• We have updated the guidelines regarding posting political content: please see the stickied thread on Website Issues.

Weight Of The Soul

rantaclaws

Gone But Not Forgotten
(ACCOUNT RETIRED)
Joined
Apr 20, 2003
Messages
54
crazy theory about the weight of the soul

Assume a poltergeist or telekinesis effect can be generated by a person, and the required energy comes from their soul (which is topped up by energy from the body's metabolism, but the largest psychokinetic effect possible at any one time is restricted by the energy level of their soul).

If an object weighing 1kg is psychokinetically accelerated to a speed of 13metres/second, the kinetic energy involved is 0.5*mass*speed*speed=84.5 joules.

According to Einstein's formula e=mc^2, all energy has an associated mass, and vica-versa, thus if the soul must have at least 84.5 joules of energy, it must have a mass of at least m=e/cc=84.5 divided by 300000000 squared = 9.38*10^-16 kg.

Thus the soul should weigh around as much as a cube of water a millionth of a metre on a side. Experimental proof of the afterlife (or at least the soul) requires no more than someone giving me a big fat research grant for a very sensitive balance to detect the loss of weight as the soul escapes the dying body of the experimental subject, and a hospice that doesn't mind me going about my work to advance science.

Any takers?
 
Hasn't the weighing-at-the-moment-of-death thing already been done?

And isn't it the 21st?
 
A pedant writes:

Kinetic Energy is 0.5*mass*velocity^2 - measured in joules

Momentum is mass*velocity - which has no units.

Normal service will now be resumed
 
I reckon it weighs one pennyweight.

Carole
 
Physick said:
A pedant writes:

Kinetic Energy is 0.5*mass*velocity^2 - measured in joules

Momentum is mass*velocity - which has no units.
Nonsense. Momentum has units: kg.m/s.
Just as Joule = kg.m^2/s^2 (= N.m).

If you're going to be pedantic, you should at least get your facts straight.
 
Urm, Hold on there one cotton picking minuet there boye!

Are we not working from an unprovable premise here? Surely to prove that a soul has mass based upon psychokinetic force, one must first prove psychokinetic force?
 
I thought the whole thing about the soul is that it was non-physical, and therefore had no mass. If something was detected that had mass then surely, by definition, it could not be the soul.

Anyway, I thought all this had been sorted long before. The body is losing mass all the time unless it is being replenished in some way, and so weight loss at the time of death is expected. So, the "soul" weighs the same as a block of water 1000th mm cubed? Pretty difficult to detect, in that case, as the last breath of a dying person would emit several times this weight of water simply as vapour. And that doesn't even take account of sweating and other, er, bodily emissions.

Yes, it would indeed be wonderful to be granted research money to investigate patent bollocks, but alas only a few of us the get chance... :p
 
I read years ago about a nutcasy bloke who did just this experiment with small mammals like mice.

He tried weighing them, gassing them and then re-weighing them to see if they were lighter.

After he realised that the exact moment of death was hard to define with the gassing he moved on to decapitating them with a little guillotine.

He reckoned he allowed for the loss of blood when he weighed them after death and as they appeared to then weigh less he believed he had proved that the souls of the mice must have fled.

Hundreds or even thousands of vermin were dispatched in this way.

There was some resentment on his part when he was refused permission to conduct similar experiments on dying hospital patients and he was determined to try it on himself, to the extent of considering building a life-size guillotine and paying an assistant to carry it out. But as this was ('only technically', he protested!) murder, he couldn't find anyone to assist him.

Sorry- can't remember anything at all about the name, nationality or even relevant century.

Erm, well, he might have been French........
 
Having forgotten everything I know about physics, doesn't this theory assume a couple of things:

- That when a plate gets thrown, a small nuclear reaction occurs where a part of the soul gets converted into pure energy.
- Assumes that the soul is finite, and has only enough energy to throw one plate.
- Assumes that the soul's mass is the source of energy, as opposed to channelling the energy from elsewhere
- Assumes the process is 100% efficient (which may be a worthwhile source of energy - I look forward to Soul Power replacing nuclear)
 
crazy theory about the weight of the soul

The great thing about this theory is that it is ridiculous, and relies on some pretty crazy assumptions, but it just about makes sense. It gives a weight small enough that it is almost impossible to test, but just might be possible with a big research grant (although if the soul has more energy than is needed to throw just one plate, the mass may be greater).

