- why the notion of “time discontinuity” became so significant to me,
- how it led me to develop the theory of quantum gravity that I am presenting to you here, and finally,
- I will offer to your scrutiny examples of many classical and quantum phenomena, e.g., action at a distance and “jumping” electrons, that can be commonsensically interpreted when understood from the point of view of time discontinuity, as “epicycles” could be, when understood from the point of view of a moving earth.
It is in the late 60s that I became thoroughly convinced, mainly because of the absurdity of wars, that we must have made a mistake somewhere in the course of our evolutio.” In the early 70s, I also became convinced, influenced by many French writers and Buckminster Fuller’s Manuel d’instruction pour le vaisseau spatial Terre, that it was specialization of knowledge that was leading humanity toward a crisis of unprecedented nature. The two caricatures of Maya and the schema of the Club of Rome, below (Figure 1, 2,3 ), perfectly depict the state of mind in which I came to be by the mid 70s.
“Of course, our failures are a consequence of many factors, but possibly one of the most important is the fact that society operates on the theory that specialization is the key to success, not realizing that specialization precludes comprehensive thinking.”
Buckminster Fuller (1963)
It is after coming across this quote of Fuller, while searching for a Master’s program in the mid-seventy, that I decided to undertake instead a second general baccalaureate, to become a “generalist” and find out from a “comprehensive” point of view what was this mistake that I already assumed we made during our evolution, and which I was beginning to perceive as the reason specialized (myopic) science was leading humanity toward an unprecedented global crisis. What drove me to embark on this life project at the age of thirty was the thought that maybe, this way, I would be preparing myself to solve a problem that didn’t exist yet, but that would eventually, and for which nobody would have had the foresight of preparing him or herself. Did I make a good move then? You be the judge. It is while I was pondering this possibility and while thinking about Quantum mechanics and Einstein’s relativity, in the mining town where I was preparing myself financially and intellectually to return to the university for a second general baccalaureate that the notion of “time discontinuity” came to me for the first time in a dream. It is indeed after I felt asleep, while attempting to figure out Lorentz’s transformation, that I was awakened and straightened up in bed at three o’clock in the morning by a ray of energy coming out of my dreams, soaring up my spin, and exploding in my head on the form of a thought: “TIME IS DISCONTINUED,” leaving me sit up straight in my bed, half-awake and stunned with the insight that “THIS EXPLAINS EVERYTHING.” What? I could not figure that out for quite a while, but this vivid feeling of insight stuck with me for many years afterwards. I already told you how I came to explain this notion of time discontinuity after I got acquainted with Bohm interpretation of Quantum Mechanics, ten years later. What I didn’t tell, though, is that this dream about time discontinuity became that important to me, because it was the exact opposite (the antithesis) of an incident that had happened to me five years earlier, during a session of meditation, while performing Kriya Yoga under the auspices of Paramahansa Yogananda. These two life events of mine were indeed the exact opposites. In the sense that my dream experience consisted of a dream-ray of energy entering my tummy and coming up my spine, to explode in myhead on the form of an insightful thought about time discontinuity. While the meditation experiment, which was made in a “non-thought atmosphere,” involved a deep awarenessof the “universe oneness,” inadvertently entering my mind twenty minutes in my meditation on the form of a simple . . . “OH!” of awareness, to rush down my spine and explode in my chess in a burst of energy so strong that my heart beats went from a calm 40 or 50 beats a minute, not more, to a whopping 150 and even more, producing an explosion in my chest so powerful that I would have died, I swear, if I wouldn’t have been twenty-five years old and in relatively good shape. This is the last time that I ever went into deep meditation, and why I eventually became afraid that the experiments with elementary particles—using a lot more energy than the amount of energy created by my mind in this instance of deep unity with the whole universe—could disrupt its equilibrium, if it happens that my understanding of the “unbroken wholeness” is valid. I don’t want to go any further in the explanation of what I was doing in meditation, besides saying that it had to do with the control of the flow of energy in my body, through the practice of Kriya Yoga, under the guidance of Paramahansa Yogananda, who was constantly warning me during the short six months that I followed his weekly lessons that it was dangerous for me to do certain things that I would be tempted to do while meditating, that I was not ready, and that I should not do what I inadvertently did, since it could kill me —maybe not in these terms, I don’t remember exactly, but something of that nature.Paramahansa’s teaching is based on the conviction that we are “implicated” (cf. Bohm’s)—I don’t think that Paramahansa ever used this particular term, but there are no better ones to express what he meant by “God oneness.”