Quantum Physics and God E-Book

Manfred Bauer

• Herausgeber: Books on Demand
• Kategorie: Religion und Spiritualität
• Sprache: Englisch
• Veröffentlichungsjahr: 2023

Seitenzahl: 387

Beschreibung

Quantum physics and the theory of relativity have shaken our conception of reality. They have made us realize that the universe is not as we perceive it. Religion and philosophy have so far failed to adapt our view of the world on the basis of these findings. Thus, together with the reader, the author sets out to clarify the fundamental questions of life. He skillfully juxtaposes convincing answers from different fields of knowledge. Scientific chapters about the world of quantum objects, space and time, or the origin and evolution of the universe stand in stark contrast to chapters about scientifically unexplainable events such as miracles, spiritualistic phenomena, findings about life after death, and reincarnation. In addition, the author discusses the atheistic worldview. The scientific sections are easily understandable, especially since they are, to a large extent, free of technical terms and formulas.  In the religious chapters, the author draws parallels between ideas from all religions (especially Hinduism, Buddhism, and Taoism) and scientific findings. Descriptions of the God-experiences of spiritual masters from all times, cultures, and religions as well as personal anecdotes and stories imagined by the author provide manifold paradigm shifts in the detailed consideration of one and the same thing: the ultimate reason of our existence and the meaning of life.

Leseprobe

About this book

Where do I come from? Where am I going? Who am I? A creature of God, safe in his hands, or the product of some random processes in a cold, empty space?

Quantum physics and the theory of relativity have shaken our idea of reality. They have made it clear that the world is not as we perceive it. However, religion and philosophy have so far failed to build on recent scientific findings in order to bring about a transformation of how we view the world.

This book is an attempt to find clear answers to the vital questions we all ask ourselves. Its author has skillfully gathered together compelling explanations from different fields of knowledge. Scientific chapters about quantum objects, space and time, as well as the origin and evolution of the universe stand in stark contrast to chapters about events that cannot be scientifically explained (such as miracles or spiritualistic phenomena) and others about life after death and reincarnation. Special attention has also been given to atheism.

The scientific sections of this book contain as few technical terms and formulas as possible and are therefore understandable to the layman.

In the religious sections, the author tries to find out whether there are parallels between, on the one hand, the scientific findings of quantum physics, and on the other, the enlightenment experienced by spiritual masters from all religions. Accounts about experiences of God by spiritual masters of all times, cultures and faiths as well as several of the author's own stories, true and fictional, provide manifold paradigm shifts in the detailed analysis of one and the same topic: the ultimate reason of everything.

Everything exists, even nothingness. That is why the last chapter offers a conciliatory resolution of apparent contradictions that brings us closer together – because we are inseparable in God.

About the author

Manfred Bauer was born in Sudetenland (a region that is now part of the Czech Republic) in 1944. After having been expelled from that country at the end of World War II, he grew up in Bavaria (southern Germany).

He has always been deeply interested in finding an answer to people's fundamental questions about the existence of God and the meaning of life. In his attempt to do so, he has been delving into religion, science, philosophy, and esotericism since his youth.

Regular yoga exercises and meditation have been conducive to broadening his worldview not only in theory, but also in practice.

He spent his entire professional career in the German tax administration and worked for many years in the field as an auditor, tax investigator, and head of department. As such, he was in a position to look behind the scenes of our society day in, day out. As it happens, one of the aims of this book is to unveil the reality that is hidden behind our apparent everyday reality and to help you draw consequences for how you live your life.

The author has been married for over 50 years, has three children and five grandchildren. He lives in Saarland (western Germany).

Drawn by joy sublime I watch each harvest time, When the sky glows red with ripe sunbeams; Oh, ne'er before had I found Thy ploughing teams. The oriole's painted, glowing breast is shown, Yet Thy brush, Painter, ne'er is known. The north star timely leaps. And its nocturnal watch unfailing keeps; The sun and seasons Thy house supervise. Yet Thou, Master, seemest not to rise!

Paramahansa Yogananda

Songs of the Soul, The Harvest

Contents

Foreword

Chapter 1 Is the world as we perceive it?

Chapter 2 World of quantum objects

Wave or particle?

