Structure and Synthesized Reality
Mind and Matter - Two sides of the same coin? By Joseph Menahem
What is the Origin of all things?
What is the Original
On the surface this may seem like a simple question, but within the scope of our limited
neurological perception, the simple answer may only be found through a complicated path of deductive
reasoning, for the origin/ foundation of Existence does not dwell in space or time, but is itself a singular
condition without size or shape, out of which “Space-Time” and “Dimension” are constructed.
The Synthesis of Existence into Classical Reality
We do not directly see Existence as it is, as we see a translated picture arranged through the
molecules of our brain that we infer as Space, Time, Motion, Shape and Form. To get a sense of this, place a small object in front of you and then will it to move. It doesn’t move. The reason that it doesn’t move is because it
is not where you think it is. You are directing your will towards an “object” that is only a representation, an image on the “projection screen” of your brain. You look at it and say, “There it is – out there – in front of me”, but how are you looking? The out there is an illusion …a picture that you have constructed within
your own mind of the impulses generated by the Inertial Totality/“Environment” that you are undivided
from. You have made of this “code” a cerebral image that you can make sense of, that takes the form of
“Distances”, “Time Spans”, “Velocities” and “Dimensionality” – but that is only your neurological
interpretation. You are not directing your will towards the object itself, only at an image that you have
constructed of it. Now lift your hand. It does move. That is because you are not willing an image to move.
You did not have to look at your hand to move it. In this case you moved the actual “object”. Now look
at your hand and will it to move. It does not move because you are not directly applying your will to it.
The Cloaking of the Quantum Realm through Classical
Ok…although perhaps you might agree that what you have read so far may have some merit as an imaginative work of fiction, the hackles may rise on the back of your neck if I try to persuade you that what has been implied is true. (Even Einstein questioned the “instantaneous relationship” of the electron twins, but experiment after experiment has proven such instantaneity to exist). Our cerebral interpretations are
protected by electrochemical resistances to perceptions that cannot be directly experienced through our senses.
We are actually hardwired into the perception of “Classical Reality”. That is why the concept and use of
“faith” is enigmatic to many, as faith in its pure form, (faith at the Quantum level), is a concept that bypasses
Space and Time.
Quoted from Encyclopaedia Britannica
"Alternate statements of Ohm's law are that the current I in a conductor equals the potential
difference V across the conductor divided by the resistance of the conductor, or simply I amps = V
volts/R resistance, and that the potential difference across a conductor equals the product of the current in
the conductor and its resistance, V = IR. In a circuit in which the potential difference, or voltage, is constant,
the current may be decreased by adding more resistance or increased by removing some resistance."
"With modifications, Ohm's law also applies to alternating-current circuits, in which the relation between the voltage and the current is more complicated than for direct currents. Precisely because
the current is varying, besides resistance, other forms of opposition to the current arise, called reactance. The
combination of resistance and reactance is called impedance, Z."
"When the impedance, equivalent to the ratio of voltage to current, in an alternating current circuit is constant, a common occurrence, Ohm's law is applicable. For example, V/I = Z."
"With further modifications Ohm's law has been extended to the constant ratio of the
magnetomotive force to the magnetic flux in a magnetic circuit. The reluctance of a magnetic circuit is
analogous to the resistance of an electric circuit. Reluctance depends on the geometrical and material
properties of the circuit that offer opposition to the presence of magnetic flux. Reluctance of a given part of
a magnetic circuit is proportional to its length and inversely proportional to its cross-sectional area and a
magnetic property of the given material called its permeability."
End of quote.
(a+b)2 is equivalent to
Now, at first glance this seems preposterous. How can it be that two numbers, one added to the other
and then the sum squared can equal the products of these same numbers, multiplied by each other and then
multiplied by 2 and then each squared, further added to this sum? It seems illogical, and if you had never before
been exposed to this mathematical curiosity and were asked to just accept it as truth, your reaction would be
to resist this “truth”, as a classical, neurological impedance…
Let us now imagine that time and space do not exist as we perceive, but are only cerebral reconstruction’s of a singular condition, of a Totality without size, but nevertheless experiencing itself, of
which we are each an undivided part. There are no “physical things”, (except undivided differential
standing waves of interactive Inertia), hence, no space is required to contain them. What is now left? We
cannot see “IT” because we are accustomed to interpreting reality through neurological “Time and
Space”. Without our cerebral reconstruction of “Existence as it is”, we are unable to formulate a
physical “IT” to see. A physical “IT” is a thing and there are no physical “things” to be revealed to our
senses without space and time. We might at first conceive an absence, but even an absence can only be formulated in relation to an existent environment, so where there is no space or time, nothing can be absent.
