The foundations of quantum theory are introduced in language understandable to students, opening a way for the study of chaos, quantum relativity, superstrings and an M-theory of everything.

If you wish to understand this book, you should see it whole – and the place to start is the homepage: Heaven-Words Ó copyright 2005 WEBb1910473801 (All rights reserved by the author) You may view any or all chapters of this very long book simply by clicking on the links below.

Fox News Bill O’Reilly Sean Hannity Savage Double Talk Radio with Their Forked Tongue Tales of Islamofascism in Eurabia

Keys To Heaven-Words: The Art And Science Of Revolution

Gordon Press-ing realities in a surreal world

Cold War origins of totalitarianism in North America and Western Europe

Rise and fall of Roman Catholic Church: revisionist history

Salvador Dali portrays two-timing artists of today: from religious to ideological war with Jewish genius

From String Theory To A Final Theory: Back To The Origins of Nuclear Weapons

Creators of the atomic bomb: debasing nuclear power into a totalitarian order in the new world

Quantum brain theory: splitting classical-physical reality..from the inside-out

Breakdown of madness dawns on genius of collective consciousness

Chaos Theory: gravity bends of spiraling space-time

Emile Durkheim: sacred symbols conceal unholy conviction: believers-in-themselves are sacred..chosen people

Quantum theory made easy Part I:  an introduction to the new physics

The new physics over-turned the Newtonian clockwork universe, which had replaced the medieval heavens, which in turn had developed out of the classical Greek cosmos that was living and had a concern for man's destiny. The modern age was based on Newtonian common sense perception. Spirituality was replaced by reason, and the captain of that ship was the self -- "I think therefore I am" declared Descartes the philosopher mathematician. Self-centered egoism was the rock solid foundation of reality. Descartes maintained that the mind is separate not only from the body, but the whole of the material world. Newtonian physics was an impersonal mechanics with no place for consciousness. Man became alienated from nature because he no longer knew how he fit into the grand scheme of things.... an outlander, an alien to the Earth that had given him life. Nature was now to be used, harnessed for profit, without concern for the hidden costs.¹ In her book The Quantum Self, Danah Zohar brings out a critically important inconsistency that exists within our civilization. While still necessary for practical matters, Newtonian physics has never-the-less been phased out of the university curriculum, and is taught to serious students before they reach college. Like our religions, the science with which we are familiar developed out of an earlier age, a time before the overwhelming complexities of contamination threatened to extinguish the breath of life from this Earth. Not so long ago, nature's regenerative powers far exceeded man's capacity for destruction. But somehow the gods of oceans, the Earth and wind have been humbled by forces unleashed by man. But man is no God, and has proven to be a weak master of this dark side of nature that he has turned upon himself, and this fearful force will not be appeased by the worshipping pleas of a humbled humanity. Our only hope is to restore health to that nature which dwells within us, to feel natural instinct, and to understand that the same greed for power which poisons the earth will drive our race into extinction as mercilessly as it does the once majestic plants and animals of this delicate biosphere.

What we consider common sense, most likely has its origins in the practical geometry of early Greek civilization.² This may seem strange, but after some serious thought we will discover that our most cherished ideas have their beginnings in mathematics. We will not go back through the history of science, but start our journey in the everyday world of science most familiar to all of us. But be forewarned, physics is built upon mathematics, and mathematics rests upon nothing more substantial than a dream. Prominent mathematicians, particularly Hilbert and Godel, have seen deeply into this matter and demonstrated that our structures of towering mathematical brilliance are "...ultimately just some sort of game, one that can have no resting place, no 'legitimation', in its correspondence with physical reality nor in some pure set of logical principles."³

The laws of classical physics were developed in the later part of the 17th century by Isaac Newton, who was both a physicist and a mathematician. This physics applies to the familiar world of billiard balls and falling apples. The mathematics of this physics is much simpler than the complex geometry Einstein implemented in his relativity theory. Newton's mechanics is still preferred when dealing with objects traveling much slower than the speed of light because it is easier to use than relativistic mechanics. However, both would produce the same results. Interestingly, calculations for cosmological problems, where objects move close to the speed of light in a vast large scale universe, result in very different answers. Under these conditions, classical physics must be replaced by Einstein's methods of calculation. Thus, modern astronomers were the first to recognize the limitations of classical physics and the much improved accuracy of relativistic mechanics. Einstein's Special Theory of Relativity was developed in 1905 and was concerned with what is called relative motion. Importantly, this theory assumes no acceleration and no gravity. Einstein noted that absolute motion does not occur. All motion is relative because there is no object in the universe, such as a star, which is not itself moving. Consequently, all frames of reference must be relative and equally valid. An example of relative motion would be the illusion that your train, which is at rest next to the platform, is moving, when actually the moving train is the one next to your window pulling out of the station.⁴ In a way not so unlike this illusion, other changes appear to occur when very high speeds are involved. Time and mass behave in strange ways. Most notably, a mass, such as Uranium²³⁵ is converted to energy according to the formula E=mc². This is the fatal equation that made the detonation of nuclear weapons an inescapable reality. Less deadly applications of this principle are witnessed every day by high energy physicists working with particle accelerators. Later, we will examine subatomic particles. Among these entities are photons, which Einstein was the first to identify in his photoelectric effect experiment, for which he received the Nobel prize. My primary focus will be on quantum theory, so I will introduce those aspects of Einstein's ideas most relevant to that branch of physics. Einstein's fascinating observations about the strange worlds of space travelers and the four-dimensional "space-time continuum" are of only passing relevance to my purposes here.

Ten years after introducing his special theory of relativity, Einstein extended his radical ideas by producing the general theory of relativity. Unlike the special theory, this one focused on entities undergoing acceleration with respect to each other. He sought to resolve inconsistencies between the laws of gravity and the peculiar principles of relativity he had laid out in his special theory. He introduced what he called the principle of equivalence, which stated that a scientific experiment cannot find any difference between the forces of gravitation and those resulting from acceleration.⁵ What we once thought of as the force of gravity is now understood to be a consequence of the curvature of space-time. Think of riding a bike down a hill. It is the curvature of the hill that is pulling you along its outer edge. This radically new way of seeing our world may seem like over-kill on this shrinking planet, but if you look beyond earthly horizons into space than you realize that the new physics is preparing us for our destiny out there, where it is stranger still than any of us can imagine.

When stars collapse in upon themselves, when they implode, massive gravitational energy engulfs the former star. When we hear about gravitational forces, especially on the cosmic scale, we ought to immediately think: general theory of relativity and curvature of space-time. A large gravitational force, such as is exerted by a star or a black hole, can bend light as it zips through "space". It is this curvature of space-time, formerly known as gravity, which is ultimately responsible for the illusions that plague any astronomers who try to describe events occurring light years away across the universe.⁶ The collapse of a star is the kind of event that requires ideas more sophisticated than Newton's mechanics in order to make any sense of what is happening. There is nothing simpler than a hole in the universe. The energy generated by a collapsing star makes a hole in the universe, curving space-time. "Conventional theory has it that the gravitational attraction will cause the star to collapse right down to a dimensionless point and along the way create a black hole. Einstein's general theory of relativity permits such singular points, at which the fabric of space-time breaks down, and indeed all the laws of physics vanish."⁷ Stephen Hawking is well known for his research into black holes, as well as the theory of the "big bang" origin of our expanding universe that he and Roger Penrose announced in 1970. Einstein's theory had required that the universe be static. It was astonishing to the scientific world when the astronomer Hubble proved this important aspect of relativity theory's space-time to be incorrect by showing that the universe is expanding.

In spite of all that we may have heard, Einstein was mortal, and capable of making serious mistakes, and as I will prove later -- not above lying about critically important facts. Never-the-less, he was attracted to the physical world and knew it intuitively; he felt compelled to discover the unified laws that lay at the foundation of things. To unearth new ideas required breaking down the structure of classical physics. Einstein's ideas were so disturbing because he discarded self-evident concepts such as time and space. The abandonment of such a fundamental "reality" as absolute space, in which we have thought of everything existing, seems too overwhelming an act to even imagine; but this is what Einstein did. As though that was not enough of an earthquake, he threw absolute time down the memory hole as well. The most fundamental characteristics of physical reality are thus reduced to the status of a provincial language. When changing such deeply entrenched concepts as space and time, it becomes necessary to transform our entire paradigm of the universe. Because mass and energy are interchangeable, by the formula E=mc², "Even an object at rest has energy stored in its mass. ..."⁸ An extraordinary insight arising from Einstein's signature equation is that energy is just as real as matter, that matter and energy are simply different forms of the same thing, just as are particle and wave. Later on, it will appear that Spirit is energy; I sincerely hope that the reader will keep an open mind to the possibilities, and reconsider the implications of energy being as important as the material stuff that counts so much to all of us.... That in fact all that exists is matter and energy. Time and space are no more real than the metaphysical worlds believed in by devoutly religious people. There is no invisible structure composed of space and time which holds eternity together. There is only matter and energy. Einstein once offered a simple description of his ideas: " 'It was formerly believed that if all material things disappeared out of the universe, time and space would be left. According to the relativity theory, however, time and space disappear together with the things.' "^9A So what was it like before the universe came to be? Einstein emphasized that time does not exist separately from space. There was no time "before" the existence of the universe. But this idea that space-time is a dimension of the universe itself is not entirely original with Einstein. Augustine, in his Confessions, observes that because God created time when creating the universe, there was no time before the Creation.^9B Common sense holds that time is absolute and not merely a creation of the human mind, and is not dependent on some special conditions. Relativity theory asserts that time is relative, depending on the velocity of the observer. When moving at speeds much slower than the speed of light, time behaves itself; but at very high speeds, time takes on relativistic features. Under such conditions, space and time cannot be treated as separated. There is only space-time. Time is no longer viewed as primary and independent of physical influences. Time seems to materialize and become interwoven in space, like a flowing river that freezes. It is not so impossible to imagine that physical objects would become distorted at very high speeds if one considers such movement to be similar to changes in temperature. We readily understand the distortions that occur to all things as they are exposed to extreme heat or cold.

Rather than looking at time as flowing from one moment to the next, the new physics would take a landscape view of space-time, seeing a vast area of time all at once. We fail to grasp how deeply the scientific architecture of the universe differs with the common sense notions we assume are still valid when we try to think about scientific matters. This is a serious problem because scientists think in terms of classical physics even as they implement the new physics. What is necessary is for us to learn how to think in ways consistent with relativity and quantum theory. Relativity may have been a radical upheaval to common sense assumptions about reality, but quantum theory calls into question the very relevance of reality itself.

We have just begun our study of science. It will take some effort to explain why the new physics is at all applicable to human experience, but before long this more spiritual line of reasoning will become inescapable. By now, you should begin to understand why you may feel confused about everything, and how our own sense perceptions are apparently unable to guide us through the illusory world of the new physics. However, we will discover a sixth sense along the way, which can enable us to break the enchantment of illusion.

Relativity focuses largely on the cosmos where velocities approach the speed of light; its concepts, like four dimensional space-time, are so abstract they are outside the range of ordinary experience and consequently extremely difficult to grasp intuitively. Quantum physics, on the other hand, is concerned with the inner workings of matter -- the stuff from which everything is made, yet it too seems out of this world. Quantum theory is complex. It is also unnecessarily confusing. The first mistake most of us make is to think there is one cohesive theory. It would be like thinking that all Christian Churches are the same. The religious wars and many denominations of Christianity disclose a bloody history of difference. Just as Christians of different denominations used to refuse to associate with one another, followers of different schools of quantum physics do not exchange ideas. They simply associate with like-minded colleagues and ignore the heretics. Given this understanding, you will not try to lump Einstein's ideas together with those of Neils Bohr, and then wonder why nothing makes sense. (If you already know what I am up to, then you will want to do the opposite of what is suggested). Relativity theory and quantum theory are sometimes complementary, but at other times they radically contradict each other. After many years of legendary heated debates, Einstein and Bohr parted ways. Attending the same parties, they would form opposite poles around which their own sympathizers would gather. They came to avoid one-another like matter and anti-matter, yet still seemed fatally attracted to those mutual ideas that reminded them of unfulfilled dreams of a final theory, and their common nightmare of nuclear holocaust.

There are smaller denominations with their own devout followers. Everett and Bohm will serve as good representatives of non-standard quantum theorists. There are many others, but we have more to gain by keeping things simple than by allowing ourselves to be overwhelmed by complexity. Gradually, the prominent names and ideas of twentieth century physics will emerge. But it is not the purpose of this book to spell out the details of real physics. I hope you will become as fascinated with quantum theory as I have, and want to read the scientific authors referred to in these pages. Pagels and Herbert have written especially good introductions to quantum theory. Not only are they understandable by non-scientists, but they are entertaining to read. Once the main ideas of these two books are appreciated, it is time to read something to bring you up to speed on the state of the art --- then you are ready to discover Penrose.

Catholics and Protestants have traditionally differed over the theological matter of the Eucharist. Catholic dogma declares that the communion wafer is really the body of Christ. Protestants are not literal believers in the miracle of transubstantiation. Likewise, there are two major traditions within quantum theory: those like Einstein who believe in a real world and objective science, and the followers of Bohr who do not. Once the importance of this sharp and subtle division is clear in your mind, you will never be bewildered again. So with the wind to our backs, let us proceed in good humor to encounter the most powerful ideas of our time.

Physicists speak a great deal about atoms. But do atoms actually exist in some very tiny subatomic world? It is truly astonishing to discover that leading scientists are far from agreeing on such a basic question. Einstein would have argued yes; these little bits of energy, these quanta, are as real as the chair in which you are sitting. Bohr and Heisenberg would have said that the atom is merely a representation of a world of energy complex beyond our capacity to understand or even visualize. All we have are paradigms, approximations of reality. Models make it possible to visualize complex mathematical and physical observations. Science can never tell us about reality itself because of the inherent ambiguity of nature. Scientific models must not be taken literally, as if they refer to a tiny micro-world populated by subatomic particles. For those of us impatient for definite answers, the new physics will be very disappointing, for uncertainty is woven into every thread of the fabric from which quantum theory is cut. To paraphrase Socrates: what you know is that you don't know. The task of the physicist is to go on thinking and creating proto-types of a reality about which he never expects to have certain knowledge.¹⁰ So those hard headed practical realists among us, who will settle for nothing less than certainty, belong to the old classical school of physics and might be thought of as the religious fundamentalists of the material world.

Classical physics is based on real numbers. Quantum physics has the strange mathematics of complex numbers at its foundation. Such a number has two parts, one real and the other imaginary. The solutions to problems are two-fold. This duality is the heart of quantum physics; it makes perfect sense mathematically, but when the implications of complex numbers are translated into the symbols of the physical world we find ourselves confronted with what is commonly referred to as quantum weirdness. Gerolamo Cardano was a strange character from the sixteenth century; he is largely responsible for discovering two of the great pillars upon which quantum physics stands: complex numbers and the mathematics of probabilities.

