Theoretical Physics Backs Survival
by Ronald Pearson B.Sc.
Overwhelming
experimental evidence for survival of bodily death, amounting to total
proof, already exists. This has been generated by both mental and
physical mediumship, as concisely described by Victor Zammit(1) in his
book, "A LAWYER ARGUES FOR THE AFTERLIFE". He draws his information from
a wide range of literature and this is only one of thousands of books
written on the subject. For example, James Webster(2), a member of the
inner magic circle and one time stage magician, is a more recent author
who would be most difficult to deceive by trickery. He includes his own
personal experiences to supplement reports from famous scientists such
as Sir William Crookes, Sir Oliver Lodge and John Logie Baird. What
ought to provide a real clincher, however, is the evidence given by a
team, including scientists and Webster, in the "Scole Report" published
by the Society for Psychical Research(3) in 1999. This is surely proof
that mediumship, inclusive of physical effects impossible to replicate
by us, can be genuine.
Unfortunately mainline
physicists all refuse to recognise the validity of such observations.
They are clearly attempting to protect their paradigm that life, based
only on matter we can explore by our instruments, is all that exists. To
them consciousness is generated by the interaction of neurones in the
brain and nothing else so that when the brain dies everything blacks
out. This is clearly in total contradiction to the evidence supplied by
mediumship and so something needs to be done to resolve the issues
raised. It must be obvious to all that theoretical physics is the main
stumbling block: it is unable, at the present time, to accommodate
spiritual aspects within its framework. Until it can do so most
scientists will continue to avoid looking at all this accumulated
evidence: indeed they will continue to discredit and debunk this
evidence whenever circumstances force them into confrontation.
All Theories Must Match Experiments
No
theory can, by itself, prove anything: the proof comes from experiment
and observation. Theories make sense of the experiments and show how
apparently unrelated phenomena are aspects of the same thing. Good
theories provide unification. For example, magnetism and electricity
were separate fields when science was in its infancy. As understanding
grew it was found that magnetic effects could be produced by electric
currents and a moving magnet could cause a current to flow in a loop of
wire. Now we speak of electromagnetism as a single force: one of the
four forces of nature. Theoretical physicists hope ultimately to join
these by a unified field theory arising from a single "superforce".
Science, however, cannot progress by theory alone: it requires a
synthesis of theory and experiment. When observation runs ahead of
theory to provide anomalies which seem inexplicable, then as history has
shown by repeating itself over and over, the anomalies are avoided,
ignored or discredited in order to maintain the status quo: to avoid the
need to injure existing intellectual vested interests. This, however,
underlines the importance of making advances in theoretical physics.
Until it can permit paranormal phenomena to exist, by unifying them as
part of its framework, no amount of further evidence for survival will
make the slightest difference: it will be simply ignored like all the
rest.
This is where a new approach comes in and, it
is hoped, will provide the key needed to switch existing paradigms. This
could then permit acceptance of the evidence.
The Invention of the Big-Bang
My
study began in 1984 after looking into the basic principles of the
"Big-Bang" theory of Cosmology Physics. This had a huge explosive
creation produced from an "intrinsic negative pressure of the vacuum".
It breaks the rules of common-sense logic for any negative pressure to
produce an explosion: such effects can only cause implosions! Further
study showed up an alarming number of flaws in the basic logic. This
logic is still accepted as if the theory was sound, even though it makes
false predictions such as the "Cosmoligical constant" - a force pushing
the galaxies apart which is 50 orders of magnitude greater than
astronomical observations can allow! It arises because the theoreticians
can find no way of turning off the Big-Bang they have invented.
Could
the whole thing be completely wrong I asked myself. At the time I was a
sceptic like most other scientists and had no intention of supporting
the idea of survival. However, this appeared automatically as a spin-off
within the solution.
Relativity Incompatible with Quantum Theory
Further
study showed that attractive forces, like gravitation or the strong
nuclear force, were being modelled using assumptions which violated a
basic law of physics called the "conservation of momentum", which meant
that a complementary form of substance had to exist at a sub-quantum
level whose responses to applied forces had to be opposite those of
matter. This complementary substance had to exist as primary particles
made of negative energy. They complemented "primaries" made of positive
energy, the whole existing as a balanced mixture. Unfortunately such a
background medium was incompatible with the idea of "curved spacetime":
the basis of Einstein's theory of general relativity. However, an
incompatibility also existed between Einstein's relativity theories and
quantum theory. The former relates generally to motions of matter on the
large cosmic scale whilst quantum theory deals with the small scale:
mostly motions of the components of atoms. (This incompatibility was
admitted later by Professor Stephen Hawking in his popularisation, "A
Brief History of Time").
Fully Compatible With Quantum Theory
The
new approach, detailed in this author's book(4), showed that the basis
of his own discipline, Newtonian physics, was also not being used in an
exact way. The "inertial mass" of any object needed to include the
equivalent of its energy of motion, "kinetic energy". Then it turned out
that a sub-quantum level of reality had to exist to produce forces on
matter and that this had to behave as a compressible fluid. Like air, it
was most compressed the closer it was to a massive object like a planet
or a sun. These two effects, when quantified by mathematics, paralleled
all the predictions that were previously thought to be unique
achievements of both special and general relativity: the theories that
made Einstein so famous. Indeed almost every end equation that could be
checked experimentally was identical to that derived from special or
general relativity. The big difference, however, was that the new
approach was not only fully compatible with quantum theory, it enhanced
that theory.
