"as a physicist, I f*king know what quantum theory is, it is you that don't. When we joke about not knowing,, it is our joke. Our joke is not your proof."
Behind the picture, a link describes how a plasma ball works
A physi-activist declared I didn't understand quantum physics but was prepared to twist it toward what he called my 'confirmation bias'. I quoted Feynman's "if you think you understand quantum mechanics, you don't" line, and gave a link to LiveScience where scientists disagree over what quantum mechanics even means! The activist then pronounced himself thus (without bleeps):
"as a physicist, I f*king know what quantum theory is, it is you that don't. When we joke about not knowing,, it is our joke. Our joke is not your proof."
Behind the picture, a link describes how a plasma ball works
I'm shamelessly using this incident as an introduction to a post on Parity Violation, and will seamlessly weave in references to intolerance as they arise in application of key-to-screen.
Linked to the indeterminable equation here, you'll find explained that certain types of interaction seem to be common and others forbidden. Laying down the law is fine when you're conserving numbers in leptons and baryons, but actual life and death (decay) of a particle with mass leaves it subject to options, thus uncertainties (not mentioned). The 'totalitarian principle' blanket-assumes that every process that is not forbidden must occur, while processes that are forbidden also occur - a lot of those due to interface with the weak force involving the W particle. Strange things can happen with strange quarks in weak interaction.
Now I've been making noises for a long time about quarks and neutrinos interacting. At SQM2019 (the write-up is in the main menu), two variant hypotheses were put to me, one being that the quark sector does not engage with the weak force, and the other being that quarks are subject to weak-force interference. One is right, the other is wrong. As regards parity violation, quarks are all over it, but specific references as to which quarks do what are notable by absence, because it's not the kind of thing you can see happening for real, it's something you have to assume, and assumption, especially in physics, is dangerous...
...the kind of anomaly that happens when physicists dismiss (with bared teeth) observations and indications from people with no formal training in equations. Understanding the math or not understanding the math doesn't negate our being atomic, composed of quarks. Scientists insist we only contain Up and Down quarks, yet that violates a flow of quark oscillation, and such a limit discounts any interface a body of matter could have with the weak force. In the equation 'dimensionless' appears - that absence of dimension relates directly to energy (e).
Linked behind this picture of a colliding gold atom is a story from the RHIC.... the Relativistic Heavy Ion Collider at Brookhaven. In 2005, a team seeking to recreate early-universe versions of quark-gluon plasma found that the state of matter they produced was more like a liquid, in which quarks and gluons move together exhibiting a fluid motion that is "nearly perfect - meaning its viscosity is close to zero, or friction-free." This 'highly coordinated manner' of movement harks to the system in our brains, where coherent water moves in a similar way through microtubules. Scientists (in other fields) have found quantum processes at work in there, but of course, one could always say that was a different science. Anyone can cite differences to excuse lack of tolerance to another way of thinking.
Renormalisation is one of my pet hates. Mathematicians need it to get rid of infinities. My view is that if infinities arise in the equation, there's something to be said for them, and they should be respected rather than refused a place in the schematics of scientific enquiry. Parity violation is simply the refusal of particles to behave as mathematicians think they should, and the more evidence coming to light for violation, the happier I am, for eventually it's going to come down to nature versus nodal systems, the points of intersecting interest science-to-science, and those findings that break the Standard Model are not going to come easily against a tide of intolerant activists fiercely protecting their Principles like tormented dragons over mountains of treasure stolen and claimed, but never theirs to own. Dogspangling, as it were.
We are very small entities on a little planet you couldn't see very easily from outside the solar system, but you'd see our Sun as a star from light years away. You and I, we can't be seen from just a few hundred feet into the sky. With this in mind, we can relate to those sub-microscopic entities much smaller than us as we are relatively much smaller than the Sun.