And here we perceive an apparent, glaring inconsistency…
…For how can there be continuity without time? Well, as it turns out, what
we interpret as “Time” is one of several perceptions of Inertia …by Inertia of itself! Inertia as the “Fluxion”, by
its Tension of Wholeness upon itself diversifies within itself, forming compounded levels that result in the
creation of Neuroceptors, (such as we), that provide Inertia localized perceptions of itself,
provoking a view of “environmental” sequentiality: interpretations of volumes and durations, in short,
dimensions of “physicality”. When we interpret a “Time Span”, we make a neurological synthesis of the
difference between convolutions of Inertia – those convolutions being “Time”/Inertia wrapped up! And
yes, this almost sounds like “Space” between “objects”, such “Space”, Inertia less
convoluted. So, when we interpret unwrapped Inertia, we interpret from two neurological perspectives – one as distance, the
other as temporality – and “wrapped”, as objects of mass. But it is all one thing, interpreted from within and
of itself in an infinite variety of ways. Within the context of “atomic particles”, we deduce that all atoms
consist of Electrons, Protons and Neutrons, and depending upon the numbers of such particles in an atom it has identity as this element or that, but all atoms are made of the same stuff – made of varying
convolutions of Inertia/“Time” /Consciousness. Such a medium, undivided from itself, whose
“elasticity”/self-interpretability, allows it to “fold” upon itself in an infinity of ways, may present itself to the
senses of a life form as an infinity of patterns. Now add to this that the life form is an undivided part of this
same Wholeness, and perceptions of infinite convolutions of the “same stuff” …become a vibrant
continuous reality …that reality consisting of “Objects” existing in “Space” over “Time” …that
reality consisting of the Mind of the “Cosmos” …divided by the Mind of the Life Form.
And how? – A life form
generated of the Wholeness …is the Wholeness, perceiving/“moving” itself through the Life Form, and
through such perception/“motion”, the Wholeness differentially develops through each life form a sense of
self, and as each “self” moves/perceives, it instantaneously affects the Continuum that generates it
…and “moves” the World from which it extends!
Yes, we are at one of those irritating paradoxes...
Move your hand from here to there and it traverses a distance over time. But where your hand rests is always in the present, always at a “place”, both perceptions – present and place, instant and point,
instantaneous. Between here and there, how many instantaneous places are there …and how many
instants? The infinite number still adds up to zero time and zero space. The infinite number still adds up to
instantaneity. Time and Space are aspects then of what we perceive as “motion”, a span of measurements, a
function of analyzation. They are perceptual constructs of a deeper reality. Ok, you walk from here to there
…and you think you are walking :) ? Your displaced mind is dividing the mind of the Wholeness, and the
Wholeness is presenting to your perception its perceived divisions because you are an undivided part
of it. All perceptions are displaced perspectives by an undivided Wholeness of itself. Nothing actually
“moves”, but thought illuminates! – Perspectives become “active”. This is the reality that acts upon
itself, stresses forming within through its attempt to solve the equation of its own self-constructed,
self-driven infrastructure, creating within our neurological view, volumes and motions as an
In this past Century, we learned how stars shine for billions of years and how the elements were formed. Our new technology of lasers and semiconductors is based on Quantum Mechanics, while our understanding of the Cosmos is based on General Relativity. The known universe went from the Milky Way and an Earth a few million years old, to a vast structure of galactic clusters, quasars, pulsars, black holes, and Gamma Ray Bursts which has evolved over a period of time of roughly 12-15 giga-years. The adventure of ideas in physics and astronomy has been enormously mind-expanding. Despite its many triumphs, the Standard Model is based on the acceptance of paradox, singularities, and the infinite energy of the vacuum. A paradox is a form of self-contradiction. Goedel proved that from a logical system which contains a contradiction, absolutely any proposition may be proven. Since Newton, physics has been mathematical physics, not just so we can crank out the numbers, but also to enable us to be consistent and to catch logical errors. A singularity is a place where a variable goes to plus or minus infinity, and that is the meaning I use. We know there can be no actual infinities, because they would gobble up the rest of the universe. We know that the vacuum cannot have infinite energy, because energy is mass, and infinite mass would have folded up the universe long before the CMBR was released, long before atoms were formed, long before the first quasar or galaxy. After all, space is finite, because it has been expanding at a finite rate for a finite time. So infinite vacuum energy implies infinite energy density for the vacuum. This is an absurd and logically impossible idea. Yet just such views have been accepted as part of the Standard Model in the 20th Century, only because QED and QCD can crank out the right numbers. For some things. Let us hope the 21st Century can do a little better, or rationality will simply dissolve. All is not lost. It is not the equations that are wrong, but in some cases our use of them, for instance, applying Heisenberg's uncertainty rules to the vacuum, which results in the infinite energy of the vacuum. And in some cases, the problem is not the equations, but our interpretation of them. That is the problem with basic quantum mechanics. Removing the Paradox A non-paradoxical interpretation of quantum mechanics is possible if we accept the fundamental reality of the de Broglie wave. All we have to do is show why particles sometimes have a wave-like behavior (while remaining particles) and why vibrations sometimes act like particles, (while remaining vibrations in a field). A