Help
Sign In
david bohm
April 2009 
How Much Does A Thought Weigh
Posted on Nov 20th, 2007
by 
Michel
Michel
This is my favorite question:
If/Since E=MC2, how much does a thought weigh?
Anyone? Buehler?
If/Since E=MC2, how much does a thought weigh?
Anyone? Buehler?
Access: Public
A thought weighs not one bit more or less than you think it does! Thanks for the thought.
I don't know the answer, but I love the question!
I'm wondering if there might be an actual answer out there – how much does the weight of an electrical cord change with and without current running through it???
A bit of a research when I need a good serious distraction….;-)
I watched a PBS special about measuring energy. They went through modern history, explaining Madame Curie and her use of copper to measure radiology. If one could impress a substance like copper or water (hmmmm), an answer might evidence but there's always the empirical bug.
Will copper and water and any other substance produce the same sum? Will some substances be better conductors- how will you know which one is right? Which are isolators and which are insolators. Look at glass- it can be both!
If the material is sensitive enough to capture energy, will it capture all present energies- in the room, in the scientists, in the materials in the room? How do you isolate?
More, each person would have to bring the exact same amount of energy every time- no alteration of personal energy generation… and so on and so forth.
Love the drawing and the question. Toots!! Though it is probably way-inappropriate to call anyone Toots anymore, especially women. Are you a woman?
Thank you for inviting me, Lisa.
When I read your question, I immediately thought, Well, some thoughts weigh more than others, don't they? I also had a picture of William Wallace and his captains eating in the movie, Braveheart. While they are talking about charges of heavy horse, Wallace suggests making “long spears, twice the length of a man.” One of his captains responds with bawdy good-humor that “some men are longer than others.”
I think certainly that some thoughts are heavier than others. Some thoughts prey upon us and set heavy on OUR hearts.
I think that I also agree with BeLynn to some extent: I can make any thought about as weighty as I want it to be. I also know that some thoughts seem to have a weight all their own. I don't know what to do about those thoughts, but so far, I have always been able to deal with them one day at a time.
I do not consider too many thoughts, even my own, frivolous though. As a contractor, I learned that the thought I think is “frivolous” might be the thought that saves a lot of time and money.
I do think that thought can be measured. I do not know whether WE have the instruments for measuring thought yet, but I know that WE can weigh electricity.
Although some days, the thought of weighing electricity weighs heavily upon me when I think about Humvees with Marines exploding, children starving and dying from preventable diseases, or rockets from both sides hitting schools and hospitals.
Hmm. Do you notice how these replies are getting longer and longer? I'm just wondering how long mine will be…
Thoughts take place in the physical realm when energy, electical impulses, arch from one neuron to another across synapses, where energy travels through empty space, in the brain. I could argue that I have lots of empty space, and therefore can have just as many thoughts as W, but that would be getting off the subject.
So, one could consider the question in terms of the pysical dimension: How much does a few electrons traveling in a pattern weigh? And how would we measure that? My beloved nuclear physicist friend, whose link is on my profile, would say that time, matter and energy are, at some level, interchangeable. He would argue that perhaps physical weight would not be as approrpiate a measure as electrical charge, or the force of that charge. I don't know if it could be measured that way, or not. Please don't place any callibration equipment in my head! :)
But Brian (the physicist) and I would probably agree that a thought weighs more in the sense that TextMage was speaking about it–in terms of the “weightiness” of the subject, or the significance of the impact that it has on life and the universe. If I'm folding my laundry, I will invariably wonder, at some point, where the missing mates of my unmatched socks have gone. And although that thought may have the same electrical energy as a thought like, “It would be a great solution just to kill all those guys,” or “I dedicate myself to discovering a nonviolent solution to this problem,” I think it is the impact on the world that is the real measure of the weight of a thought. And some thoughts are sure weighty!
…kinda the flip side of the question,”how many angels can you fit on the head of a pin”…
TextMage,
I agree, I think some thoughts weigh more than others. It could be as simple as one area = X weight, the second area equals X+X weight and so on… Therefore, each area adds weight for a sum.
Each area/kind of process could add qualitative value and vary “X.” Complexity continues…
There's definately a reason that some thoughts weigh heavy on my head. Did Shakespeare make this observation? It must go back further still.
