how could we explain scientifically the NDE ?
448518
What does NDE stand for?
1100771
What is there to explain???
1082808
mathematical dilemma. there is no answer to the question. Well at least none that are known. Just like the elements we know there out there but we have to figure them out first.  just like Einstein theory of fusion. its passable just not proved.
352846
If you click the link below, you will find some explanations!\n\nGood luck,\nTiff
302266
"Demons are the cause of friction" was taught in my high school. \n\nTeacher was trying to demonstrate scientific theories and the principle of falsiblity, testability and scientific  creditability .
1057846
Nothing but a theory to explain the unexplainable.  All known matter relfects light, radiation, energy.
1061060
Ask the thousands of people who are documented to have experienced NDE's (near death experiences) who were clinically dead and came back to life.
191997
The very best explanation to this is a video I watched in my Philosophy class called "The String Theory" - it is amazing, and makes complete sense. If you looked it up on the internet, it goes into deep detail and is confusing. The video is by Nova (the science channel), and maybe someone else, but it is perfect. Unexplainably mind boggling and amazing.
1056252
lol\nThat's a good one.\nNice theory.\n☺
554313
Albert Einstein stated something along the lines of; "There may not be a single history (regarding the earth coming into existence) as we may have supposed. Rather, every possible history with some probability." Or in other words, there are many possible ways to explain the fact that we are here and living right now. Some of those ideas are more probable than others and some explanations are more likely than others. Bottom line is, when a hypothesis is brought forth and has physical evidence to support itself without being intelligently refuted, the hypothesis becomes theory. Only those unwilling to explore the realm of possibility close their minds to the many other intelligent theories concerning our existence which can be found in the world today.
863707
Clearly your current belief system conflicts with much of what modern physics believes to be true. That's okay. Everyone is entitled to their own beliefs.\n\nPlease understand this: it is impossible to prove any physical theory. The best anyone can do is demonstrate that a theory provides correct predictions for a given set of circumstances. Another, competing theory, may also provide correct predictions for the same set of circumstances. Is one theory correct and the other theory incorrect, or are both correct? Is it possible that both are incorrect?\n\nYou state "light shouldn't be able to travel in a vacuum if it is simply a wave, right?" And then answered your own question with "I don't believe so." Science is all about belief, but it is belief based on rational thought, reasoning, and experiment.\n\nThe Scientific Method: observe, explain, predict, then verify. These four steps are absolutely the bedrock foundation of modern science. Note that the last step, verify, leads back to the first step, observe. If you can traverse this loop without stumbling or waving your hands or invoking a higher power (like Stephen Hawkings) then you probably have a robust theory that explains something.\n\nWhy do I say it is impossible to prove any physical theory? Because it only takes one counter-example, one single fact, one observation that does not agree with the theory, to absolutely prove that theory is wrong. Even the most trusted theory must be considered to be potentially wrong, because some new observation could render the theory incorrect... like light from a distant start bending as it passes through the gravity field near our sun. Who ordered that?\n\nSo, we offer NO PROOF that light is made of photons. All we can offer is observations, explanations for those observations, and predictions of what will happen if obeservations are made in the manner our theory says is required. It is then up to the individual to study our evidence, our theory, our predictions and then decide whether or not to believe our theory.\n\nSo here is what we observe when we are looking for photons:\n\nThere is a device called a photomultiplier that emits electrons when light of an appropriate wavelength (color) shines on its photosensitive cathode. The electrons are emitted with a maximum energy that is inversely proportional to the wavelength of the light. These photoelectrons constitute an electron current that can be collected at a nearby anode, amplified, and measured.\n\nAs we reduce the amount of light shining on the photocathode, the number of electrons emitted per unit time interval, which by definition is the electron current, decreases. We can choose to decrease the amount of light in any manner we care to: by adding neutral density filters in the light path, by passing the light through smaller apertures, by moving the light source further away from the photocathode, whatever.\n\nAt some point in this light dimming process, we note that the photoelectron current is no longer a smooth and steady current that is a continuous function of the light intensity. The light has a constant intensity but it is very dim. The electron current now appears to come in short random pulses. If we count these pulses over a long period of time we discover that the number of counts per unit time interval is linearly proportional to the light intensity, exactly the same as the continuous electron current we measured at higher intensities. This occurs no matter how much we reduce the amount of light.\n\nFrom these observations what may we conclude? In other words, what theory do we propose to explain these observations?\n\nIt is reasonable to conclude that each pulse of current at low light levels must have originated from a single electron emitted from the photocathode. But what would cause a single electron to be emitted at a specific energy if not a small packet of light, what  we now call a photon, of nearly the same energy?\n\nY
