Songs Of Mystery
Copyright©1987, 1991

Quotes and Notes




1. Kent Robertson ben Abraham, New Gravity. Project 2, San Francisco, CA

Chapter 1. PSI-FI 

1. Banesh Hoffmann, The Strange Story of the Quantum; pp. 75.

2. Paul Davies and John Gribbon, The Matter Myth Touchstone, Simon and Schuster, NY.

3. Erwin Schrödinger, What Is Matter? An article in "Particles and Fields", Readings from Scientific American, W.H. Freeman and Co.

Also: "I shall have to ask you to believe neither in corpuscles as permanent individuals nor in the suddenness of an energy quantum."

...discreteness arises merely as a structure from the laws governing the phenomena. These laws are by no means fully understood; a probably correct analogue from the physics of palpable bodies is the way various partial tones of a bell derive from its shape and from the laws of elasticity to which, of themselves, nothing discontinuous adheres.

4. Erwin Schrödinger, Images Of Matter, appearing in On Modern Physics, volume II, by Jefferson Hane Weaver

5. Ibid, What Is Matter (see above)

6. Encyclopaedia Britannica, Vol. VIII, pp. 973 (1976 edition)

7. Paul Davies and John Gribbon, ibid, pp. 203

8. Erwin Schrödinger, Nobel Prize Address, 1933 (in J. H. Weaver's The World Of Physics)

9. Ibid

10. Ibid

11. Boorse, Motz, Weaver, The Atomic Scientists, pp. 286

12. Ibid, pp. 291

13. Barry Parker, Search For A Super Theory

14. Encyclopaedia Britannica, Vol. II, pp. 798. More descriptively, this quote reads: "Schrödinger first supposed that the electron is actually spread out and distributed in space in such a way that the square of the wave function in his equation gives the fractional density of the total at the place for which it is calculated." In other words, the square of his wave was not designed to give probabilities. This was merely an application added later by Born; an application that curiously became an interpretation!

15. Thorne, Misner and Wheeler, Gravitation, pp. 719

16. Abraham Pais, Inward Bound, pp. 256

17. Banesh Hoffmann, ibid

18. Barry Parker, ibid, pp. 31-32

19. Max Born, Atomic Physics, pp. 96

20. Erwin Schrödinger, quoted in Atomic Scientists, (above, pp. 284)

21. Also from The Atomic Scientists

22. Max Born, Nobel Prize Address, 1954 (from The World Of Physics Vol. II, by Jefferson Hane Weaver).

23. Ibid.

24. Banesh Hoffmann, ibid., pp. 143-144.


1. G.P. Thomson, The Inspiration Of Science, Oxford University Press, 1961, NY.

In looking at the photos of these tiny particles and atoms, one may think that the wave phenomenon is something that only happens to a group of particles, not a single particle. But that's not the case. The wave is an inherent aspect of each particle: "...the interference pattern is manifest when we have a crowd of electrons. But there must be some cause of the interference pattern even so. And this cause must lie within each single electron. The pattern is not just a crowd effect. The crowd is merely what makes it easy to see. Somehow the pattern is latent in each individual electron" (Hoffman, ibid.).

2. Irwin Schrödinger, quoted in Physics For The Modern Mind, by Walter R. Fuchs. MacMillan

3. G.P. Thomson, The Atom, Galaxy, 1930 (1963 edition) Oxford University Press Inc. NY.

4. John Polkinghorne, Professor of Theoretical Physics at Cambridge University. Quoted in Beyond The Quantum, by Michael Talbot.

5. Kent Robertson ben Abraham, New Gravity. Project 2, San Francisco, CA

6. David Bohm and F. David Peat, Science, Order, and Creativity, pp. 166

7. J.W.N. Sullivan, The Limitations Of Science, 1933 (tenth edition, 1961), Mentor Books, The Viking Press. Publisher: New American Library of World Literature Inc. NY.