The quantum world is the realm of atoms, and fundamental particles such as electrons and photons. A critical concept to understand about quantum theory is that while electrons may not exist as tiny entities in some magical fairyland, there is something that does exist and it is very small indeed. Quantum physics is the science of energy, but energy in its simplest form; what is truly tiny about the quantum world are the infinitely small energy exchanges measured by scientific instruments, such as the multi-billion dollar nuclear accelerators.¹¹ These machines are shaped like large loops and can be twenty-seven kilometers or more in circumference, as is the case with CERN in Switzerland. Using such powerful instruments, energy can be converted into matter according to the equation E=mc². Physicists are curious as to how the raw quantum energy that existed during the "big bang" materialized into the physical universe evident today. The material world of hammers and nails we experience is made of this same quantum energy. These tiny packets of energy were first called quanta by the man who is identified with the beginnings of quantum physics: Max Planck. But these quanta, out of which everything is made, are not solid little bricks. They are bundles of energy, and most importantly -- they interact with one-another in ways that can only be described as paradoxical. Quantum physics "....shows that we cannot decompose the world into independently existing smallest units. As we penetrate into matter, nature does not show us any isolated 'basic building blocks', but rather appears as a complicated web of relations between the various parts of the whole. These relations always include the observer in an essential way."¹²

The source of so much confusion about quantum physics is that people think about quanta as though they are concrete objects. It would be more helpful to think in terms of electricity, or the pinpoints of light that illuminate a television screen. What is critical to understand about these packets of energy is that they are packets. This energy does not actually flow continuously and evenly like water from a faucet. It is like cooking popcorn, or an exploding packet of fire crackers. Not all quanta burst with the same degree of intensity, nor can we label and number them predicting in which sequence they will release their energy. It is this uneven quality that makes it so difficult, perhaps impossible, to determine which quanta is going to pop next -- that is, to pinpoint the exact location of an excited particle. "The uncertainty here is due to the finding that energy (like matter) is not infinitely divisible but is transferred only in discrete steps, or 'quanta'. Since information is transmitted by discrete energy changes, there is a strict limit to the precision of observations..."¹³ Because these popping quanta are all effecting each another, rather than flowing like individual cans along an assembly line, it is necessary to think about groups of particles rather than individual electrons or photons. As we soon shall see, quantum physics is ultimately the mechanics of probability statistics.

It is always artificial and misleading to speak about electrons, for example, as being particles. Likewise, it is unhelpful to describe them as waves. One instant it is a wave, and the next a particle. It is both. A particle has a position. A wave has momentum because it is moving. When an electron is observed, it is a particle; when it moves away it is a wave. This strange situation arises from the particle-wave duality of the electron. But there is another factor that complicates our efforts to describe this duality: language. Many scientists think the mysteries of quantum physics are a result of existing languages, including mathematics, being unable to describe the complexity of the physical world. I am not a physicist, but I know something about language. If the problem is in how we use words, then the solution to this paradox of duality may be found. But we have many pages to go before that matter can be introduced properly. For the time being, I will do my best to clarify the ideas of the new physics.

One of the most basic things to understand about quantum physics is Einstein's discovery that light is both a particle and a wave. De Broglie was later proven to be correct in his hypothesis that all matter has this same dual identity, like Clark Kent and Superman. We might think of an electron as being sometimes a well-mannered particle and sometimes a wave, depending on whether we imagine it to be flying at the speed of light. But the subtlety of complementarity requires that we realize that there are two sides to the one electron coin -- not two distinct entities, one a wave and the other a particle. As you can readily understand, it is not so easy to see, let alone catch some quanta or other moving at light speed. This process of catching, which is taking a quantum measurement, is amazingly complex and strange; it has proven to be the process over which most battles in quantum physics have been fought. We will move into this business of quantum measurement very cautiously. Particle physicists never see the quantum world of waves. All they ever see are particles. "One of the main quantum facts of life is that we radically change whatever we observe. Legendary King Midas never knew the feel of silk or a human hand after everything he touched turned to gold. Humans are stuck in a similar Midas-like predicament: we can't directly experience the true texture of reality because everything we touch turns to matter."¹⁴ A similar example would be Medusa, another character from Greek legend. Her glance would turn any living thing that looked upon her to stone.

So, particle physicists are the practitioners of quantum mechanics. To greatly simplify things, you might think of high energy physicists, who make real money working for industry, as primarily involved with particles. We will meet them and tell the names of their little particle friends later. Let us first get acquainted with the weird world of waves and the theoretical types who are hung up on them. It is always nature in the wild that is most interesting, rather then snap-shots taken on the fly. But how do physicists go about studying this wave nature of everything that is so much more mysterious than particles? Mathematics! Theoretical physics has almost become a school of mathematics unto itself. While there may be many conflicting theories in quantum physics, most physicists devoutly believe that mathematics is the "Word of God", that it is the language in which the laws of the universe are written.

Quantum theory, which made great advances in 1925, was largely the creation of Heisenberg and Schrödinger. Heisenberg gave quantum physics the structure of matrix mechanics. Schrödinger viewed quantum physics in terms of waves. The primary tool of wave mechanics is the Schrödinger wave equation. A few years later, P.A.M. Dirac extended their work into quantum field theory. He looked at atoms as a field like an orchestra of vibrating violin strings, rather than as individual isolated atoms.¹⁵ He created transformation theory and showed that his version of quantum physics was equivalent to both matrix and wave mechanics.¹⁶ Quantum physics is not able to focus on individual things; it can only describe collective activity.

Before beginning a discussion of what is the most entangled process in quantum physics, it is necessary to make a clear distinction between the wave nature of an electron, for instance, and what is called the quantum wave function. Recall that the electron is both wave and particle. This wave aspect of the electron is not to be confused with the quantum wave function, which is something artificial and more complex as will be evident a little later.

So to begin, let us focus first on the features of waves. A wave spreads out to the far reaches of the universe like the light from distant suns. This is very much the opposite of a particle, which concentrates all that it is in one location. While a particle, such as a photon, is like a bullet going down a one way street, a light wave can easily pass through many windows at once illuminating all possible chambers simultaneously. But the most significant difference between particles and waves is how they behave in collisions. Particle accelerators are also called super-colliders. When particles smash into each other there is real fireworks. Waves, on the other hand, can pass through each other unaffected. But waves can do something else which is the cause for so much complexity in quantum physics: waves can occupy the same space simultaneously.¹⁷ This is called being in superposition; one wave is superimposed upon another. However, there seems to be no limit as to how many waves can overlap. Recall we are talking about wave behavior in quantum physics and not classical physics where interference is involved. To picture what superposition is like, take a look at one of Dali's illusory paintings, preferably The Disappearing Bust of Voltaire. Waves that overlap are said to be entangled. Schrödinger's wave equation defines this complex situation using what is called the quantum wave function. This quantum wave function is not a physical wave, like a light wave; it is a mathematical technique --- a probability wave that accounts for all possible outcomes of this superposition. Importantly, this ambiguous condition of merged waves is called the quantum state. These overlapping waves describe all the locations where the electron may be, all the places where the electron wave can actually be simultaneously. The question is: where is the electron most likely to materialize in particle form? Keep in mind that the superposition of all these possible locations of the electron is not something that physicists see; superposition is simply a graphic image used to make sense of the boring statistical method that is the core of quantum mechanics. If we are to avoid becoming lost in abstractions then we must remind ourselves of the real world context of this discussion. A physicist, using an instrument such as a nuclear accelerator, is trying to predict the location of a particle. Perhaps his purpose is to line up protons so they will smash into a motionless target or into each other producing new forms of matter in a nuclear reaction. Physicists assign each particle they are tracking a probability wave function represented by the Greek letter psi y . This quantum state of superposition, represented by psi, is described mathematically using complex numbers: one part of the number is real and the other imaginary.¹⁸ The experimenter uses quantum wave functions to calculate the probable locations where he can find the particles he is working with, but his quantum mechanics will never clearly identify which of the many answers the quantum wave function has generated is the "right one". What psi does tell him is a ballpark estimate, the approximate area where he can most likely find the particle. The physicist does not know where any given proton, electron, positron, photon or other particle actually is until he finally takes a measurement by placing his sensors at the locations the quantum wave functions predict are the most likely sites for the particles in question to materialize.

When the particle accelerator and the mathematical methods of quantum mechanics are used to make a measurement of a very ambiguous quantum state, something mysterious occurs: the quantum wave function, which represents all these overlapping waves, is believed to collapse producing one unique solution out of a multitude of statistical possibilities that have been suspended in superposition. This collapse of ambiguity results in one clear signal identifying the location of the particle. This unambiguous dot of light on a screen is a classical product of a quantum event. Something momentous is thought to have happened: the experiment has shifted from the uncertainty of the quantum environment to a clearly defined classical situation observable through the real world measuring device used by the physicist. The physicist never observes the quantum world itself -- only his mathematical theory does. Recall that the basic assumption is that because mathematics is the language of nature, the conclusions reached by theoretical mathematicians correspond with what actually occurs in nature at the quantum level. Any measurement a scientist records is classical data, but the statistical mathematics used to setup the experiment is quantum mechanics. What makes this process quantum physics is this: the exact same experiment could be performed repeatedly, but the outcome could not be predicted with certainty, only with probabilities. It does not matter how careful your methods, or how perfect your instruments, you will not be able to guarantee the outcome of your experimental results because the quantum phenomenon being observed is inescapably ambiguous. This is very different from the experiments in classical physics that can be verified by producing the same results in a different laboratory. "This fundamental limitation represents a breakdown of determinism in nature. It means that identical electrons in identical experiments may do different things. There is thus an intrinsic uncertainty in the subatomic world."¹⁹ Heisenberg, one of the founding fathers of quantum physics, is best know for precisely this observation: it is called Heisenberg's uncertainty principle. Anyone looking for certainty will have to go to Newtonian physics to find it. Classical physics describes an enduring world around us. Quantum physics does not tell us about a continuous world and how it is behaving. It only tells us about individual measurements. In fact, all we know of quantum physics are the measurements. It is a physics without a world, without context. The measurement process then became the central focus of quantum physics, primarily through the influence of Neils Bohr. For this reason, many physicists simply put all theory aside and approach their work in a mechanical way. Statistical calculations are all that count. We can know nothing about any quantum world except the data we gather from the very classical world machines used in quantum experiments.

The measurement process in the quantum experiment is believed by some to be a statistical representation of a real physical quantum event, and the only reality in quantum physics. Others argue that this central event of quantum physics -- the collapse of the quantum wave function caused by the measurement process -- is merely an illusion resulting from the subtleties of mathematics and not representative of anything actually happening in the physical world.²⁰ Much of quantum weirdness can be traced to this statistical function psi, and if there is some weakness in quantum theory it is probably here. This collapse of the quantum state, this reduction of the quantum wave function is far and away the most celebrated of quantum theory's X mysteries.

In order to explain the implications of Bohr's interpretation of quantum theory, at Copenhagen, Schrodinger presented, in 1935, his now famous imaginary experiment. He described an experiment in which there was a cat in a box. There is a lever connected to the box. It has an up and a down position. If the up position should be switched on, the cat would live and if the down switch was triggered the cat would die. While there are two pathways leading to this switch, a quantum particle/wave can be in two places at once. One photon is released into the experimental apparatus. Because a photon will explore all possible paths simultaneously, it will trigger both up and down positions at once.²¹ It is not simply a matter of the cat living or dying in a scientific game of Russian Roulette. This quantum event draws the classical physical cat into a quantum state of superposition. This translates into the cat being both dead and alive simultaneously. This peculiar situation is possible because the entire paradox depends on whether or not a quantum event occurs; it is the quantum event involving the photon that introduces quantum uncertainty here. Bohr's perspective maintains that as long as the box is closed, the quantum wave function does not collapse -- superposition is maintained. The instant the box opens, the ambiguity of superposition collapses into one irreversible outcome. It is observation that transforms quantum potentiality into a real event in classical physics. Quantum wave functions don't seem to collapse unless there is an observer to witness the event.²²

Schrodinger intended to display, with his thought experiment involving a live-dead cat, the consequences of following Bohr's Copenhagen version of quantum theory too literally. What Schrodinger demonstrated was that Bohr's ideas result in the weird quality of unreality characteristic of the micro world spreading to the macro world of human experience. His objective was not to say that this is in fact the way things really are. It seems that his reduction of the Copenhagen view to absurdity had unexpected consequences: many physicists decided to accept this weird addition to an already strange theory. Pagels emphasizes that this desire to spread the ambiguity of quanta to the classical world is not only a misunderstanding of Schrödinger's argument, but bad physics.²³ This same kind of backfiring, leading to ever greater weirdness in quantum physics, happened with the EPR thought experiment in which Einstein sought to prove that quantum physics is incomplete. We will entangle ourselves in this famous Z mystery of quantum physics in just a moment. The reason for pointing out the split between Schrödinger and Bohr is to highlight this great division that has fragmented quantum physics, from its beginnings, into radically different theoretical schools.

Einstein, Schrödinger, and many other physicists did not want to place so much importance on the measurement process. They wished the emphasis to remain as it had been in traditional science; they wanted to preserve an objective world that does not depend on scientific measurements to define it. Scientists discover a pre-existing world; they do not create it piecemeal with their experiments. Most of all, nature is independent of the scientific observer who is measuring it. This was Schrödinger's concern. He did not want the physicist and his equipment tangled up in the scientific observation. Science is about nature, not about nature through the eyes of the physicist and his instruments.

Einstein, like Schrödinger, tried to create thought experiments which would lead the laws of quantum mechanics into contradiction. Bohr proved more clever in defending quantum theory than either Schrödinger or Einstein were in attacking it. Rather than disproving the reducio ad absurdem arguments his adversaries presented, Bohr assimilated the paradoxes into quantum physics. They are called the X and Z mysteries. After close to a century of such attacks, quantum physics has not been found in error, although by his own hand Einstein has strengthened quantum theory and cast a ghostly shadow of doubt upon his own creations. Einstein has the dubious honor of discovering the second weirdest principle of the new quantum unreality, the most notorious of the Z mysteries: it is called the principle of non-locality, and directly contradicts the Theory of Special Relativity.

Einstein did not accept that hard science, and the objective reality upon which it depended, should be displaced by a mathematics of probabilities. Guesses. All of nature could not be simply based on chance. He believed that something vital was missing from quantum theory, some "hidden variables", which would re-establish the primacy of classical reality and determinism in the physical world. He and two colleagues, Podolsky and Rosen, wrote a paper in 1935 titled Can quantum mechanical description of physical reality be considered complete?²⁴ The three authors, for whom the EPR paradox is named, set out to mathematically prove that quantum theory must be incomplete.

There was one idea more cherished by Neils Bohr than any other; it was the principle of complementarity, which Einstein’s award winning photon research introduced into quantum theory. Bohr too recognized that matter has a fundamental duality about it, as wave and particle. These two aspects of all matter could not be blended together, nor could one be reduced to the other. They simply are as different as the two sexes, and in the same way needed their better half. Only by seeing them as a pair is their wholeness, their oneness, evident. He called this balanced still life of duality complementarity. This is not an easy idea to intuitively grasp; it has been introduced earlier in our discussion on totalitarianism, and it will appear repeatedly right up to the conclusion of this work. It is possibly the single most significant idea in the history of human understanding -- it is found everywhere we turn, in every discipline, and it is primarily for the sake of this idea that we are struggling to comprehend quantum physics. Later it will become evident that even though complementarity is revealed at the foundation of modern scientific and artistic thought, the roots of Bohr's insight into nature stretch back far beyond his own genius, and even that of Einstein’s, into mystical origins that are truly timeless. So please be patient with my clumsy efforts to introduce its subtleties in the modern language of quantum theory. Later on I will speak the kind of words I really understand, and only there, in that language created to express this vision of complementarity, will its incandescent brilliance become transparent even to those who think themselves scientists.

