The first western philosophers: "...their aim was to determine
the nature, or physis of these things [that exist; that are accessible
to the senses]...The word physis had at that time but few of the
overtones of the word nature by which we translate it. The word
originally pertained to the act of growth [!] and to the source from
which growth springs, so that to seek the nature of a thing was to seek
the one underlying, living and generative reality from which the
manifold things that exist spring...For the Milesian school, ("the
first philosophical school of Greece")...reality is thought of in
terms of growth and generation. (Frank Thilly, A History of
[Anaximenes], which is a more exact
formulation of Anaximander's doctrine, may be summarized in the
following words: infinite matter, a perpetual motion of
condensation and rarefaction that is something like a plastic
principle, necessity directing the motion. (Alfred Weber, History
the science of measurement. Quantum physics is the science of measuring
that which refuses to be measured. Consequently, "...size of the
atom is no clearly defined term." (E. Schrödinger, Nobel, 1933)
The wave phenomenon
[rhythm!] forms the "body" proper of the
Schrödinger first supposed that the electron is actually spread out and
distributed in space...
Schrödinger proposed that the particle concept be entirely discarded and his
concept of wave function be given all the physical reality, which meant
that the electron was to be pictured as spread out continuously
(Atomic Scientists, Boorse, Motz, Weaver)
The major difficulty with this view was that the wave-packet, though
initially small and compact, eventually got fatter. Real electrons
didn't do this.
(Barry Parker, Search For A Super Theory)
We'll see about that shortly. First, some needed clarification. Irwin
proposed his famous wave equation just before he came out with his
atomic model. He wasn't out to prove atomic growth. He simply did not
realize the implications of his discovery. His idea (via Louis de
Broglie's matter-waves) came about by the realization that atomic
entities can be brought about the same way a musical note evolves: the
standing wave; the synchronous nodes of a vibrating continuum!
continuous wave concept explained and thus contained the
discontinuous particle, or quanta. The reverse certainly wasn't true.
Thus it seemed a higher order of truth and eventually "gobbled
up" all rival theories. But the model it produced implied the most
drastic, disturbing and destructive changes in our notions of size. And
so other players in the game quickly decided to throw out the baby and
keep only the bath water. That is, to drop the model but keep the
equation because of its incredible accuracy. The equation, enhanced with
a fourth dimension to include relativity, then became "the
centerpiece" of quantum mechanics. The model, however, is one of
the best-kept secrets in science. For whenever the name Schrödinger is brought up, people are usually hard pressed
to think of anything but "Schrödinger's Cat."
his spreading wave-function was vindicated by the experiments of G.P.
Thomson in 1927.
The results of the experiments make it necessary to suppose that the
waves extend over a considerable region... The point which represents
the energy of the electron is guided by the waves that surround it, and
extend possibly to an indefinite distance in all directions... It seems
as though the whole conception of size is a mistaken one... Hence
Galileo's idea of the particle acted on by no force which goes on
forever in a straight line must be abandoned. It is not that the
particle would stop but that it would spread, for that is what waves
do... But how can a particle spread?
(G.P. Thomson, Nobel: 1933)
And here he
unknowingly begins to answer his own question:
Now the waves that accompany an electron definitely do not travel with
the speed of light. According to de Broglie's theory, they travel much
The waves, in fact, must be regarded as perpetually running through the
electron from behind so that the electron is always receiving a fresh
supply [!]. But there is a kind of peculiarity in the waves which is
associated with the electron and moves with it. This peculiarity is
called the 'group'
[also, "wave-packet", "crowd waves", and
"disturbed area"]. (Ibid.)
The single waves always rise alternately in front of, and behind, the
electron, so that they become intensified in the space between in such a
way that a constantly created structure
["disturbed area"] occurs which moves at
precisely the same speed as that of the electron. (Schrödinger)
Nature's source of movement is always from within itself.
(J. Carse, Finite and Infinite Games)
It is the electron that is the key to the universe.
