Ghostwatch

[Dragon Ball Fan]

I don't know, if ghosts and such do exist, can't they be studied by scientists?

and if this means our understanding of the laws of the universe is lacking, can't we just lean more about them, isn't that ongoing goal of science?

again, the fictional example I gave is when the Tenth Doctor explained incantation based magic as another form of mathematics, just using words instead of numbers. and fiction, especially, science fiction, often reflects reality.

I do not believe in ghosts, there are too many other logical explanations that are more likely than ghosts for me to believe in ghosts. That being said I could see something like a ghost existing.

My line of reasoning is this. Humans have been able to see color for a really long time, but the instrumentation to capture color photographs are less than 100 years old, same with the science that explains what the hell color is.

It is possible that there is some natural phenomenon that is exceptionally rare and can be detected by our senses, but even if the instruments that would be able to measure it exist they are just never around when it happens.

I can imagine a science fiction story set in the near future of space travel where "ghosts" are explained as some kind of energy cloud that sometimes just shows up or can be generated by some mechanism... Which would make for the awesome idea of a "Ghost Canon"!

That's exactly what I was saying, thank you. Also, spirits of the dead isn't the only idea of what ghosts are, some think they are some kind of quantum echo of people. Which would seem to be backed up by the fact that most supposed ghosts don't appear to be self aware.

[Riedquat]

I do not believe in ghosts, there are too many other logical explanations that are more likely than ghosts for me to believe in ghosts. That being said I could see something like a ghost existing.

My line of reasoning is this. Humans have been able to see color for a really long time, but the instrumentation to capture color photographs are less than 100 years old, same with the science that explains what the hell color is.

It is possible that there is some natural phenomenon that is exceptionally rare and can be detected by our senses, but even if the instruments that would be able to measure it exist they are just never around when it happens.

I can imagine a science fiction story set in the near future of space travel where "ghosts" are explained as some kind of energy cloud that sometimes just shows up or can be generated by some mechanism... Which would make for the awesome idea of a "Ghost Canon"!

My own theory for explaining quite a few ghost sightings is that our peripheral vision is low resolution but more sensitive in low light. So we can catch something in the corner of our eye when it's dark, turn to look, and not see anything.

It's a technique long used in astronomy to try to locate faint objects.

[Deledrius]

some think they are some kind of quantum echo of people

Oh? Tell me more about this quantum echo. What is it? What's the math behind it?

[Rocketboy1313]

some think they are some kind of quantum echo of people

Oh? Tell me more about this quantum echo. What is it? What's the math behind it?

I believe the idea is that of a 3-d after image.
That a person leaves behind an electric print over some area and when the conditions are right that electric print lights up, creating a ghost.

Like you might see a "ghost" on old photograph plates.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Spirit_photography

I don't know what math you would ask for in this instance as this is fringe/pseudo science.
Or is this like the Fermi paradox, where you want an equation that explains something by creating a thought process? No hard numbers, just something you could plug into a spreadsheet once the numbers are available.

[Deledrius]

I was asking a rhetorical question to point out the abuse of scientific terminology when what is meant is the complete opposite. If you mean some nebulous sense of "an echo of a person" then just say that. Couching it in words like "Quantum" (as much as Voyager loved to do this) means you either have something very specific in mind that is based in reality, or more likely that you have no clue what any of it means but you want it to sound "scientific" without having spent the slightest thought to what that actually entails.

I'm perfectly fine with a fantasy story where people somehow leave echoes.

If you want to tell a sci-fi premise where "quantum" is involved, you'd better be prepared to back that up. Otherwise you're just doing the former and pretending the latter. And all of that dilutes the already-strained public perception of scientific discourse.

Sorry, but it's a peeve of mine that people so commonly lean on this crutch out of laziness or ignorance. Either use the word because you mean to, or leave it out as irrelevant; it's not linguistic seasoning to be used wherever an appropriate adjective is unavailable.


As for the topic itself: personally, I've enjoyed the idea of the Stone Tape as a semi-plausible mechanism for ghosts (at least the residual-sort of haunting). I was sad to find it's generally been thoroughly debunked, but it's fine enough still in fiction. The history of the idea itself is pretty fascinating!

[Rocketboy1313]

As for the topic itself: personally, I've enjoyed the idea of the Stone Tape as a semi-plausible mechanism for ghosts (at least the residual-sort of haunting). I was sad to find it's generally been thoroughly debunked, but it's fine enough still in fiction. The history of the idea itself is pretty fascinating!

When it comes to, "What is a ghost in this universe" rule writing my favorite is the "psychic scar tissue idea. Which is apparently how it works in the Dresden Files, they call it the "Footprints in Stone".
https://dresdenfiles.fandom.com/wiki/Ghost

The idea is that when a person dies they damage the membrane between this world and the spiritual world. That damage depending on how psychically powerful the person is and how traumatic the death is can cause a lot of damage, that damage takes the form of ectoplasm and that ectoplasm can form into the sort of mutant ghosts like Slimer from Ghostbusters.

It is sort of ironic that I point to the Dresden Files because those books never really grabbed me. I made it thru book 3 and got a little frustrated. Harry's abilities are too flexible, one minute he is flat on his ass, the next he is going super saiyan. I need a little more balance for me to find it believable.