thing cannot be simultaneously a particle and a wave. The scale of things doesn't change logic. Fortunately, we can avoid the wave-particle paradox with the de Broglie wave. It was Prince Louis de Broglie, a French aristocrat, who discovered this wave in 1923. His Ph.D. was in history, and he went on to a career as a civil servant. According to Fred Alan Wolf, in Taking the Quantum Leap, de Broglie regarded his wave as either a pilot wave or a matter wave. My view, however, is that it is neither. It is something real in and of itself, which we may call the de Broglie wave, and it is a possibility / probability wave. It shows us what is possible, and their probabilities. The de Broglie Wave The properties of the de Broglie wave are described by two equations: p = h / L andW = C**2 / v where p is momentum, L is the de Broglie wavelength, W is the velocity of the de Broglie wave, v is the ordinary velocity of the associated particle and h is Planck's constant (6.6*10**(-27) erg-sec), while C is the speed of light (3*10**10 cm/sec). The ideas of de Broglie excited immediate interest, because he could use his formula to calculate the orbits of atoms. Each orbit is determined by the standing waves (or resonances) of the de Broglie vibration. The ground state orbit will fit precisely one wavelength, the second orbit two wavelengths, and so forth to higher and higher overtones. These standing waves can themselves move, which indicates movement of their associated particle. This movement of the standing wave is never faster than the speed of light. Prince de Broglie's ideas are very similar to the theory of musical instruments, as he well knew. There are actually several ways of deriving the orbits of atoms. Before de Broglie, Bohr, noticing that Planck's constant, h, has the units of angular momentum, found that he could calculate the orbits of the hydrogen atom by taking Planck's constant as the unit of angular momentum. The first orbit had an angular momentum of h, the second 2h and so on. And from this, he could calculate the energy levels of each orbit, and more importantly, the difference in energy given up in dropping from a higher orbit down to a lower orbit. Since 1905, scientists had known that for the photon, E=hf, to know the energy lost in a given transition is to know the resulting photon's frequency and thus its wavelength (since C=L*f). Much to Bohr's delight, his calculations agreed exactly with the Balmer series of the spectral lines emitted or absorbed by hydrogen. A standing wave is sometimes called an Eigenstate, with a quantum number N=0,1,2,3..., with an Eigenvalue E(N) associated with each value of the quantum number. In a musical instrument, the standing wave is the note produced by the instrument. In music, the Eigenvalue would be frequency and the quantum number would indicate the fundamental tone and its first, second, third, etc., overtones. This leads to the mature form of the de Broglie wave equation. If the de Broglie function is described by F(r,t), and H is the Hamiltonian differential operator, then H[F(r,t)] becomes the left half of a differential equation. We let E(n) be the eigenvalues, which for the Hamiltonian operator will be energy states, a different one in most cases for each value of n=0,1,2,3... So the mature forms of the equation resemble:H[F(r,t)] = E(n)*F(r,t) It was Erwin Schroedinger who took de Broglie's formulas and plugged them into the partial differential equation for a wave. He then imposed severe boundary conditions, which in effect made each solution of the equation a probability function. In this way, the 2-dimensional picture of orbits is transformed into a 3-dimensional picture of orbitals. There are s, p, d and f orbitals. All the s orbitals are spherical. The other orbitals can assume more complicated, multi-lobed shapes. There are 3 such shapes for the p orbitals, 5 for the d orbitals and 7 for the f orbitals. Knowing the size, shape, and energy level of each orbital, chemists can understand the periodic table of elements. This, in turn, provides an understanding of ionic bonds and valence bonds and the general behavior of all of the elements, alone or in combination. See The Periodic Kingdom, by P.W. Atkins, especially pages 112 and 113. If you have trouble understanding resonances, think of musical instruments. Louis de Broglie's theory is similar to the theory of a musical instrument, as he well knew. For a trumpet with a given length of tubing, there is a lowest note, one where exactly one wavelength of sound will resonate in the tube. It is possible to make higher notes on a trumpet, by producing overtones, but impossible to make a lower note. The same is true of electrons in orbit around a nucleus, although this analogy is only a teaching device and doesn't really explain the behavior of atoms. So far so good. This picture even allows us to see why the first orbit of electrons around a nucleus can only hold two electrons, one somewhere under the maxima of the de Broglie resonance, and the other opposite to it under the minima. These two electrons have slightly different energy, because in the up electron, its magnetic pole aligns with that of the nucleus, while the down electron has its magnetic pole alignment opposite to that of the nucleus. The picture even allows us to understand why we can never predict exactly where the electron is. The de Broglie wave is a probability wave. It shows us where the probability is greatest, but some of the time the electron will be anywhere its probability is non-zero. Heisenberg's Uncertainty Rules What we must add to this picture are Heisenberg's uncertainty rules, and relativity, which gives us electron spin and anti-particles. I won't go into that. If Z is some observable, then we will indicate the spread of its probability function (its Heisenberg uncertainty) by putting a "d" in front of it, dZ. The Heisenberg rules describe a curious coupling of position with momentum, and energy with time. Heisenberg's rules are:dP * dx = h, and dE * dt = h where P is momentum, x is position, E is energy, t is time, and h is Planck's constant (6.6*10**(-27)erg-sec). So if the positions are spread out, momenta will not be spread out. They will be "sharp." If the duration of an