However, let us return to the difficult matter at hand. The EPR paper sought to show the absurdities which result if complementarity is stretched to its inevitable conclusions. David Bohm is generally recognized for having articulated a simplified wording of the EPR thought experiment and the paradox of non-locality it introduces into quantum physics. In a curious way, he supported Einstein's position on maintaining reality, but also enhanced the theme of non-locality which developed from the EPR discussion. This matter arose out of much the same spirit as Schrödinger's cat did, with similar results. Einstein, Podolsky, and Rosen believed, in 1935, that they had forced quantum theory into an unscientific position that made it evident that, at the very least, some essential components of the theory were missing. These three men imagined an experiment involving a pair of particles. As Bohr had emphasized, a proton and neutron must be viewed as being simply two aspects of the same single entity. Using a similar insight, Dirac correctly anticipated the discovery of the positron that proved to be the matching particle for the electron. His insight was extended to the understanding that not only is there matter, but also anti-matter. This kind of duality is the heart and soul of quantum theory. So Einstein knew what he was doing in targeting this quantum pairing. Observing one particle in this pair had to effect the other particle because in quantum physics, unlike classical physics, the measurement process effects whatever it touches. In such a pair, if one has a spin of +1/2 then the other must have a spin of -1/2. It is possible to know the spin of both halves of this pair by measuring only one of them. Now Einstein imagines that a pair of particles move to distant opposite areas of the universe that are many light years apart. He than proceeds to close his trap. According to the calculations of quantum mechanics, this matched pair will still be instantaneously responsive to any measurement made on either of them, regardless of the distance separating them. He concluded that this cannot be so because instantaneous interaction over distances of light years would require that the signals travel faster than the speed of light; but his Special Theory of Relativity observes that nothing can move faster than light. If such non-local connectedness should be allowed, than the entire principle of causality would be challenged because that principle assumes all possible causes must be identifiable in the physical world available to scientific investigation. This is called locality.

For physicists to seriously report that independent measurement of two particles indicates that they could coordinate their activity even though separated by a large distance was indicative that something was wrong, and that this challenged the integrity of the most fundamental laws of science. Einstein could not discard the reality principle of classical physics and relativity. "He wanted his objective reality to be localized on each particle, and it was this locality that was eventually to bring his ideas into conflict with quantum mechanics."²⁵ What becomes of the scientific process if mysterious unknown forces from distant galaxies are acceptable as possible causes for unexplained happenings in our environment? Einstein, and others believed that such thinking had no place in serious scientific circles. Einstein's own theory of relativity required both locality and causality. Quantum physics seemed to require neither. He was convinced that this could not be because it meant that there must be two different sets of physical laws, that sometimes causality applied and sometimes it did not. But to his astonishment, advocates of quantum theory became fascinated with this EPR paradox and incorporated it into quantum theory as its leading Z mystery. Neils Bohr declared that in fact it was necessary to accept two distinct physical realities, one at the quantum level with its laws and the other at the level of classical physics that applied different laws. Relativity seemed caught between worlds, sometimes viewed with classical physics and sometimes of central importance to quantum physics. Everyone agreed that physics required a new unifying vision that could reconcile classical physics, relativity theory and quantum physics. Einstein spent the rest of his life trying to create a unified field theory to solve this scandalous division within the core of physics itself, but he failed. Until that unified theory is created, physics remains fragmented into competing realities.

If the severity of this problem has not yet shaken you, then think again. The basic distinction between science and magic is the concept of causality. Causality is based on the principle of locality, which requires that things must be in proximity to each other for them to have any interaction. A man is not guilty if he cannot be placed at the scene of the crime. He had to be there to do it. A witch doctor in Haiti, sticking pins in a doll made from a certain man's shirt, cannot be guilty of a voodoo killing of a man located thousands of miles away. The witch doctor is appealing to non-locality, which argues that things once entangled with each other remain in contact regardless of the distance separating them. Granted the voodoo example is mixing the classical world we experience with the quantum world in which non-locality seems to apply, but the monkey business going on in physics is just as outrageous as this example of voodoo. Consider the following definition of magic made by Sir James Frazer: "Contagious magic is based upon the assumption that substances which were once joined together possess a continuing linkage; thus an act carried out upon a smaller unit will affect the larger unit even though they are physically separated."²⁶ You can understand that some of the very scientists who created quantum physics, such as Einstein and Schrödinger, were not especially eager to embrace this Frankenstein because they understood it to imply ghostly forces interacting with the physical forces of real science. For some reason, the thought of becoming witch doctors did not appeal to them, nor did they fancy the role of mad scientist. However, today, real physicists, such as Nick Herbert, have sites on the Internet where they explain how the principle of non-locality can be implemented to establish contact with the dead. This is not exactly the connection between science and spirituality I have in mind. My primary concerns are spiritual, but I do have a degree of respect for those scientists who wish to preserve the integrity and credibility of their discipline. This universe is admittedly strange beyond our wildest dreams, but that does not mean we should assume our wildest dreams are therefore true.

This book is not leading to yet another new age version of quantum physics. What will be introduced here is a multi-channel language with the capacity to convert the ambiguity of probabilities into words that are intelligible. Complementarity is discovered within the duality of written and spoken language. Written statements may have a different meaning than the spoken word. Logic and poetry will be in superposition, much as images are in a Dali painting. A new subtlety and complexity evolves in a natural structure which is inherently suited to articulating the ideas of a quantum state of mind. When viewed from the two-dimensional intelligence of common sense, all that is seen is an occasional pun here and there; but what makes this process a language is this: it is possible to pack any number of words in a sentence with multiple meanings so that the sentence as a whole has more than one meaning. When accustomed to thinking in this new linguistic structure, you will notice that the more you select ordinary words related to vocabulary akin to space, time, dimensions, and themes compatible with abstract ideas, such as quantum theory, the more tightly it is possible to compress words in a sentence. When studying string theory, this process will be understood in terms of the compactification of dimensions. This language thrives on complexity while preserving the appearance of simplicity -- suggestive of a means by which quantum physics can function at one dimension and classical reality at another. It is not merely creating ambiguity. This language may seem strange to practical minded people, but not to mathematicians because they will notice that it behaves much like the mathematical transformations they are familiar with. It seems unclear that one word is limited to two meanings. More associations seem very likely. I believe that as sentences and paragraphs of tightly compressed ideas are constructed, there can be many more than two dimensions of meaning. However, all meaning is not contained within the compressed sentences. It seems that there must be a prior non-compressed context serving as background. Multiple meanings can arise precisely because words are able to evoke not simply other entangled words, but the complex ideas and emotions associated with them that have already been introduced. In a compressed sentence, one of the two interpretations is logical and the other may be either poetic or logical, depending how many words are compressed into the sentence. The more words that are entangled within one sentence, the more specific, the more logical the poetic half of the equation will be. The more words, images and feelings compressed into sentences, the more distinct and unmistakable the multiple meanings become. Powerfully different feelings can be conveyed in the same utterance. It is the ambiguity of emotional feelings which this language enables us to share that endows it with so much potential power. The purpose of this language is to disclose all possible meanings and together, as a whole, these multiple meanings approximate the truth. It is in this linguistic atmosphere that the many universes theory will finally make sense to the layman. Poetic grace is found in constructing an intensity of feeling which serves to integrate whole strings of sentences producing larger and more powerful intellectual and emotional effects. For someone with the energy and diligence, it is possible to compose a symphony of pages upon pages of compressed emotionally charged prose. The radical idea here is to embed some kind of honesty within the structure of language by incorporating methods of deception within the ordinary parlance of human discourse. People become accustomed to ambiguity as something natural and are not encouraged to be simple minded trusting believers. Language encourages people to listen for both the conscious and unconscious information contained in human expression, both on the personal level of conversation and the transpersonal level of the collective media. Deceit is based upon the intent of concealing truth. People learn to convey more than they intend because language draws on depths of meaning and intimacy beyond the range of self-conscious intelligence. Language becomes a means of awakening genius within the minds of ordinary people, a means of frustrating deception and repression. This style of writing-speaking-listening is especially adaptive to this media age because the beauty and emotional appeal of such carefully crafted words makes them memorable. More subtle still is the creation of the unspoken in the midst of the obvious. I will not belabor the details of a new grammar, but rather demonstrate the artistry of this dialect by interweaving the ideas of quantum physics with the emotionally charged imagery of race and religion. One reason I will do this is because much energy is required to unfold multiple realities simultaneously. This will be neither an academic exercise, nor simply a tirade of racial zealotry. But that is all for later. Right now it is necessary to go on building and painting the background needed to make these coming words echo throughout the corridors of space-time.

Let us return to those scientists trying to maintain the credibility of physics. What may seem unbelievable is that there are in fact serious scientists on both sides of this debate. What is even more incredible is that there is strong experimental evidence supporting quantum non-locality. This challenging of locality, and consequently causality, came in three waves. The first arrived thirty years after the EPR paradox was initially proposed. In 1964, John Bell formulated Einstein's fundamental argument for locality and causality into a hypothesis that assumes locality applies in quantum physics. Bell "...did not discover an experimental situation in which non-local interactions are directly observed. Instead he invented a simple argument based on experimental results that indirectly demonstrates the necessary existence of non-local connections."²⁷ While Bell did not perform an actual experiment, this second wave, in the form of Aspect's laboratory experiment, did ....arriving twenty years later -- in 1982. Physicists initially ignored Bell's proof of non-locality. Even as it has become incorporated into major theories in quantum physics, standard physicists continue to insist that the principle of locality is essential because science must remain based on causality. Acceptance of non-locality would open the door to non-causal voodoo type effects, and this would make science indistinguishable from magic. Alain Aspect and his associates in Paris carried out a very clever high-tech experiment showing that particle pairs do seem to be instantaneously in contact with one another. In a very cautious way some main stream physicists have toned down their criticism of Bell and non-locality because it is more difficult to challenge Aspect's remarkable experiment which successfully applies Bell's Inequality, leading many sober minded scientists to consider the real possibility and implications of non-local effects. Aspect's experiment requires that physicists abandon either the concept of "objective reality" -- meaning the external world which exists independently of observers -- or locality, which is the concept that entities separated in space-time cannot signal one another faster than the speed of light.²⁸

With the arrival of the third wave in 1997, EPR and non-locality entered main stream physics. Strange as it may seem, it is now the cutting edge of experimental quantum physics. Anton Zeilinger and other researchers from the University of Innsbruck in Austria successfully accomplished what is being called "quantum teleportation", based on the principle of non-locality. The essential information contained within one of two entangled photons was transmitted instantaneously, over a distance that could have just as well have been light years, materializing in the form of a third photon identical to the first. The initial photon vanished in the teleportation experiment. This process is compared to the science fiction technology of Star Trek, popularized by Captain Kirk's legendary words: "Beam me aboard, Scotty." IBM scientists are among those most involved with this phenomenon, and there is talk of developing incredibly fast networks based on quantum computers that will utilize photon teleportation. The strength of non-locality is its experimental success. The fact that we are baffled by this Z mystery does not lessen its worth. It is real science, the science that may enable the future to materialize in spite of all the daunting obstacles blocking our vision at present. The most prominent article announcing this astonishing accomplishment appeared in the scientific journal Nature 11 December 1997 (vol.390).

If in fact non-locality does exist, it would have the following features: 1. Faster than light signaling is instantaneous. 2. Because there is no medium, no field through which contact is maintained, nothing can block such interaction. 3. Distance does not weaken contact.

Bell argues that non-locality is not only a quantum phenomenon; non-local effects in the ordinary world of experience are common place.²⁹ This of course is the tide Einstein, Schrödinger, and others were trying to push back -- the tide of the irrational invading science. They fought to preserve some semblance of the reality so familiar to all of us. Even so, Einstein was not a naive believer in the "real world" of common sense; ".... he argued that reality is a feature of the theory used to understand the world, rather than a feature of the world itself." He was concerned that " ... 'one is in danger of being misled by the illusion that the "real" of our daily experience 'exists really'....".³⁰ He understood reality and objective classical physics as essential components of his paradigm, integrated into the four dimensional relativistic space-time universe he imagined, but never-the-less he saw "objective reality" as a model and not something absolute. "The situation is even worse in the new physics, where the distinction between the model and reality sometimes becomes hopelessly blurred...... Generally, the more science moves away from common sense, the harder it is to decide what constitutes a mere model and what is supposed to be a faithful description of the real world."³¹ This issue is enhanced by understanding that the battle line in modern physics is set up between the classical and the quantum worlds. The aim is to keep the weirdness contained within quantum physics, not to allow it to infiltrate classical reality. The hope is that hard headed physicists will be able to hold their official line long enough for a mutually acceptable unified theory to materialize. Bohr and others refused to interpret the meaning of their quantum measurements. They would have nothing to say about Bell's inequality or the implications of Aspect's experiment. According to quantum mechanics, nature itself is beyond the scope of human understanding, or even precise observation, except as mathematical probabilities. A physicist manipulates equations and apparatus to produce statistical probabilities, which may be compared with the data of other experiments. That's all. There is nothing to get excited about. But there are plenty of people who are upset about this problem of reality and meaninglessness. Refusing to talk about it is no solution. This division within physics cannot be a permanent "state of the art". Some new form incorporating the best of both worlds is desperately needed, and this need will result in the rise of many pretenders to the throne of science before an authentic vision of unity is established. Quantum physics is spreading into the culture, especially into areas involved with spirituality. The issues are so subtle that misunderstanding is a given, largely because there is no one obviously correct interpretation of this strange science. Like the Internet, no one seems to be in charge of quantum physics; it appears to have a destiny of its own, one shaped by the randomness which seems to be the secret of all its mysteries.³²

Neils Bohr is less well known than Einstein, but his influence may be more enduring. While he may not have achieved such celebrated success, his failures have been less damaging than those of Einstein's. He was upper class and sophisticated; Einstein had a humbler, more ordinary heritage. The name most widely associated with quantum physics is Neils Bohr, but he did not create it in the way Einstein created relativity theory. In many respects, Bohr was a secondary collaborator in the creation of this new physics, and Einstein an un-intending primary contributor. Perhaps Bohr’s real genius was his diplomatic ability to appropriate the ideas of others and transform them into his own. This is what he did with quantum physics. His Copenhagen version is the standard interpretation, but it is a functionalist gospel without meaning. Bohr's standard model of quantum physics pushed the question of reality aside and allowed physics to get on with the pragmatic business of science. Bohr was familiar with Kierkegaard and did have a certain philosophical melancholy known to haunt the princes of Denmark; perhaps it was out of this depth of insight, rather than superficiality, that he shaped physics into a form expressive of the mathematical mechanics from which it originated. Scientific theories are utilitarian in that they are based on a fundamental reality, but Bohr maintained that as long as quantum physics is based on the mathematical models of Heisenberg, Schrödinger and Dirac "...quantum theory will never be susceptible of reinterpretation in terms of a deeper reality."³³ He clearly understood the mystical significance of this emptiness, but I believe he had political objectives in mind for fragmenting physics into a mere mechanics of measurements. One can now understand that Schrodinger and Einstein had good reason to complain about Bohr's interpreting and implementing their ideas in ways they had not intended. Heisenberg was much younger than Bohr and was strong armed into modifying his ideas to conform with those of the master. Heisenberg shares honors with Bohr for shaping the standard model. He also placed primary importance on the measurement process. He took the mathematics of probabilities very much to heart; for him, the quantum state of superposition described a world of potentialities, of uncertainty. It is only through the measurement process that potentiality of the quantum state becomes the actuality of this classical physical world. The unmeasured universe is still ambiguous. Heisenberg insisted that physics can only observe nature from the limited perspective of its own measuring devices. Experimentalists can learn only what their instruments are capable of measuring. Consequently, the researcher cannot know about nature itself. He can only know what a certain instrument does under specified conditions. Thus, physics is the study of nature through the narrow looking glass of our own methods, instruments, and the limited questions they allow us to ask.³⁴ But most significantly, Bohr and Heisenberg argued, there is no deep structured reality to discover.³⁵ Order comes about only through measurement; before that event, nature is only raw potentiality concealing itself in the ambiguous quantum state of superposition, like a chameleon hidden in the open field. In this science, rooted in mathematics, measurement is all that matters. While uncertainty is inherent to nature, the physicist must carry out his experimental work with the utmost precision. That means that not only the apparatus, but the total experimental situation must be described. For Bohr, this total situation, this context, is primary.³⁶ Schrödinger's clever paradox lets the cat out of the box, entangling the apparatus within the quantum state of superposition, and leaving the door open to more weirdness still to come. Unable to neatly incorporate this quantum contamination of the classical world, followers of the Copenhagen school simply made the impossible situation into an X mystery and continued on with their measurements. It's called damage control, like sealing off a flooded compartment on a ship and carrying on with the battle under way. But this entanglement of the classical world with the ambiguous quantum state is a recurring theme, requiring more paradoxes -- and this inconsistency haunts the no-nonsense practitioners of the standard model. This impasse persists because these leading physicists declare that there are two distinctly different physical worlds, and their adversaries aim to prove that there is but one reality, and it will make itself known regardless of how many paradoxes are established to keep the standard theory afloat.