Double-slit experiment

Mandel experiment

Schrödinger's cat

Copenhagen interpretation

Many-worlds interpretation

Decoherence

Why do we exist?

Spirit and matter

Chapter 3 Miracles

Chapter 4 Why does God allow suffering in the world?

Chapter 5 Life after death, the beyond

Near-death experiences

Possession

The beyond – eternity

Chapter 6 Reincarnation and karma

Reincarnation in Christianity

Evidence of rebirth in children

Reincarnation therapy for adults

Chapter 7 Atheistic versus religious conception of God

Dawkins' God Delusion

Abuse of power by the church

Chapter 8 Spiritualism, mediumship

What is spiritualism and what is mediumship?

History of spiritualism

With whom does the medium make contact?

Table-turning, table rapping

Ouija board, "Ask the glass"

Planchette

Automatic writing, channeling

Is there a natural explanation for spiritualistic phenomena?

Dangers of spiritualistic practices

The dangers of spiritualistic practices in detail

Chapter 9 Origin and evolution of the universe

Origin

Evolution of the universe

End of the universe

Spirit or "nothing"

String theory

Eternal universe

Chapter 10 Space and time

Empty space – nothingness – quantum field

Space without distance – entanglement

Theory of relativity

Speed of light

Time dilation

Absoluteness of the speed of light

Equivalence of energy and mass

Gravitation – curvature of space

Quantization of space and time

Chapter 11 The meaning of life

God, man, creation

Search for the ultimate purpose

Christian mysticism

Orthodox mysticism

Experience of God in Islam

Buddhism

Hinduism

Taoism

Enlightenment outside of religious communities

Unity of being

Closing words

List of illustrations

Bibliography

Foreword

Some time ago, after having attended a philosophy course at a further education college for a few years, I came to the conclusion that the prevailing view of the world was very incomplete and could definitely be improved.

Having been engaged since my youth in the study of religious and scientific answers to questions such as "What is the real nature of our world?" and "What does the word 'God' actually mean?", I find it rather disconcerting that key scientific findings of the last one to two hundred years have hardly entered the consciousness of the general public. These discoveries have not even been taken up by mainstream philosophy.

Although there are many popular science and religious books that present such findings accurately, they are usually too difficult for laypersons to understand. Moreover, these books often focus on single subject areas and therefore do not provide an overall view.

Unless you have already formed an irrevocable opinion, you may see the world with different eyes after having read this book.

I very much hope that all this has made you curious enough to dispel any reservations you might have. Are you willing to be taken out of your comfort zone?

If you are, let me come to the point!

"What is truth?" 1

When Jesus was taken to him, Pilate asked this question and shrugged his shoulders maybe in perplexity or from lack of interest.

Is there an absolute truth? Opinions differ widely. Whatever yours may be, I invite you to have a fundamental rethink.

The universe we live in has come into being and keeps going according to the laws of nature. These laws are the same everywhere and are inescapable. By now, scientists have discovered most of these laws. As a result, you would expect civilized society to have a fairly uniform view of the material world. However, as you surely know, it is not so, but rather like a mare's nest.

At one end of the spectrum, there is the belief that God created the world in seven days, at the other the conviction that there is no need for such a creator because the world emerged by chance out of nothing. About midway between both lies the theory that the universe is the product of God's spirit, was his idea, and is ruled by his laws.

The trouble is the universe can only have come into being in one way. There can only be one possibility, one truth! So, which is the correct version?

What about us, humans? There are equally divergent opinions about the purpose of our existence.

According to the scripture-based religions – Judaism, Christianity, and Islam – we come into being in the womb, where we are provided with a soul newly created by God. We have free will. How we use it determines whether we live in heaven or hell after death. Both are eternal and can no longer be changed.

By contrast, Eastern religions are based on the belief that the soul is not created, but is part of God. Your soul existed before your life and continues to evolve from life to life through the process of reincarnation. The purpose of life is the exit from this so-called "wheel of life" and the expansion of consciousness into the divine.

There is one point on which all these religions agree, namely that matter is a creation of God's spirit.