energy state has a large Heisenberg uncertainty, the energy will not. It will be "sharp." The product of the uncertainties is always Planck's constant, h. Sometimes Heisenberg's rules are written h/2pi, but it is always possible to incorporate this geometric factor into the definition of a "spread." Consider an electron in an excited orbit in the hydrogen atom. It will remain in that state for a certain duration of time, t, and when it falls back into a lower orbit, it will release a quantum of electro-magnetic energy, where E=hf (f being the frequency). However, if we have a large number of hydrogen atoms making the same transition, both the energy E and the time t will vary a little. That is the "spread." There is a little probability curve that goes with each variable. The product of those spreads is Planck's constant h. Nature is fundamentally probabilistic on an atomic or sub-atomic level. Notice that the product of the spreads is an extremely small number, far smaller than experimental error. The real importance of Heisenberg's laws is that it is from them that we get virtual particles and the infinite energy of the vacuum. More on that later. Incidentally, Heisenberg's rules provide yet a third way of calculating the orbits of the electrons in an atom. Historical interlude: The paradoxical interpretation of QM arose at the Fifth Solvay conference in 1927, where the principals were Bohr, Einstein, de Broglie, Born, and Schroedinger. Schroedinger had plugged in de Broglie's equation for the wavelength into the standard partial differential equation for moving particles, and produced the Schroedinger equation for calculating wave packets. The problem is that these Schroedinger packets steadily spread out in time, unlike the de Broglie wave. Heisenberg suggested that the act of observation collapsed the Schroedinger wave function, so it was once again localized. Thus, reality is created by our observation of it. Naturally mystics liked that idea. Schroedinger was something of a mystic, even before he produced his equation. So it became part of the standard interpretation of QM which is still accepted. Years later, in 1952, David Bohm argued that the underlying assumptions of Heisenberg's uncertainty rules could be contradicted by an unknown underlying level of reality. This is known as the hidden variables theory. In the 1960s, John Bell proved that hidden variables would be non-local. In other words, a change in a hidden variable might simultaneously and instantaneously change an observable variable light-years away, if the two events were "intangled." Bell's theorem has become famous. It does not exclude hidden variables. But they must be non-local, which would be an even stranger idea than quantum mechanics. End of historical interlude. No to Bohm and to Einstein I should emphasize that I do not believe in hidden variables. I don't accept Bohm's objections to quantum mechanics, nor those of Einstein. It doesn't bother me in the slightest that sub-atomic reality is fundamentally probabilistic, and is in many ways different from the macroscopic reality we directly observe. All I am saying is that our theories about sub-atomic reality cannot be paradoxical or allow logical impossibilities. If we assume that the de Broglie wave is not a mathematical fiction, we can make all the quantum paradoxes and all the quantum weirdness go away. The electron does not go through both slits in the famous two-slit interferometer experiment. But its de Broglie wave does, and produces the diffraction patterns on the far side. The electron goes through one slit or the other; we just don't know which, since the de Broglie wave intensity is equal at the two slits. The electron is always in one place or another. It does not have a ghostly presence in each of the places it could be. Thus, observing an electron does not "collapse the wave function," nor does it pick out one among an infinity of universes. The de Broglie functions describe the experiment, such as the 2-slit interferometer. Remember, it describes what is possible, and their probabilities. For the detector on the 2-slit interferometer, we use wave theory and positive and negative interference to produce a curve of the intensity of the de Broglie wave at the plane of the detector. This will be a curve with two humps. Now suppose we feed our electrons through one at a time. It might land on the right, or it might land on the left. What has collapsed? Nothing. The function for this apparatus remains the same. And if we keep on feeding electrons through it, the results will more and more closely match the two humped probability wave of de Broglie. We do not change it by observing it. Incidentally, the 2-slit experiment has now been done with atoms, molecules, and even a 60 carbon atom bucky-ball (Arndt, M. et al. (1999) Letters to Nature, vol 401, October 14, 1999 pg 680). This implies that one can calculate the de Broglie wave of an entire object, such as the Bucky-ball, as if it were a single simple thing having a particular mass, velocity, and location. This is somewhat like the Center of Mass theorem in Newtonian physics. Of course, someone is sure to repeat the mantra of QM, which is that the position and velocity of an object cannot be known simultaneously. But this is not what the Heisenberg Uncertainty relationship says. It says we can only know each of these quantities to 13 significant digits! I am sure any experimenter would be very happy with that. T>he de Broglie vibration explains the sometimes wavelike behavior of electrons. When a beam of electrons is reflected off a crystal, it forms diffraction patterns. This is because the de Broglie wave associated with the electron goes before, (since its velocity is always greater than that of the electron), and bounces off each atom on the surface of the crystal. The result is a whole series of reflected de Broglie waves, which add or subtract, producing a diffraction pattern. The probability of an electron hitting the detector screen in a particular place is proportional to the intensity of its de Broglie wave there. Photons Recall that the velocity of the de Broglie wave for an object traveling at velocity V is W = C**2 / V but V in this case is C, thus W=Cand we know