Another path to follow, is there a qualitative difference in good or negative vibrations. It would be easy to say that good vibrations lighten a load and negative ones are more burdensome. Is this why we inherently seek balance? Is this why we need others to offer good vibrations when we've burdened our own load too much, for too much? Isn't it funny how a friends unexpected humor can immediately relieve chronic mental agony. Sure, it might be temporary but in the second between two points of stimulus, a matterbeing has the ability to breath and gain its strength. The trick is in NOT turning around and looking for “the load.” Right? Anyhoo, I'm rambling.
We can weigh electricity, so the equation could look like this: M= C2/E. But like I talked about with BeLynn, what will be the proper measuring device? How to establish necessary controls? These are all things for The Future to work out. It will be nice to see the formula on paper, then we can erase heavy thoughts with the end of a #2!
Martha,
You are very smart. You should print out your response and send it to a high school science teacher and get your grade increased- unless you were one of the lucky straight A students! I worked hard for my Cs. I got no retention. Everything flows out, not much stays in :)
You wrote: “He would argue that perhaps physical weight would not be as approrpiate a measure as electrical charge, or the force of that charge.” You're right. If you consider the formula, you'd have to measure the charge to get the mass: M = C2/E.
You wrote: “But Brian (the physicist) and I would probably agree that a thought weighs more in the sense that TextMage was speaking about it-in terms of the “weightiness” of the subject…” I think most of us would agree there's some inherent knowledge that some thoughts weigh heavier than others.”
But here you take it a step forward. I'm not sure you realized you moved past point 1. “…or the significance of the impact that it has on life and the universe.” Now you're measuring something different than thought. “I think it is the impact on the world that is the real measure of the weight of a thought”. Here one would measure the effect of thought's weight. That would be a really, really complex formula!
We're back from our cross-country housefinding trip, SoCal to Alabama. I want to drop the last thought seed around this question, but its probably lost the energy that I wanted to build. ( I'm a punny geek, huh?)
In truth, the E=MC2 equation could be considered misleading. A thought has energy, therefore it has mass. However, if you (the scientist) take apart a form to understand its function, are you understanding the intended product? Observation of isolated components lends to absolute, isolated functionality. More, if I isolate&/or measure energy, I introduce matter. ( I hinted at this in a previous entry).
All of you have heard the phrase, “the sum of the parts is different than the whole.” With Max Wertheimer's statement, I go to David Bohm's explanation of holism. “The whole cannot be reduced to its constituent parts”. Metaphysical parts are fundamental building blocks of nature of our whole being but they are merely facets of our function.
Both theories can be right but one must be more right.
I'll sum by saying that metaphysics in the wave form cannot be reduced but metaphysics in the product form can be taken out of context and manipulated in different lights.
Let's go a step further with Bohm. “Space is not empty. It is a full, a plenum as opposed to a vacuum…” If you consider Eistein within Bohm's theory, matter is not a contributor to energy. Matter borrows- at best, matter stabilizes in the energy blanket that supports Life's illusion.
So how much does a thought weigh? It depends on what stage of its life it is in. In the wave form, alive and in action, it coming out of the vacuum of Spirit and taking on matter as it interacts with experience. It doesn't “weigh” anything until attenion has seized it, until it is dead in a Soul's memory.
“…the manifest content of consciousness is based essentially on memory, which is what allows such content to be held in a fairly constant form.” -David Bohm
A thought weighs as much as the internet.
Joe,
At first I was like, huh? You stopped me in my tracks. But Zing-zambalamba! That's a suitable other side of the balancing scale.
Thanks for the input,
Michel
I'm playing and thats rude. Internet weight
So tell me about 'absolute dispare” if you don't like nonduelism…..
Actually, I've had the flu all week and information is riding the dial-up line into my noggin'.
Non-dualism- It's just a funny word. Why introduce dualism if you want to talk about what it's not. Seriously, I can't understand why “The Secret” people aren't all over this campaign. Non-sequitors like these have to be worth another billion in marketing alone. How many times were you chastised for saying negative things in 2007? If I'd had a list…
What's wrong with unity, unified… unalism?
p.$. Great article… but they didn't answer their own question! Check back later, I've got another riddle coming…