While the world may be as ambiguous as physical theories suggest, nature appears to conceal this strangeness. Bohr's Copenhagen perspective plays to this plainness of nature by appealing to the standard unambiguous language of classical physics. Bohr argued that human perception is inherently ordinary and scientific methodology must reflect this fact -- regardless of how extraordinary quantum theory may be.³⁷ It is here I believe Bohr is either mistaken or deceptive, for human experience is far from being ordinary. As this book proceeds, the reader will become aware of how language can take on the coloration of complementary ideas, and recognize the short comings of a single track mind. David Finklestein rebelled against the straight line reasoning of Euclid and Boole. He argued that "Our classical ideas of logic are simply wrong in a basic practical way. The next step is to learn to think in the right way, to learn to think quantum-logically."³⁸ To do this, we must have a natural language that leads us into this new think.

There were those in Bohr's own camp who were dissatisfied with the ordinariness of the measurement process. From the perspective of the Copenhagen school, it is the measurement apparatus that endows the shadowy quantum event with the status of reality. For the high powered mathematicians and physicists from a closely related school of thought, it is consciousness not a machine that creates reality. The most illustrious proponents of this outlook were John von Neumann and Eugene Wigner. They were both "Hungarians" and prominent professors at Princeton University, and as will be recalled important players in the creation of the first nuclear bomb. Wigner, who was awarded the Nobel prize, was more direct in expressing the centrality of consciousness to physical theory. He asserted that the proper organization and expression of quantum mechanics presumed consciousness, ".... that the very study of the external world led to the conclusion that the content of the consciousness is an ultimate reality."³⁹

John von Neumann's Die Grundlagen, a study of the foundations of quantum physics, is considered by many physicists to be the most coherent and highly respected expression of quantum theory available. This world famous mathematician was the first to conclude that "...from a strictly logical point of view, only the presence of consciousness can solve the measurement problem."⁴⁰ His critical role in the early development of computers, their programs, and robotics gives some sense for how formidable an intelligence he was. Considering the major players supporting this view that consciousness creates reality, we might approach their ideas with a bit more curiosity than condescension. There was also an Irish bishop from centuries long gone who may also merit a passing glance. As the leading adversary of the pragmatic scientists and atheists of his time, he argued that the world is nothing in itself without mind to perceive it, that mind creates reality.⁴¹ You see von Neumann and the others appropriated the inheritance of our Christian heritage and implemented it in the creation of their earthly kingdom. There is a pattern here which will astonish you as we belatedly discover the origins of Jewish scientific genius, but there is still more background to fill in before we can make sense of this painful insight.

John von Neumann disagreed with the advocates of the Copenhagen interpretation regarding the issue of two physical worlds, one classical and the other quantum. He argued that there is only one nature, and it is not the rigidly artificial one described by classical physics. He concluded that nature is entirely quantum.⁴² While it may seem strange to an outsider, this call for recognition of only one physical reality served to inspire the strangest of all variations on the theme of quantum weirdness: Everett's many universes hypothesis, which he introduced in 1957. Before dismissing this theory as patently absurd, consider that all of these theories are mathematically similar and experimentally equivalent in that "...each of these realities predicts exactly the same observable phenomena."⁴³ From the perspective of the probability statistics of quantum mechanical calculations, the many universes theory is more meaningful than a common sense interpretation based on classical physics. "Following von Neumann's picture of quantum theory, Everett represents everything by proxy waves, but he leaves out the wave function collapse." ⁴⁴ The surprising popularity of this idea among physicists is attributed to its mathematical sophistication and success in resolving the most troubling paradox of quantum physics: the famous problem of quantum measurement. According to this view, when quantum waves overlap in superposition, there is no collapse of the quantum wave function into one reality. All possibilities materialize because the universe splits into multiple slightly different copies. In Schrödinger's paradox, the live cat goes to one universe and the dead cat to another. The splitting process occurs every time a quantum measurement is taken, resulting in a limitless number of marginally different worlds.⁴⁵ This is reminiscent of the medieval theologians who would calculate how many angels could fit on the head of a pin. As will be evident later, the influence of medieval theology on quantum theory is considerable. Curiously, Everett's version of quantum physics is considered one of the reality based theories because it does not require human observers, thus allowing for the existence of the real world and objective science. This is the science fiction version of quantum physics, parallel dimensions, time travel --- the whole works; it is supported by the film studios of Hollywood, as well as a surprising number of mathematical physicists.

While Everett's theory may seem amusing to those of us who are not Princeton mathematicians, we will recall that there was a split within the real world of physics that was far from entertaining. Einstein and Bohr represented a division that developed in the new physics between those who wished to preserve a Newtonian deterministic objective physics, and those who saw indeterminism as the inescapable game of chance nature plays. Einstein attributed the weirdness of the quantum world to the limitations of scientific instruments. Our double vision results from the poor quality of the lens through which we observe the quantum world. Eventually our instruments will improve and the weird double images will give way to the infinite detail of sharply focused pictures of a very real micro-world. As we see more clearly, the activity of subatomic particles will be understood to be well organized, law-abiding, and not erratic at all. The quantum world will become predictable, and the principles of uncertainty will be discarded along with our obsolete instruments. Bohr maintained that this mechanistic view of nature is misguided. Nature is not a Swiss watch, referring to Einstein's popular image as the little Swiss watch-maker. Einstein had hung on too long to the stiff Newtonian laws of cause and effect, and had closed his eyes to the dramatic insight of a new generation of quantum physicists. There are still laws, but they are the laws of chance. The mechanics of probability statistics is the best approximation of reality we can expect to find in this cosmic casino universe. Einstein was overtaken by the quantum physics that he had done more than most to create, and which proved ultimately to be more significant than his greatest achievement: relativity. He was not willing to accept the uncertainty that is the basic spirit of quantum theory.⁴⁶

Most physicists do not worry about Einstein's concern that there be an objective reality. They simply do not think about the problems of theory at all. For the few that do, even those claiming to be realists are a far cry from our common sense understanding of reality. For them, reality is not naive common sense; they too no longer believe in what we plebeians commonly think of as "the real world". Penrose believes Plato's world of ideas really exists independent of the human mind. Many universes theorists believe this "real world" is only one of an infinite number of similar worlds occupying the same space, but perhaps a different time. Paradoxically, old-fashioned realists are closer to those believing in the heaven of Christianity than to the quantum physics of Neils Bohr, and he is closer to the Idealism of Bishop Berkeley than men of common sense. Science has indeed twisted back upon itself. Is it any wonder that the rest of us are bewildered?

Those who want to view quantum physics just as they do classical physics represent a reactionary school of thought, a throw back to the days when people actually believed in the objective reality of real objects like tables, chairs and individuals, a world that is just what it appears to be and not simply a statistical probability. However, today such a perspective is "...the blackest heresy of establishment physics..."⁴⁷ -- certainly far more suspect than ideas of many non-local universes. Best known among these radicals was Einstein. But there were others as well who conspired to recreate reality, among them were Max Plank, Edwin Schrödinger, De Broglie, and in modern times -- the reform neo-realist David Bohm. He is indeed a real enigma since he espouses ideas that seem utterly incompatible, such as reality, non-locality, and a mystical wholeness pervading the universe. Bohm, like Dali, is a particularly revealing figure, and will prove most helpful when we get around to integrating science, politics and spirituality. If you find all this very confusing, you can now understand why quantum physicists have recently taken a vow of silence regarding matters of quantum theory. I believe their motto is: "The theory that can be spoken is not the true theory."

Before we proceed in a new direction, I would like to touch upon a few of the highlights of quantum physics and relativity.

The Mechanics of potentialities.⁴⁸

The primary way of communicating information in quantum physics is by means of the quantum wave function. This wave function does not carry specific information about how a particular quantum entity will behave. Rather, it is an expression of potentiality. The answer to a problem in classical physics is very exact and specific; but in quantum physics, answers are always expressed in terms of statistical probabilities.

Wave-Particle Duality of Matter.

The elementary components of matter can behave like a wave, or a particle depending on the experimental situation. The mystery of matter is that it always contains both wave and particle within it, and even as it appears to behave as one, it discloses its complementary side as well.

Non-locality: the EPR Paradox.

Relativity theory requires that only local connections exist in space-time. Quantum theory implies the possibility of instantaneous interaction between particles separated by large distances. This results in the breakdown of causality, contradicting Einstein's Special Theory of Relativity. Bohm did more than simplify the EPR controversy. He tried to integrate non-locality into relativity theory with the hope of reconciling that reality based theory with quantum physics. Efforts continue up to the present to unify physics into one science.

Quanta: the source of uncertainty.

Energy changes are not smooth continuous transitions; rather, change occurs abruptly, as a jump or a sudden leap. The discontinuous nature of this physical world is the origin of the uncertainty, and all the strangeness we find in the new physics of probabilities. Our expectations of reality are based on a sense of continuity to which we are accustomed. Belief in a continuous world is realistic only within limited circumstances; by and large, it is discontinuity, as we shall later learn -- chaos-- which shapes nature and perhaps the wave nature of our manic-depressive lives.

Einstein had good reason to resist quantum physics. He was trying to develop a unified field theory, which would simplify all of physics into a few equations that explained the properties of matter, electricity, magnetism, and gravity. "Einstein's fields were continuous things, while quantum theory dealt in discontinuities -- quanta."⁴⁹ Perhaps Einstein's best efforts to create a theory of everything were frustrated because he lost touch with experimental physics, with his own intuitive intelligence, and relied too heavily on the mathematical abstractions of other men's genius.

I would like to turn for a moment to the practical side of experimental physics. This is not the ivory tower of wave theorists, but the daily grind of particle accelerators. It is particles that matter. The basic physics at operation here is relativity, particularly the formula E=mc². The conversion of energy to matter is the daily business of high energy physicists. Scientists produce a beam of protons, for example, which are aimed to collide with other protons moving at very high speeds. As these particles collide, their matter converts to energy; and from that freshly created energy new forms of matter come into being. These particles created from the energy of the colliding protons are called hadrons. Most of them are unstable, existing for much less than a billionth of a second. These hard to detect hadrons are transitory and are called mesons. The problem with mesons is that there is a limitless variety of them, and any categorization seems futile. These ghostly mesons decay into other more stable hadrons called baryons. Protons and neutrons are found in this group of familiar hadrons. They are most stable when bound together, when paired in the nucleus of an atom.⁵⁰ "Hadrons, like the proton, might be visualized as little balls of bound energy with no observable structure inside them."⁵¹ It is neither irrelevant nor inappropriate to mention, as will become evident later, that a Jewish physicist, Murray Gell-Mann, was awarded the Nobel Prize for his ground breaking work with hadrons. His basic idea was that hadrons, such as protons and neutrons, are "...built up out of more fundamental particles, which Gell-Mann called quarks." .... Hadrons are to be seen as "quark molecules".⁵² While never seen individually, quarks appear to be the most fundamental constituents of matter and are found within all elementary particles. It appears that quarks are a " 'rock bottom' to matter", but after their experience with the atom few scientists are willing to risk their reputations by making such a firm claim.⁵³ But this is such an important idea that it should be understood clearly: quarks are believed to be truly fundamental -- What is most important about quarks is they cannot be split; they are the end of the line, as the atom once was thought to be. Their greatest shortcoming is that they are not directly observable; no one has ever seen a quark, perhaps because they are at some kind of border between matter and energy. Should a quark ever be observed, it would be an event of historic proportions. Most likely "quark" is just a name tagged onto a mathematical process, a necessary technique used to keep track of the charges and spins detected within hadrons. In the process of trying to unify relativity and quantum theory, Dirac developed his famous equation which predicted that for every electron there would be a matching positron. He was led to this conclusion by the mathematics of his electron wave equation that resulted in two electrons but with opposite electrical charges. The meaning of this discovery was staggering: anti-matter.⁵⁴ The six basic quarks are named "up", down", "strange", "charm", "top", and "bottom".⁵⁵ Theoretically, every hadron contains six quarks and six anti-quarks, which are partners with opposite electric charge and can be considered "anti-matter". Much effort has been made to discover free quarks not bound inside hadrons, but none have been found. A quark has a fractional charge, such as 2/3 or -1/3. If free quarks could be discovered they could be used to create new kinds of matter.⁵⁶ This business of quarks quickly becomes much more involved with fractional electrical charges, spins, and dazzling mathematical complexity -- so I wish to contain the subject of subatomic particles to this rather introductory level of development.

Quarks are found within the nucleus of the atom and are bound together by strong nuclear forces. Within the atom there are also electrons that are weakly held in orbit around the nucleus; sometimes electrons break loose from atoms altogether. Electrons belong to a class of subatomic particles called leptons, a Greek word suggesting traveling at the speed of light. The muon, tauon, and the very important neutrino are also leptons.⁵⁷ Like the name suggests, gluons are the Super-Glue that enable quantum particles to form bonds. It is these gluons that hold everything together. The universe, in all its complexity, has at its foundations only three fundamental classes of material: quarks, leptons and the gluons that organize the strength or weakness of particle interactions.⁵⁸ The two best know gluons are photons and gravitons.

In nuclear accelerators, called super-colliders, hadrons are emitted as a beam much as the cathode end of the television picture tube (cathode ray tube) fires electrons when heated. These beams of subatomic particles, called hadrons, are accelerated to higher and higher speeds with greater and greater energy and then forced into collisions to see what happens. The result is the creation of matter from the resulting energy produced by the collision. Progress in this type of research has been central to string theory. A hadron, such as a proton ordinarily takes the shape of a drop, or a bag with paired quarks and anti-quarks contained within. Efforts to break open the proton have resulted in the creating of new hadrons but never in the release of free quarks. However, when placed under great pressure, a hadron will stretch. If efforts are made to separate the quarks within the bag, "The bag begins to elongate and stretches out between the quarks that we are trying to pull apart. In fact, the hadron in this state looks less like a bubble and more like a string joining the quarks. This configuration describes what is called the 'string model' of hadrons -- the quarks are joined by some sort of glue that stretches into a string. ....It would take an infinite amount of energy to pull two quarks apart if they were connected by such a string."⁵⁹ Consequently, quarks cannot be split.