"It's all nonsense," say atheists, "there is only matter. Spirit is a product of the brain's circuitry. God is just wishful thinking." Natural scientist Carl Vogt (1817–1895) was of the opinion that brain matter produces thoughts much like a kidney produces urine.

According to this belief, everything that exists – including us humans – is basically controlled by the laws of nature, which in turn are based on the principle of chance. Free will, our apparent ability to make decisions, is merely a product of our imagination. As a result, life can have no objective meaning. After death, like a broken radio, we are thrown on the scrapheap. It is pointless or rather impossible to strive for something higher because striving presupposes free will.

As you can see, although there can only be one correct explanation for our existence, there is quite a jumble of worldviews, and this state of affairs is not getting us any nearer to the answers we are looking for.

For thousands of years, clever minds from the fields of religion and philosophy have been trying to present a uniform worldview that everyone could agree with, but none of them has succeeded so far.

In earlier centuries, people had no way of explaining the world causally. Therefore, every ethnic group made up their own stories. Inexplicable natural phenomena were attributed to gods. Germanic peoples, for example, believed thunder and lightning to be manifestations of the god Donar's displeasure. In similar fashion, during thunderstorms one of my aunts used to tell her children, "Listen! God is grumbling." As for the rainbow, it could of course only be construed as a sign that God had calmed down and was reconciled with his people. How else could such a wonderful sign appear in the sky?

It was only through modern natural sciences, which explored the boundaries of our universe, that more clarity emerged about material processes. The results of scientific research provided insights into the universe, from its smallest parts (elementary particles) to its largest ones (solar systems and galaxies). Among other things, they dispelled medieval misconceptions about the position of the Earth in our solar system.

Since natural sciences explicitly limit themselves to the material nature of things, it is up to philosophy and religion to give a spiritual or religious interpretation of their findings.

Religions are known to assume that the world has a spiritual structure. But since the scripture-based religions in particular are dogmatic in nature, it is difficult for them to abandon firmly established views, even when such views have been made obsolete by scientific progress. Dogmatics does not seek the truth. It produces it. As a result, it sometimes comes up with descriptions of God and human life that are not reasonable.

The teachings of the founders of religions (such as Jesus) were often not properly understood by their first disciples, who interpreted them according to their own ideas. Later, ancient or medieval ideas were added and remained popular and unchecked for many centuries. All religions find it difficult to question such dogmatic views – even if recent findings have proved them nonsensical.

The lack of contribution from the field of philosophy is another sad story. You would actually expect philosophers to integrate scientific knowledge and spiritual phenomena into a unified worldview. Unfortunately, most of them seem too caught up in their own thoughts to be interested in such an undertaking. Recent scientific findings as well as reports of supernatural occurrences such as miracles have been ignored by the majority of modern philosophers. Those who have dealt at length with such data are few and far between.

With a few exceptions, modern philosophers in particular tend to provide no justification whatsoever for their assumption that God does not exist. As a consequence, they usually disregard him in their considerations and often hold a materialistic view of the world.

The worldview taught by a given philosopher is often one of his or her own devising. That view is often discarded by the next generation of philosophers and so on in a seemingly endless process.

Whereas natural sciences have constantly evolved and are characterized by broad consensus, humanities scholars have not yet been able to come close to agreeing on a common basis. Apart from Plato and a few others, they have not yet developed a foundation that could lead to a convincing worldview.

As far as philosophy is concerned, this issue has been marked by the absence of any significant progress since the ancient Greek philosophers (e.g. Plato, Aristotle, etc.), i.e. for about 2500 years.

Why have science, religion, and philosophy not yet agreed on a consensual and universally valid view of the world? It seems to me that there have not been enough attempts at a cross-disciplinary approach. Theologians, philosophers, and scientists tend to stick to their own discipline. They overspecialize. During a conversation with a computer science professor, I once remarked that I had the impression that scientists cannot see the forest for the trees. He replied that it was indeed a case of everyone seeing only their own little tree and nothing beyond that.

Natural scientists have reached a common consensus, but generally also hold a materialistic view of the world. Whenever they take spiritual views into account, they are considered unscientific.

Members of the clergy are bound by the religious views of their community. If they hold dissenting opinions, they are reprimanded or silenced. There are many well-known examples, but let me just mention a few relatively recent ones: Teilhard de Chardin, Hans Küng, Eugen Drewermann.