the frequency from E=hf, and by definition the velocity of a wave is its wavelength times its frequency so L = C*h / E, same as for photons. The problem of photons is quite different from the problem of atoms. In atoms, we have resonances of the de Broglie wave, which determine the orbits of the electrons. With EM radiation, the de Broglie wave does not form a resonance. It just spreads out like ripples in a pond, in three-dimensions, and has positive and negative interference with all the other de Broglie waves from other photons in the neighborhood. As usual, where the de Broglie wave is strongest, that is where you are most likely to find a photon. What does a photon look like? A useless question. To what is a photon? I believe it looks just like a Schroedinger wave packet, except we must imagine a second wave at right angles to the first one. The first wave is in the electric field, and the one perpendicular to it is in the magnetic field. I think photons are highly localized in space. They probably all have the same size. However, one can get fewer waves into a packet with longer wavelength, which is why E=hf, that is, the energy of a photon is proportional do the number of waves of electrical and magnetic energy one can get into a photon. I should remind everybody that there is no new physics here. I'm not changing the equations. This is just an interpretation of the equations, i.e., a word picture and a mental picture. This interpretation avoids the weirdness of later quantum mechanics, such as the wave-particle paradox, multiple universes, instantaneous action at a distance, the collapse of the wave-function and the entanglement of observer with observed, which crept in with Schroedinger, Heisenberg, and Bohr. This non-paradoxical interpretation is consistent with observation. We cannot ask more of an interpretation. I would make a stronger statement. Physics cannot simply accept paradox, any more than it can just accept singularities. To do so is the end of physics as a rational enterprise, because absolutely any proposition can be derived from a system of ideas which allows logical impossibilities. Getting Rid of the Infinite Energy of the Vacuum The infinite energy of the vacuum (which would curl the whole universe up faster than I can type this sentence) arises from the theory of virtual particles. The entire theory of virtual particles arises from applying Heisenberg's rule of dE*dt=h to the vacuum. Remember, dt is the spread in duration, and dE is the spread in energy. If we make dt very sharp, dE becomes very broad, so broad in fact, that the formation of a particle and an anti-particle has non-zero probability, although this pair will exist for the minute fraction of time allowed it by dt. This is the origin of the theory of virtual particles, which has the unfortunate consequence that the energy of the vacuum is infinite. It is possible to prevent infinity by cutting off the possible wavelengths when they are small enough to enter the realm of quantum gravity. But that ad hoc device still gives us a vacuum energy 120 orders of magnitude greater than the energy contained in all the matter in the universe! According to Lawrence Krauss, a well-respected neutrino physicist, "[This] discrepancy between theory and observation is the most perplexing quantitative puzzle in physics today (Scientific American, Jan. 1999, "Cosmological Antigravity," p. 55)." I am glad that Lawrence Krauss agrees with me. Some would say that if the vacuum has any energy density, it would be infinite if the universe is spatially infinite. What is wrong with that? Only that the universe has been expanding from a Hawking no-boundary singularity for a finite time, about 15 billion years. So it cannot be spatially infinite, though it could still be unbounded. Fortunately, it is possible to get rid of virtual particles, simply by saying that it is appropriate to apply Heisenberg's rules only when we can calculate a de Broglie wave. There is no de Broglie wave for the vacuum. So how then do we explain Casimir's force and other apparent confirmations of this idea? By applying de Broglie theory to the Electro-Magnetic field, which extends through all of space. As we bring two plates closer together, we begin limiting the wavelengths of photons that can exist between them. This draws the plates together. At least, that is one idea. Better than accepting an absurdity such as infinite energy for the vacuum. If there are no virtual particles, then the vacuum goes back to what it was in Newton's time. Nothing. It is just empty space. Those people who are planning space-ships which will extract energy from the ZPE are just wasting their time. Cosmology I have now eliminated the paradox from Quantum Mechanics. I would like to begin my discussion of cosmology with an observation about anti-particles. It was Richard Feynman who suggested that anti-particles are like ordinary particles moving backwards in time. If that is true, anti-particles should have anti-gravity, a conjecture which has never been tested, although there is evidence for it. Newsweek (Newsweek, May 12, 1997, "Fountain of Annhilation") and Discover magazines have reported a fountain of anti-electrons spouting from the center of our own galaxy, which is suspected of harboring an old quasar, also known as a giant black hole. Giant jets of particles and energy have been seen erupting from many galactic centers. Wouldn't it be interesting if all such jets start out as anti-particles? This is exactly what we would expect if anti-particles have anti-gravity. When particle and anti-particle pairs are formed inside the intense gravitational field of a black hole or quasar, the anti-particle seems to shoot out one pole or the other, producing the jet. This implies that quasars and black holes gradually evaporate, which is why there are no quasars left in recent times. Ordinary stellar black holes could very well have a limited lifetime as well. Think about this and you see that there is no singularity inside a black hole. First, we must assume that all black holes are spinning, and the unseen particles inside the black hole are orbiting the center as well. For a moment, let us suppose there is a singularity. Any particle plunging down