[Dragon Ball Fan]

I was asking a rhetorical question to point out the abuse of scientific terminology when what is meant is the complete opposite. If you mean some nebulous sense of "an echo of a person" then just say that. Couching it in words like "Quantum" (as much as Voyager loved to do this) means you either have something very specific in mind that is based in reality, or more likely that you have no clue what any of it means but you want it to sound "scientific" without having spent the slightest thought to what that actually entails.

I'm perfectly fine with a fantasy story where people somehow leave echoes.

If you want to tell a sci-fi premise where "quantum" is involved, you'd better be prepared to back that up. Otherwise you're just doing the former and pretending the latter. And all of that dilutes the already-strained public perception of scientific discourse.

Sorry, but it's a peeve of mine that people so commonly lean on this crutch out of laziness or ignorance. Either use the word because you mean to, or leave it out as irrelevant; it's not linguistic seasoning to be used wherever an appropriate adjective is unavailable.


As for the topic itself: personally, I've enjoyed the idea of the Stone Tape as a semi-plausible mechanism for ghosts (at least the residual-sort of haunting). I was sad to find it's generally been thoroughly debunked, but it's fine enough still in fiction. The history of the idea itself is pretty fascinating!

I only used that word because I remember others using it, who might actually know what they are talking about but I forget who those were as I heard it years ago.

And if anything paranormal exists, It wouldn't surprise me if they can fit into already established branches of science, instead of having new ones made around them.

[Dragon Ball Fan]

I was asking a rhetorical question to point out the abuse of scientific terminology when what is meant is the complete opposite. If you mean some nebulous sense of "an echo of a person" then just say that. Couching it in words like "Quantum" (as much as Voyager loved to do this) means you either have something very specific in mind that is based in reality, or more likely that you have no clue what any of it means but you want it to sound "scientific" without having spent the slightest thought to what that actually entails.

I'm perfectly fine with a fantasy story where people somehow leave echoes.

If you want to tell a sci-fi premise where "quantum" is involved, you'd better be prepared to back that up. Otherwise you're just doing the former and pretending the latter. And all of that dilutes the already-strained public perception of scientific discourse.

Sorry, but it's a peeve of mine that people so commonly lean on this crutch out of laziness or ignorance. Either use the word because you mean to, or leave it out as irrelevant; it's not linguistic seasoning to be used wherever an appropriate adjective is unavailable.


As for the topic itself: personally, I've enjoyed the idea of the Stone Tape as a semi-plausible mechanism for ghosts (at least the residual-sort of haunting). I was sad to find it's generally been thoroughly debunked, but it's fine enough still in fiction. The history of the idea itself is pretty fascinating!

And I think I was talking about the stone tape hypothesis.

[TGLS]

I was asking a rhetorical question to point out the abuse of scientific terminology when what is meant is the complete opposite. If you mean some nebulous sense of "an echo of a person" then just say that. Couching it in words like "Quantum" (as much as Voyager loved to do this) means you either have something very specific in mind that is based in reality, or more likely that you have no clue what any of it means but you want it to sound "scientific" without having spent the slightest thought to what that actually entails.

I'm perfectly fine with a fantasy story where people somehow leave echoes.

If you want to tell a sci-fi premise where "quantum" is involved, you'd better be prepared to back that up. Otherwise you're just doing the former and pretending the latter. And all of that dilutes the already-strained public perception of scientific discourse.

Sorry, but it's a peeve of mine that people so commonly lean on this crutch out of laziness or ignorance. Either use the word because you mean to, or leave it out as irrelevant; it's not linguistic seasoning to be used wherever an appropriate adjective is unavailable.


As for the topic itself: personally, I've enjoyed the idea of the Stone Tape as a semi-plausible mechanism for ghosts (at least the residual-sort of haunting). I was sad to find it's generally been thoroughly debunked, but it's fine enough still in fiction. The history of the idea itself is pretty fascinating!

And I think I was talking about the stone tape hypothesis.

And that's nonsense. From Schick and Vaughn:

The problem is that we know of no mechanism that could record such information in a stone or play it back. Chunks of stone just do not have the same properties as reels of tape.

[Dragon Ball Fan]

I was asking a rhetorical question to point out the abuse of scientific terminology when what is meant is the complete opposite. If you mean some nebulous sense of "an echo of a person" then just say that. Couching it in words like "Quantum" (as much as Voyager loved to do this) means you either have something very specific in mind that is based in reality, or more likely that you have no clue what any of it means but you want it to sound "scientific" without having spent the slightest thought to what that actually entails.

I'm perfectly fine with a fantasy story where people somehow leave echoes.

If you want to tell a sci-fi premise where "quantum" is involved, you'd better be prepared to back that up. Otherwise you're just doing the former and pretending the latter. And all of that dilutes the already-strained public perception of scientific discourse.

Sorry, but it's a peeve of mine that people so commonly lean on this crutch out of laziness or ignorance. Either use the word because you mean to, or leave it out as irrelevant; it's not linguistic seasoning to be used wherever an appropriate adjective is unavailable.


As for the topic itself: personally, I've enjoyed the idea of the Stone Tape as a semi-plausible mechanism for ghosts (at least the residual-sort of haunting). I was sad to find it's generally been thoroughly debunked, but it's fine enough still in fiction. The history of the idea itself is pretty fascinating!

And I think I was talking about the stone tape hypothesis.

And that's nonsense. From Schick and Vaughn:

The problem is that we know of no mechanism that could record such information in a stone or play it back. Chunks of stone just do not have the same properties as reels of tape.

It doesn't have to be a stone, that's just what the idea is called. It could be an quantum field, a very localized space time area, etc.