Human society is characterized by what I would call "negative-selection advancement", i.e. the fact you are most likely to be promoted if you toe the line. Those who are openly critical and call for change soon have to contend with willful obstruction or are ostracized at an early stage. This is probably why obvious erroneous positions have been defended and upheld for centuries or even millennia against all reason and despite the emergence of new knowledge.

Equally detrimental is the tendency to unhealthy competitive thinking. Communities often attack and dismiss out of hand the views held by other communities simply because they differ from their own. The German-born US philosopher Erich Fromm (1900–1980) expressed it as follows:

Any progress in science, in political ideas, in religion and in philosophy tends to create ideologies which compete and fight with each other. Furthermore, this process is aided by the fact that as soon as the thought system becomes the nucleus of an organization, bureaucrats arise who, in order to keep power and control, wish to emphasize the differences rather than that which is shared, and who are therefore interested in making the fictitious additions as important, or more so, than the original fragments. Thus philosophy, religion, political ideas, and sometimes even science are transformed into ideologies, controlled by the respective bureaucrats.2

For this reason, we cannot rely on the teachings and statements of institutions and their representatives. We have no choice but to make up our own minds. Since, unlike animals, we can reflect on the meaning of our existence, we should most definitely do so. After all, this has crucial consequences on the way we choose to live our lives.

Let's try this do-it-yourself method, shall we? Before we start though, it is important to agree on the need to avoid repeating a mistake typically made by philosophers: rather than thinking up everything independently, we should take into account all facts, findings, and experiences that are related to our existence.

That is why, in my explanations, I deliberately cover a wide span of fields of knowledge: from natural science to inexplicable events (miracles) and afterlife testimonies to religious experiences of spiritual masters and mystics.

I would like to emphasize that everything I have written in this book about scientific matters is based on generally accepted facts. As far as inexplicable events, miracles, and afterlife testimonies are concerned, I have only included examples which are supported by so much evidence or so many witnesses that their credibility cannot be easily dismissed. I have also added a few personal anecdotes, i.e. experiences that can occur to anyone and that may have already occurred to you.

I also describe religious experiences as they have been handed down in a similar way by spiritually advanced masters from all religions, cultures, and ages. Because the experiences made by these individuals, who often had no connection with each other, are essentially the same, they provide legal, though not scientific evidence.

All the facts that I mention in this book point to a logical and convincing worldview.

The whole thing is basically much easier than you might think. You just need to be interested in this question and have the time to examine it.

Are you interested? If so, just take the time to read on. It will be worth it!

A word of warning, though: if this is the first time you explore this topic, beware that no stone of the edifice that is your conventional worldview will be left upon another by the time you have properly understood my explanations. Therefore, read on only if you have the courage to question every single aspect of your current worldview.

In order to understand more clearly the nature of our life, we need to relinquish many thoughts that are deeply ingrained in our mindset. I hope this book will be read by many readers who have the courage to think for themselves.

1 John 18:38

2 Fromm, Erich (1966) You Shall Be As Gods. A Radical Interpretation of the Old Testament and Its Tradition. New York: Holt, Rinehart and Winston. Page 21.

Chapter 1

Is the world as we perceive it?

One common mistake is to think that one reality is THE reality.

You must always be prepared to leave one reality for a greater one.

Mother Meera3

"We cannot be sure that the world is as we perceive it."

I was attending a seminar on philosophy, and that sentence was one of our lecturer's favorite mantras. One day, I countered, "We can be sure that the world is not as we perceive it." And in a fit of cockiness I added, "You can even prove that scientifically!"

He paused before saying rather skeptically, "And how on earth are you going to prove that?"

How indeed? I had thought about it a lot, but I had never faced such a critical listener. For a moment I wished I hadn't put my foot in my mouth, but then I had a brainwave. There was a red tablecloth on the table. I pointed to it and said, "Please tell me what color is in that place!" He was a bit irritated. He thought about it for a while and then said carefully, "I see red there!"

"I want you to tell me what color is in the place I am pointing to, not what you perceive."