its throat would steadily pick up energy, and continuously split into particles and anti-particles. The anti-particles zoom away with enormous acceleration out the poles. Why? Because in any other direction, it will meet particles, and annihilate. This process would continue until all the energy is drained out of the black hole. This doesn't happen, therefore there is no singularity. For the same reason, the universe could not collapse into a singularity, nor begin with a singularity. The Expanding Universe Recent observations show that the universe is not only expanding, it is accelerating. The evaporation of black holes and quasars could explain this, since it produces anti-matter. The proportion of anti-matter to matter should increase (up to a point), and so should the repulsive force produced by anti-matter. The force of repulsion will decline as quasars and black holes disappear, since the anti-matter will gradually be annhilated. The acceleration phase may already be passing, since there have been no quasars in the last billion years. There has been just enough acceleration to make the universe old enough to hold the oldest stars. The universe is closed, and repeatedly returns to the Hartle-Hawking no-boundary and explodes outward again, all its laws of nature unchanged. There is no need for Guth's Inflation theory. Fiddling with Einstein's Cosmic Constant is unnecessary. It is zero, and to make it anything else would be hopelessly ad hoc. Quintessence is not required. There is no ZPE. And there is no need for string theory, since the rationale for developing it is to avoid singularities. Once Quantum Gravity has been developed, there will be nothing left to explain in physics. The laws of the universe are what they are, because they have always been so. If anti-particles have anti-gravity, they would not clump. Indeed, they would produce the soap bubble large scale structure of the universe that we in fact observe. The anti-matter particles would try to stay as far away from every other particle as possible. Thus, we must imagine the voids inside the soap-bubbles filled with anti-matter, pushing out the walls of matter (both normal and "dark") until the walls collide. It is along these collisions between bubbles that we see matter become dense enough to form galaxies, clusters and super-clusters. Anti-matter still has inertia, in other words, positive mass. The mass density of the universe has on average been close to the critical value needed to make the universe flat, and anti-particles with anti-gravity filling the vast voids between super-clusters of galaxies must comprise a large, but variable, component. Quantum Gravity First, an analogy. Existing quantum theory was developed entirely by observation of the interaction between photons and electrons. The theory of the photon could not be derived from the field theory of Electro-Magnetism, i.e. Maxwell's equations. It required new evidence. So it shall be with the graviton. Thus, quantum gravity will be the theory of the graviton, created by observing the absorption and emission of gravitons. We have been looking at the absorption and emission of gravitons for 30 years, but not recognizing it as such. This is based on a little noted experiment, reported in Scientific American back in 1970 by Mansinha and Smylie, which shows that the Earth experiences abrupt changes of spin vector on the order of at most 10 milli-arc-seconds per second. These abrupt changes look exactly like the absorption or emission of gravitational quanta, and thus could be the beginning of a theory of quantum gravity. The field theory of gravity (Einstein's general theory of relativity) gives us misleading advice about the graviton, just as the field theory of EM gave misleading advice about the photon. Einstein's theory predicts that a graviton carries an extremely small amount of energy. So that is the kind of graviton being looked for, and not being found. And it is assumed in classical gravitational theory that a relatively small object can absorb a graviton, which is also not true. It takes a planetary sized object to absorb or emit a graviton. Milli-arc-second jumps in direction and speed of the planetary spin vector have been observed by D.E. Smylie and L. Mansinha. See "The Rotation of the Earth," vol. 225, #6, December 1971, Scientific American, pp. 80-88. There is nothing in geology that could explain this. Magma movements are too slow, and the flow of currents in the liquid metal outer core of the earth cause continuous rather than discontinuous movements in the magnetic pole, with no associated change in the spin vector. The jumps in the spin vector are not caused by earthquakes. Abrupt changes of as much as ten milliseconds in sidereal time have been observed. Thus, Mansinha & Smylie's observations are a mystery...unless they represent the absorption or emission of gravitons of enormous energy. Add to this Bode's Law and we have the beginning of a theory. Bode's Law Bode's law takes the series 0,3,6,12,24, each time doubling the previous number, adds 4 and divides by 10. The result is the mean distance of each planet's orbit expressed in units of AU (which is one for the Earth). Bode's law very accurately describes the orbits of all the planets (and the asteroid belt) except the outer two, Neptune and Pluto. And we know that Pluto is not really a planet, but just a planetesimal captured by Neptune. We also know that in the early years of the formation of the Solar System, the outermost planets would be busy throwing out planetesimals, and each time, moving in a little closer to the sun. So it is easy to imagine that Neptune formed at 38.8 AU, but gradually moved inward to 30.1 AU as a result of tossing out planetesimals. No one has ever come up with an explanation of Bode's law. I suggest it makes our solar system resemble an atom, and we know that an atom's orbits are determined by the theory of photons. Likewise, it seems reasonable that a solar system should be explained by the theory of gravitons, with a touch of chaos thrown in. By the way, this means our Solar System is typical, and the ones currently being found in the year 2001 are atypical. This increases the odds of finding life and intelligence in the universe.