To perform the weighing-at-death experiment, the person would need to be in a sealed box, or as has been pointed out, breathing, sweat loss, etc would overwhelm the mass of the soul leaving - I assume the soul would not be trapped by a sealed box.

Even the loss of heat energy from a cooling corpse would, due to e=mc^2, correspond to a large enough mass that with such a sensitive experiment, it could swamp the results (apparently, all forms of energy correspond to mass, only with nuclear is the amount of energy released per mass of 'fuel' large enough to be easily measured).

Nothing quite like a good crackpot theory, as long as it is interesting, and no one takes it too seriously - government by mad scientists:eek!!!!: .
 
Well, it's definitely worth applying for a reseach grant but only for computer simulations - enough mice have died in the name of research!

Of course, e=mc squared is only an approximation of one aspect of the true nature of the universe, so any experiment giving the weight (not mass - being really pedantic here) of the soul would itself only be an approximation...

Jane.
 
Have just done a Google for previous examples of this sort of experiment.

Seems to have got a good crop of relevent sites, but don't have time to check them out myself right now, so I leave it to those of you with more time to pick the plums out of this lot! :)

PS: Just had a quick look:
Much OOBE research has followed a pattern similar to that of survival research. At the turn of this century, there were attempts to weigh dying patients, to determine if something actually left the body at the time of death. Several patients did exhibit sudden weight loss and the researcher thought that this might be attributed to the soul's leaving the body. One problem with the weight-loss hypothesis is that it assumes that whatever leaves the body occupies space and has weight. Similar attempts were made to register the presence of a physical entity during OOBEs. In one such experiment, strain gauge fluctuations during the ESP segment of the OOBE provided evidence suggestive of the presence of the subject's "externalized mind" at the target location. Another experiment used the OOBEer's cat as a detector, with some positive results.
from http://www.monroeinstitute.org/voyagers/voyages/focus-1999-winter-psi2-leblanc.html

An example of a turn-of-the-century experiment is here.
( http://www.ghostweb.com/soul.html )
 
Last edited by a moderator:
I just came across a film called "21 grams", and the catchline is "when we die we lose 21 grammes in weight..".

Now this reminds me of something I read in a "did you know"-style book when i was about 7, and as I recall, it said that a Swedish (I think) professor had recorded this weight change (not sure if it was 21 grammes mind) when weighing people with terminal illnesses who were close to death.

Has anyone else heard of this?
 
yes but due to lack of Nicotine my brain isnt working!..however i can give u some things to look up...

some King interested in science but with absolute power.. put one prisoner in a huge bowl and mashed him to see if he weighed less when dead.... also thought tea ws deadly and set two condemed prisoners on a tea and coffeee diet to see who died first (aparently neither did in his life time) and to investigate digestion /indigestion..fed two guys big meal sent one off to work and in evening gutted both to see how the food was doing...
 
Hmm.. the one time where Snopes can neither prove or disprove! The thing with that article is that is say... oh, out of 6, two showed no signs of weight loss, and the other 4 did, but they were a bit dodgy, and also the soul is unquantifiable etc etc.. but surely that must point to -something-? If it were the other way round and only 2 displayed weight loss then it'd say, well, those 2 were clearly abberations, but because it was the other way round, they um and arr.. and reckon that the 4 were abberations!
 
I think it's just proof that some people are scared to admit they can't explain something of cosmic importance (at least to us anyway) :)
 
I think the lack of proof has more to do with lack of scientific method than anything else.
When the tests were performed they used a beam balance. Why not carry out the test now with a digital scale that is accurate to 0.01g . 6 people is hardly a big enough sample to make any conclusions, save "we need a bigger sample".
Even if it was shown from a sample of say 50 people that they all lost 21g, this should not be taken as proof. Only when all other explanations fail.
And why do dogs not have a soul?
 