The quantum world behaves in alarming ways, sometimes defying the laws of Physics to produce weird effects like non-locality (connected events that happen simultaneously regardless of distance) and wave-particle duality (everything at the quantum level being simultaneously a wave and a particle). Uncertainty is a factor we have to handle all the time. We live with these effects. Whether or not the scientists want to admit as much, we subscribe to quantum laws because we are made of the stuff that works with them. The more we know, the better equipped we are to make the most of our experiences.
Since Quantumology was published in 2014, other applications of the word have materialised - there's even a Church (nothing to do with me!). There's a band, and a company of undefined purpose. And here is a scientist's definition of Quantumology, describing (in science-speak) the laws above in his own post (published two years after this website came into being). Scientists aren't going to mention me in dispatches if they can possibly help it. But yup, on the trail of Quantumology you've arrived at the point of origin.
Should you feel like crying Woo I'll remind the dogspanglers that nobody knows what goes on inside a black hole, because the known laws of physics break down beyond the event horizon and we've no idea what happens at the singularity. By the same token, we could all be said to be our own Singularity. You don't have to understand the mathematical equations to know that we are alive, conscious, and made of quarks.
Physics and metaphysics...? The science is already here. Quantumology is the bridge over the bits you might want to know about, even if you're not into physics. You can buy the book direct from me (£9.99 plus P&P via PayPal). Send an email to email@example.com. Or click on the picture and follow the link to Amazon.
Roger Penrose is very much alive, and his name in scientific circles is well known. Gregory Matloff may not be so famous, but his collaboration with Bernard Haisch produced a paper of some interest to Penrose. A paper that questions the reason why cooler stars like our Sun move through the galaxy faster than hotter ones, a strange velocity differential known as Parenago's Discontinuity. The rate at which these stars travel round their galaxies is so constant that their speed cannot be attributed to gaseous accretion, or any interaction with cosmic materials, because as Matloff puts it;
"If it were a matter of interacting with gas clouds, as is the current theory, each cloud should have a different chemical makeup, and so cause the star to operate differently. So why do all of them act in exactly the same way?"
Penrose has long been an advocate of quantum consciousness and proposed in the 1990s that processes in the synapses of the brain suggest consciousness exists at the quantum level. And this is enough of a green light to other physicists who feel that the exploration of quantum consciousness could pave the way for dramatic developments in mental health and personal management systems, things of great value to scientists and non-scientists alike, if only they'd step over the paradigms enforced by physicists who guard the gates of science forums and attack anything they could personally constitute as Woo.
Photons, electrons, atoms and molecules fired at a double slit all perform in the same way - as a wave. The interference pattern on the back plate is the same no matter which version of material you use. Behind the link on this subject you'll find the question mooted, are these particles making a conscious decision? And thus the eyebrow rises - could this phenomenon correlate, in its strange uniformity, with the findings behind Parenago's Discontinuity? Our minds are fragile, subject to forces of which we know nothing at all. Many are driven to despair and even suicide by seemingly irrational views of their world, filled with hopelessness and loneliness, torment and distress. Could this not, given the syntax of language adopted for all English purposes, lend itself to contention for Dark Matter (closely aligned to, if not in superposition with, Dark Energy)?
Universal consciousness is no new kid on the block. The pioneers of quantum mechanics have been quoted profusely in begging questions of conscious processes at work.