— that we are “implicated,” thus, with the oneness of the universe, and that we can become ourselves one with it, through the faithful practice of Kriya Yoga; a practice that has been known in India for more than two hundred years, brought to America by Paramahansa one hundred years ago, and now, privately thought to disciples throughout the world from the Self Realization Fellowship Centre that he created in Los Angeles, using the lessons that Paramahansa wrote before his death. In fact, it is not the “universe oneness” that Paramahansa teaches, but “God oneness.” However, from the beginning of my association with him, I made it clear that for me it would be the “universe oneness,” since I cannot believe in a Creator God. Indeed, if God created this whole universe for us alone, I believe thatErrare non solum humanum est, sed etiam divinum.However, I do believe in the concept of an Evolving Absolute Consciousness (a.k.a. Hegel’s historical absolute mind) —to which we are entangled, and that when we probe into her, whether it is at the macro or micro level, or whether spiritually or physically, it is in our selves that we are probing, cf., the role of observer in the wave function collapse, Hegel’s absolute mind, and the physicist Jean E. Charon’s notion of a proto consciousness “present in elementary particles”: .
“Mind through history is the Absolute Mind’s own march towards itself, towards self-realization of freedom.” (Hegel, in the context of history) vs [Consciousness through evolution is the Absolute Consciousness’ own march towards itself, towards self-realization of freedom. Hegel, adapted to evolution]
This meditation experiment that I made at the age of twenty-five is the reason why the dream that I made at the age of thirty was so significant to me. However, it took me quite a while to correlate the two. It is only when I got acquainted with Bohm’s notions of “Implicate and Explicate order,” ten years later, that I finally realized that this failed encounter with the “oneness of the universe,” which I had while meditating, and this dream about “time discontinuity explaining everything,” were both personal “encounters of the second kind” with the “Implicate” and the “Explicate” order, respectively. It is these closed encounters that made me accept Bohm’s notions of Implicate and Explicate order as real dimensions in which we exist as quantum of action. Furthermore, it is from this point of view of a Quantum reality, that I have been able to give original explanations for many biological, social, psychological, as well as physical phenomena, that are radically different than those offered by a science based on the “postulate of objectivity,” in which a dynamic space-time continuum (Einstein’s) is unwittingly accepted as real by all normal adepts. *** It is again twenty years later, in December 2006—after I heard for the first time on the Internet about the “non-zero possibility” that something bad could happen as a result of the scientific experiments conducted with the LHC—that I revisited the correlations between the first principle of thermodynamics, the concept of entanglement, and the anthropic principle, in the context of Bohm interpretation. It is these correlations that sparked off for me the beginning of my “septem dies mirabilis,” during which I came to commonsensically explain in rudimentary terms:
- Inertia and the fictitious forces of acceleration, in terms of differential of motion (explicate order);
- the equally fictitious force of gravity in terms of universal equilibrium (Implicate order), and this without the need of a non-local force, local space-time continuum, or “exchange particles.”
- In addition, it made me understand and liken Newton’s and Einstein’s theories of gravitation in commonsensical terms: Newton’s, in terms of differentials of motion in space, and Einstein’s, in terms of integration in time of these differentials.
- And finally, it also led me to explain, one year later, why protons are made of three “quarks,” why they are associated with electrons, and why neutrons are “neutral” and heavier than protons. As you can see, “time discontinuity” does seem to “explain everything.”
- It also made me understand why classical physics need the notion of “mass” to explain gravitation, and the constancy of the speed of light, without having to contract or expand anything. No more than we needed “epicycles” to explain the retrograde motion of the planets.