They failed to mention in the report that the two who didn't show any weight loss were a record executive and a politican, respectively. :devil:

/rolls 2d6 for a 7on his bigotry check
 
hmmm

if the soul has weight then it has mass. if it has mass then it can be influenced by gravity. obviously its connection to the body is tenuous if it leaves at death. so then, can a strong enough g-force rip the soul from a living body?

[not taking any of this seriously]
 
To try that you cold orbit outside the event horizon of a quantum singularity and sacrifice serfs into the black hole. Just before their body was ripped apart by intense gravity, their soul would be liberated. There would be no way of measuring this, but for any conclusive results to be obtained we would need to sacrifice a large number of serfs.
 
if they resonate you could advertise them as "bouncing souls" just like Doc Martens:rolleyes:
 
if the soul has weight then it has mass

And if it has mass it also has volume.

So you could put the cadaver to be in a sealed tank and see if the air pressure increases slightly when they expire, or you could put them underwater and see how much water the soul displaces when it leaves.
 
You could apply a vacuum of some kind and trap the soul in the vacuum bag and sell it on e-bay.
 
In the 13th century, Frederick II Hohenstaufen performed an experiment to settle the issue...he sealed a man up in a barrel & put it on a set of scales to see if they would rise when he suffocated...

Very old notion - anyone know where it comes from? My money is on something pseudo-Aristotelian.
 
If the weight change was recorded in people with terminal illness, then does this mean that their souls left before they died?
 
Last edited by a moderator:
Good Garudian article:

Is there lightness after death?

According to a new film, we lose 21 grams at the moment of death. Ian Sample looks for the truth

Thursday February 19, 2004
The Guardian



Who would have thought it? At the exact moment of death, you, me, and everyone else, will lose precisely 21g in weight. Just like that. Gone. I know because it says so on the poster for Alejandro González Iñárritu's new movie called, as it happens, 21 Grams and starring Benicio del Torro, Sean Penn and Naomi Watts.

The movie's promotional blurb moves quickly to quash those tempted to guestimate how much body fluid and gas one might expel in a parting gesture to cause a 21g drop in weight by inquiring: "Is it a person's soul that constitutes those twenty one grams?" (Quick answer: no.)

"I've been dealing with death for 45 years and I can say with some confidence there's nothing in it," says Robert Stern, a pathologist at the University of California, San Francisco.

So where does the 21g assertion come from? Who are the "they" who say we lose this amount as soon as our hearts squeeze their final beats and the electrical storms in our brains flicker and fade?

The origin of the 21g figure can be traced to Duncan MacDougall, a doctor working in Haverhill, Massachusetts in the early 1900s. MacDougall had a keen fascination with death and spent part of his career on an almost obsessive hunt for evidence of the soul. He thought that if humans had a soul, it must exist in the body as some kind of material. And that material must weigh something.

MacDougall set out to test his theory with what was an excruciatingly bad experiment. In 1907, the year Einstein came up with a more seminal work declaring E=mc2, MacDougall published his findings in American Medicine.

MacDougall's paper reveals as much about the author as it does about the quality of work that could get into medical journals at the time. MacDougall describes how he set about converting a hospital bed into a rudimentary balance so he could measure a patient's weight change as they died. The bed balance was sensitive, so to prevent his soon-to-be-dead patients from messing up his data, MacDougall hunted around for people who were dying of tuberculosis. As he noted: "It seemed to me best to select a patient dying with a disease that produces great exhaustion, the death occurring with little or no muscular movement, because in such a case, the beam could be kept more perfectly at balance and any loss occurring readily noted." In other words, there was to be no flailing around that could upset the scales.

In all, MacDougall managed to recruit a mere six dying people for his study, four of whom had tuberculosis. In turn, each was tucked up in his modified bed and their weight monitored until some minutes after their death. Any bowel movements or urination at death were fine, at least so far as the experiment was concerned, as it all stayed on the bed.

With a nod to best scientific practice, MacDougall then repeated the study with 15 dogs, which according to his religious beliefs, were not blessed with souls. It's not clear how MacDougall managed to get his dogs to die without rocking the bed, but some scientists suspect a nasty cocktail of drugs was used.