1136179
An interesting question.  \n\n#1 would seem at first glance to be automatically false, as everyone will agree that there is evidence that there was a time when the things we see today in nature, did not exist.  But to get a little deeper, what if these things are the natural products of natural laws that have always existed?  E.g. what if our universe is just one of an endless series of universes that appear, unfold under natural laws that have been in existence for eternity, and then disappear, only to get reborn again as a new universe?\n\n#2 is the *goal* of a scientific explanation.  I.e. to see how much we can explain by the discovery of natural laws.  Science has no way of knowing if such an explanation will always be possible, but it has to try.  And so far we have done remarkably well ... almost everything we see in nature can be explained in terms of the operation of natural laws.  And natural laws can often be shown to derivable from simpler natural laws.  (E.g., that's why physicists are on a quest to unify the four forces of physics ... so that all laws of atomic physics can be derived from a single law.)  However, scientists will always be faced with the question of where these simplest of natural laws came from.  And they may have to settle for the answer "they seem to have always been there", which brings us back to #1.\n\n#3, and #4 need more definitions to distinguish them.  What do you mean by phrases like "beyond nature", and "intelligence."  \n\nHOWEVER, despite being a died-in-the-wool evolutionist, I lean towards #4, (an intelligent, supernatural origin for all things in nature) but not with in the same sense as Intelligent Design.  I *don't* believe some intelligence designed every cell membrane, every flagellum, every eyeball, every bird, bat, or insect wing, every endochrine cycle, etc.  Evolution provides a far more satisfactory explanation for all those things based on such simple natural laws as the law of natural selection.  \n\nBut I do wonder where that force of natural selection, as a natural law, came from.   I believe it will be shown to be derivable from simpler laws of chemistry and thermodynamics, which can be derived from even simpler laws of physics.  But ultimately, we will still be faced with wondering where those primary laws of physics came from.
276224
these guys do it much better than i can:\n\nhttp://hyperphysics.phy-astr.gsu.edu/Hbase/class/phscilab/kundt2.html
688070
Umm, there's lots of stuff:\nParticle in a box, kinda interesting, since it can actually be applied to describe real life phenomena\nYou can calculate the shapes of the orbitals of an electron by using heisenbergs uncertainty principle and shroedingers eqn-that was interesting\nCrystal field theory-fun\nThe idea that time is not constant, that's kinda cool\nCalculating the potential energy of molecules and reactions, kinda interesting\nNMR-those are cool.  Seriously-it's like solving puzzles.  i would do it in my free time it's so fun\nThere are about a million cool things about the brain and it's chemistry-I can't even list them, but I have to mention I just read an article that said that "runners high" is caused by a chemical that is very similar to THC, not endorphins, they can't cross the blood brain barrier.\nHumans seem to have a prewired sense of what a verb and noun are, before being taught.  And can sort them as very small children.\nAnd finally, newtonian physics is not overly interesting, but I been loving the free body for so long it's kinda fun, now.\nOh, and I just read that there's no pattern capable of predicting what numbers will be prime.  That's interesting.\nI could go on and on.
205397
It is the theory that this universe was cause by a large explosion from which hydrogen atoms where release forming different elements and what not. I have no idea, but I don't know how they came up with such theory. I believe it's plausible, but I doubt it's accurate.
831688
I believe the same methods used to prove physical phenomena can be used to study and document spiritual phenomena.  \n\nFor example, given the developments in nanotechnology and MRI imaging, it won't be long before science can detect, measure and prove the existence of or changes in human brain chemistry and spiritual energy, that occur in cases of demonic oppression and healing through spiritual treatment such as deliverance prayer.\n\nThe same way microscopes proved the existence of "invisible" viruses and bacteria that caused physical infection, I believe technology will be used to prove the existence of demonic energies that cause criminal, mental and physical addictions, as well as the power of prayer to cast out these "spiritual viruses" so that the human mind and spirit can be permanently healed.
469212
See if this helps.\n\nhttp://hyperphysics.phy-astr.gsu.edu/hbase/atomic/hund.html