Strings are a new way of looking at elementary particles. A one dimensional string might be compared to a violin string that vibrates. Such a string would be free to rotate as it moves through space. Strings do have some paradoxical properties. Sometimes they have mass and sometimes they are mass-less light strings, nothing more substantial than a beam of light -- Importantly, a ray of light capable of vibrating and spinning⁶⁰ "Yet, despite this absence of mass, it is still possible for this string to represent massive particles. The reason is that because the string vibrates and rotates, it will have a series of energy levels, just as a violin string has a series of notes."⁶¹ Einstein's familiar equation E=mc² explains the apparent paradox of how a mass-less ray of light can become a particle having mass. This happens because the string has energy levels that are correlated with specific masses. Imagine violin strings playing such a high note that they cause a glass not merely to shatter, but explode. Then imagine strings vibrating at such an intensity that they produce matter. A point is a single object, and has been the fundamental concept of physics since the Cartesian coordinate system was first introduced, but now the string replaces the particle as the fundamental structure of the "subatomic" world out of which everything, including light, is composed. Sometimes strings are mass-less, moving at the speed of light. According to the relativity formula E=mc², pure energy can be transformed into matter by the equation m=E/c² . It appears that this formula describes the transformation of particles to waves and back-again, and is the origin of the illusory nature of wave-particle duality. All matter is composed of these quick-change-artists that vibrate, rotate and spin at different intensities. The key idea is that the string resolves the fundamental problem of the apparent duality of nature that is really a unity. One string can have two ends. The ends of the string have different electrical charges, like a magnet, a battery, or the sexual duality of male and female. This can explain the pairing phenomenon we notice among subatomic particles; it has generally been believed that every particle has an oppositely charged partner, such as the electron-positron pairing which P.M. Dirac predicted before the discovery of the positron. A string can be extended in space and can be so long that the observer does not recognize that the two ends of this string actually are one and the same string. The observer sees the illusion of duality, two oppositely charged particles that form a pair. String theory resolves many of the complexities of particle physics.

Relativity displaced the Newtonian common-sense clockwork universe and in its place opened the door to the physics of weirdness. Our concepts of matter, and more importantly our most cherished devotion to materialism, will never recover from the discoveries of quantum theory -- the disclosure that everything, and that includes living creatures, is no where near as "solid", as insulated and isolated, as we have believed. It has been difficult for modern man to grasp that the subatomic world of wave-particle duality is not merely a miniaturized version of the familiar environment of common sense defined as reality by our small minded stubbornness. Nor can we understand events that contradict causality and offer only chance in its place. In quantum field theory, "...solid matter dissolves away, to be replaced by weird excitations and vibrations of invisible field energy."⁶² As with relativity theory, mass and energy are interchangeable, so distinguishing between material reality and the imperceptible energy of nature seems beyond our measure. "The culmination of these ideas is the so-called superstring theory, which seeks to unite space, time and matter, and to build all of them from the vibrations of submicroscopic loops of invisible string inhabiting a ten-dimensional imaginary universe."⁶³ Supersymmetry generalizes on Dirac's prediction that for every electron there is a corresponding positron; it assumes that for particle families, such as the bosons and fermions, there are corresponding twin partners with opposite spin. This is also reminiscent of Bohr's complementarity. String theory combines with supersymmetry to create the theory of superstrings. All of this is entirely theoretical mathematics. Superstrings are infinitely small and cannot be observed in laboratory experiments. In chapter 333, we will follow current advances in theoretical physics, and explain how Superstring Theory has evolved into its most current form: M-Theory.

General relativity is a four dimensional geometry describing space-time. Penrose attempts to combine this geometry with quantum physics, and in doing so develops his own twistor variation on string theory.⁶⁴ What is remarkable about twistor theory is that it eliminates the need for field equations, and enables the physicist to substitute an intuitively more obvious geometry for the very complicated mathematics of quantum field theory.⁶⁵ Pagels describes a quantum field by using a metaphor of mattresses that form a tiny invisible "grid lattice of steel springs".⁶⁶ I believe this is an image consistent with Penrose's twistor space, which incorporates quantum themes such as non-locality, within what is basically the four-dimensional space-time of relativity theory. What I find interesting about Pagel's image is that he uses a spring rather than a simple string as the basic structural component from which everything springs. Penrose's twistors are far more sophisticated than this simple helix. Later on I will draw very heavily on this winding image of ascending evolution. It will be associated with springs, entangled strings and waves, braided natural curls and the implications of revolutions, swirling spirals twisting their way to the heavens, and the coiling fractals of chaos theory. String theory should be viewed as geometry, much as the general theory of relativity is.⁶⁷ Peat emphasizes that understanding space is the key to making sense of Penrose's thinking, which is geometric. The same thing has been said of Einstein's general theory of relativity. Given that Einstein, Feynman, Penrose, and many others have focused primarily on the geometric, the spatial aspect of physics, one can see how physicists would become fascinated with Dali's paintings of multiple universes superimposed upon one another. Like art, language is not "flat", and we must learn to utilize it so that we can recognize its depth -- to see the geometric dimension of spoken and written words when used in tandem. The important thing about Pagel's springs is their capacity to vibrate at appropriate intensities. The vibration of a spring would correspond to the activity of a particle.⁶⁸ It is the range of possible vibrations that allows for wave-particle duality, which I believe is also linked to Einstein's equation for the conversion of mass into energy. But regarding language, the emotional intensity of words with multiple meanings creates a geometry of images that are superimposed upon one another much like a Dali painting. Because the words vibrate with feeling they have the energy to jump from one dimension of meaning to another, and not simply as individual words but as groups of entangled non-locally connected words expressing qualitatively different complex ideas. We must not merely try to understand quantum physics; that may be a pointless objective for our society. Rather, let us learn to think the ideas of quantum physics by incorporating them into the structure of our language. They will become intuitively obvious even though we may not understand them logically any better than we do the beauty of poetic songs that move us deeply.

There are a number of reasons for exploring this difficult area of the new physics, but chief among them is to introduce the theme of broken symmetry. From the time of Plato, followed upon by Christian philosophy, Western civilization has held the concept of the absolute, the ideal of perfection, as self evidently our most cherished belief. We have symbolized this belief as God, thus personalizing it as well as making it sacred. The thought of anything less perfect, less absolute, appears tarnished in our minds. To imagine replacing perfect symmetry with a broken symmetry strikes us as little different than atheism or materialism. But this aspiration to perfection is misguided. The aim is indeed to disclose the most accurate and spiritually aware experience of this universe imaginable by human nature. What will be offered is more satisfying than previous ideals we have held, not less. We have been plagued by inconsistencies of a perfect God creating a world so full of evil and imperfection, so much so that many of our most intelligent people have abandoned religion altogether, leaving it as the sentimental domain of "the little woman", and the cash cow of the TV evangelist. But a new and potent vision is forcing itself upon us, atheist and believer alike. This awakening intelligence reconciles the apparent opposites of perfection and imperfection, unity and duality. This phenomenon sometimes appears as symmetry and sometimes as asymmetry. It is called broken symmetry. From this perspective, we can make sense of more than opposites; it becomes possible to approximate the wholeness of our world without becoming swallowed up by the infinite entanglements of a limitless universe beyond our comprehension. The mechanism of illusion by which nature shifts from one dimension of intensity to another, thus changing appearance -- this remarkable transfiguration is called compactification. Gaining some insight into how nature plays the role of a quick change artist will bring us into an initial contact with chaos theory and asymmetry. Broken symmetry is not a compromise position; it is evidently the way the universe balances the forces of randomness and order. Follow closely as these subtle ideas of symmetry, compactification, implicate order, asymmetry, chaos and broken symmetry unfold. This is the first peak of our journey into the realm of physics, and the view from this altitude is uplifting ...unveiling a mystical summit standing ruggedly before us ...and from there, a breath-taking spectacle of unclouded vision, an elevation from which we can easily soar above the Great Divide ...too long thought ...now no longer believed to estrange science from a very natural revelation.

The most essential concepts in quantum physics are the principles of symmetry. We will come to understand at least one principle of symmetry very well: complementarity; but there are other principles of symmetry, such as the principle of gravitation that is now understood in terms of Einstein's symmetry principle of general relativity which states that the "laws of nature must not change under any possible changes in the way we describe positions in space and time."⁶⁹ We encountered this symmetry principle earlier when discussing totalitarianism. Principles of symmetry arise out of the same spirit which created Occam's razor, his principle of parsimony. We seek simplicity and economy. These symmetries are the foundation of quantum physics and the actual components of any final theory. We are confused by the unreality of quantum physics because we think that scientists, like Neils Bohr, are talking about matter, about atoms and electrons leaping about in quantum wonderland; but they are not -- what matters to them are principles of symmetry, such as Bohr's obsession with complementarity. That's all he ever talked about -- complementarity was the answer to every question, but all people would ever ask him was whether or not atoms were real. He didn't care if atoms were real or not because he knew this principle of symmetry he so loved was real. "Matter thus loses its central role in physics: all that is left is principles of symmetry and various ways that wave functions can behave under symmetry transformations."⁷⁰ The most fundamental symmetries are not those we see, such as the symmetry of left and right. It is the symmetry of laws that are at the foundation of things. "A symmetry of the laws of nature is a statement that when we make certain changes in the point of view from which we observe natural phenomena, the laws of nature we discover do not change. Such symmetries are often called principles of invariance."⁷¹

Matter is composed of quarks and electrons. By learning about this fundamental stuff of nature, we discover the laws -- the symmetries that shape nature's hidden order.⁷² We must change the way in which we look at what is happening, so that we are not focusing attention on the objective electron, but rather on the principles affecting what we observe the electron to be doing. It is these principles that are real, whether or not the electron is. Thus the principle of symmetry Bohr called complementarity is what counts and not the particular electron or corresponding positron we are studying with our particle accelerator. Protons and neutrons are components of an atom's nucleus. The proton has a positive charge, and the minutely heavier neutron is not electrically charged. But they often carry out the same functions. "It is then possible to regard the neutron and proton as merely two states of the same basic object, related by an abstract symmetry analogous to that between male and female."⁷³ It is the symmetry principle of complementarity which accounts for our seeing two apparently distinct entities as simply different aspects of the same thing. What is of real consequence is not a specific statement, such as male and female make a whole human being -- what is essential is having a feel for the principle of complementarity, the symmetry that holds things in relationship to each other. This is so important because this feel for symmetry allows us to generalize beyond the specific example at hand to broader applications of this symmetry of complementarity. We can intuitively recognize the importance of some symmetries, such as male and female, the positive and negative poles of electric and magnetic instruments, and the left-right bilateral symmetry of the human body. Nature is full of such symmetries, and scientists and mathematicians often turn to these patterns of co-ordination in an effort to make sense of nature's mysteries.⁷⁴ Group theory is the study of symmetry transformations. Mathematicians have studied virtually all conceivable symmetries.⁷⁵

In 1984, Schwarz and Green modified string theory by making it supersymmetric. In doing this, Bohr's complementarity symmetry and the parity principle, which assumes particles have twin partners with opposite spin, were assimilated into string theory resulting in what they called superstring theory. The theory of superstrings is more a creation of mathematicians than physicists. In this field the most crucial question concerns the number of dimensions concealed behind this four dimensional world of human perception. Mathematicians have proposed variations on string theory with twenty-six, ten, or two dimensions.⁷⁶ While physicists may not know or agree on the actual number of dimensions which give these strings their amazing properties, there is something that is clearly important: compactification. Strings can compress and decompress.

The X and Z mysteries of quantum theory most likely have their origins in the many dimensional properties of strings. For example, just as a string viewed from a distance may look like a particle, " ... a ten-dimensional space can appear four-dimensional at large distances or low energies. ... So hidden dimensions can be of vital importance."⁷⁷ These six hidden dimensions are spoken of as being campactified, and are not observable at low levels of energy. I wish to describe this process of compactification by analyzing the multiple images method of writing that appears in this book. At low energies, you see one set of ideas written on the page like simple logical particles; when your energy level is elevated by the passionate theme of race, you see the many other dimensions of this superstring language. Compactification can be understood in terms of illusions, image inside image combining with the energy associated with this creative experience. Language tries to open many dimensions of meaning, but the logic of simple minded men pick it bare and leave us with nothing more than the skeleton. Our aim is to use quantum physics to restore the intimacy of meaning to our words and our shared lives. The compactification that so challenges string theorists can become the mechanics, the grammar of our resurrected language. Nature conceals and reveals all that is by this process of compression and decompression, coding and decoding. The mystery of illusion is disclosed at this basic level of nature. We struggle with difficult ideas because it is only in doing so that we can discover enduring solutions to our deepest, most pressing problems. The theoretical physicist most appreciated for clarifying this very abstract matter of compactification is David Bohm.

Enfolded means that something is implicit, contained within. Bohm uses the example of a pattern drawn on a piece of paper that is then folded. While folded, the pattern is implicitly contained inside the paper -- it is enfolded. Quantum mechanics describes nature's mechanism of very rapidly unfolding -- making visible, and enfolding --concealing, which is the continual change we observe all around us -- yet, this process can be so rapid that things seem unchanged. This enfolding and unfolding is a rhythmic movement much like breathing in and out. It goes on continually. Bohm suggests that the mind works like this, including feelings -- because mind and matter are actually arising from a common source and are governed by the same physical principles. "I want to say that life, mind and inanimate matter all have a similar structure."⁷⁸ At the subatomic level, there is the Heisenberg uncertainty principle that indicates that it is not possible to define a particle's position and momentum simultaneously; the information is encoded in such a way that only one aspect of the particle's behavior can be known at any given moment. All physical systems are encoded at some deeper subatomic level, but in such an obscure manner that the code remains concealed from direct view when examined at the classical level. DNA and seeds are examples of such encoding at the molecular level. The DNA helix reveals how nature takes shape, as we shall see now in terms of encoding and somewhat later, in the perfection it lacks. Language, like Dali's paintings can also open and close -- this is a fundamental paradigm that can be discovered throughout creation, and a reality our culture must acknowledge. In an untypical metaphor, Feynman describes nature in terms that are indistinguishable from those of his nemesis: the theologian. "Nature uses only the longest threads to weave her pattern, so each small piece of the fabric reveals the organization of the entire tapestry."⁷⁹ Bohm names this enfolded, encoded state the implicate order.

The explicate order is derived from the implicate order, and this in turn is included within the totality of all things, which Bohm calls the "holomovement", for it is through movement that enfolding and unfolding occurs. This explicate order is composed of fields and particles, and is what mechanistic science has traditionally defined as fundamental reality. Bohm argues that the implicate order, from which this mechanistic world is derived, follows laws not yet accounted for by physics.⁸⁰ We complain about quantum weirdness, particularly non-local acausal effects, because there are physical laws in operation which we simply do not yet understand. The fear is that those mysterious laws may be beyond our perceptual capabilities.