At the end of his foray into science, MacDougall declared that humans lost up to three-fourths of an ounce upon death, a figure that doesn't have quite the same ring as 21g, the metric equivalent. The dogs, he said, lost nothing. What else might it be if not the weight of the soul departing, he asked.

Before going public with his findings, MacDougall wanted to make sure that his patients' last breaths were not skewing his data, so he clambered on to the bed, (presumably once the last patient was removed and the sheets had been changed) and spent a few minutes exhaling. He then got a colleague to do the same thing. Neither managed to shift the balance enough to account for the weight loss MacDougall reported.

Despite the poor accuracy of his scales, the huge variability in his data, and the all-too-few people studied, MacDougall's experiment was also frustrated by the tricky skill of pinpointing the exact time of death. He was repeatedly challenged as to why the weight change on death appeared to take longer in some patients than others. To rebut the doubters, MacDougall wrote: "The soul's weight is removed from the body virtually at the instant of the last breath, though in persons of sluggish temperament, it may remain in the body for a full minute." He declared later in the paper: "Here we have experimental demonstration that a substance capable of being weighed does leave the body at death."

MacDougall's work was written up in the New York Times, which also covered his hope, some years later, to take a photo of the soul using x-rays. Despite being recorded in the paper that gives us all the news that's fit to print, his work is viewed with palpable embarrassment now. "It's simply not taken seriously," says Stern.

Gruesomely, Stern points out that dead bodies lose a lot of weight over time. Minute, intercellular structures called lysosomes release enzymes that break the body down into gases and liquid. "That's why, when you have mass graves, you can get explosions because of all the gas build-up," he says. "Just think if our bodies didn't break down. Everyone who had ever lived on the face on the Earth would still be here." Now, that would make a good movie.

http://www.guardian.co.uk/life/feature/story/0,13026,1150835,00.html

and this sidebar:

Bring on the crazy-eyed boffins

Peter Bradshaw
Thursday February 19, 2004
The Guardian

In the movies, weird science, bad science and un-scientific science are nothing new. The fact that the cinema-going public can be assumed to know nothing about it has been used as a plot-enabler for futuristic hokum such as the Bride of Frankenstein or The Incredible Shrinking Man. If you need your hero to fly through the air and then turn into a toaster, well, bring on a white-coated, crazy-eyed boffin with a flying-plus-toaster formula bubbling away in his test-tube - and get the hero to drink. Science fiction is a tautology: in the movies, science is fiction .

But it doesn't stop us getting a little restive when bad science in the movies becomes self-important. The nature of consciousness is a hot topic at the moment. The idea of machines in The Matrix generating false consciousness in a conquered race of humans in a vast people-plantation is fine if it's just a bit of wacky fun: but some were uneasy at that movie's evident claims to be taken seriously.

The same goes for Steven Spielberg's AI: Artificial Intelligence, and its robot with supposed "conscious" self-awareness. It's a movie that solemnly behaves as if it is raising compelling and disturbing questions based on fact. In Ang Lee's recent version of The Hulk, the big green monster's transformation is avowedly derived from biologist Greg Szulgit's work in Hiram College, Ohio on sea cucumbers with mutable tissue allowing them to expand and contract. Professor Szulgit reportedly groaned that the incidental science in Hulk was "awful".

But what's more insidious is dodgy science in movies that are not obviously SF. A classic example is Lord of the Flies, which hinges on someone making fire by concentrating the sun's rays with short-sight spectacle lenses. In real life, it can't be done. Barry Levinson's tech thriller Disclosure (1994) had characters sending each other emails - a very space-age thing to do in those days - casually showing souped-up software graphics for incoming and outgoing messages far snazzier than anything available then or now. And many hi-tech movies semi-seriously imply the highly developed existence of cyber-consciousness and, of course, cyber-sex technology. Big-screen science is to be taken with a 0.0015mg dosage of NaCl.

· Peter Bradshaw is the Guardian's film critic

http://film.guardian.co.uk/features/featurepages/0,4120,1150923,00.html

Crazy-eyed boffin??? I'm taking the charcoal tablets so everything is back to normal.

Emps
 
21 Grams

Apparently the human body loses 21 grams at the moment of death; anyone know whether this is true or a cynical marketing ploy for a recent film release?
 
Back
Top