However, you should keep in mind that these explanations are incommensurable with all the ones you have ever come across, since they will be given in the context of a speculative holistic quantum universe,containing a series of “untangled” (discrete) instant, lasting an estimate 10– 44 s or maybe 10–22 s (as we will see below), where motion is impossible and in which nothing complex exists, but pure bits of energy with an innate incentive (Charon’s proto consciousness) to remain “entangled” with the “unbroken wholeness of the totality of existence as an undivided flowing movement without borders” (Bohm). And don’t forget also that these rudimentary explanations will be given by a self-proclaimed “metaphysicist” whose first language is not English, and who would have needed ten more years of tinkering to be ready to give them, but who felt obliged to do sonow, even if he knows that they are not yet tweaked and only provisional. So don’t give up on me. Here we go!
The first thing that these assumptions made me explained was the fictitious force of acceleration. Indeed, for a system in a quantum universe, as long as there is no acceleration, there is no variance in the differential of motion at each explicate instant, since in the “deeper order,” where things really happen, this system maintains a regular pace of change of “holomovement” in the “unbroken wholeness.” Thus, at each “explicate instant” the differential of motion is the same and not felt (inertia). However, when there is acceleration, there are differentials increase at each explicate moments, which are perceived as a force holding the system back to where it would have been in the “unbroken wholeness,” if there wouldn’t have been acceleration. This would also explain the centrifugal force felt in merry-go-rounds where thesensation of force would be cause by permanent change of rientation at each explicate moments in relation to the inertial system earth with which we are implicated, and for which, differentials of motion are always the same. No action at a distance, no curve space-time, but only differentials of “holomovement” in the “implicate order.” From this I can predict that artificial gravity will do nothing for the health of astronauts’ bones. I don’t exactly know why, maybe it is because our bones would remain strong here on earth, not due to the acceleration of “gravity,” but because of our oneness with the “holomovement” of the earth? and because there is no such “Implication” with a large mass of matter involved in artificial gravity, but only acceleration created by an external force. Our bones would remain strong here on earth specifically because they are normally not subject to any “external force,” while being permanently implicated with a large mass. This proposition could be tested by examining the effect that acceleration has on car racers’ and airplane pilots’ bones, maybe there is a slight effect? Does it have ever been tested? I dont know if I made myself clear, since I am not us to deal with these types of terms.
Increase of Mass with Speed
Actually it is not the mass of objects in motion that increases with speed, but the quantity of motion that is implied in the adjustment that needs to happen in the “undivided flowing movement without borders.” The more an object has movement—whether intrinsic to it (the more mass, the more intrinsic motion) or extrinsic (the fastest it goes)—the more it is implicated in the unbroken wholeness, and the more energy it takes to change its degree of implication with the whole universe. This explains why it takes more energy to accelerate a body that has larger “differentials of motion” (at very high speed).
Masslessness of Photons
The masslessness of photons, the constancy of their speed, and the role of observer would also all together be explained in terms of “explicate order.” Photons are massless, because they are not implicated in any holomovement. They would be created anew at each Explicate instant, by observations(?): Photons would “jump” from explicate instant to explicate instant, like electrons jump from one state to another “leaving no path,” and thus would not be “implicated” with the “unbroken wholeness. This would explain the constancy of their speed, since the photons would be created anew when observed from one motionless “explicate moment.” The only thing that can be measured, in one explicate moment, is their motion in this explicate instant, which is always the same; a photon would always be in the same explicate instant as the observer, thus the speed of the latter is irrelevant. This could also explain why the speed of light is the “limit.” I lately ask a physicist to calculate for me the time it would take a photon to cross the distance of one “string,” I knew their size then, (which could be the mathematical expression of an “untangled discrete instant,” which would represent one cycle of vibration between the explicate and the implicate order), and I believe that he gave me 10 –22 s, which was quite amazing, since I wasn’t sure then, neither am I now, if a discrete untangled instant last 10– 44 s (Planck’s quantum) or half it, 