He could give no immediate answer, and a discussion ensued with the other course participants.

In fact, it is really quite simple, so it still comes as a surprise whenever I realize that it hasn't become common knowledge yet.

First, light rays with different oscillations fall from a light source, either from the sun or a lamp, onto the tablecloth. Certain rays are reflected by the surface of this tablecloth, others are absorbed.

When the reflected light rays reach our eyes, they are detected by those color receptors that are sensitive to their vibrations, and information about them is then transmitted to the brain via the nerve pathways. Only there are light rays converted into color.

For example, a bee's color receptors only perceive ultraviolet rays, so a bee sees the world in completely different colors. Red would perhaps be violet for a bee. A dog has no receptors for red, so it might perceive the above tablecloth as greenish.

Therefore, any color – and, of course, the image of our environment as well – only exists in our brain, or rather, as we will see later, in our consciousness.

Figure 1: Individual light oscillations are reflected by the surface of the table and converted into color in our brain.

When using its eyes, every living thing can only detect a small part of the radiation that surrounds it. In this respect, not only do we not see objectively what our world looks like; we also cannot perceive most of the light, or radiation, that surrounds us at all.

Now take a look around where you are right now and think about what that world outside your brain or consciousness looks like. I bet you cannot tell me. Nor can I tell you, for that matter.

Of course, we can take this reasoning further. Let's take sound. What we perceive as sound are air vibrations that emanate from a certain source, e.g. a firecracker or the vocal cords in the larynx of a fellow human being. These are picked up by our ears and passed on to the brain as information. Only there are they converted into sound. Our environment is therefore full of air vibrations, but completely silent.

The same goes for smell. In this case, we are dealing with odor molecules that enter our nose. There, they are absorbed by olfactory cells in the mucous membrane. The stimuli are passed on to the brain. Only there is a sense of smell established.

Without eyes, ears, and nose connected to a brain, there can only be a very approximate perception of our world. It would be completely colorless and soundless, and would also smell of nothing.

These are only three examples. It is the same with taste and feeling.

After I had explained this, one of the participants in the seminar hit the table with his hand and shouted, "But this table is actually here. It is solid. I can touch it, and you can't prove me wrong!"

Unfortunately, I had to deprive him of this illusion as well. I replied, "You are mistaken! You cannot touch the table at all."

"What makes you think that? I have my hand on it and I can feel it," he answered.

I explained, "If it weren't for the mutual electromagnetic repulsion of electrons, you could drive your hand through that table without any problems. The atoms are so empty within themselves and so far apart from each other that hardly any atomic particle would collide with the other. Only the mutual repulsion of electrons holds your hand back. This also makes it impossible for you to touch the table at all. Your hand is repelled electromagnetically beforehand – albeit at a tiny distance, of course."

This becomes clear when we want to press two magnets together, each with the same pole – plus to plus and minus to minus. If the magnets are strong, this is only possible with a lot of effort. In both examples, electrons repel each other.

In this regard, it is worth mentioning that the Greek philosopher Democritus (460 – 370 BC) asserted:

By convention sweet is sweet, bitter is bitter, hot is hot, cold is

cold, color is color; but in truth there are only atoms and the void.4

I can't help wondering how come this almost 2500-year-old, undoubtedly penetrating insight has yet to become established in Western thought.

Figure 2: This picture shows the (supposed) touch of the table and how it would be if there were no electromagnetic repulsion.

Back to the atom! Let me use a comparison to illustrate the size ratio within an atom: if its nucleus were about the size of a pinhead, it would float in the middle of something about the size of a football stadium. Still according to this analogy, the electrons would be so tiny that they would only be visible under a microscope. They would orbit the nucleus at a distance corresponding to the edge of the stadium.

The atomic structure of our world is for the most part emptiness. Even the atomic nucleus has nothing solid about it. It consists of even smaller parts, so-called quarks, and is, depending on its temporary state, sometimes a vibration, sometimes a particle. I will explain this in more detail in Chapter 2 ("World of quantum objects"). It is the same with electrons.

An atom is about 99.999999999999% empty space. If we were to put all the Earth's elementary particles together without any space in between, it would shrink to about the size of a hot-air balloon, its weight being equal to that of the entire Earth. If you then imagine inflating this balloon to the size of the Earth, you get an idea of how empty matter really is.

