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.
James Webster's web site: www.mrjameswebster.co.uk
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
Pearson, R.D. "Intelligence Behind The Universe". ISBN 0 947823 21 2.
Pearson, R.D. "Origin of Mind". ISBN 0 9517558 1 3
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.