The Cartesian view of reality analyzes and breaks everything down into its fundamental components, such as particles or elements within a field. Both relativity and quantum theory indicate that reality is an "unbroken wholeness" and not something which can be divided into ever smaller pieces. As for relativity and quantum theory, each is "...committed to its own notions of essentially static and fragmentary modes of existence (relativity to that of separate events, connectable by signals, and quantum mechanics to a well-defined quantum state)."⁸¹ Bohm considers it necessary to drop the fundamental commitments of both theories and seek something new. Space, time and all the physical connections that seem to define the elements of this material universe, are a manifestation of the explicate or unfolded order. But these ordinary images of separate elements are derived from a deeper reality called the implicate or enfolded order, which is an undifferentiated totality, an "unbroken wholeness", from which the observable material world emerges.⁸² When a scientist approaches nature from the perspective of the implicate order, he starts by seeking to find how any particular elements are derived from the wholeness of creation. This procedure is the opposite of that followed by traditional science which seeks to construct the whole from its parts. So Bohm would have scientists start with the whole and figure out how to differentiate the parts, sub-totalities which are observable in the explicate order.⁸³

Inevitably, ideas this complex become mathematical. This enfolding - unfolding phenomenon is called algorithmic compression. "Any string of symbols that can be given an abbreviated representation is called algorithmically compressible."⁸⁴ "The world is potentially and actually intelligible because at some level it is extensively algorithmically compressible."⁸⁵ Because mathematics is able to unpack algorithmic compressions efficiently, it is the only known language capable of describing the complexity of the physical world. Science then, is the systematic exploration for the algorithmic compressions that govern how the universe operates. Some scientists believe that the universe in its totality can be understood to be an algorithmic compression, and that to discover these essential formulas would disclose a final theory.

But scientists are perplexed by the relationship of the human brain to these algorithmic compressions which it seems to discover....Or is it create? In the 1930's, Alan Turing developed the idea of a calculating machine that was capable of operating at a very sophisticated level of mathematics. His idea was influential in the actual invention of the digital computer. He believed that the brain is a calculating machine, and that an artificial brain could be invented.⁸⁶ Kurt Gödel, a contemporary of Turing, was a different kind of mathematical thinker; his perspective was mystical. He did not think that the immense complexity of the creative mind of a mathematician could be rigorously understood by the clumsy science and mechanics of the world and time in which he lived. He and others have observed that not all natural wonders can be compressed algorithmically. There are mathematical calculations that appear to be "non-computable" -- they never reach a conclusion.⁸⁷ For example, irrational numbers, such as pi, can be approximated with infinite precision but never calculated to a final exact value. They just go on endlessly. Randomness gives us some sense of what a world would be like if it were not algorithmically compressible. Nothing would be related to anything else; the world would be broken into bits. An algorithmically incompressible progression of events cannot be expressed in a condensed form, such as a formula -- nor can it be reduced to a principle of invariance. No symmetry can account for such behavior. Only the sequence itself can express it.⁸⁸

At the beginning of the twentieth century, Maxwell, Poincare, and others were noticing that many natural occurrences showed an extreme sensitivity to their initial conditions. What they found strange was to notice that a very minor cause could lead to very noticeable consequences far beyond expectations; and they felt this was somehow different from chance. Knowing the approximate initial conditions is still insufficient for predicting the actual result of events determined by laws of chaos so subtle we cannot detect them. Such tiny details interwoven from the beginning easily escape the detection of physicists; early errors in estimating a chaotic system later explode exponentially into enormous divergencies. Consequently, a chaotic system's evolution is virtually impossible to predict. Poincare noticed that it is evidently beyond our capability to even track the history of a chaotic event. The most easily recognized example of a chaotic system is the weather.⁸⁹ Errors build up gradually with time in a non-chaotic system. Such a system may run down, but it does so in such a manageable way that it is possible to predict the course of its devolution. A chaotic system is entirely different. Small influences in starting circumstances grow at a startling rate and abruptly overwhelm scientific predictive capacity.⁹⁰ It is the initial conditions that are critical to a chaotic system, making the future behavior of almost identical systems unpredictable. This principle of initial conditions is of major importance in physics, as will become evident when examining the search for a final theory; this matter of initial conditions is as important for some physicists and astronomers as was complementarity for Bohr and relativity for Einstein. This is not to say that chaos theory as a whole shares equal stature with these other theories. It is known to exist at the classical level, but there is much debate as to whether or not there is quantum chaos. Quantum chaos is commonly thought to exist. But there is much ambiguity about what chaos actually is. It seems that it is such a loosely defined concept that it can mean everything and nothing. According to Joseph Ford, both classical and quantum chaos can be described by one word: randomness.⁹¹

While the themes of initial conditions and uncertainty are important, they are not unique to chaos theory; what is original is the discovery that behind the facade of disorder there is mathematical design. Chaos emerged alongside the computer in the 1970s; the best known of these computer generated geometrical patterns were discovered by the prominent Jewish mathematician Benoit Mandelbrot. Mandelbrot focused his attention on irregular patterns and the complexity of shapes that were nature's artistry, and not on the straight lines and smooth curves that had interested regular scientists for centuries. He began to see order where others saw only a tangled mess. He noticed irregular designs in nature, but designs that repeated themselves when viewed from different levels of magnification. These repeating patterns were compressed images of one another. He called them fractals, and they appear everywhere from coastlines to galaxies. "Above all, fractal meant self-similar. Self-similarity is symmetry across scale. It implies recursion, pattern inside of pattern."⁹² He did not see the devil in the detail, but God's handy-work. Self-similarity is not difficult to imagine. It is as easy as standing between two mirrors and gazing upon the crowd of images that are all your own reflection -- this is called recursion, the same image recurring endlessly like an irrational number. Fractals get their name from the fact that they have fractional dimensions. As can be seen in Mandelbrot's computer generated geometrical shapes, ".... the dimension of a figure changes as we move toward it and see it in ever greater detail. Dimensions are no longer fixed but behave in curious mutable ways."⁹³ While Peat is not aware of any connection between Mandelbrot's fractals and the dimensions of string theory, fractals certainly suggest compactification, which is the engine of that theory.

The fractal geometry of chaos theory offers a curious picture of wholeness, rather than sheer disorder or perfectly crafted design -- something between symmetry and anarchy: broken symmetry. These fractals are like the fragments of a shattered hologram. If a hologram should be broken into pieces, an approximation of the whole picture could still be seen in each of its many shards. Woolley suggests that the universe is like the many fragments of a shattered hologram, and scientists can discover secrets of the whole "enfolded" universe by examining these fractured crystals that are "unfolded" and consequently accessible to our investigation. Holography, like fractal geometry, is of great practical value in the compressing and decompressing of digital data and images.⁹⁴

One of the great divisions that separates scientists is a difference of opinion as to which is more fundamental in the universe: symmetry or asymmetry.⁹⁵ It is theorized that the initial conditions of the universe were symmetric: this was an extremely energetic and unstable situation, like being stuck atop a very high roller coaster. All the fundamental forces of nature existed as one unified force. This is compared to a supersaturated solution that requires only one crystal be added to it for the solution to turn solid. It was the process of symmetry breaking which triggered this release of pent up energy.⁹⁶ "According to these unified theories, all the interactions we see in the present world are the asymmetrical remnant of a once perfectly symmetrical world. This symmetrical world is revealed only at very high energies, energies so high they will never be accomplished by human beings."⁹⁷ The energy required for perfect symmetry only existed for a fraction of a second during which the big bang occurred. The physical world around us is strikingly symmetrical, but that symmetry is broken. It is this imperfect symmetry that has made life possible.⁹⁸ The quantum world is populated by subatomic particles, and there is organization, however strange it may appear to be. That organization is based on symmetry principles which are generally recognized to manifest mathematical beauty. Physicists seem to instinctively seek out symmetry in the physical world. They do indeed discover symmetries, but not the perfection they dream of. "Rarely in nature are symmetries perfect. They are broken, often in a symmetrical way. It is this flaw in symmetry, like the requisite mistake in a Persian carpet, that attracts the mind and gives us new clues about the dynamics of the world. From the view of modern physics the entire world can be seen as the manifestation of a broken symmetry."⁹⁹ Rather than speak of symmetries being broken, Weinberg would prefer to describe them as being hidden, much as Bohm refers to his implicate order. From this we might challenge Bohm's Platonic argument that the unbroken wholeness of perfect symmetries is primary. What I will be suggesting in a while is that apparently perfect symmetries, which appear to consciousness as an unbroken wholeness, are actually the creation of the brain. But however complete, perfect, and persuasive the vision of human perception may be, that genius is encompassed by the chaos of the emerging incomplete forms of a creation still in progress. This is a dynamic perspective consistent with an expanding universe, and precisely the opposite of Plato's argument that behind the shadows we see in this world, there is another static world of perfect forms.¹⁰⁰

Recall that the neutrino is a lepton, and belongs to the same class of subatomic particles as the electron. While traveling at light speed, the neutrino does maintain its tiny mass, and this matter is credited with preventing the universe from dissipating into nothingness. Neutrinos are the stuff that give the universe substance, and eventually will put an end to its expansion and cause it to finally collapse in upon itself. What is most significant for our present understanding of the neutrino is that it violates the law of parity conservation, which states that for every particle there is a likelihood that there is another particle that is its mirror image. This would mean that it should be possible to pair up the left handed neutrino with a right handed neutrino. Physicists have reached the conclusion that right handed neutrinos do not exist, and consequently the universe shows a preference for left-handedness -- something they call chirality. Wolfgang Pauli, who first predicted the existence of the neutrino, refused to believe that God is left handed. Wu and her co-workers at Columbia University carried out an experiment, proposed by the soon to be Nobel laureates Yang and Lee, which demonstrated that He is, and proved not only the violation of parity conservation, but also that genius, Jewish or otherwise, can be mistaken¹⁰¹ ...and more importantly still: that ideas such as complementarity, that we are prone to elevating to the level of the sacred, are not quite as perfect as we wish to believe --- that our belief in perfection itself is flawed.

The ideas presented in this book are not entirely mystical abstractions. A new art of using language is introduced, which serves as a model for thinking in ways consistent with the new physics. The significance of this manner of thinking is that it unifies science and culture, allowing us to communicate with one another about substantial ideas. My aim is not to be a physicist, but to present a language compatible with quantum physics. I know my understanding of this science is very limited, but I believe I have grasped enough of its mystery to offer a solution to a problem plaguing physicists that they seem unable to solve: language. They have been unable to express the complexities of mathematics in common words without sounding nonsensical. What is accomplished in this book is to get language to do the kinds of marvelous transformations that physicists believe only mathematics can accomplish. Such a language must have features of quantum physics.

First of all, it must demonstrate quantum bursts of energy, be discontinuous. Randomness is central to the uncertainty of quantum physics, and this can be approximated by emotion -- that human characteristic dreaded as much by physicists as chaos itself. However, if the person doing the feeling is a creative artist, he is able to shape these forces of randomness into forms of beauty -- into a vision of wholeness experienced by consciousness, and guided by the left-handed Creator of this universe. Quantum language is intended to introduce a quantum means of approaching problems, solving the current contradictory practice whereby classical methods are used when doing and expressing quantum physics. Next, language ought to be especially suited for expressing themes of complementarity so essential to quantum physics. This can be accomplished by playing on the multiple meaning of words, by superimposing meanings much as is done in the illusions evident throughout nature. But the multiple meaning of words depends on their being entangled by means of a non-local poetry of free association. The heart beating the rhythm of the opening and closing of these images is compactification. We can embed randomness within language, yet do so in such a way as to create precision amidst apparent ambiguity, much as wildlife use the camouflage of beauty to disappear into the wholeness of their environment. The literary arts may use the structure of quantum physics to express ideas that are passionate. High energy themes are luminescent on one track, while subtle scientific ideas are embedded in the other. String theory has become so complex it is extremely difficult for physicists to communicate even with each other. This problem can be solved by expressing complexity as beauty. Insight is seeing compactification. Beauty is experiencing the decompression of compactified dimensions. Emotion is the inescapable quantum energy inherent to this mode of expression. What is most valuable about this methodology is that it introduces a means whereby not only is randomness incorporated into this twin track scientific equation, but so also is a means of shaping the direction that randomness follows. Pagels emphasizes that "By the act of observing we change one random distribution to another random distribution. You can hardly call that an observer-determined reality."¹⁰² He notes that non-local effects work in the same way. All the weirdness is simply a consequence of trying to make sense of the randomness that is inherent to quantum physics. The problem of randomness is that neither mathematicians nor physicists can understand what it actually is. Perhaps we do not need to understand everything we wish to influence. Maybe rationality is not the proper tool for making sense of quantum weirdness. Let us once again consider the famous X mystery: the collapse of the quantum wave function. The problem is that the wave function is seen to either not collapse, as in the many universes theory, or to collapse into a classical reality that is no longer ambiguous. What I would suggest is that the randomness of the quantum wave function be approximated by the observer in such a way that randomness is seen to collapse into a form which preserves quantum features such as complementarity; and in addition, a creatively designed chaos is substituted for actual randomness. As Pagels notes, when the physicist makes an observation, he substitutes one form of randomness for another. "As the popular science writer Lincoln Barnett puts it: 'The universe is not a rigid and immutable edifice where independent matter is housed in independent space and time; it is on the contrary an amorphous continuum, without any fixed architecture, plastic and variable, constantly subject to change and distortion."¹⁰³ Penrose speculates that non-computational behavior may be accurately approximated by a chaotic system; that is, a chaotic pattern might serve as a proxy for actual randomness.¹⁰⁴ Nature is unformed, in process, and readily interacts with other randomness that becomes non-locally entangled with the potentiality of events primed to materialize into reality. But if one interacts with that randomness with an emotional component of human nature, the creative observer can give it direction, order, and beauty -- much as nature itself does though the fractal designs of chaos we witness all around us. We can interact with the chaos of nature because there is this asymmetric energy of creation embedded in all things ...including us. Emotion is a means of making sense of nature's creative rhythms, much as mystical artists of every stripe draw on feelings of divine madness to inspire their work. One cannot understand randomness logically, but it is possible to get a feel for it, and in doing so approximate some kind of order to describe it. These creative bursts of emotional energy are more consistent with the way we know quantum physics to be than the continuous, even tempered methodology of the classical physicist. The objective is to allow an observer entangled outcome which preserves a scaled up version of the quantum state. The purpose of this perspective is to allow the physicist to interpret his large scale world as being a quantum state still containing potentiality, but not as mere randomness --- as a creatively shaped outcome that appears whole. This wholeness would be an artificial reality circumscribed by the limits of human intuition. What needs to be done is to begin interpreting the classical world in which we live as though it is a quantum world. By seeing classical reality and quantum weirdness as riding twin tracks called complementarity we intuitively, perhaps "unconsciously", choose to understand that interpretation of any given situation which is most emotionally persuasive to us, while allowing that the other track exists as an alternate reality fitting into a different matrix of felt experience. This is similar to choosing one interpretation rather than another when encountering a statement that has multiple meanings; or selecting one unique answer out of the many possible solutions to a problem in quantum mechanics. Much of the time we will automatically choose the familiar understanding of events, but significant differences of opinion will arise as others choose different possibilities, as they recognize quantum factors in everyday occurrences, and begin responding to them as quantum events rather than classical reality.

Einstein had the intuitive sense that there is a uniformity about nature, meaning that a variety of people may each witness an event from their own perspectives, but "...they must eventually come up with the same basic laws of nature."¹⁰⁵ This is a view I would maintain extends beyond the boundaries of science, and must also include spirituality and the social structure built upon it. Physicists may become creative artists as a means of encountering the randomness inherent to quantum physics, and in doing so solve the long standing problem of using a classical procedure to do quantum physics. Physicists might become acquainted with painters, composers, architects and others whose work fascinates them and discover how these people create beauty. Science is very powerful, but unless we can transform scientists from robots into feeling human beings they are likely to continue using their intelligence to undermine the quality of life on this planet. The mechanistic mind-set of classical reality is assimilated into this quantum perspective as complementarity. But our insight here is still far from Being "completed". Eventually, we will no longer feel compelled to choose between realities; we will become accustomed to the multiple images surrounding us. Instead of there being two or three sets of conflicting physical laws, there will be a theory of everything inspired by the complementarity of science and spirituality.