8. Ibid.

9. Nick Herbert, Quantum Reality, pp. 145.

10. Fred Alan Wolf, Space, Time and Beyond, with Bob Toben, The “updated version”.

11. J. H. Weaver, The World of Physics, Vol. II.

12. Banesh Hoffman, ibid.

13. Erwin Schrödinger, Nobel Prize Address (see above).

14. Ibid., quoted in Fred Hoyles The Intelligent Universe.

15. Albert Einstein, quoted in Inward Bound, by Abraham Pais.


1. Heinz Pagals, The Cosmic Code, pp. 282.

The nonsense of this kind of statement is amplified here by Roger S. Jones, a practicing physicist-turned-teacher, who is completely dissatisfied with this kind of interpretation:

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. A probability does not properly exist in physical space, and to represent it spatially is simply a convenience to help us picture the mathematics of quantum theory. (Physics As Metaphor, pp118. See bibliography)

And this means:

In quantum physics, where, as we have seen, there can be no correspondence between mathematical law and picturable reality, the theory itself is taken as a kind of ultimate rational structure of the universe. In other words, physical phenomena are not conceived in terms of material bodies--substances--mechanistically affecting each other, but as manifestations of pure mathematics. Physical law, itself, is taken as the ultimate. It is as if the equations of theoretical physics were chiseled into the rock of ages or branded into the flesh of space and time, and we need not ask for deeper explanations. (Physics as Metaphor, pp 125)

2. Max Born, quoted in Pais' Inward Bound, pp 256.

3. Albert Einstein, quoted in Quantum Reality, by Nick Herbert.

4. J.H. Weaver, ibid, Vol. II pp 397.

5. Boorse, Motz, Weaver, The Atomic Scientists, pp 289.

6. Max Born, Physics In My Generation, from a lecture at Gottingen: "On The Meaning of Physical Theories".

7. Heinz Pagals, ibid, pp 137, pp 80.

8. Ibid, pp 86.

9. Ibid, pp 161.

10. Carl Fredrich von Weiz@cker, The Unity of Nature.

11. Werner Heisenberg, Physics and Philosophy, "The Copenhagen Interpretation of Quantum Theory", Harper and Row.

12. Albert Einstein, Out of My Later Years, pp 21.

13. James R. Newman, Scientific American, January, 1958.

14. Leo Tolstoy, War and Peace.

15. Benedict Spinoza, Part II On The Improvement of the Understanding.

16. Werner Heisenberg, Physical Problems of Nuclear Science. 17. Stephan W. Hawking, A Breif History of Time pp 173.

18. Ludwig Wittgenstein, quoted in Stephen Hawking's A Brief History of Time. from the Tracteatus? or something similar

19. Roger S. Jones, Physics As Metaphor.

20. J.C. Peirce, Crack In The Cosmic Egg, pp 193.

21. Stephen Weinberg, need source

22. Bertrand Russell, quoted in The Limitations Of Science, by J.W.N. Sullivan.

Chapter 4. Interlude

1. Nick Herbert, Quantum Reality, pp 157.

2. Paul Davies, Other Worlds, pp 187. Simon and Schuster.

3. Richard Tarnas, The Passion of the Western Mind, pp 422, Harmony Books, Crown Pub. Co.

4. C.J. Ducasse, Dictionary of Philosophy.

5. Richard Tarnas, ibid, pp 360.

6. Roger S. Jones, Physics As Metaphor, Meridian (New American Library) University of Minnesota Press.

7. G. Spencer Brown, Laws of Form (see below).

8. Albert Einstein, need source

9. Frijtof Capra, The Tao of Physics. check on this

10. Lincoln Barnett, The Universe And Dr. Einstein, pp 24, Mentor Books (for info., write William Sloane Associates, Inc., 425 Fourth Ave, NY.

The philosophy of despair has become a driving force for the  production of evil in the western world. At its heels lies rampant drug and alcohol abuse, an epidemic of unexplainable suicides among the young, pointless murder and crime, and the many abuses of power and wealth. For many citizens, a stone-sober, one-time-only reality as presented by our official culture is simply too much to bear. And the philosophy of despair, like all of man's previous philosophies, is a direct reflection of our understanding (or lack of understanding) of the world around us. This understanding comes directly from our own educational system which at the present is almost entirely built around science. Even the arts have become imbued with the method of science.

Our political super-system, originally borne upon lofty ideologies, now contains the same lack of direction and meaning. It has evolved a life of its own, becoming uncontrollable and self-devouring. Through the media (its mirror-image), this Goliath directs itself back upon the very people who are it, conditioning, controlling and suppressing the freedom and will of the self-same entities whose freedom and will it was designed to express. An incredible irony lies in the fact that we've built this gloomy scenario ourselves based on theories of absolutes and concepts of permanence--neither of which exist anywhere in our universe!

