|
|
The Heisenberg Uncertainty Principle is a
fundamental
principle of physics and quantum mechanics. Quantum mechanics is the
study of the microcosmic world, the world of atomic structure.
According
to qm, the behavior of matter inside the atom is completely different
from what
is observed outside the atom. So according to qm, there is a
separation
between the microcosmic and the macrocosmic.
To me, this is suspicious.
The Heisenberg Uncertainty Principle arises
because,
experimentally, it has not been possible to determine the position and
momentum
of a subatomic particle exactly. Heisenberg originally
explained that the light used to observe
subatomic
particles affects those particles. The light, or the media used for the
measurement, interacts with the measured particle, affecting its
momentum and
position. This phenomenon has been observed over
and over in nature, so it is assumed to be a natural
law.
For
example, in the analysis of sound waves, it isn’t possible to know the
precise
frequency of a wave at an exact time t, because by definition,
you need some
time to determine what the frequency of the wave is! That’s because
frequency
(which determines how high or low a sound is) is defined as the number
of
wavecrests that pass by your measuring device (your ear, in most cases)
in a
period of time. So you can determine the amplitude of a signal
precisely at an
exact time t, but not the frequency (the amplitude is just the measure
of how
strong the signal is). And if you determine the frequency exactly, that
requires time, so you lose preciseness in the time domain. An entire
branch of
science and math is devoted to the analysis of signal information, and
is known
as Fourier analysis. In the physical universe, there seems to be a
tradeoff
between one factor and another. That is because it isn’t possible to
make two
measurements simultaneously. This principle is known in physics as
complementarity.
Anyway, physics and qm has concluded,
naturally, that absolute
certainty in measurement and observation is
not possible. We can only discuss the probability that a
certain particle, say an electron, will be at a certain place when it
is
measured. QM has concluded that because mankind has not devised
instrumentation
which can measure a particle without interfering with it, that it is
not
possible, anywhere in the universe, to do so. QM has concluded
that an
essential property of the universe (at least, within the atom) must be
uncertainty.
It is referred to as “The way nature really is.”
(1)
This sort of idea has had a profound effect
on
thinking and mass consciousness in the 20th century. It has led to the
idea
that there is really no predictability in nature, and has also led to
the
conception that the universe must be fundamentally chaotic, and that we
try,
with our instruments and experiments, to make some order out of a
seemingly
disorderly universe.
The basic idea behind science is that in
order to
figure out the universe and our place as conscious beings in it, we
must
observe the energy and objects in the universe and adjust our thinking
according to the laws which we discover while performing our
experiments.
But this is backwards.
If one went into a cluttered room filled with
old
boxes and things that are no longer used, would one then have to
adjust
one's thinking based on the objects that are observed there?
Of course not. One may just throw the old,
unwanted
things in the trash, sweep the floor, open the windows and enjoy
the view
once more from a clean space. That is the prerequisite of
consciousness, the
animating principle of the universe.
Understanding one's place in the world by
looking at
material objects is pointless.
Creating one's life from observation just
leads to
more of what is observed. It is a static process. But we observe life
to be
constantly changing, dynamic. How then can we have a science which
purports to
discover the secrets of the universe, operating from such a backwards
concept?
Because mankind has not devised instruments
sensitive
enough to observe subatomic structure with any definiteness, is no
reason to
suppose that nature operates with uncertainty. The uncertainty lies in
man's
lack of ingenuity.
A failure to devise a way to clearly observe
something
is no justification for proposing a condition upon nature.
It is almost silly to say that because we do
not
observe nature with certainty, that nature herself is not certain.
One only need look around to observe that the
universe
is well-ordered. Is it more rational to assume that inside the atom
there is
chaos, because we have not yet been inventive enough to devise ways of
measuring it, or that perhaps, just perhaps, the same order which we
see around
us exists in the microcosmic world as well?
To my mind, it is not justifiable to proclaim
a
principle of nature based on a failure to observe nature.
In my opinion, establishment physics is at a
dead-end.
It's exploration of atomic structure has led
to more and
more complexity, more and more confusing properties of subatomic
particles
(charm, spin, color, etc), and more and more separation between
the
reality we observe around us and the things which are supposed to make
up that
reality (Oppenheimer once said, “the Nobel Prize in physics shall go to
the
physicist who does NOT discover a new particle that year.") There
probably
aren't more than a few thousand guys on the planet who can say they
completely
understand the entirety of qm and the mathematics that goes with it.
When
something gets more and more complex, it gets further and further from
the
truth.
Physics does not really understand gravity,
light,
electromagnetism, and a host of other phenomena that we observe around
us every
day. In physics, we have two distinct theories which describe all known
physical phenomena, relativity and quantum mechanics, which describe
uncertainty
in the microscopic world, and certainty for the macroscopic world.
(Of course there are other theories, like
Superstring
Theory, which attempt to combine our understanding of the strong and
weak
nuclear forces, electromagnetism (light) and gravity, but such theories
really
cannot be tested (there’s that Heisenberg Uncertainty Principle again!