"The reality we can put into words is never reality itself." Werner Heisenberg
“Consciousness cannot be accounted for in physical terms. For consciousness is absolutely fundamental. It cannot be accounted for in terms of anything else.” Erwin Schroedinger
"Whence come I and whither go I? That is the great unfathomable question, the same for every one of us. Science has no answer to it." Max Planck
"The fact that religions through the ages have spoken in images, parables, and paradoxes means simply that there are no other ways of grasping the reality to which they refer. But that does not mean that it is not a genuine reality. And splitting this reality into an objective and a subjective side won't get us very far." Neils Bohr
"I am convinced that theoretical physics is actual philosophy. It has revolutionized fundamental concepts, e.g., about space and time (relativity), about causality (quantum theory), and about substance and matter (atomistics), and it has taught us new methods of thinking (complementarity) which are applicable far beyond physics." Max Born
"Concern for man and his fate must always form the chief interest of all technical endeavors. Never forget this in the midst of your diagrams and equations." Albert Einstein
Einstein and the other famous names of the 1930s 'ground-break' era had a lot more to say on matters esoteric than there is room for quoting here. They harboured a healthy respect for depths of reason beyond the known, the states and spaces where science has no answers, the fields of existence hinted at and partially unveiled by quantum mechanics. Do you imagine I came to write these blogs through a life-long fascination for physics? Couldn't be further from the truth. Were I to tell the story, you would not believe me, and were I to hint at it, you could discard all or any tenuous threads of reason to consider that the concepts within them matter at all. But they do - as the consensus above would have it. For these matters are deep, and their colour is dark, unless there are photons or positrons and annihilation, in which case the destructive creational process may be related to our states of mind, and if so, we can barter with the Universe for our energetic rations, and create environments for ourselves in which those elements we need for mental welfare may exist.
Sometimes, you know, I come to write these posts wondering if it's worth it, whether my thoughts have any value in the great scheme of things, and how much might or might not come of my efforts to contribute to the way things are. Do you feel like that too, about the things you do in life? Do you wonder if it's worth it in the end?
Last time, it was about Syntropy (please check out the DotOrg version as it earned itself way more likes!), having got rather excited about a principle that vied with Entropy as an absolute. You know me, ever looking for a boot to put into a Constraint.
Syntropy covered all bases (not letting those clocks get the better of us), and struck a few blinders at the same time, like allowing us a future we can value in safety. If we can't extrapolate the principles of physics to the human condition, what's the point of understanding them? The thing about physics, its devotees and its woo, is that once you've got a physical system bending to the will of quantum laws, you've got a system poking through the brane of metaphysics, and that's something even Einstein had to swallow in the end.
When, exactly, do we run out of time? If there should be a deadline, there'll be other things to do if it's not met. Unless of course we actually die, in which case it's a bit final (at least from the physical point of view). Meanwhile, on the subject of value, how's that balance coming along?
The one you're striving for, the work-life balance, the balance of power, equality in the relationship?
"What's physics got to do with relationships?"
Oh boy. Had I the time.....
Well, right now it's coming up to five in the morning and I got out of bed specially to do this, with the first line in my head and an insistence pressing in from somewhere else that the rest will take care of itself. All I have to do is show up.
There's no getting away from it, balance holds sway over pretty much everything, even Nature. Take 'spin' - you don't have a particle spinning one way without another spinning in the opposite direction, probably its anti-particle, which would put them in the same place at the same time. What about CP violation? Depends how you look at it. QCD doesn't suffer from any violation problems but that could be due to the chromodynamic part, surely, just as looking at chromosomes led to the belief that 95% of our DNA was 'junk'. The lovely thing about this particular problem is the absence of regard to the oscillation factor. "The reason why such a complex phase causes CP violation is not immediately obvious," but hey, you've got sets of three to deal with here. Three generations of quarks, three flavours of neutrino. And there's your relationship - the sedentary quark and the flying neutrino, oscillating together, and don't even get me started on leptons.
The yin-yang of physics, epitomised by SUSY, anticipating the next generation of thought-waves to come along and break it, leaves a lot to the imagination. Which is where it all came from in the first place - no Nobel without an idea. The wonderful thing about Time is that it travels in both directions at once, so it shouldn't be hard to let go of What Was in catching the What's To Be which becomes What Was faster than you can swing a bat......
There's value in thinking, isn't there, when the thoughts are positively contributing to something positive. Not that I'm ever going to appeal to the Positivist, at all, in the slightest, nor would want to. Loving the tricks of the light does demand some appreciation of the dark, and I know that plenty of people out there with technical, scientific minds are stretching the boundary constraints because let's face it, we can't help what's happening to the world out there unless we do something drastic from within ourselves. Violation is out there. What better place to start?
