing a little research on the good "Dr. (PhD)" Lipton. While I am not a physicist, I do have a pretty good grasp and great deal knowledge on Quantum Mechanics in general and experimental particle physics in particular. The idea that Quantum Mechanics supports "Eastern" medicine and philosophy, as well as a whole host of other "phenomenon" (ESP, Telekinesis. faith healing, power of prayer or anything else where the thoughts of the mind alone have a direct physical effect on anything other than an electronic sensor attached to the scalp), is total and complete nonsense. So, you hooked me from the #13th comment...
“Bruce Lipton does a very good job of explaining quantum energy theory to Western minds”
Sorry, but no, no he doesn't. Murrry Gell-Mann, Richard Feynman, "BJ" Bjorken, John Bell, Sheldon Glashow, Wolfgang Pauli, Paul Dirac, Niels Bohr, Max Born, Max Planck, Albert Einstein, J.J. and George Thomson (father and son who both won the Nobel Prize for proving two seemly completely contradictory explications of the nature of light - turns out they were both right!), Robert Oppenheimer, John Wheeler, David Bohm, Julian Schwinger, Freeman Dyson, Werner Heiseberg and the guy with the cat can/could do a pretty good job of explaining QM to Western, Eastern, Southern or Northern minds. When Bruce wins a Nobel Prize in Physics, let me know.
“The field effects of quantum physics and in particular the widely accepted notion of entanglement should make one pause and reconsider the materialist, Newtonian view of our Universe. Specifically in regards to health, well-being, and medicine, the Western approach of better living through chemistry has been shown to be lacking in many instances. We now know that the Universe is not made up of matter as we once thought. Indeed, it is made up of energy that expresses itself in the form of fields and vibrations. This is not “woo woo” science. This is cutting edge, quantum mechanics…
Ahh, the biggest falsehood of them all, and so totally, perfectly and succinctly worded, it seems like it was written with knowledge of how utterly inaccurate it is. On the small scale, when things are very very tiny and have very very little mass, sometimes none at all, the Newtonian Laws do indeed totally fall apart and have been replaced by QM. But on the macro scale of our Universe, the Newtonian Laws do not only still apply, but in fact are used every day by physicists to explain and predict natural phenomena. Once you get above the nano-scale it is QM that breaks down and can no longer be counted on to provide accurate measurements (not because QM can't, but because the variables become too complex to measure accurately). What is true for Atoms is NOT what is true for you or me or a bird or a planet or anything else on the macro scale. The effects on matter of measurement or "observation" (where the leap is made to the mind and consciousness), uncertainly and probabilities that define QM have such a tiny effect on anything you can see, that they might as well have no effect whatsoever. Oh, and the energy that "matter" is made up of is not free energy that can be released or used at will. It is "at rest" energy that is more than very difficult to get to turn back into energy that could be used or have any effect on anything, other than the Newtonian Laws that govern mass.
“…I’m sure you don’t need to be reminded of the plight of Galileo or the fact that a short time before Einstein’s paper on relativistic theory was published, the leading physicists of the day were exclaiming that we had “discovered everything there is to know” about physics and that the only new knowledge was likely to come from more precise measurements.
YES!! And that is exactly where all new knowledge of physics has come from since! The physicists of the day were right!
“The din of Randiesque debunkers is slowly being drowned out by the latest discoveries in quantum mechanics that show conclusively, in my non-scientific opinion, that the influence of fields and quantum non-locality is by far the most promising avenue for future discoveries, not only in medicine, but every other area of science.”
Okay, this is a good one. Firstly the use of a the phrase "conclusively, in my non-scientific opinion" is an oxymoron. How on earth can anything be conclusively proven, not only by a non-scientist, but more importantly, by an opinion? Opinions have no place in proving objective reality, or even non-reality. And as far as James Randi is concerned, if you know of a "discovery" that "drowns out" his pseudo-science debunking, I hope you and the discoverer enjoy the million bucks. With Radni, it is 100% put up or shut up. When I see James write the check, then we can start talking about promising avenues for future discoveries...
“… an excuse used by the traditional doctors of alopathic medicine to cover up the misuse of chemicals and their ignorance about nutrition, the power of the mind and the emotions and quantum physics.”
The "power of the mind", "emotions" and "nutrition" have absolutely nothing to do with QM AT ALL, except for the last one which is comprised of particles that do obey the odd rules of QT individually, but not collectively. Oh and by the way YOU are made up of nothing BUT chemicals...
“Instant remission is a acientific (sic) fact and epigenetics together with quantum physics bring a new understanding that is not only necessary but mandatory to change a health system that is collapsing before our own eyes.”
Oh christ, seriously? Saying "... epigenetics together with quantum physics bring a new understanding to... x", is like saying "... cats along with long division bring a new understanding to...x" The two things have absolutely nothing to do with each other, they are not "together" in any manner whatsoever.
“Belief in science is a "belief" in itself. Particularly today in a world where science has been completely politicized and is controlled by the same who control Congress. Sorry. I don't have a lot of faith in what is bandied about as "science" today”
Uhm. No, science is certainly NOT a belief. It starts as an idea or observation, turns into a hypothesis, and then if, after many experiments all get the same results, it becomes a theory. There science stays until repeatable experimental data contradicts the previous results – in which case the theory is modified to include the new data or information – or abandoned completely. “Belief” is thinking something is true, despite the fact that it can not be proven, “Science” is the exact opposite, believing something is true only when it can be proven, and actively looking for ways to disprove it. Science demands that you don't have "faith" in it. It is true whether you believe it or not. Don't have faith in Gravity? Jump off a tall building and your faith will be quickly, even if momentarily depending on how tall the building is, restored.