10– 22 s: 10– 22 s for the Explicate order and 10– 22 s for the Implicate order (Reality would oscillate between the two stages). As it is a fact that a falling tree doesn’t make any sound but only create motion, when there is nobody in the forest to listen to it, so the moon wouldn’t shine when there is nobody to look at it either, since in this case, no photons would be emitted. And there is no magical action at a distance in this either, since in the Implicate order everything is part of the “unbroken wholeness.” When we see the moon, we are the moon, as when we hear a sound we are the sound. Sounds are created by our brains, because our brains become in touch with the vibrations of Holomovement in which we are one. This would explain the universal attraction of music: Music would put our brains in tune with the harmony of the universe, through the chanel of mathematics. (Johannes Kepler, circ. 1600) The moon would be seen because photons are emitted in the process of observations: No observation: no untangling of the unbroken wholeness, and no need for photons to be emitted. Or something like that. In any case, all this makes kind of sense to me, even if I don’t really know how it works. The thing is that, if the unbroken wholeness exists, we are one with it, and the notion of action at a distance means nothing, because in the Explicate order where distances are “perceived” nothing happens (beside photons being emitted?), like on discrete movie frames. Again, what happens, happens in the unbroken wholeness where “. . . space and time are no longer the dominant factors determining the relationships of dependence or independence of different elements.” Bohm
In a Quantum universe, gravity is not a force, but a series of “Quantum equilibrium” of the holomovement in the whole universe at each discrete (motionless) instant. At each of these instants (the limits of calculus), every bit and every agglomerated mass of energy (quarks, electrons, protons, . . . Sun, . . . and finally, the universe itself) are motionless and can be represented by virtual “straight lines” (limits). In a gravitational system, all the “dirivative” are permanently in perfect equilibrium. For instance, the earth-sun-universe system can be represented by three variables, the sun, the earth, and the rest of the universe, all in perfect equilibrium. So, at each discrete untangled (motionless) instant, the earth doesn’t fall on the sun, neither does it run away from it, because it is “braced” between the sun and the rest of THE UNBROKEN WHOLENESS, at each explicate instant. In the next quantum instant, everything changes through holomovement, which means that all the bits of energies contain in the sun, the earth, and in all the universe are “moving up a Quantum notch,” (Emeril), but still, everything remains in equilibrium. To remain thus, all bits of energy in holomovement—to take account of all the “holomovement” of the universe—need to change their orientation away from the tangent on which they they were in the previous explicate moments, and this at each degree of complexity and at each subsequent instant. Thus, orbits are integrated, and objects in straight lines remain in straight lines. There again, no force, no curved space-time continuum, no ad hoc particles, but only differentials of holomovement. This is the reason it could be dangerous to destroy even one bit of matter close to this explicate instant, when every thing is interconnected. Since, to destroy just one bit of matter at this instant could make the earth’s holomovement jump just a little notch to high, and start a slow process of getting away from our present orbit, or just a little notch to low (depending of the orientation of the earth relative to the sun at the instant of the experiment in the LHC) and start the same slow process of falling on the sun???
Probabilistic Behaviour of Elementary Particles
“Quantum equilibrium” could also explain the probabilistic behaviour of elementary particles, e.g., the probabilistic density of electrons. Indeed, their remaining in orbit around protons, which is the origin of Quantum mechanics, if I remember well, would depend on the relation that they maintain at every quantum instant of equilibrium with the electron with which they are associated in atoms (see below) and with all the other electrons of the universe, with which they are one in the unbroken wholeness. Their location at each explicate instant would be the consequence of a “zillion-body problem.” No wonders their behaviour is probabilistic. (Our motion around the sun would certainly seem probabilistic, too, to a conscious entity situated outside of our universe, with ten degrees more of complexity, for whom it would take a thousand of our years to blink an eye while measuring our location around the sun.) Quantum equilibrium also explains the three-body problem in the same way: When a third body is taken into consideration in a gravitational problem, it is not only the third body that is included in the problem, but also its own “unbroken” relation with the whole universe at this level of complexity (All the other celestial bodies).