SYNCHRONICITY AND THE
by Joseph H. Bryan-Royster, Ph.D., Msc.D.
Synchronicity is defined as the concept of meaningful coincidences. Dr. Carl Gustav Jung, the famed Swiss psychoanalyst, first introduced it in the early twentieth century, while performing research studies on human behavior.
The now legendary scarab beetle case is described by Jung in The Structure and Dynamics of the Psyche. He wrote: "A young woman I was treating had, at a critical moment, a dream in which she was given a golden scarab. While she was telling me his dream I sat with my back to the closed window. Suddenly I heard a noise behind me, like a gentle tapping. I turned round and saw a flying insect knocking against the window-pane from outside. I opened the window and caught the creature in the air as it flew in. It was the nearest analogy to the golden scarab that one finds in our latitudes, a scarabaeid beetle, the common rose-chafer (Cetoaia urata) which contrary to its usual habits had evidently felt an urge to get into a dark room at this particular moment. I must admit that nothing like it ever happened to me before or since, and that the dream of the patient has remained unique in my experience."
Since the time of Jung's experience, James Redfield's book "The Celestine Prophesy" carried this principle into his theme of consciousness integration on a global scale with interfacing synchronicities drawing the protagonists in his novel toward discovery of ancient ruins and nine spiritual insights. Parallels, or analogues, are events that have transpired which display significant correspondences, rendering them counterparts of one another within the context of a greater meaning. Key relationships between dates in time, as they pertain to specific events, reveal the undeniable existence of synchronistic parallels, which have been scientifically documented as proof of this fact. These parallels may occur on a personal or on an impersonal level.
Personal parallels are significant only to those whose firsthand experience reveals their manifestation. Dates of births, marriages, and deaths within families that align with one another are examples of this type of synchronicity. I experienced this particular form of synchronistic parallel when the unsolved murder of my aunt, Mary Lou Bryan, on December 20, 1991 aligned with the unexpected passing away of my mother, Mary Royster, due to respiratory failure six years later on December 20, 1997. Mary Lou was the widow of my natural father's brother, and my mother had been widowed by my step-father.
My birthdate is March 19, 1950 and it is marked by a synchronistic parallel. I was given the name Joseph David Bryan at birth. Sixty-nine years earlier, my paternal great-grandfather, Joseph David Bryan, died on March 19, 1881.
Then , there is the parallel of my maternal grandfather, Howard Isham, who passed away on May 1, 1965 - which was the same date my brother-in-law, Ralph Tetrault, was ordained as a Roman Catholic priest. It was not until Susan and I were married on May 1, 1986 that the parallel between my grandfather and brother-in-law was revealed.
Even my daughter, Mary Jessie Bryan, was born into a synchronistic parallel - when her entry into this life on February 10, 1987 coincided with the fifth anniversary of her maternal grandmother's passing. Mary Jessie Tetrault had died on February 10, 1982.
My case is not unique. Just yesterday, Dr. Skot Jonz presented a birthdates parallel between his friend Jsan, who shared similar interest in master number synchronicity, born March 22, 1959, and himself, born March 22, 1960.
A modest example of such a parallel manifesting on an impersonal level involves the specific date of June 28, 1991 and how an event that transpired on that day related directly to the one which later occurred on June 28, 1992. The first date was marked by a moderate earthquake that shook Sierra Madre, California; its epicenter being located seven miles below the earth's surface. Exactly one year later, a temblor rocked Landers, California; followed shortly thereafter by a quake in Big Bear, California. They have been dubbed the "twin Quakes" because they were triggered on different fault lines and therefore the latter was not an aftershock of the former. The synchronicity in dates and type of event determine this to fit classification as a spontaneously generated parallel.
A more specific case involves the relationship between April 19, 1775 and April 19, 1993. The initial date was signified by the eruption of catalyctic battles at Lexington Green and Concord Bridge in Massachusetts, heralding the American Revolution and eventual birth of the United States as an independent nation. The latter one was the culmination of a 51-day standoff at the Branch Davidian compound in Waco, Texas between David Koresh's followers and FBI agents, whereas orders were given by the attorney general to storm the building and a subsequent fire engulfed the structure killing over 80 people inside. The synchronistic connection between these two events relates to the issue of keeping and bearing arms. British troops were searching for colonial munitions stores and sought the arrest of John Hancock and Sam Adams. The Minutemen resisted and hostilities ignited. ATF agents raided the Branch Davidian property in search of illegal weapons and held arrest warrants for Koresh and other key members of the cult, who responded with gunfire thus botching the raid and initiating the FBI siege. The paralleling dates were manipulated in this case, and not spontaneous, because an executive decision was made by Janet Reno to take the Waco compound by force on April 19th, though she may not have been cognizant of this being the Lexington and Concord anniversary date. Then, the Oklahoma City federal building bombing took place two years later on the same date, April 19, 1995 - a simply horrible event. (pointing to mounted parchment print on easel at right of podium) I have over here a copy of the United States Declaration of Independence - Dr Helen Wallace and Dr. Mitzi Pyles both made reference to it in their talks.