"Get it while you can" because "you only live once". "Image is everything", "Your gonna get a lesson about intimidation", "If you want it, you gotta take it" and "Be all you can be" are amongst the many cries of the merchant mentality--the ultimate result of our popular secular-humanistic world view.

11. James Lovelock, Gaia: A New Look At Life On Earth.

12. Rupert Sheldrake, The Presence of The Past

13. Morris Berman, The Reenchantment Of The World, intro.

Chapter 5. THE FALL

1. Francis Bacon was of similar mind: "...the secrets of nature reveal themselves more readily under the vexations of art [i.e., "under duress" of man] than when they go their own way." Also, "One method of delivery alone remains to us, which is simply this: we must lead men to the particulars...[to]...familiarize themselves with facts." This contrasts nicely with Heraclitus, who said: "The learning of many things (i.e., 'facts' and 'particulars') teacheth not understanding."

Chapter 6. THE JOKE'S ON YOU

"Propaganda ends where dialogue begins" M. McLuhan

It is interesting to note that in the last 60-plus years there have been no major scientific advances in physics. Most of the advances people recognize as scientific are actually technological.

Also, most "discoveries", such as new particles and/or fields, are in reality, inventions. Since Dirac's realization that e=mc2 is actually e=+/-mc2, and it was then discovered and confirmed that anti-matter exists, no major discovery in physics comes to mind. However, a quote from Roger S. Jones does:

"As a practicing physicist, I had always been vaguely embarrassed by a kind of illusory quality in science and had often felt somehow part of a swindle on the human race.

Also, from McGlashen:

Science today is in the awkward position of a young woman who has inadvertently become pregnant and wonders how long she can continue to keep her job.

1. Johann Wolfgang von Goethe, Nature, 1869 (first issue).

2. G. Spencer Brown, Laws of Form.

God also likes to play hide and seek, but because there is nothing outside God, he has no one but himself to play with. But he gets over this difficulty by pretending he is not himself." (Watts)


1. Boorse, Motz and Weaver, The Atomic Physicists, pp 153.

2. Max Born, Physics In My Generation, pp 109.

3. Sir Fred Hoyle, The Intelligent Universe.

4. Gary Zukov, The Dancing Wuli Masters, pp 170.

5. Michio Kaku and Jennifer Trainer, Beyond Einstein.

6. Carl Sagan, Cosmos.

7. Sir Arthur Eddington, Space, Time and Gravitation check on title

8. P.D. Ouspensky, A New Model of The Universe, pp 88.


1. Sir Arthur Eddington, ibid, pp 187.

2. Ibid.

3. Ibid. check on these last two sources

4. P.D. Ouspensky, ibid, pp 82.

5. Heraclitus, quoted in Russell's History of Western Philosophy.

6. Freeman Dyson, needs source

7. Bertrand Russell, ibid.

8. Diane Ackerman, A Natural History of The Senses, Vintage Books.

9. Modern College Physics, by Harvey C. White (1972, Sixth edition), pp 19. D. Van Nostrand Co., 450 west 33rd st. NY.

10. "The Molecules of Visual Excitation", by Lubert Stryer in Scientific American, July 1987.

11. Kent Robertson ben Abrahamson, New Gravity.

From J.C. Pearce (The Crack In The Cosmic Egg) comes an insight into William Blakes veiw of perception:

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 itself the "universal."

In other words, what we see is something virtual, in effect. That is, as the effect of our process of perception. And so, its particularity is because of its visibility. The universal perception is truth itself. Perhaps this is what we lose in the act of transduction ("transduction elicits a change in dimensionality").

Pearce is famous for his phrase, "Man's mind mirrors a universe that mirrors man's mind."


1. Edgar Alan Poe, Eureka.

2. Alan McGlashen, Gravity and Levity.

3. Physical Science For Liberal Arts Students, by Hugo N. Swenson and J. Edmund Woods, pp 98.

Chapter 10. Mass-energy Acceleration

1. Albert Einstein, needs source

2. James Trefil, The Unexpected Vista, Collier Books, MacMillan, NY.

3. Heinz Pagals, Cosmic Code, pp 44, Simon and Schuster.

Chapter 11. Existence Demands Resistance

1. Albert Einstein, Sidelights On Relativity.

2. Ibid.

Dennis Sciama (Unity of The Universe) has calculated that "80% of the inertia of local matter arises from the influence of galaxies too distant to be detected by the 200 inch telescope."