We are always mixing up opposite concepts such as the number one and the sense of oneness, or the distinctness of two things and duality, i.e. complementarity. In the same way, we confuse the absolute, the whole with the sense of wholeness. The brain is able to create a sense of wholeness, but it is not capable of comprehending the whole universe. The universe has a quality of wholeness about it, however much we may observe. We can sense the whole in a single thread of this grand tapestry, yet we are unable to bring into focus a creation of such immense magnitude. Amazingly, where ever we concentrate our attention we can see the wholeness of creation. The stereogram is a good example of how this process works. In 1960, Bela Julesz created the first three-dimensional stereograms out of apparently random dots. What is unusual about these 3-D images is that they induce a kind of self-hypnosis. There are no special glasses to make the effect obvious; you must concentrate closely on the images. You don't simply see a three-dimensional object; you seem to be drawn into another space that is lit up and wholly self-contained. By the 1990s, Stephen Schutz began replacing the random dots with strings of little animal pictures; embedded within the superficial landscape, one discovers an unmistakable sharply focused image of a three-dimensional animal. To appreciate the insights that are to follow, you must locate and view some stereograms for yourself. You can find them using a search engine on the Internet, or in libraries and bookstores. If you have access to the computer based encyclopedia Encarta, you might look up stereoscopic vision or autostereogram, which is a recently developed form of computer generated art. I would recommend the following book: Endangered Species in 5-D Stereograms, Created by Stephen Schutz, Ph.D., and Susan Polis Schutz 1993, 1994, Blue Mountain Press, Boulder, Colorado. Stephen Schutz is a theoretical physicist educated at M.I.T. and Princeton. He is also an artist, and his wife is a poet.

As with Bohm's fragment of a hologram, the eye, or a telescope can seem to encompass the limitless totality of space-time in a glance. The kind of order operating here is not like the order in which we could arrange tables and chairs. Somewhere between the brain and the curved surface of the universe by starlight, an image of totality emerges. "Rather, a total order is contained, in some implicit sense, in each region of space and time."¹⁰⁶ The experience of what we believe to be the absolute, of totality, is a very persuasive creation of consciousness. The perfect symmetry and sense of wholeness experienced has a quality of reality about it, so much so that we simple human beings imagine that the order the brain imposes upon nature actually is an absolute order itself -- is reality. But the utopias we project upon nature are always imperfect, however much we may believe they are absolutely scientific or divinely ordained. There are those of us who notice the artificiality of this world of our creation, especially if it is increasingly in conflict with nature, as is the case with our urbanized civilization. In more peaceful circumstances, it is possible to leave the artificial world of human habitations and risk confronting nature without an official guide. Long ago, when people lived in simple villages and nature was immense, it was possible to disappear merely by stepping into the camouflage of the forest. This is how the American revolutionary colonists successfully fought the redcoat soldiers of the king. They were able to make use of the ambiguity, unpredictability, and chance encounters so characteristic of nature in the wild. In the wilderness, one does not discover the perfect orderliness of the scientific experiment, but the messiness of a chaotic universe. What is fascinating here is that one seems to disappear when entering into this chaos, much as one is drawn into a stereogram. Society is orderly, but nature is not; nature likes ambiguity and chance, not clarity and predictability. It is nature's way to hide. Society seeks perfection in the absolute, in the final theory of the totalitarian vision of the eternal Church and the all powerful State and its official God. But nature on the large scale, meaning the universe, is greater than man's tyranny -- even as this humble Earth is crumbling beneath the weight of our excess. Randomness, and the freedom it unleashes, is a reality all established authorities wish to minimize or demonize -- but nature persists. Within the domain of man's imagined absolute order of perfected symmetries, everything is visible -- identifiable and controlled. However futile resistance is declared to be, as long as our genetic code remains nature's creation it is possible to discover comfort and concealment in the asymmetric chaos of our initial conditions, which is a far more enduring and unpredictable reality than any established order cares to acknowledge.

Biologists expected the genetic code, which is the DNA blueprint of life, to be symmetric and beautiful. As it turned out, it is messy -- the handiwork of evolution and not the artful hand of a Creator. It was neither the product of design, nor random code. There is a natural roughness about it suggesting that chance must be given greater play in the perfectionist thinking of mathematical Platonists.¹⁰⁷ It is essential that we remember the lesson of the neutrino, that we take notice of the primary importance of asymmetry which is so prevalent in the natural world, for it appears to be more fundamental than symmetry, even Bohr's complementarity. Uncertainty trumps determinism, and this has serious implications for any final theory. Symmetries and the formulas of a unified theory do not do so well in describing or predicting chaotic phenomena. Living creatures are largely algorithmically incompressible. This is why chaos is important. However, the totalitarian state tries to make people into intelligent robots, which do follow an algorithmically compressible formula and can therefore be readily controlled. The key point is that human beings are not inanimate matter and are ultimately uncontrollable -- unless their initial conditions, their genetic code, becomes the "top secret" property of the "National Institutes of Health"; in that case, we shall all truly become permanent slaves of the State.

Let's take a moment to regroup. There should be some sense of non-local connection emerging here entangling Dali's illusions, fractals, spirals, holograms, compactified dimensions, encoding, symmetry, asymmetry, broken symmetry, stereograms, and all those ideas yet to materialize. Chaos puts our fragmented world back together as a crystal of broken symmetries with many facets -- as fractals . We must come to appreciate the mystery of the diamond mind, which attains its true beauty only when it is broken by the hand of an artist. These swirling images of the whole raise us to dizzying heights, but the wholeness we experience is not the limitless expanse of the universe, but a passageway through Creation in which we also have a hand to play.

Totality is not the problem. It is the differentiation of one outcome from the multitude of possibilities.... the collapse of infinite potential into a reality made whole by the observing mind. Consciousness, as we experience it, is energy and governed by some kind of physics. It is not simply a matter of classical laws; quantum physics makes far more sense here. There can be only one physics, and it must incorporate the world of consciousness as well as the physical world of matter and energy. What we know of the new physics is that it describes collective phenomena, not the isolated falling apple of Newton's laws. This issue of totality is very subtle. Symmetry is about the wholeness of everything. Our philosophical and spiritual traditions gravitate toward concepts of the absolute and complete perfection -- God. Quantum physics indicates that for less than an imaginable instant at the origin of the universe, there was perfect symmetry. But energy needed for such a cohesive state was sustained for an infinitely brief moment. As the creative energy of the expanding universe spread out, that initial moment of perfect wholeness vanished, leaving in its wake a cosmos of broken symmetries and asymmetry. Symmetries exist at higher levels of energy. High energy nuclear accelerators are able to demonstrate remarkable symmetries approaching, but never achieving, that unification which existed during the "big bang". What we gain from all of this is an understanding of some kind of partial perfection, a broken symmetry -- a limited wholeness that is not the totality of all the universe. We are not accustomed to thinking such ideas. We want absoluteness, not approximations of perfection -- our theology and logic demand it. But nature will evidently not oblige us. Painful as it may be, we are compelled to let go of our perfect God, and absolute totality. In their place, we are not left with the absurdity of a cold and meaningless universe, which the logical mechanics of atheistic reasoning simplistically calculates. Atheism is also dead.

This concept of broken symmetry is very abstract, but that does not diminish the necessity of our understanding it. In order to make this idea more meaningful, I would like to describe it in poetic terms. Keep in mind that there once was perfect symmetry, but there is no more. The closest we come to encountering the absolute is entering the chaos of nature. We want to believe in a God of perfect symmetries and order, but the God of creation is forever just beginning to take form, and can never lose this fearful and mysterious dimension of becoming. There is a Creator, a force greater than ourselves, which mankind has encountered from primordial days. That ancient mysterious presence remains as evasive as ever and is accessible to us through creative struggle. We know the Creator as we "do His will", as we come into non-local contact with His creative energy and intelligence. But we never know this chaotic force as the finished product of anyone's consciousness. God exists only at the beginning, only as inspiration; and to the extent that we are just beginning our labors, we are close to the Creator -- for He exists beyond time and before understanding. This left handed God of beginnings is seeking something: His right hand. He seeks this lost love everywhere and in everything -- even in us. It is this yearning, above all else, which calls to us from a universe of endless wonders. Broken symmetries make it possible to find approximations of totality that simultaneously shelter us from the limitless possibilities of our potentially overwhelming environment, and provide us with an apparent wholeness which is essential to the cohesiveness of collective feelings and understanding. The separateness of everything would be obliterated by the wholeness of perfect symmetry. Our existence depends on imperfect symmetries, and the energy that enables us to recognize their beauty. There appears to be a human inclination to imagine that in experiencing such marvels we have encountered the absolute. We have not. However, we do experience something incredible: our own human nature, which is penetrated through and through by all the mystery and magic that make this universe so unbelievable. The chaos of the universe is in everything and is encountered internally as well as externally. What is so confusing is that what we are trying to observe is both within and without simultaneously. The reason we "find our selves" in such a difficult situation to visualize is our concept of the single self-conscious observer. The problem is how we see everything, and this is what must change.

This universe of broken symmetries is governed by principles less random than mere chance, principles of chaos that are capable of designing beautiful symmetries that to our minds may even seem perfect. We witness this chaotic vision of broken symmetries through our left eye of quantum physics. And through the right eye we see man's latest final theory that is based upon the perfect symmetries of mathematics -- we see the totality of things as a whole, but this is no absolute vision of the universe: this is Quantum Relativity! What has happened here is that out of our two eyes we have come to see one physics --- not relativity and quantum theory, but a unified vision.

On the face of it, nature is characterized by randomness, by the uncertainty of quantum physics, much as the colored dots of a stereogram seem pattern-less; but when consciousness focuses attention on this apparent disorder, the stereoscopic bilateral symmetry of the human brain creates a four-dimensional world that seems whole. The brain creates persuasive images of wholeness in time, and we make the mistake of believing that our relativistic vision is the absolute, the whole of reality stretched out to eternity. You see, looking through two eyes does not result in two different images of our environment; what happens is that one perspective is superimposed upon the other resulting in the perception of wholeness -- of the depth dimension of quantum relativity. So two, when we unify quantum physics and relativity we will learn to focus our attention, shifting from one dimension of perception to another, just like mystics, geniuses and schizophrenics do all the time. Our task is to endure this quantum weirdness, to realize that the sense of wholeness we experience is the Creation of consciousness and not the whole of the "external world". However, this marvelous totality of everything we encounter is not simply the product of "my mind". We will change course before too much longer and discuss some of the amazing properties of the brain and the collective nature of everything, and proceed onward to discover that there are other brains on this Earth besides those of the human variety.

Where all of this is leading to is the understanding that human beings need to experience wholeness; the cohesiveness felt within the identity of a clearly recognizable group takes form in much the same way as any multi-dimensional stereogram. By replacing self-consciousness with collective consciousness we will be able to make much more sense of an entirely new way of enduring human awareness. I am not referring to any cosmic mind of the absolute, but rather to a limited, quantum relativistic vision of totality. We are not compelled by nature to allow ourselves to be swallowed up by the undifferentiated many races universe of the new world order, any more than we are required to sacrifice ourselves to hungry wolves. However, like the wolves, human predators will absorb us into themselves if we do not resist them. It is through our choice that the totality of possibilities collapses into an approximation of wholeness that opens a relativistic dimension of this quantum universe that makes sense to us. The uncertainty surrounding our experience of human nature offers us freedom in place of the assuring, or repressive, illusion of determinism, which both official religion and science have always sought to establish. But we are getting ahead of ourselves here. These themes will become central in the second half of this book, as we struggle to preserve the human right to racial identity. Such an idea may sound outrageous at this stage of our journey, but we have much ground to uncover before this kind of thinking can sink into our freshly opened minds. This is the background we labor to design so that later, grave ideas can stand out -- evoking painful collective memories, and take on a variety of meanings without falling into madness.

We have almost concluded this rather brief and unprofessional introduction to the new physics. However, we are still working our way to M-theory in the following chapter: 33. Although additional scientific themes will also be introduced, they serve as a means of transition from quantum theory to the politics of science. While the discussion of a final theory may sound like some kind of conclusion, it is not. It is only our beginning. These complementary themes of symmetry and asymmetry are at odds with the idea of a final theory. As i see it, it is extremely significant that we human beings have stereoscopic vision, and this must be accounted for in every way we express ourselves....as the hallmark of our race. We cannot continue racing around like accelerated particles in this single track tunnel vision logical clarity requires. The structure of the human brain is capable of interpreting far more complex, emotionally charged, information than logical language is capable of transmitting. It is a fatal mistake to make sensitive and intelligent human beings into robots so we can continue processing code from a by-gone method of reasoning in an obsolete language. In order to break loose from the grip of antiquated scientific reasoning, we must become revolutionaries --- and i do not mean this metaphorically. The existing political power structure in the recently expanded "free world" controls science. It is used as a tool, or even a weapon by those with sufficient funds to support it. The established order of least-common-denominator Zionist-one-world scientific capitalist/socialism must fall. The horrendous problems we face on this dying planet cannot be solved by brainwashed intellectuals, whether scientists or merely party players. There are wealthy people, in powerful positions, responsible for the continuing decimation of this Earth. They must be held accountable for their greed. The extreme measures required to bring about major advances in our Western civilization will open up before you in the pages ahead. The language you hear, read and speak will change ....the way in which you experience everything, including yourself. You think this is exaggeration, but you have no idea what i have been up to --- for our journey is just beginning. i have come upon this insight into the stereoscopic brain interacting with apparently chaotic stereograms, as a means of describing the reconciliation of quantum theory and relativity, in a rather round about way. This material on theoretical physics, or metaphysics if you insist, has been written after many of the pages that follow. When starting out, i was a religious fanatic incapable of comprehending elementary physics, but obsessed with this question: how can mystical experience be described in physical terms that will interest rather than alienate atheistic scientific thinkers? i never knew how to think logically until this book was nearly completed; only then was it possible to organize these chaotic ideas into a meaningful form. These carefully reasoned pages on the new physics are the conclusion of this book as well as its beginning. You would not be able to make any more sense of its beginnings alone than i could. But this lack of understanding did not prevent proceeding to meaningful resolutions! Try to see that this round about dancing in the dark is how chaotic nature works and plays! i now know how to use logic, but the origins of my thinking are still not logical. They are mystical, or chaotic if you find that a more persuasive expression. Keep in mind that logic is most definitely the kind of reasoning characteristic of classical physics, and that ambiguity is the wave of a future already a century old. 