A Paradox-free Alternative to the Big-Bang
Quantum
theory as it stands is based on abstract "quantum waves" which double
as sub-atomic particles. There is nothing in the theory that even
attempts to say how these waves arise or even suggests what they are
made from. These defects are now rectified as a consequence of a
self-organising structure appearing at the sub-quantum level of reality
(whose very existence is denied by relativity theory). It arises as a
consequence of this level being a composite of the two complementary
energies mentioned earlier and having the form of primary particles. It
is shown that, in order to satisfy two basic conservation laws of
physics, those of energy and momentum, that these particles actually
breed by collision: so creating a paradox-free alternative to the
Big-Bang as the primary creative force. The problem of the cosmological
constant is resolved by its replacement with an ever-accelerating
expansion caused by a net creation existing everywhere at all times.
This fits in nicely with a recent observation made in 1998 and which
still puzzles cosmologists: the expansion of the universe is
accelerating instead of slowing down as they supposed.
Survival as a Fundamental Part of Physics
The
mechanics of the process is shown, in the author's second
publication(5), to result in a structure with similarities to the neural
network of our brains. This arose in space, right to the very edges of
the universe, together with its own built in power supply everywhere.
The mathematics threw up a structure of interconnected switches which
would naturally generate waves in a similar way to those traversing our
brains. The structure is of immensely finer scale than our brains of
matter but, more speculatively, it appears to have the same potential to
develop both a machine-like intelligence and ultimately a primary
consciousness. All it could do, however, is to control its waves. It
seems reasonable to equate these with the quantum waves that are then
used deliberately to create matter. Focused waves produce density spikes
and these would behave like particles to us: so providing a unique
explanation of the enigma called "wave particle duality". This is a
basic feature of quantum theory but now providing a solution to a puzzle
not previously resolved.
If true a "supermind of
space" could create a whole set of matter-systems all co-existing in the
same space but tuned to different quantum-wave frequencies. Then
fragments of the supermind structure, the "sub-minds", could only tune
into one matter-system at a time. Consequently the only reality apparent
at any one time would be the one to which a sub-mind is temporarily
tuned. When that matter-system became outworn, this sub-mind, being part
of the structured sub-quantum fluid, would simply tune into one of the
remaining matter-systems and continue to survive. On this basis our
brains could well be mere interfacing mechanisms needed to enable the
real minds to pilot the body. No justification can exist any longer in
postulating that, of necessity, consciousness vanishes on brain death.
At
least a mix of firm mathematical prediction and the speculation based
upon it shows, in this way, that the link between survival and
theoretical physics cannot be dismissed as impossible. Further detail is
given in the peer-reviewed publication by this author(6), which also
shows how the same waves produce the long range density gradients on
which the new "quantum-wave theory of gravity" depends. Hence a further
indication that this approach could be the one which is correct, is that
now gravitation becomes integrated with the other forces of nature:
something that the established approach has so far failed to achieve.
Now,
however, nearly all aspects of the paranormal, inclusive of survival,
are seen as potentially real effects. Theoreticians are therefore no
longer justified in their attempt to explain these away. Nor can they be
justified any longer in resorting to any other kind of subterfuge for
their discreditment. Instead a way is provided for physics to be
revitalised and reformed to accept survival as a fact which in no way
conflicts with its basic principles.
It is worth
noting, at this stage, that this new, "enlightened theoretical physics"
is not equivalent to "dualism". The dualist idea is God outside of
spacetime who organises matter. Physicists balk at accepting something
outside the scope of their discipline. The new solution advanced,
however, arises from physics itself and is inseparable from physics.
Now,
as soon as this theory can become published and criticised the better.
All criticism is welcome except for the destructive kind. The kind which
simply ignores the logic presented and, to quote one typical example of
a phrase used by an assessor for its dismissal, "relativity has
withstood the test of time". This is simply not true when its admitted
incompatibility with quantum theory is considered. I do not think
anybody will find any basic flaw in the logic or any inconsistency with
experimental observation. Then, if I am correct, this theory could
become scientifically acceptable. If this happens, or anybody else
produces an equivalent theory, then the accumulated evidence of survival
will become accepted as a fundamental part of physics. No longer will
the controversy survive, and the conflict between creationists and
evolutionists will come to an end. The universe was deliberately created
by the supermind of space so that biological systems could evolve.
References
1.
|
Zammit, Dr. Victor: "A Lawyer Argues for the Afterlife"
Website: www.victorzammit.com |
2.
|
James Webster's web site: www.mrjameswebster.co.uk
|
3.
|
Keen, M., Ellison, A., & Fontana, Prof. D. : "The Scole Report".
Proceedings of the Society for Psychical Research Vol. 58, Part 220. November 1999. SPR, 49 Marloes Road, London W8 6LA |
4.
|
Pearson, R.D. "Intelligence Behind The Universe". ISBN 0 947823 21 2.
|
5.
|
Pearson, R.D. "Origin of Mind". ISBN 0 9517558 1 3
|
6.
|
Pearson, R.D. 'Consciousness as a Sub-Quantum Phenomenon'.
Peer-refereed and published in the journal 'Frontier Perspectives':
Temple University, Philadelphia, USA. Vol. 6 No. 2 Spring/Summer, 1997.
ISSN: 1062-4767
|
Ref.
4 & 5 are written for the intelligent non-scientist but each has a
mathematical supplement which should be understandable to anyone with
school sixth-form mathematics.
|
-----------
=================
|
No comments:
Post a Comment