Language is a powerful thing, our use of it exercised in all manner of ways to convey authority, illustrate relative meaning, and sometimes to confuse the issue. So when I stumbled across Antonella Vannini's essay on Syntropy, I was excited to read something from a scientist that engaged a lot of common sense. He wanted to relate the properties of wave solutions to the mechanics of living systems, and being a student of cognitive psychology, his understanding of physics managed to avoid equations while still being applied logically to his argument-at-hand.
There's just one equation in his essay, for illustrative purposes. This one:
E2 = c2p2 + m2c4
in which you'll have to imagine the numbers being placed higher than the letters as I can't replicate that here.
Luigi Fantappie in 1941 changed his entire world-view when presented with the implications of Advanced wave potentials intersecting the time variance of present events. He noted that retarded waves govern the law of entropy, well-known and accepted in the continuum of universal evolution, but that advanced waves also must, by default, play a part via the symmetrical system-variant he came to call 'Syntropy'. In language, there's always room for a new word. And when one comes about, we are drawn to inevitable conclusions as to relativity in its subscription. For some, like myself, it's pretty impossible to ignore a correlation between 'syntropy' and 'synchrony', from which we might extrapolate further towards 'synchronicity', and possibly deduce that the avalanche of evidence we see in daily life for there being such a thing as 'synchronicity' is probably related to Syntropy, by virtue of its entering our world-line from a position of prognostication.
Being (unashamedly) all for any scientific endeavour that bridges the quantum field with the human matrix, it was found refreshing that the anticipated potentials of the wave equation (incurring the duality between Advanced and Retarded forms) could be interpreting a wide range of solutions fundamental to the laws of the Universe. For I've long held that Entropy isn't the answer to everything, and that the speed-of-light constant is no magical barrier beyond which nothing in Nature can pass.
Far from it, it seems to me, for only humans build one-way streets into the order of their worlds. Nature insists on two-way streets and symmetry positively relies on them. SUSY took it all a step too far. Sometimes we're not as smart, or as authoritative, as we like to think we are.
Schroedinger relied on forward motion of time (Retarded potentials only) in determining his wave equation, but the d'Alambert operator yields a dual-wave equation which cancels out the need for hidden variables (Bells' Theorem) and allows living systems the quality of absorption in their time-frame, which makes sense not only of concentrated solutions, but of the tendency we have to respond to emitted stimuli, absorb that information, and emit a response correspondingly. We don't choose the stimuli to which we need to respond, but we choose (as far as personality will permit) how to respond to it, and therefore what we emit, which others in turn have the opportunity to respond to, in the never-ending cycles of cause and effect.
This seems to me, in the fullness of interpretation, to be a major turning point in the way we view the Universe and our placement within it. For to accept the cancellation of speed-of-light mechanics in any (or all) non-local events is to effectively open the portal to acceptance of what's yet to be as equally valid in our tests of circumstance as what has gone before, and when we no longer rely entirely on what's gone before as a benchmark of What Is, this leaves us free to engage imaginatively with the conundrums at our disposal. And to elevate our acceptance to the point beyond positivist thinking, wherein the colour of magic and the hues of intuition are free to paint pictures as they were painted when quantum mechanics first came to light for Einstein, Schroedinger, Planck and the rest, all of whom relied on the depths of their metaphysical selves to elucidate the possible variables inherent in the quantum world, bringing to life a whole new platform of thought for those who came after, including Maxwell and Feynman, to build upon further in the creation of the world-view we tend to hold today. But there's more, much more. A new breed of scientist waits to cross the invisible bridge, and you might be one of them. I hope you are. I hope you blaze a trail for the new-paradigm language waiting to be born, for it's time now. Time is a luxury we may not always have.
This post belongs on the Dot Net site for one reason and one reason only. Because there are scientists out there who are thinking about these subjects, yet for whatever reason, are not stepping up to the plate. Their place in the scheme of global transformation is there to be found, but remains quashed, by virtue of 'closed' boundaries placed upon them - for fear of exclusion perhaps, or the thought that resources will be denied should they venture too far from the box. The whole point of the exercise, to many ways of thinking, is to expand the box sufficiently to happily do away with it altogether.