Consider the stereogram once again. What i want is that you experience something extraordinary with your own two eyes, that you realize that the focus is not simply on an abstract idea; you are being called on to literally see things in a radically new way. You need to reorient your sense of vision, much like you would focus a telescope or microscope. Why this stereogram is so central to our thinking will become transparent when we understand that this wondrous image, more than any other, announces the new dawn breaking in upon the old order. A mystical sense for the stereogram will open both eyes, giving us a feel for the interactive relationship between chaos and order in this world around us. The stereogram is both order and the chaos out of which it emerges. Within chaos there can be order -- not only that, but order is the chaos; if you doubt this, try reading a book on quantum mechanics written in Russian. Once we can intuitively understand that what we perceive to be order still remains within the chaos of "objective reality", we can see this depth-dimensional manifestation of apparent relativistic order emerging from quantum ambiguity as a unified vision of physics, and consequently discover ourselves within this paradoxical world of Nature's Creation. Later, we will discuss the way in which self organization occurs in nature, particularly within biological matter; and point out a comparison between the stereogram and the mechanism by which living cells draw upon their surroundings to concentrate order within themselves as a whole body. The outcome of this insight is to see the chaos within and that without as sharing a semi-permeable membrane, a common passageway enabling us to be in contact with the "external world" by concentrating deeply felt attention on this entrancing ambiguity that we behold through depth perception, which these mere chaotic stereograms awaken to the "I". But the wholeness we feel, which the "I" alone does not see, is the order, purpose, and direction we know as reality. If this reality we endure is simply an aspect of chaos, then we can understand why everything eventually moves toward disorder! We can understand how foolish we are to think in terms of the rigid laws of a final theory. You see the mystery of chaos and order is simply another way of discussing the collapse of the quantum wave function. The stereogram is a superposition of possible wave-particle configurations. When viewing the chaotic dots, your brain is struggling to visualize "the unseen" wave aspect of chaos. When the dots take on a recognizable form, you are seeing a pattern of particles which seem to include you within the Whole. Only when an observer focuses attention on this superposition does the chaos of the quantum wave function appear to collapse into the relativistic reality of a depth-dimensional world we might recognize as curved space-time -- but we now know that the chaos of superposition persists, that it all depends on one's relativistic perspective. When nobody is paying proper attention, it's all just a mess. The enigma of wave particle complementarity mystifies us because some of the same particles participate in the chaos and the brilliant world that curves into it. This example makes it is very clear that the weirdness of wave-particle duality is a problem of context and not of number. We get into this mix-up again and again because we are so determined to calculate everything, reducing all problems to the mechanics of numbers. Illusions generated by the brain are the source of our confusion -- when we see quantum chaos, we don't see the design of a relativistic whole; when we see a pattern of wholeness, we no longer see pattern-less chaos. This quandary is resolved by concentrating on the “sub-atomic particle” dots of a stereogram as a whole group -- collectively, and not as scattered specs of individual nothingness. We are looking at things from-and-with the wrong perspective when describing our very self-centered perception of two separate entities -- wave and particle; there is only "One" in-two different contexts. One sees them either as “being” in the pattern of the ordered image or as chaos, but the brain cannot visualize the same particles in two different settings simultaneously because of the configuration of the dots-as-a-whole and the one-channel-at-a-time-brain limiting human perception. Consequently, one’s focus of attention centers on a reversible transformation …shifting from self-centeredness to a mystical collective out-“Look” on everything …so One might not be swallowed up by the mesmerizing asymmetry of quantum chaos or remain entangled within the X and Z mysteries of illusory "individual" waves and particles. In the case of non-locality, we should suspect that some added twist to this stereogram model will make sense of that weirdness as well. We must learn to spot whole patterns, to visualize "everything" collectively -- geometrically, as-Penrose-would-see it; that certainly has been the message of both relativity and quantum physics all along ...but so also has uncertainty. When we see dazzling beauty unfolding around us, we must not conclude that we now have seen everything, that we have bound up the God of initial conditions in Pandora's box, that we have discovered the final theory. We cannot over-look that those self-same particles still remain in chaotic suspension; nor can we forget that everything we ever see is from a limited relativistic perspective. The quantum chaos in its entirety never materializes in recognizable form -- God never shows His face, but we can feel His presence within us; and out of those strange feelings we cannot help but create sounds and images that transform that engulfing confusion.... converting us into the beauty of everything we be ..hold ..in focus. But we must not worship the laws and reflections of our own creation; we can avoid that totalitarian error by continuing to create -- by remaining in the proximity of the holy chaos of initial conditions.

As with the collapse of the quantum wave function, we also can understand wave-particle complementarity and non-locality; and that by dealing with the perplexity of one of these dilemmas, we reconcile ourselves with the others as well -- perhaps with all problems that structure themselves in the form of a logical paradox. The reason we can do this is because we have learned to see the inter-active relationship of chaos to order. Now you know how significant stereograms are, and why it is essential that you experience this sensation.

In order to see a stereogram, you must focus your mind as well as your eyes. As you do this, you will be engaging in a kind of meditative self-hypnosis not very far removed from what mystics do. The intent here is to introduce a contemplative state of mind into the discipline of scientific observation as a means of solving the problem of the quantum observer. In a very real sense, you find yourself "inside" the stereogram. It is by this kind of practical means that spirituality can be integrated into science, and not by the introduction of dogma or mythology. A good comparison might be Zen and the art of archery, motor cycle mechanics, or any discipline you wish. The depth perception referred to above is Jung's depth psychology, and the stereogram can be seen as a computer generated multi-dimensional mandala. Our fascination with the depth perception of these mandala stereograms is leading us along an evolutionary spiral into a sense for the wholeness, the collective dimension of human consciousness. Jung opened up this whole revolution in human identity several decades ago as quantum physics was forming, but his ideas about the collective unconscious and his glancing infatuation with nazism led the Jews to place his thinking off limits for serious science. My purpose is to use Jung's ideas as a springboard rather than as dogma. I would hope that you could familiarize yourself with the spirit of his writings without approaching them as some kind of new age law.

Someday, perhaps it will be possible to publish this work with a stereogram on the front. Embedded on the cover of the book itself would be a chaotic swirl, deep inside of which would be the concealed title of this book wound in the shape of a depth-dimensional spiral. Inside, some of these reflections would be illuminated as stereograms. Such a design would make the ideas remarkably easy to understand. It is this perspective people seek in efforts to expand the mind. I cannot emphasize strongly enough that I am appealing to a "natural high", and not a drug induced altered state of mental paralysis.

There have been efforts to restructure grammar or to produce a "quantum logic" which makes sense of the weirdness inherent to the new physics; but like Pagels, most physicists have dismissed it as less useful than the old Boolean logic.¹⁰⁸ You may think that any ideas not expressed mathematically are inconsequential, but my reasoning is not based on feelings alone. There is a very complex logical system that I know intuitively, if not by the letter of the law. That common grammar being referred to here is language. My use of multi-dimensional language may not be as dramatic and as immediately persuasive as a stereogram, but it aspires to the same "objective" ...state of mind. It is possible to arrive at the remarkable insights described here because language has the same kind of logic at its foundations as we find in mathematics. The paradoxes of quantum physics expose fundamental flaws in how we think. If a fundamental error can be corrected in the deep structure of language, the same insight should be transferable to mathematics and science. At least this is how I have arrived at my conclusions. I believe it is unreasonable on the part of scientists to dogmatically declare that meaningful ideas can only be contained in the language of mathematics. I am convinced that the meaninglessness of existential modernism has its origins in the hollowing out of language, and this has been done intentionally and systematically by a totalitarian tribe of subversives. Only an act of real revolution can put meaning back into our common language, and only by doing that can we return spirituality to our lives. People think of revolutions in terms of bombs and "terrorists", but the most powerful force is still spiritual. Real revolution is not possible until words can be formulated which inspire people to action. As Orwell understood, the State seeks to make words impotent. My aim is to put the romance back in language, to make White English capable of being dangerous.

I have argued earlier that we must entangle the chaos within ourselves with the chaos of nature, but what does that mean? It does not mean simply learning a new technique of reasoning. Nature will not be short changed; there is a requirement for authentic randomness. It means struggling with real confusion for a life-time, paying a human price for ideas of enduring value. We want to solve problems formally, but nature is intimate; if we really desire the intimacy which unveils Her concealed beauty, we have to commit ourselves emotionally and without reservation. We have to love what we are doing, be willing to pursue intuition rather than rely on pre-fabricated formulas; this component of randomness necessitates a return to our primitive instincts, now augmented by modern intelligence. Let the computers do what they do best; eventually those who would be unfeeling robots will be phased out by real machines. Technology can free us from the artificial structures of our recent scientific past so that we might become more human. If we don't, the jig’s up. Nature plays games with us, offering irresistible prizes at apparently unbeatable odds. Risk everything and never surrender: those are the only rules to this primitive gamble. Many times throughout this book you may feel that we are going in circles, but this is not a winding slippery-slide to hell, like other alleys you may have tramped. This feeling of confusion leads to a new kind of clarity: a mystical vision -- you must experience yourself -- in order to believe. So venture forth as my traveling companion and discover everything ....... you have been missing.

From String Theory To A Final Theory: Back To The Origins of Nuclear Weapons

                               END NOTES

1.Zohar, Danah, The Quantum Self: Human Nature and Consciousness Defined by the New Physics © 1991 Flamingo, London, pp.3-4

2.Davies, Paul and John Gribbin, The Matter Myth: Beyond Chaos and Complexity ©1992 Penguin Books, London, p.57

3.Woolley, Benjamin, Virtual Worlds: A Journey in Hype and Hyper-reality © 1992 Blackwell Publishers, Oxford, pp.183

4.Davies and Gribbin, The Matter Myth: Beyond Chaos and Complexity , p.59

5.Microsoft (R) Encarta. Copyright (c) 1993 Microsoft Corporation. Copyright (c)1993 Funk & Wagnall's Corporation, Theory of General Relativity

6.Davies and Gribbin, p. 207

7.Peat, F. David, Superstrings and the Search for the Theory of Everything © 1988,Contemporary Books, Chicago, p.127

8.Capra, Fritjof, The Tao of Physics: An Exploration of the Parallels between Modern Physics and Eastern Mysticism © 1978 Fontana/Collins, Great Britain p.64-65

9A.Rhodes, Richard, The Making of the Atomic Bomb © 1988 Simon & Schuster, New York, p.170

9B.Weinberg, Steven, Dreams of a Final Theory: The Search for the Fundamental Laws of Nature ,Vintage, © 1993, London, p.138

10.Davies and Gribbin, p.22

11.Penrose, Roger, Shadows of the Mind: A Search for the Missing Science of Consciousness © 1994 Oxford University Press, Oxford, pp. 256-257

12.Capra, Fritjof, The Tao of Physics , pp.71-2

13.Gregory, Richard L., (Professor of Neuropsychology and Director of the Brain and Perception Laboratory, University of Bristol), Mind In Science: A History of Explanations In Psychology and Physics © 1981 Weidenfeld and Nicolson, London, p. 538

14.Herbert, Nick, Quantum Reality: Beyond the New Physics © 1985 Anchor Books, New York. p.194

15.Peat, F. David, Superstrings , p.304

16.Herbert, pp.41-42

17.Herbert, p.38

18.Penrose, Roger, Shadows of the Mind , p.259

19.Davies and Gribbin, p.202

20.Penrose, Roger, Shadows of the Mind , p.263

21.Herbert, p.150

22.Woolley, Benjamin, Virtual Worlds , p.221

23.Pagels, Heinz R., The Cosmic Code: Quantum Physics and the Language of Nature © 1984 Pelican Books, Great Britain, p.137

24.Woolley, p.221

25.Davies, P.C.W. and J. R. Brown (Editors), The Ghost In the Atom, © 1993 Cambridge University Press, Canto Edition, Cambridge, p.15

26.Herbert, Nick, Quantum Reality, p.211

27.Herbert, pp.220-221

28.Davies and Brown, p.125

29.Herbert, p.214

30.Woolley, pp.223

31.Davies and Gribbin, p.14.

32.Pagels, p.172

33.Herbert, p.45

34.Woolley, p.184

35.Herbert, pp.16-17

36.Davies and Brown, p.12

37.Herbert, Nick, Quantum Reality, pp.56-57

38.Herbert, pp.21

39.Herbert, p. 26

40.Herbert, p.189

41.Herbert, p.193

42.Herbert, p.145

43.Herbert, p.28

44.Herbert, p.173

45.Herbert, p.19

46.Davies and Gribbin, p.214

47.Herbert, p. 22

48.Bohm, David, Wholeness and the Implicate Order © 1980 Routledge & Kegan Paul, London, pp.128-129

49.Peat, F. David, Infinite Potential: The Life and Times of David Bohm © 1997 Addison-Wesley, New York, p.158

50.Pagels, Heinz R., The Cosmic Code: Quantum Physics and the Language of Nature , p.202

51.Pagels, p.203

52.Pagels, p.207

53.Pagels, p.220

54.Pagels, p.223

55.Pagels, p.208

56.Pagels, p.213

57.Pagels, p.221

58.Pagels, p.231

59.Pagels, p.216

60.Peat, F. David, Superstrings and the Search for the Theory of Everything , p.58

61.Peat, F. David, Superstrings , p.108

62.Davies and Gribbin, p.8

63.Davies and Gribbin, p.8

64.Peat, F. David, Superstrings , p.170

65.Peat, F. David, Superstrings , p.238

66.Pagels, p.249

67.Peat, F. David, Superstrings , p.303

68.Pagels, p.249

69.Weinberg, Steven, Dreams of a Final Theory: The Search for the Fundamental Laws of Nature , p.169

70.Weinberg, p.111

71.Weinberg, p.109

72.Weinberg, p.48

73.Davies, Paul and John Gribbin, The Matter Myth: Beyond Chaos and Complexity © 1992 Penguin Books, London, p.240

74.Davies and Gribbin, 239

75.Weinberg, p.124

76.Peat, F. David, Superstrings and the Search for the Theory of Everything © 1988, Contemporary Books, Chicago, pp.319-20

77.Peat, F. David, Superstrings , p.130

78.Davies, P.C.W. and J. R. Brown (Editors), The Ghost In the Atom, © 1993 Cambridge University Press, Canto Edition, Cambridge, p.123

79.Gleick, James, Genius: Richard Feynman and Modern Physics © 1992 Little, Brown and Company (UK) Limited, London, p.365

80.Bohm, David, Wholeness and the Implicate Order © 1980 Routledge & Kegan Paul, London, p.178

81.Bohm, p.xv

82.Bohm, p.xv

83.Bohm, p.179

84.Barrow, John D. ,Theories of Everything:The Quest for Ultimate Explanations © 1991 Astronomy Centre, University of Sussex, Clarendon Press, Oxford, p.11

85.Barrow, p.200

86.Penrose, Roger, Shadows of the Mind: A Search for the Missing Science of Consciousness © 1994 Oxford University Press, Oxford, pp.20-21

87.Penrose, Roger, Shadows of the Mind , pp.128-129

88.Barrow, John D. ,Theories of Everything , pp.150-1

89.Barrow, p.41

90.Davies and Gribbin, p.28

91.Davies, Paul (Editor), The New Physics © 1989 Cambridge University Press, Cambridge, New York, Melbourne. What Is Chaos, That We Should Be Mindful of It? by Joseph Ford, pp.365-366.

92.Gleick, James, Chaos: Making a New Science © 1987 William Heinemann Ltd. London, p.103

93.Peat, F. David, Superstrings , p.321

94.Woolley, Benjamin, Virtual Worlds: A Journey in Hype and Hyper-reality © 1992 Blackwell Publishers, Oxford, p.231

95.Peat, F. David, Superstrings , p.334

96.Peat, F. David, Superstrings , p.325

97.Pagels, Heinz R., The Cosmic Code: Quantum Physics and the Language of Nature, p.242

98.Pagels, p.243

99.Pagels, pp.313-314

100.Weinberg, p.155

101.Pagels, p.228

102.Pagels, p.172

103.Gardner, Howard, Creating Minds:An Anatomy of Creativity Seen Through the Lives of Freud, Einstein, Picasso,Stravinsky, Eliot, Graham, and Gandhi © 1993 Basic Books (Harper Collins Publishers) New York, pp.123-4

104.Penrose, Roger, Shadows of the Mind , p.178

105.Peat, F. David, Superstrings , p.303

106.Bohm, David, Wholeness and the Implicate Order , p.149

107.Weinberg, p.129

108.Pagels, p.166