(J.W.N. Sullivan, The Limitations of Science)
In the system of waves constituting the electron there is a
"disturbed area"... These disturbed areas [wave-packets]
reveal the position of the electron. But we cannot say that the
disturbed area is the electron. For any such area has a tendency to
if the matter of our world consisted of a number of disturbed
areas it would by now have spread indefinitely. (ibid.) Note:
highlighted phrase above says point-blank why there was such a scramble
for a new interpretation of physics (hence, the "new
physics"). It was discovered that a new application could be
transformed into a new interpretation:
...can nature possibly be as absurd as it seemed to us in these atomic
Max Born, at Gottingen, found it difficult to accept Schrödinger's
wave packet interpretation. He could see the path of an electron in a
chamber specially designed to display tracks of particles, and it didn't
expand with time
[faulty logic-#1]. The more he thought about it, the more he became
convinced that psi [the Greek symbol Ψ, the "wave function"] gave only the
probability of finding an electron at a given point... (B. Parker)
We have two possibilities. Either we use waves in spaces of more than
three dimensions...or we remain in three dimensional space, but give up
the simple picture of the wave amplitude as an ordinary physical
magnitude, and replace it by a purely abstract mathematical
concept...into which we cannot enter...
I am emphatically in favor of the retention of the
particle idea. (ibid.)
You, Maxel, you know that I am very fond of you..., but I must once and
for all give you a basic scolding... Such pointlike single particles are
completely out of the question within the atom, and if one still thinks
of the nucleus itself in this way one does so quite consciously for
reasons of expediency.
of expediency." Remember that phrase.
Schrödinger's wave-function described the evolution of the
fractional density of an atomic element. And if the fractional density
increases then so would the probability of finding it!
the reader will appreciate the significance of what is being said here.
The implication that all of natures building-blocks can get
"fatter", and be "spread-out and distributed in
space" is so profound as to practically defy conception. Atomic
growth completely belittles and defiles the act of scientific
measurement (It makes measurement a radically relative, proximity
effect). More to the point, it belittles physics, the science of
measurement. For it introduces infinity, and "Nature does not have
physical quantities that are infinite" (H. Pagals. [This is just
one of many unproven grand assumptions of Science]). Therefore, the
scientists of absolute measurement, the physicists, cannot allow it:
...the length of a meter stick expands, the atom expands? Then how can
it make any sense to speak of expansion at all? Expansion relative to
what? Expansion relative to nonsense. (Wheeler, Taylor, Thorne, Gravitation)
...a dissolving wave-packet in Schrödinger's
theory can under no circumstances be regarded as an "expanding
It must be emphasized that the electron itself is not to
be regarded as spread out... (Encyclopaedia Britannica, emphasis
Parker and the entire physics establishment, it seems, are conveniently
forgetting what should be patently obvious. How can you see expanding
particles or particle tracks in an expanding medium which is constructed
entirely out of those same expanding particles with the finite eyes of
man-also constructed with said particles?
Now the physicist himself...is, in short, made up of a conglomeration of
the particulars he describes, no more, no less, bound together by and
obeying such general laws as he himself has managed to find and record.
Now it must
be said here that in 25 years or so of searching, I've never come up
against an even remotely valid argument against atomic or material
growth. Either no one wants to bring attention to it, or, there simply
isn't any. With a sigh of relief, writers always defer to the
probability wave interpretation; as if these existential mathematics are
not just a fruitful application but are a proven fact-which they are
most definitely not. But as Brown's quote implies, we wouldn't see any
'spreading' in most experiments simply because all the objects in the
experiment, including the experimenter, would follow suit. And in
perfect proportion, or "absolute perfection of dimension."
Other objections are simple remarks like "naïve",
"meaningless", or perhaps the most famous (above),
"nonsense." But as Niels Bohr, the Copenhagen patriarch said:
Only nonsense stands some chance of being the truth.
Broglie, who started the whole idea of matter waves, said:
The 'psi-oscillation', the existence of which so clearly results from
the observable phenomena, must have a more concrete and real meaning
than is assumed by many today.
Certainly it would be too naïve if one should imagine the
electromagnetic and guiding waves of the particles to expand in an
elastic substance like a material medium. (emphasis mine)
However, in the meantime it complies with scientific realism to assume
that they are
a type of oscillation of still unknown nature, which expands with a
finite speed through space. (quoted in Physics For The Modern
Mind, by Walter Fuchs ; Macmillan, pp. 163)
Russell gives final say on the matter:
It is useless to argue that radiations cannot come out of nothing.