Quarks and Electrons
Quarks would be electrons “interacting” inside protons and neutrons. This also suggested to me that electron and quark would have been the same kind of entity in the first instant after the Big-Bang. Lets say that immediately after the BB there were only electrons, which would have had the original “incentive” to remain “one,” as they would have been for eternity. In the first explicate instant, lets say at 10 – 22 s, each electron had only the “time” to unite with two or three other electrons, in their attempt to remain one, thus starting to interact among themselves to eventually synthesize all the the emergent properties presently known and unknown of protons and neutrons. While those who would not have found “mates” in the first instants became electrons confined in the vicinity of protons in the subsequent quantum moments, thus contributing to create all the hydrogen atoms. This would explain the asymmetry of the universe. Indeed, if all the original electrons had found “mates” in the first quantum instants, the universe would have been symmetric, full of neutrons, and nothing would have happened. In the subsequent series of instants, more complex elements were created, always in accordance with the elemental principles already present in the lower order of complexity, see Figure 4: Figure 4 Ervin Laszlo, Evolution the the Grand Synthesis, New Science Library, 1987
All these speculations are examples of both my “learned ignorance” and the fruitfulness of my theory of Quantum Reality. I don’t really know what I am talking about, here. Everything that I know about the “probabilistic density of electrons” and the “three-body problem”comes from whatever I have sporadically heard about them throughout my life in all kinds of context. And what I specifically know about quarks and neutrons is contemporary to this writing. Nonetheless, the only time that I have ever seriously considered them, it happened that simple “comprehensive” explanations were readily given to me by Quantum Reality. For instance, the electron/quark sameness came from a single encounter on the Internet with Richard P. Feynman’s hypothesis that “only one electron exists in the universe.” I didn’t take more than that for me to draw up the hypothesis that quarks and electron have common origin (at the origin there was only “one” type of entity, so it could have been “the” electron, since they are more elemental than quarks). This entailed that electrons and quarks must have the same mass. Well, they don’t. However, the difference could be explained by their interactions, from which would have emerged all the presently known properties of the quarks, thus explaning their emergent properties and their mass, and the mass of the emergent protons. Here how it goes: This hypothesis of the identity of electrons and quarks could explain the 2/3 hypothesis of standard model: Lets say that effectively there is three (3) electrons interacting together inside nuclei. Two (2) of them would clump together (the “couple principle”) creating some kinds of emergent properties of the proton, while the third one would create other kinds of emergent properties (of the proton also), not being intimately associated with the two others. One of these properties would be to “attract” an outside solitary electron in an attempt to “clump” with it. This would explain why protons are normally associated with one electron only and why protons inside nuclei don’t repulse each other. In fact, this would explain the strong force, since all “third” solitary quarks (electron + properties) inside each proton mutually attract each other in the nucleus.This explain the -1/3 and + 2/3 charge of the quarks. (There must be a way to explain the concept of a 2/3 charge with all that?) This quark=electron+emergent-properties hypothesis also explains why neutrons are neutral and why they are heavier than protons. It would be because they were constituted at the origin by two “couples” of electrons, thus creating a self-sufficient environment of electrons+emergent properties, which explain why they are heavier. Their “neutrality” would be explained by the fact that there isn’t any “third solitary quark” in them to attract any other electron, whether they be in other protons inside nuclei or outside, in periphery of nuclei. After a small search, I found out that the idea was not that stupid, if we accept that most of the mass of protons comes from the emergent properties created by the interactions of the three “electrons,” which become quarks and that constitute them. The speculation about the probabilistic behaviour of elementary particles, above, also entails that the “unbrokenness” of the wholeness would be relative, in that it is divided in levels of complexity, e.g., “there is only one electron in the universe”; electron-quark are one with all the other electrons-quarks, inside their common “universe,” the proton. It does not matter if protons are in the middle of the sun, deep in a glacier, or free in the cosmos. From the point of view of all electrons-quarks their environments are the same, protons, and furthermore for all of them, once they are “one” in the unbroken wholeness, there is only one proton all together, as there is only one electron. (Feynman) The rest of the universe does not affect them, because at this level of complexity (electron-quarks) the rest of the universe simply doesn’t exist (to be is to be perceived). This could also explain why we cannot isolate quarks, since there is only one in the “unbroken wholeness,” and why it could be dangerous to “untangle” it.And, to follow this logic, each subsequent level of complexity is entangled with its own level of unbroken wholeness, molecules with molecules, etc., etc., Right up to us with us.