3. A. Zee, An Old Man's Toy, pp 43.

4. Albert Einstein, Sidelights On Relativity.

5. Ibid.

6. Wheeler, Thorne and Misner, Gravitation.

7. Ibid.

8. Ibid.

9. Sir William Bragg, from J.W.N. Sullivan's The Limitations of Science.

10. Albert Einstein, ibid, pp 44.

11. Alan Sandage, from Philosophy: The Art of Wondering, by James Christian.

12. Sir Arthur Eddington, The Expanding Universe.

13. Willem de Sitter, from his article in Weaver's The World of Physics, Volume I (see Bibliography).

14. Georges Lamaitre, Ibid (above, #12).

15. Richard Morris, The Edges of Science.

16. Roger S. Jones, Physics As Metaphor.

17. Barry Parker, see Ch. 2, no. 13.

18. Bertrand Russell needs source (s)

19. Max Born need source

20. Wolfgang Pauli, from his Nobel Prize Address in 1946 (The World of Physics, Vol.II, pp 396.

21. James P. Carse, The Infinite Game.

22. Paul Davies, Worlds Without End.

Chapter 12. Attraction = No Resistance

1. Sir Isaac Newton, Westfall 1980, pp 505 (quoted in Rebirth of Nature, by Rupert Sheldrake, pp 81).

2. R.G. Collingwoodneed source

3. Albert Einstein, Principle of Relativity, pp 180.

Chapter 13. Reprise

I have purposely refrained from any discussion on the plethora of "fundamental" particles that are constantly being discovered or invented. This proliferation is a catalogue of events that takes place during atomic accelerator experiments and, according to some critics, is simply a reflection of our ignorance of the true nature of reality: " this multiplicity of particles an expression of our total ignorance of the true nature of the ultimate structure of matter?" (Jones, Rotblat, Whitrow--Atoms And The Universe, pp 49) Atomic reactors produce electricity by transforming mass into energy. Particle accelerators, however, transform energy into mass by extremely high-speed collisions. And it is the effect of this transformation (transduction) that is being interpreted. The quest for larger and more expensive accelerators is an ongoing aspect of particle physics. And it is the discovery of the fundamental particle that is its justification. But this has led to a foolish, never-ending search within matter that by definition cannot possibly succeed. Morris Berman tells us:

As Geoffrey Chew has pointed out, we detect particles because they interact with the observer, but in order to do so they must have some internal structure. This means that we can in principle never get to some object that has no internal structure, for a truly elementary particle could not be subject to any forces that would allow us to detect its existence (if we find it by its weight, for example, then it must contain something within it producing a gravitational field).

This internal structure, now defined as a "quark," has likewise given birth to a mysterious "hidden variable." And so on and so on ad-infinitum. Berman goes on to say:

The disarray in modern physics became embarrassingly clear at the 1978 meeting of the American Physical Society in San Francisco, at which an appeal was made for a new Einstein to sort things out. The cul-de-sac of Cartesianism came out in a remark made by one Berkley physicist, that although no one knew what the proliferation of particles meant, at least we could measure them with great precision(!). On a more intelligent level, Werner Heisenberg called for an end to the concept of the elementary particle in 1975. William Irwin Thompson's remark that an "elementary particle is what happens when you build an accelerator" is not without relevance here.

So in reference to the vast sums spent on the construction of atomic accelerators, the discovery/invention of new particles reflects "...that reality is more a function of the national budget than anything else."

But again, physicists are forced to their conclusions because quantum theory insists everything be seen as a particle. By suppressing this conviction, some scientists see these extremely short-lived effects (particles) as "resonances", which is tantamount to a standing wave! And that is exactly what would ensue by using the wave interpretation. The collision produces a nuclear resonance which manifests at impact and quickly dies out. The resonance changes in proportion to the velocity of the impact and the size of the original particles used. This resonance concept is what began the latest mathematical craze in physics, "Superstrings." And superstrings are vibrating, spiraling and multidimensional loops--a standing wave in four dimensions!

1. Boorse, Motz and Weaver, The Atomic Scientists.

2. Louis de Broglie, quoted in Physics For The Modern Mind, by Walter Fuchs, pp 163. MacMillan

3. Nick Herbert, Quantum Reality, pp 124.

4. Walter R. Fuchs, (see no. 2 above)

Also, from the Encyclopaedia Britannica, "It must be emphasized that the electron itself in not to be regarded as spread out in a cloud" (Vol 2: pp339). And of course there is no explanation of why this is so other than the currently accepted probability interpretation.