Figure 3: Size ratio within an atom

What does our environment look like? What is our world actually like?

Years ago, on a long car journey, I happened to hear a radio play that may bring us closer to answering these questions.

It was about a group of scientists in a dictatorial state. They were designing a new weapon. At some point, they were told they would be taken to an underwater station so that they could do their work undisturbed. This was also to prevent espionage by other states.

On the dive to this underwater station, there was a technical breakdown during which the scientists temporarily lost consciousness, as they were later told. At the station, they regained consciousness and resumed their work. They were connected to the outside world by telephone and a screen. Both were mainly used to communicate with the project leader.

In the course of time, the scientists repeatedly observed minor, but inexplicable events that were not supported by scientific knowledge. For example, instead of shimmering in different colors in accordance with the laws of physics, the surface of a soap bubble they created was just grey.

From events like this, the scientists concluded that they no longer existed in the flesh, but had been killed on the journey to the so-called underwater station. Their brains had then been connected to a supercomputer.

This computer was programmed with all the events that could occur in such a secluded environment. It communicated these events to the scientists' brains by reacting to their thoughts. It conveyed to them all their feelings and showed them the environment programmed into the computer, depending on what thoughts crossed their minds.

The environment of an underwater station had been chosen because, being a self-contained world, it was easier to program than the far more extensive environment on the surface of the Earth.

Furthermore, time could be changed by the computer. The speed of life processes was increased to thirty times that of normal life, so that research progressed much faster. This, however, was not noticeable to the scientists. They had the impression that time passed at its usual speed.

Once the scientists realized that they had been deceived, they managed to use their connection to the outside world in order to trigger a revolution that brought a new, democratic government to power. The new rulers guaranteed that the scientists would not be "switched off" after their research had ended, but would be allowed to "live on".

As I said before, this radio play was pure fiction.

Another example is the 1973 television film World on a Wire (Welt am Draht) by Rainer Werner Fassbinder, based on the 1964 science fiction novel Simulacron-3 by Daniel F. Galouye. Whereas, in the radio play, it was merely the environment of human beings or their brains that were simulated, in Galouye's plot, it is an entire small town that is virtually generated by the supercomputer of the "Institute for Cybernetics and Future Science". The inhabitants of this virtual town lead a life like ours and have self-consciousness5. However, with just one exception – a "contact unit" called "Einstein" – they are unaware that they are just a simulation.

Since the simulation units can be switched off at any time, Einstein tries to get into the real world to escape such a fate. Unfortunately, the director of the institute, Fred Stiller, prevents this and sends Einstein back into the simulation.

Due to unaccountable external influences on his brain, Stiller then experiences psychological problems that occasionally bring him close to madness.

When inexplicable events occur – the road suddenly disappears in front of his car; a co-worker is killed, but no one, except Stiller, can remember him afterward – he begins to suspect that he too is only part of a simulated world.

After he has come to such a conclusion, several attempts are made on his life. As he narrowly escapes them, he realizes that he is to be switched off by the authorities in the "higher world" that are simulating his own world. His work colleagues, with whom he shares his suspicions, think he is deranged. As a result, they conspire against him, and the police are after him. It turns out that his lover, Eva Vollmer, is a contact person from the "higher world". In the end, Stiller is shot by the police as they attempt to arrest him, but saved by Eva. She transforms his consciousness and brings it into her higher world, where he awakens unharmed and happy.

Perhaps these fictional stories can clarify our own life situation. As we saw earlier, it is only after our brain has processed information that has reached it through our senses that we can perceive the outside world. Therefore, the following questions arise:

First: What is this thing which we perceive as the outside world and which sends information to our brains in the form of light vibrations, sound waves, and so on?

Second: Who or what actually does the "seeing"? Who or what is aware of the "perceiving"?

Let's begin with that second question. A computer is programmed by a human being. It then uses this program to process on its own the task it has been assigned, and it displays the result on a screen. But can the computer read or assess this result by itself? Is it aware of what it is displaying?

Only human beings can grasp and assess such information thanks to their consciousness.