Boundary Systems. What are they for? To protect us. We set ourselves boundaries to encapsulate what we hold to be dear. To reinforce our comfort zones. To establish parameters beyond which others should, to our view, not step. Are they useful? What purpose do they serve? Boundaries are Closed - there are no 'Open Boundaries' as illustrated by the image attached. Like constants and constraints, they may be perceived to have worth, but by whose definition? There are two sides to the fence, one side impulsed to defend itself from attack, the other waiting to establish some degree of freedom..
We exist in different realities, which we traverse as we move through our day. The 3D reality, where we face each other head-on and communicate within the confines of shared space. The virtual reality, where we scroll through our timelines on the Internet and share thoughts. feelings and experiences in a non-local format as we integrate with others across the global spectrum. And the interdimensional reality, where we access our inspirations and are subject to the influence of consciousness we can neither see, nor fully perceive in 3D.
Screen writers such as Gene Roddenberry (Star Trek), Arthur C. Clarke (Space Odyssey), and Richard Dean Anderson (Stargate SG1) made their fame and fortune on the basis of the latter. As did the scientists (Einstein, Fermi, Bohr, Schroedinger, Planck, et al) in the heyday of quantum mechanical evolution.
Today there are no Einsteins in sight, and the iconic movies that made history are seemingly irreplaceable. We're left to our own devices with the information at our disposal, the stuff we have been given "to make sense of" in our miniscule 3D timelines. As the quantum units we must accept ourselves as being, we may not bear great significance in the master plan of cosmic consciousness, but surely we play a part, otherwise what would be the point of living in the world as it is now, as we do? We set great store by the choice/destiny paradox, questioning as we go, contemplating the Universe for heavens sake, and trying to calibrate where science and spirituality might find some common ground.
Being 'Used' is an over-used statement. We fear 'being used', so we try to set boundaries to guard ourselves against it. In the early 1900s, men and women worked with a paradigm in which subjugation and repression were orders of the day, and women rebelled against this with The Vote as an objective, the only thing to latch onto in their attempt to gain some kind of power. Thus ensued a power struggle, ensuring by definition that it could not work, and we've seen it Not Working over many decades since.
We've seen women trying to emulate men in seeking promotion and success. We've seen men at a loss to find merit in female thinking as they try to redress the imbalance of women in positions of influence. The Old Paradigms haven't worked, and now we know that we need to change them.
Way back when, the things men and women were Supposed to Do was left in a no-choice zone, a vestige of the hunter-gatherer era wherein women ran the household and men supplied the livelihood. Ironically, the suffragette movement coincided with the birth of quantum mechanics, though that's not a common consideration, for at the time the females were intent on setting themselves a mark in political history and the scientists were keeping their findings very close to their chests. We haven't yet come round to viewing that strange equation. But it's a different proving ground now, we have a blank space to work with. We're on a quest for equilibrium, and want to leave the power struggle behind. Power Struggle is Old Paradigm. Power Balance is New Paradigm. The question is, how are we going to attain it? Frankly, we don't know. We're only just beginning to find out.
There is, logically, no reason for boundaries where we don't need them. With all the emphasis of mental health on the social agenda, we have to accept that mental differences are to be valued, not vilified. Boundaries are established to keep out the unwanted (hence renormalisation), and to protect us from perceived 'badness' that comes with other people's ways of being. Do we really need, in the search for equilibrium, to defend ourselves from other people's way of being?
Boundaries per se are pushed hard in striving for what we (independently) perceive as necessity rather than in seeking consensus. We see something wrong in the way another person behaves or thinks, and we try to limit their impact on us by setting a boundary against it. What would happen if we took down the barriers we subsequently erect, and allowed those different processes in action and thought to take part in the process with equal validity? What if we stopped judging the world lines of other people and started taking down the blocks to their personal (and collective) validity?