The most unusual example of a synchronistic parallel involves July 4, 1776 - ratification date for the Declaration of Independence in Philadelphia, and also July 4, 1826 - the day two key signatories of this landmark document died of natural causes in separate locations. John Adams, delegate from Massachusetts, and Thomas Jefferson, delegate from Virginia as well as author of the Declaration. Both of these men strived diligently for colonial independence from the British crown, and each served as President of the United States during its formative early years; Adams as a member of the Federalist party and Jefferson as a Democratic-Republican. In spite of being on opposite sides of the political spectrum of the times, the contributions of each during their respective administrations helped to mold this young country into the great representative democracy that it is today. Adams oversaw the nation's capital in transition from Philadelphia to Washington, D.C.; the present seat of government. Jefferson negotiated the Louisiana purchase with France and began westward expansion from the original boundaries created at the end of the Revolutionary War; prelude to the territorial thrust which would eventually stretch across the continent reaching the Pacific Coast, Alaska, and Hawaii. Though Adams and Jefferson each held very different visions for the United States of America and were thus estranged for many years, they re-established their friendship in later years. Then, by some unexplained co-incidence, on the 50th anniversary of their country's independence, the two statesmen quietly passed away; Adams at his home in Braintree, Massachusetts and Jefferson at Monticello in Virginia.
Parallels manifest in other forms than date alignments; they can also be revealed in relationships of names and similarities in events. The Abraham Lincoln and John F. Kennedy assassinations are associated in this way. Following their untimely deaths, both presidents were succeeded by vice-presidents with the same last name: Andrew Johnson and Lyndon B. Johnson, respectively. Each president employed a secretary with the same last name as the other president. A Kennedy was on staff in the Lincoln administration and a Lincoln was likewise in the JFK White House. Both assassins were killed before they could stand trial for their crimes. John Wilkes Booth died in a barn fire while being apprehended by the authorities and Lee Harvey Oswald was shot at close range by Jack Ruby while in custody and in front of live TV cameras. Synchronicity shown in this interface is quite remarkable. The United States of America survived four years of pain and suffering during the Civil War and under the able leadership of Abraham Lincoln averted a permanent political division into two separate countries; one representative of freedom and the other slavery. A century later, the determination of Kennedy in the face of potential thermonuclear war with the Soviet Union held firm during the Cuban Missile Crisis, as Kruschev subsequently removed the offensive weapons from such close proximity to the Florida coastline.
Scientific application of synchronistic parallels in the field of Metaphysics is possible through documentation of specific linkages and derivation of significant meanings from relationships created by them. Several personal examples plus four examples of this phenomenon on an impersonal level have been presented to indicate possible forms such parallels might exhibit. Students and professionals are encouraged to watch for any alignments of dates, names, events, places, or other striking correlation which is indicative of a synchronistic parallel, whether it is of a personal or impersonal nature. Seek clues in their structure and determine, if possible, the underlying significance of such analogues. Metaphysicians thus may increase their knowledge of the true interconnectedness of all events, threaded with universal life energy emanating from the Source who dwells within us all. As above, so below. As is, so be it!
Topological Geometrodynamics (thesis in 1983) and topics related to it have been my main research interest for 23 years now. TGD is an attempt to unify fundamental interactions by assuming that physical spacetimes can be regarded as submanifolds of certain 8-dimensional space, which is product of Minkowski space future light cone and 4-dimensional complex projective space CP_2. One could end up with TGD as a generalization of string model obtained by replacing 1-dimensional strings with 3-dimensional surfaces, or as an attempt to construct Poincare invariant theory of gravitation (Poincare group acts in imbedding space rather than on spacetime surface).
p-Adicity leads to
surprisingly precise predictions for elementary particle masses and it
is possible to understand the origin of the elementary particle
mass scales number theoretically. This however forces to accept that
cognition is present already in p-adic length scales. Quantum TGD
leads naturally to TGD inspired theory of consciousness, which has been
developing vigorously during the last years and the recent formulation
of quantum TGD proper relies heavily on the basic principles of
TGD inspired theory of consciousness. For instance, standard
quantum measurement theory is a prediction of TGD and relates very
closely with consciousness. In a similar manner, the generalization of
quantum hologram principle is equally crucial for quantum TGD as it is
for TGD inspired theory of consciousness. Furthermore, the states of
supercanonical representations are