...modern physics, therefore, reduces matter to a set of events which
proceed outward from a center. If there is something further in the
center itself, we cannot know about it, and it is irrelevant to physics.
importance of this last statement by Lord Russell must be emphasized for
a couple of reasons. First, he is saying point blank that matter is the
result of something that proceeds "outward from a center."
I've not heard this admission from a scientist before. Ever. Secondly,
and more importantly, "if there is something further in the center
itself," WE SHOULD DO, AND SHOULD HAVE DONE, EVERYTHING IN OUR POWER
TO FIND OUT ABOUT IT. Yet it is Russell who helped lead the retreat and
collapse of modern philosophy with his distaste for religion and
deductive reasoning and his unshaken belief in a scientific
Science had to make some kind of acknowledgment to the overwhelming
evidence of atomic expansion. What they did was admit to the
"spreading" of an unobserved atomic entity. For, in the new
physics, "No phenomenon is a real phenomenon until it is an
observed phenomenon" (John Wheeler). In the quantum world, nothing
whatsoever exists in between observations and/or measurements. When
someone comes along and observes it, why then it simply collapses!
Instantly, with absolutely no time elapsed, it performs its famous
quantum leap and deflates like a popped balloon. "A pretty piece of
juggling science does here" (Banesh Hoffmann). Or, as John von
Neumann put it, "and then a miracle occurs." Is this clever or
Because it is so tiny, it takes only one billionth part of a billionth
part of a second for the atom to spread out into fuzziness [read uncertainty].
And it continues to spread out until you come along and observe it. At
that instant, depending on which experiment you perform, the atom is
reduced to size. Just think, without you all atoms would spread
out into the universe at an alarming rate. (Fred Allan Wolfe)
note: emphasis mine
...the results of any quantum mechanical measurement make sense only if
it is assumed that the wave function "collapses" in a sudden
and discontinuous fashion. Since this collapse is not covered by the
equation, and indeed appears to violate it, an additional assumption or
some other interpretation is required to explain this "collapse of
the wave function"... Thus every interpretation brings into the
theory something which is not in the observations and equations
themselves. (D. Bohm, F. D. Peat, Science, Order and
It would seem that we must come to terms with this picture of a particle
which can be spread out over large regions of space, and is likely to
remain spread out until the next position measurement is carried out.
When you have eliminated the impossible, whatever remains, however
improbable, must be the truth. (Sir Arthur Conan Doyle, The
Sign of Four, vol. 1, pp. 830)
"collapse of the wave-function" is an integral part of the
Copenhagen interpretation of quantum mechanics. This interpretation is
part of the "expediency" Schrödinger alludes to (above) that allows a physicist to get on with his
work without having to think about the absurd philosophical
consequences, which are many and can be all-consuming. Schrödinger
soon retreated from the new quantum revolution, saying, "I'm sorry
I had anything to do with it." Einstein had already left it with
similar feelings: "The more successful it becomes, the sillier it
gets." So an incredible situation (atomic and thus universal,
material growth) is replaced with an array of empirically and logically
impossible situations for the sake of expediency, finitude, and the
self-perpetuation of Science. And speaking of "nonsense":
It is probability that is causally determined into the future, not
individual events...it is probability that we can measure and observe...(Heinz
No one has seen or ever will see probability. It is a mathematical
abstraction, and any picture of it is also an abstraction. When you go
looking for an electron, you don't find its probability; either you find
an electron, or you find nothing. (Roger S. Jones)
covers the two faces of gravity, the fourth dimension, entropy, and the
ether. Part 3 (in progress) covers cosmology, the logos of
Heraclitus, the complexities of "seeing" and the built-in
deception in our modes of perception.
spoke of a constant, or "close relationship", in which the
size of the atom is somehow determined by its wavelength. And that this
size relationship "...does not in fact have the dimension of a
length, but of action, i.e., energy x time." Ironically, this
quanta of "action" has a close relationship to additional
evidence of atomic growth through the fourth dimension and the greatest
of all physical mysteries in science and philosophy, gravity.
Density multiplied by volume in space gives us mass,
or what appears to be the same thing, energy. But from
our space-time point of view, a far more important thing is density
multiplied by a four-dimensional volume of space and time; this is action.