In so doing, we would set ourselves a course for the unknown. However, clutching to certainty never did us any favours. The Universe does not deliver what we imagine it is going to, by virtue of the Uncertainty Principle. And if you haven't yet expanded the Uncertainty Principle to apply beyond the simplistic behaviour of electrons, you wouldn't be reading this Blog. Hello there - you again. Looking forward to that.
For quite a while now, I've been expounding the belief that while we live within a Multiverse, we most likely have the natural tendency to skip from Brane to Brane without feeling a thing - that our thoughts take us on trajectories we don't necessarily choose, some of which may be juxtaposed to our previous patterns of living, and that when we get to grips with this as a key feature of our existence, Making a Difference will become a way of life rather than a subheader on a wish-list.
I didn't know about the Mandela Effect until this point in time, and as ever, am heartened to find that my thinking process is shared across a wider community (whatever the Positivists may think). This principle relates to memories, specifically socially-shared memories, which appear to differ from the record of fact, and was so-named due to a mass belief that Nelson Mandela died in prison long before his actual demise at the age of 95. Rational Wiki's entry is naturally written to debunk the Effect as 'Woo' and deny any intersection we may experience with the Multiverse at all, but we're used to this paradox. Schroedinger, Einstein, Feynman, Pauli and Planck were themselves deeply concerned with the truth about metaphysics. Different articles are linked behind their names to demonstrate this widely-known fact, and the undeniable evidence which they themselves brought to light in supporting theories of an esoteric nature. Without knowing whether the Mandela Effect can ever truly be attributed to Multiversal intersection, there is no doubt that the overwhelming evidence in support of gravitational freedom to cross the Brane structure lends itself to an argument that we do, in fact, have the capacity to experience such effects.
Our conscious activity may be free to trawl beyond the 3D parameters of daily existence and give rise to major shifts in our personal world-lines as a result. Weight is lent to the probability that we skip from one trajectory to another on a moment by moment basis, and that the constraints commonly applied to us as 'macro units' don't, in fact, apply at all, because we are, as purported throughout the Archives here, living according to quantum law and not irrevocably bound by the laws of classical physics.
While we teeter on the brink of esoteric revolution, having a conscious appraisal of our position in the Multiverse broadens our playing field to largely infinite proportions. Scientists who have been arrogantly smacking down metaphysical concepts as Woo are likely to find themselves in an uncomfortable minority as more and more people (of all persuasions) warm to the idea that living in accordance with quantum laws bestows upon us tremendous amounts of freedom, and as this happens, the old paradigms of Constraint will become increasingly questionable to those who wish to explore reality in more realistic terms.
A heavy quark partnership is a rare thing, hardly ever seen even at the LHC. A pentaquark was found at CERN in the LHCb experiment, binding the Beauty quark to four others. Pentaquarks are (probably) found outside earthbound laboratories in supernovas. They're rare, as supernovae are rare, and they're very short-lived by any particle standards. The fifth quark is an Antiquark according to the link above, but there is also reference to a Lambda baryon, where the strange and charm are found. Can we surmise that perhaps not as much is known about the Pentaquark as some would like us to believe?
If correspondence between particle behaviour and human behaviour is anything to go by (click out right now if you think this is Woo) we might be on the verge of creating a Penta-paradigm from heavy elements of human development. There are high-energy non-local relationships in existence right now that seem to be sweeping the world - tens of thousands are flocking to social media for answers and many tens of thousands more who don't go there must also be caught up in the wave. This paradigm finds lots of labels to attach itself to in the rush.
Labels aside, the relationship system of our entangled attachments form a model something like the image here which is a mathematical shape, a Rhombus, its origin linked behind the picture - you'll have to eat cookies from Cool Math to read more about it.
A primary difficulty for the people involved in any relationship is emotion. The handling of emotion is juxtaposed for males and females, who process and perceive emotion in entirely different ways.