How can
you test a theory which requires a clear look at subatomic phenomena?)
and is
still considered a little out of the mainstream. But at least
Superstring
Theory is getting closer to the missing variable of consciousness)
There is a fundamental misunderstanding in
science
today about the relationship of the universe to the conscious beings
which
inhabit it. Science says that consciousness is subordinate to matter
and
energy. Physics tries to deduce the nature of life by observing how
matter and
energy interact with each other. But matter and energy are creations of
consciousness. The universe and everything in it is a vast soup
of the
creations of consciousness.
Thought is the fundamental unit of creation.
It is
extremely refined energy and cannot be detected, so far as I know, by
any
instruments of science.
All matter and energy is composed of thought.
All form
is agreement between particles of consciousness to come together. This
is the
origin of gravity. All form has a blueprint and that blueprint is
devised by
consciousness. That is how an embryo knows how to grow into a human
baby, and
not a beetle. That is how an apple seed knows how to make an apple
tree, and
not an avocado.
A scientist might say, “Well, if it’s true,
prove it!”
He will tote out his physics books and show you pages of mathematics
which are
supposed to tell us how things REALLY are. But all of this math is
either based
on observation of what has already been created by consciousness, or
speculation
(Feynman has said, in his Lectures on Physics, “It is not true that we can pursue science
completely by using only those concepts which are directly subject to
experiment.”)
Science still has not got the connection
between
consciousness and the creations of consciousness.
Experiments in the lab have already shown that the thoughts and intent of the experimenter affect the outcome of the experiment. This should not be surprising, since every particle in the universe is a creation of consciousness, and so can be affected by consciousness.
Thought, the main by-product of
consciousness, is not
studied by science because it cannot be measured by science, and does
not exist
in the equations science uses as the basis for describing our world.
Out of
sight, out of mind. Out of mind, out of the realm of consideration.
Clairvoyants have observed, with their 'inner
sight',
the structure of atoms and have come up with a well-ordered and
understandable
structure. (See "Occult Chemistry" by C.W. Leadbeater and Annie
Besant). Remote viewing has devised strict protocols for the
observation of phenomena
using 'inner sight,' or 'out-of-body' perception.
Why should we assume that the observations of
a
clairvoyant regarding subatomic phenomena are any less valid than those
of an
instrument? The non–physical, or virtual, nature of consciousness may
allow
accurate observation without affecting the physical particles involved.
There
is just clear viewing. In other words, the principle of complementarity
may be
avoided and complete information gathered about a physical system, IF
we accept
that conscious perception is possible outside the body, or without
reference to
a physical structure.
Scientists will say, understandably, that
such
'observation' is not only impossible, but also pure speculation; and
even if
possible, is totally subjective. Better to rely on a device, it is
said, which
does not have an agenda and will just observe objectively.
But we have already seen that these devices
are
woefully inadequate. The Heisenberg Uncertainty Principle is an open
admission
of that fact.
So-called 'objective' observation of the
universe has
been very helpful and has allowed us to build a society of great
material
wealth. But it has gone as far as it can go. It is based on the
backwards
conception of 'matter and energy are senior to consciousness, and
can be
used to figure out consciousness.'
The universe is expanding, dynamic, ever
changing. But
it is well-ordered. Nature does not operate on 'uncertainty
principles'. Only
man does so. Physics is attempting to whittle the universe down to a
definable
set of responses. A great Theory of Everything. But the universe can
never be
in a state where there will be only a predictable set of responses.
Otherwise
it will be dead, or dying. Observe a dead or dying person and you will
see a
predictable, and limited, set of responses. Life force is dynamic and
is always
looking for new ways to express itself. That is why the universe is
expanding
and eternal. Science is going against the grain of consciousness, and
life
itself, by attempting to discover laws and assert that everything
everywhere in
the universe must obey those laws. It will never happen.
That is why physics really has nowhere to go
until it
admits the variable called consciousness.
Interestingly enough, the phenomenon of
quantum entanglement
has shown that it is possible to know information about an entangled particle
without ever
observing it! Here we are verging very closely on the border of the
recognition
of consciousness. If it is possible to know about something without
using
physical devices to observe it, then perhaps the conclusions of our
clairvoyants are not so absurd after all!
Consciousness is senior to matter and energy.
Consciousness created the universe, so that
it could
play around in the universe. If you want to really understand matter
and
energy, study consciousness, for it is consciousness which makes the
rules by
which matter and energy are formed and interact.
The subjects of Psychology, Philosophy
and
Metaphysics are mankind's attempts to study consciousness, but these
subjects
for the most part approach consciousness with the same point of view as
science.
It is time for a serious scientific study of
consciousness from the viewpoint that it may be virtual, or
un–measurable, and
that it is senior to matter and energy. This has never been done
broadly in
recorded history.
It is time to make the effort not only
because it is a
wide open and potentially fertile field for investigation, but also
because
realizing even a small fraction of the potential of the human spirit
may yield
fantastic benefits for all mankind.
_______________________________________________________
References:
(1) Richard Feynman, "Six Easy Pieces" Perseus Books