The four-dimensional world is no mere illustration; it is the real world
of physics...thus length and duration are not things inherent in the
(Sir Arthur Eddington)
One of the biggest lessons that Einstein's special theory of
relativity teaches us is that, in reality, this world is four
dimensional. Although humans experience a three dimensional world in
which time seems to flow, reality itself exists in space-time-in which
time is a dimension on a par with space...
(Nick Herbert, Quantum Reality)
Between any two neighboring point-events there exists a certain relation
known as the interval between them... But the term 'interval' is
not to be taken as a guide to the real nature of the [four
dimensional] relation, which is altogether beyond our conception.
spoke of a size "relationship" above regarding
"action" in three dimensions. Eddington then speaks of an
equally cryptic "relation" as an interval of
"action" in the fourth dimension. The former is speaking of
quantum theory and the consequent spreading of matter-waves, the latter
is speaking of relativity and the expansion of the spatial universe-two
aspects of the new physics that are seen as total and irretrievable
Physicists can 'experience' the four-dimensional space-time world
through the abstract mathematical formalism of their theories, but their
visual imagination-like everybody else's-is limited to the
three-dimensional world of the senses.
(Fritjof Capra, The Tao of Physics, pp.150)
Vision in the fourth dimension must be affected without the help of
eyes...[but]...the idea of the fourth dimension ought to have arisen
from observation of a series of progressively growing or diminishing
spheres or cubes... One of the clearest and most comprehensive forms of
motion in the fourth dimension in this sense is growth, the principle of
which lies in expansion.
(P.D.Ouspensky, A New Model of The Universe)
Direct observation, measurement, and experience of the fourth dimension
patiently awaits and interminably invites any physicist who deigns to
drop his credentials and consider why and not how they
Robertson ben Abraham, New Gravity)
There is something seriously missing from our understanding of gravity.
(A. Zee, An Old Man's Toy)
This statement intends that the entire material/spatial universe is
expanding/accelerating-electrons, neutrons, protons, and the space
between/separating them... The entire physical universe and all spaces
and material within it is a proportionately accelerating field. This
acceleration is responsible for the phenomenon termed gravity.
(Kent Robertson ben Abraham, New Gravity)
On the earth it is not obvious that the effect of gravity we experience
is equivalent to the ground accelerating up. But it is-gravity is
precisely equivalent to non-uniform [accelerated] motion. (Heinz Pagals, Cosmic Code)
Question almost any scientist on the meaning of gravity and he will at
once pull a long face, like a country parson asked to explain the
doctrine of the Trinity, and murmur something about its being the most
mysterious force in the universe. Do not be deceived by his vagueness.
Behind it lies an implacable determination to defend the Sacred Cow. (A. McGlashen)
No one knows why specimens of matter attract one another. The best that
can be done...is to associate the attractive force with some property of
(Physical Science For Liberal Arts Students)
The fact that astronomical bodies attract each other over distances of
many millions of miles is one of the great mysteries of nature.
(Modern College Physics, White)
The origin of inertia is and remains the most obscure subject in the
theory of particles and fields. (Abraham Pais, Subtle Is The Lord)
Gravity and inertia are two different words for exactly the same thing.
(Martin Gardner, Relativity Explosion, pp. 77)
short clarification is in order here which involves inertia and
gravitation. Because the origin of both is such a mystery, even
physicists are confused on this point. Galileo discovered that in a
vacuum, all bodies-viz. A hammer and a feather-fall at the same rate
(confirmed). Now this is truly an amazing phenomenon because it means
that a feather will accelerate toward the center of the earth at
the exact same rate as a 5 ton boulder: 32 feet per second squared (32'
per sec2). This baffling mystery could be explained, however,
if mass had two faces: inertial mass, the "tendency" to remain
inert, and gravitational mass: weight, or the tendency to fall. When
applied equally, one simply offset the other; a heavier body had more
explanation lasted until Einstein came along and recombined the two
masses in his principle of equivalence, the foundation of general
relativity. Thus mass reverted to its original singular state as the
resistance to acceleration which once again invoked the mystery. It is
further compounded when Einstein conceived, not just the two masses, but
gravity itself as dualistic: both as the resistance to acceleration and
geodesics in curved space-time. In schools and textbooks, however, the
falling bodies mystery is still explained away by inertia offsetting
gravity; the very same schools and textbooks teaching relativity! The
mystery and confusion has a "tendency" to disappear though,
when we let the world grow. For on Einstein's elevator, all things are
carried along at the same rate.