(See figure 5, my update of figure 4) Figure 5 Update of figure 4 This point of view entails that electrons-quarks are the only existents, and that the multitude of them are “one” in the “unbroken wholeness” (Being), in which all the potentialities of the universe are present as principles. All the rest of the universe would be emergent “illusions” (non-being) created by different types of “perceptions” at each level of complexity. C.Q.F.D. (Ce qu’il fallait d’émontrer) Q.E.D. Work in progress: We need to evolve intoHomo novus and become collectively aware of our implication with the whole universe, AND THEN, AND ONLY THEN, “PLAY WITH IT” without “breaking it,” as I believe we are carelessly planning to do at CERN. The WWW and the “Grid,” which will be CERN’s most valuable contributions, is alreadyemerging into a “techno cortex” that has the potential to serve as foundation for a future “collective consciousness,” of a “higher order” of reality, the same way our neo cortex allowed us to unconsciously develop our individual consciousness and become aware of the objective reality that we are presently threatening. This is another instance of Hegel’s dialectics: We originally unconsciously developed individual consciousness to adapt ourselves to a threatening African Savannah, now that it is this African Savannah that we are threatening, we need to consciously, this time, develop a “collective consciousness.” Maybe this is our problem with UFOs, they come here as collective entities traveling on light beams, but we cannot communicate with them, no more than apes can communicate with us, since we are still behaving as rogue individuals with our heads stocked in the space-time continuum that we have created, and which is precluding us to see beyond the illusive reality that is ours (The motion movie “Time”). . . maybe the time as come for us to act as a species and become scientifically and collectively aware of another level of reality, the same level, the “supramental” (Implicate order), which Paramahansa Yogananda, Sri Aurobindo, Mother, and Satprem, and many others, have already perceived spiritually from a personal point of view. PS Don’t worry. I am perfectly aware that my theory is full of holes, but you must admit that it is subtantive, at least tentatively. I prefer to be the substantial metaphycist that I have become, than a specialist without substance: “Every man gets a narrower and narrower field of knowledge in which he must be an expert in order to compete with other people. The specialist knows more and more about less and less and finally knows everything about nothing.” Konrad Lorenz [My emphases] Ninety nine point nine percent of all the knowledge workers who have ever lived, are presently alive. If they would have been more prudent and less tunnel-minded, we wouldn’t be in the mess in which we are presently. In 2008. we need to find solutions to our problems, and fast. But first, we need to define it. However, we will not be able to do so untill we recognize that everything we know is based on a wrong premise about our human nature. To find intelligent solutions to our problems we need to know about the fallacy from which they follow, and presently nobody, I assure you, is remotely competent to uncover this fallacy, since its effects are global, and it is not the business of anyone of them to look at the big picture. And here, I am plagiarizing:
”Effective knowledge is professionalised knowledge, supported by a restricted acquaintance with useful subjects subservient to it. This situation has its dangers. It produces minds in a groove. Each profession makes progress, but it is progress in its own groove. Now to be mentally in a groove is to live in contemplating a given set of abstractions. The groove prevents straying across country, and the abstraction abstracts from something to which no further attention is paid. But there is no groove of abstractions which is adequate for the comprehension of human life. Thus in the modem world, the celibacy of the medieval learned class has been replaced by a celibacy of the intellect which is divorced from the concrete contemplation of the complete facts. Of course, no one is merely a mathematician, or merely a lawyer. People have lives outside their professions or their businesses. But the point is the restraint of serious thought within a groove. The remainder of life is treated superficially, with the imperfect categories of thought derived from one profession. The dangers arising from this aspect of professionalism are great, particularly in our democratic societies. The directive force of reason is weakened.The leading intellects lack balance.They see this set of circumstances, or that set; but not both sets together. The task of coordination is left to those who lack either the force or the character to succeed in some definite career. In short, the specialised functions of the community are performed better and more progressively,but the generalised direction lacks vision. The progressiveness in detail only adds to the danger produced by the-feebleness of coordination…
(My Emphases)Alfred North Whitehead (1925)
Prelude to Part III: The Fallacy of Objectivism (WIP):