5. P.W. Bridgman, quoted in Larsen's The Case Against The Nuclear Atom.

6. Roger Penrose, The Emporer's New Mind, Oxford University Press, pp 252.

7. Ibid, pp 349.

8. Fred Alan Wolf, Parallel Universes, pp 65.

9. Paul Davies, The Cosmic Blueprint, pp 169.

10. Fred Allan Wolfe, Ibid, pp 55-59.

11. Heinz Pagals, Cosmic Code 

12. John Bell, Scientific American, May 1988.

John Bell has become famous for his theorem denouncing absolute local causation. In other words, information is somehow able to travel around the universe faster than light. In the same article, Bell points out how the "brilliant proof of Von Newman", in which the statistical interpretations of quantum mechanics were suppose to be secured forever, "falls apart in your hands. There is nothing to it. It's not just flawed, it's silly." (see above, no. 9)

13. Max Born, as quoted in The World Of Physics, by Jefferson Hane Weaver, Volume II, pp 378.

14. Albert Einstein, quoted in Paradise Mislaid, by E.J. Applewhite, pp 173.

This idea is amplified by Dewey Larsen in his book, The Case Against The Nuclear Atom: "Uncertainty is not a property of the physical atom or the physical electron; it is a property of the Copenhagen atom-model. Heisenberg is uncertain, but this is no proof, or even a good indication, that nature is uncertain" (pp 89).

15. Stephen R. Donaldson, White Gold Wielder, pp 100.

Chapter 14. The Curvature of Time

1. Roger Penrose, ibid, pp 371.

2. Jefferson Hane Weaver, The World of Physics Volume III, pp 865, Simon and Schuster.

3. Alan McGlashen, ibid.

4. Colin Wilson, Starseekers, pp 245.

Consider Eddington's vision of a universe that is spatially expanding, but as seen from a self-centered point of view that lies outside of the expansion (Our universe would be just the opposite since it is materially expanding as well as spatially.).

Let us take the whole universe as our standard of constancy, and adopt the view of a cosmic being whose body is composed of intergalactic spaces and [it] swells as they swell. Or rather we must now say it keeps the same size, for he will not admit that it is he who has changed. Watching us for a few thousand million years, he sees us shrinking; atoms, animals, planets, even the galaxies, all shrink alike; only the intergalactic spaces remain the same. The earth spirals around the sun in an ever decreasing orbit. It would be absurd to treat its changing revolution [as we, of course, do] as a constant unit of time. The cosmic being will naturally relate his units of length and time so that the velocity of light remains constant. Our years will then decrease [i.e., increase] in geometrical progression in the cosmic scale of time. On that scale, man's life is becoming briefer; his threescore years and ten are an ever decreasing allowance. Owing to the property of geometric progressions an infinite number of our years will add up to a finite cosmic time; so that what we should call the end of eternity is an ordinary finite date in the cosmic calendar. But on that date the universe has expanded to infinity in our reckoning, and we have shrunk to nothing in the reckoning of the cosmic being.

We walk the stage of life, performers of a drama for the benefit of the cosmic spectator. As the scenes proceed he notices that the actors are growing smaller and the action quicker. When the last act opens the curtain rises on midget actors rushing through their parts at frantic speed. Smaller and smaller. Faster and faster. One last microscopic blur of intense agitation. And then nothing. (Eddington, pp90 The Expanding Universe)

This allows us an opportunity to see the big bang explosion as something entirely different. For if the enormous speed of an explosion can be viewed in slow-motion, we would then see a slowly growing phenomena where time and space (i.e., speed and size) are completely relative. An explosion presupposes both a cause and a fixed (privileged) point of reference to view an effect (i.e., us and a pre-existing God). It also presupposes a whole array of linear absolutes. An outwardly expanding entity coming from within its infinitely small self to an infinitely large self as seen (imagined) in relative time, however, needs no such limitations. Perhaps it is this privileged and fixed point of view that is the cause of our problems (i.e., the R process).

Chapter 15 The MASC of God

1. In the evolution of dimensions, each succeeding dimension contains and includes all preceding dimensions. The third dimension of depth contains and includes the first and second. And the fourth dimension contains--by including--the third. Therefore, growth is a phenomenon that pertains to all dimensions.

2. Paul Davies, God And The New Physics, pp 162

3. Misner, Thorne and Wheeler, Gravitation, Freeman and Sons.