Beware! The law of Inertia is not the simple ideal proposition you would
like to make of it. It is a vast complexity. Gravitation is not one
elemental uncouth force. It is a strange, infinitely complex, subtle
aggregate of forces. And yet however much it may waggle, a stone does
fall to earth if you drop it.
The moral to be drawn from the general survey of the physical
universe...is that we have omitted some general counter-agency. This
counter-agency in its operation throughout the physical universe is too
vast and diffusive for our direct observation.
(Albert North Whitehead)
It occurred to nobody that the phenomena which were explained by
"gravitation" or "attraction" on the one hand, and
the phenomena of "weight" on the other hand, are totally
different phenomena having nothing whatsoever in common.
The gravitational field is in its nature such as if it were produced,
not only by the ponderable masses, but also by a mass-density of
negative sign, distributed uniformly throughout space. Since this
factitious mass-density would have to be enormously small, it could make
it's presence felt only in gravitating systems of very great extent. (Albert Einstein, Sidelights On Relativity
In fact, 80 percent of the inertia of local matter arises from the
influence of galaxies too distant to be detected by the 200 inch
(Dennis Sciama, Unity of The Universe, pp. 127)
It would seem that the expansion of the universe is another one-way
process parallel with the thermodynamical-running down [entropy]. One
cannot help thinking that the two processes are intimately connected;
but if so the connection has not been found. (Eddington, The Expanding Universe, pp. 123)
It has never
left. In ancient China, it was called ch'i. In ancient India, it
was called the causal body (also "golden lotus").
Here in the west it has many names: logos, the ether, spirit,
Holy Spirit, or, "the breath of God" just to name a few. Our
reemerging cosmology, the engine that animates the cosmos in body, mind
and soul, is liken to a breathing machine going through its cycle of
existence; or perhaps like a giant heartbeat:
When you listen to another's heartbeat, you are in truth eavesdropping,
innocently enough, on the top secret of the physical universe. For the
heart's alternation of systole-diastole, expulsion-dilation,
giving-receiving is the rhythm to which all creation dances. (Alan
The big bang
is but the cosmic heartbeat!
The processes we have here ventured to contemplate will be renewed
forever, and forever, and forever; a novel universe swelling into
existence, and them subsiding into nothingness, at every throb of the
heart divine...and now-this heart divine—what is it? It is our own. (Edgar Allan Poe, Eureka)
The power of God displayed itself not only in the creation of the world
of things, but equally in the limitations which he imposed upon each. The
heavens and the earth stretched themselves out in length and breadth as
though they aspired to infinitude, and it required the word of God to
call a halt to their encroachments.
Haggadah, early Kabbalah, from
The Other Bible
The kingdom of the Father is spread out upon this earth, and men do not
see it…The Kingdom is within you and it is without you.
(Didymas Judas Thomas, the twin, The Gospel of Thomas; from The
Other Bible, pp. 307)
The kingdom of heaven is like unto leaven, which a woman took, and hid
in three measures of meal till the whole was leavened.
(Jesus of Nazareth, Math. 13:33)
Such is the kingdom of God: like a man who casts seed in the ground. And
he sleeps and raises up day and night, and the seed springs up and grows
while he is not aware of it. (Ibid. 4:26)
...and then man rises into the Harmony, the world of the spheres. In the
first zone he leaves behind the force to grow and decrease.
(Hermes Trismegistus, Poimandres from The Other Bible, pp.
Remember where we started?
We see now that the first distinction, the mark [of distinction] and the
observer are not only interchangeable but, in the form, identical.
To be alive is to undergo ceaseless change. Man fears change and seeks
to deny it by imposing on it a principle of permanence...
To understand nature, and himself, man must accept change and identify
universal form of process
which underlies the variety of particular processes. Understanding means
the recognition of the simple form, common to all change. Man does not
know nature or himself until he has discovered this underlying unity.
(LL Whyte, emphasis added)
Panta Rhea, only process is real" (Heraclitus)
William Blake claimed that perception was the universal, the perceived
object was the particular. What is discovered by man is never the
'universal' or cosmic 'truth.' Rather, the process by which the mind
brings about a discovery is 'universal.' (J.C. Pierce, p.1)
nature at the expense of being nature is why we don't understand nature.