Males prefer to quell emotion with logic before the emotion takes a hold, while females allow emotion to take hold and (eventually) come round to logic. In yin-yang terms, this follows the concept as applied in the image here.
Were we to introduce emotion and logic here, we'd have another polarisation - the principle of the yin-yang system is balance and we have to have some room for manoeuvre in moving towards equilibrium, in order to utilise its application.
Logic in relation to maths is an ordered system with rules. As such, its application is affiliated, or bound by constraints which lead to unarguable conclusions. Emotion, on the other hand, is a free radical, with no affiliation other than to the object of attachment at the time, which can be anything. There are no rules, and by default no affiliation. When two elements meet, one must win, and for the male, it is more important to think straight and have a clear head than it is to feel things. For a female, 'feeling things' is the driving force of her decision-making process, perhaps interpreted/misinterpreted as a 'soft option', and this can hold her back in executive-boardroom stakes. Hence the disproportionate number of males in executive boardrooms.
"You can't pick 'em apart. They don't come apart," seemed worth quoting from a family discussion, for such is the definition of a Quark, held together as it is by Gluons, and we're made of these things. Other than in the LHC, and possibly in supernovas, you won't find a Quark on its own. We are only here, in cosmic terms, for a very short space of time, so if we're going to know what to do with ourselves when the need to feel and think (at the same time) kicks in, maybe the template is right here and now....is there a fifth element?
A friend sent me this video, less than ten minutes of time devoted to real-time evidence of emotion at work in the quantum field. Gregg Braden lays out the roadmap of what we can do with thought. It's a starter for ten... youtu.be/PZpRP1FV0lE
Newton and the apple had a momentary fling that impacted upon humankind with gargantuan results. Where the theory of gravity led science is an old story of many twists and tales, not for the telling here, but now we are living in an era where Quantum is everywhere and everything at the same time, when lifting the lid on "What Is" sits at the forefront of scientific endeavour, as well as being the mission of many people on a spiritual path to wherever spiritual paths may lead. Not long ago, we didn't know much of what we know now. But now that we know more, we can safely surmise that the answers lead only to further questions, and so we go on down to the depths of truths we probably didn't know were there before.
While scientists search for Dark Matter, spiritualists (that is, people who subscribe to all kinds of theories that scientists would call Woo) quest the dark depths of Self to come up with answers on, for example, what it means to be in 5D. Wanting to know what that coined term 'Enlightenment' actually relates to. How do we marry Dark Energy with human endeavour? Is it really rocket science after all? Or is it just a matter of common sense, given that yes, the Dark stuff's everywhere, making up something like 85% of the Universe (given a difficulty in estimating amounts of things you can't see), and it could even be said that Dark Matter is in your bedroom, should you be so inclined as to look for it.
Up in the far reaches of reality, we play for time. Some of you may, like me, spend a fair bit of your day trying to figure out how best to think, given that Right Ways of Thinking inevitably lead to the right kind of results. Today I was offered a lesson on lifetimes - what it actually means to forge a spiritual Contract, if such a thing exists, and of course you can't say it doesn't any more than you can prove it does. If there's a bridge between science and spirituality we are duly bound to find it in the course of explorations, if only because we are part of the Planet going through a process of change, which means (in an ideal world) some form of Ascension, and here we may safely bring in the context of Twin Flamedom, because people embroiled in fires of unmitigated, unrequited passion are growing exponentially in number and thus stand firm in being counted.
The Twin Flame movement is rather like a blue touch paper to spiritual wildfire, igniting a wave of revolutionaries tasked with the rather dubious duty of discovering what Love Actually Is. We know it's a far cry from chocolate box adverts and a million miles from traditional paradigms. We know it's a messy, painful process of elimination in which we crawl through Dark Nights and dance through uncertain days. Eventually, we're going to come out the other side a whole lot wiser - for all the wisdom we may collectively amass, we still may fall short of saving the world. But we're thinking about it. We're reaching a conclusion that the Soul we fell in love with is not necessarily the embodied person we face in particle format. In other words, we're discovering a difference between framework and form, between the essence and the manifestation. Hence the playgrounds of darkness, the ravages of torment one may bestow on another, the apparent discrepancy between the soul we come to love and the persona we are forced to deal with. As one camp is delving into the quantum fields and fumbling with juxtaposed realities, so the other camp is pitched into territory equally unchartered to find that reality is not always as it seems - that Love is not what we were led to believe, and that we have to think differently now we've come this far, if we're to take our new-found faith in things we cannot see to any destinatiion that makes any sense at all. Good luck, fair souls, either side of the great divide ; together we may set ablaze a paradigm.
