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
Theory, which attempt to combine our understanding of the strong and
nuclear forces, electromagnetism (light) and gravity, but such theories
cannot be tested (there’s that Heisenberg Uncertainty Principle again!
you test a theory which requires a clear look at subatomic phenomena?)
still considered a little out of the mainstream. But at least
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
realizing even a small fraction of the potential of the human spirit
fantastic benefits for all mankind.
(1) Richard Feynman, "Six Easy Pieces" Perseus Books