Since string theory came crashing in 30 years ago, all hell has broken loose only to be reined back into the stable without much fuss. When it became apparent that the sea of reality was comprised of energy and really nothing else, we all woke up to a world that wasn't what it seemed after all, and wondered what to do with it. Science hadn't opened its doors at the time to collaborations with art, philosophy and public interaction - things were still very closed-shop when strings first came into view.
And here we are now on the edge of a different era, bringing science in on the act as if our lives depended on it, which they do, and re-enacting the story of quantum mechanical birth as society and science decide they want the same thing - Truth. Wherever it may be found. For the truth fell short in the old days of arrows and entropy, when Time was dependent on the Second Law and Schroedinger's Equation for its right to dance in one direction, and now we have the means to spin in all directions at once, thanks to Syntropy and the retrocausal effects of Past and Future meeting in the same place.
"And how are things going with string theory? The promises and hopes from the 1980s have not worked out. They thought they'd find the right Calabi-Yau manifold and the fermion multiplets and masses would pop out and they'd have the whole thing wrapped up before lunch. But that didn't happen. String models grew increasingly complicated. And with every fanciful step they made away from the Standard Model, the more likely they were to be wrong; they were mesmerized by their own mathematical constructions, which kept them busy but were much more complex than the Standard Model they were trying to explain. String theory became a postmodernist monstrosity, lumbering forward on self-provided momentum without ever receiving the pruning from experimental verification that physics demands. The closest thing to a physical prediction that string theory has ever produced is that there should be superparticles, but these have not shown up. String theory models lost connection to the physical world. Other physicists and mathematicians were left wondering if string theorists had joined some sort of cult. I escaped to Maui to get away from the train wreck."
So goes the article in Scientific American posted October 2014; as if the dimensions and couplets have counterbalanced themselves on just the right alignment for the way we're looking now to be Not Quite Right, because after all we're not allowed to know the future, and knowing the future is something the quantum world is very good at. NQR and QR are stacking themselves up for our understanding only when the time is absolutely right, and not a moment before, so that whatever is happening out here in a part of the Universe we've never travelled through before gets to happen perfectly, as every pattern does, and in the meantime we wait contemplatively. Still contemplating Dark Matter, at the time of writing.
The Stop-Press new particle to break through the LHC is also spinning dimensional considerations of quarks over breakfast, waiting to line up with the other candidates waiting for a call to the Dark Matter party - the WIMPs and the WINOs and the tachyons and such - who've been before, a bit like Groundhog Day, as each dimension plays out before the next in a ripple effect we can feel. We can feel it coming. Something big. Something we've got to surf. Oh great, we've got the Net. And the new particle - one Up Quark and two Charm Quarks, they say, having given this exotic the name Ξcc++ with the same sense of cruel irony to strike when Beauty and Truth were abolished. Shame on the establishment. Here in the Goldilocks Zone, that was a low blow without call. Cheating nature, some would say, denying her right to be beautiful and true at the same time. Please take them back, the Top and Bottom, and reinstate Truth and Beauty as they ought to be, to satisfy the demands of propriety. The Truth Quark has as much mass as an atom of gold, so give it some respect. And give this new particle a proper name, so it can take its place in the orchestra presently tuning up.
Kathy Ratcliffe has studied quantum mechanics since 1997, leads a life surrounded by birds and animals, and is a stalwart fan of Stargate SG1.