We can equate our brain with a computer. It processes the sensory input, but – like a computer – it is not aware of this input. So: Who "reads" it? Who is aware of it?

The following explanation suggests itself: contrary to the materialistic assumption that our spirit or consciousness is a product of our brain, it seems that our brain is a medium, a tool that is used by our consciousness. The spirit of a human being provides their brain with a preset program that tells them how to behave in the surrounding world.

If spirit were a product of switching processes in the brain, the simulation of spirit by a supercomputer described in the aforementioned radio play and television film would be entirely possible. However, if matter is a tool of our spirit, such scenarios cannot work.

Critical readers may rightly object that I have used the word "spirit" (or "consciousness") without explaining it. This was necessary for convenience's sake. This word is explained in later chapters. Hopefully, its meaning will become progressively clearer.

Let's come back to our first question: What is the nature of the thing we perceive as the "outside world"?

Within the Eastern philosophy of religion, it has been known for thousands of years that the world is not as we perceive it. This is made clear by the existence of the term maya, which means "delusion" or "illusion". This term expresses the belief that the world is just a sham caused by our senses and only exists in our imagination. The main aim of yoga or Buddhism is to see through and overcome this illusion. The objective is not merely to achieve a rational perception of objective reality, but also to experience it.

Where does this system of human imagination come from? Who or what created it?

It cannot be our brain because it merely processes information that has been transmitted by our senses.

According to Eastern religions, the universe is a dream of God. As such, that universe is just as real or just as unreal as a dream. It is referred to as a dream because dreams are more far-reaching than mere thoughts. A dream consists not only of thoughts, but also of images. After having had a very vivid dream, you may sometimes no longer be able to say with certainty whether what you remember refers to a dream or to an actual experience.

Let's apply this Eastern explanation to the aforementioned radio play or television film: God or the all-encompassing spirit is the programmer of the computer that provides us with ideas or information about our environment or that projects such information on the screen of our consciousness. In our daily life, God's computer is so comprehensive and so cleverly programmed that, as a rule, we cannot see through it. However, the following chapters will show that this becomes possible if we study the limits of natural science.

I can hardly expect you to be immediately convinced by the above explanation, especially if you had never heard it before. It requires a fundamental rethink of our everyday experiences. In my opinion, although the necessary insights are compellingly logical, they are inhibited by our subconscious. We humans would like to keep our feet on the ground at all times, but when dealing with such topics, we feel as if the ground is cut from under our feet. I particularly remember a friend of mine who vehemently rejected my explanations and would not listen to, let alone discuss them.

Whenever I am asked how my own life has changed as a result of viewing life as a mere idea, I answer that it has made no actual difference. You are aware that life is just an idea, but in fact you continue to live as before. Change only occurs when you feel at one with everything, with God or all-encompassing consciousness. That is when "the veil of maya" – as Indian yogis call it – is torn apart, and you have an inward experience of what physicists can only calculate on paper or philosophers can only postulate as a thought construct.

3 Mother Meera (1991) Answers. New York: Meeramma, Ithaca. Page 48.

4 Available at: https://en.wikiquote.org/wiki/Democritus [Accessed: 14/11/2022].

5[Translator's note] Throughout this book the word "self-consciousness" is used in its scientific meaning of knowledge of one's own existence, especially the knowledge of oneself as a conscious being.

Chapter 2

World of quantum objects

Anyone who is not shocked by quantum theory has not understood it.

Niels Bohr, quantum physicist

Until the end of the 19th century, the laws of classical mechanics had applied in physics. Classical mechanics, which had been mainly developed by Isaac Newton (1642–1727), describes the laws of our "experiential" world, i.e. the world that can be observed and experienced.

At the beginning of the 20th century, as a result of Albert Einstein's theory of relativity and the quantum theory developed by Niels Bohr, Werner Heisenberg, Erwin Schrödinger and others, physicists entered realms that we cannot experience in our normal world. In the world of the smallest particles, also called "quantum objects", the laws of classical mechanics no longer apply. Everything is different in that world, and most things are no longer logically comprehensible to us.

Physicists describe the quantum world with the help of mathematical formulae. If these theoretical calculations are confirmed by experiments, they are considered proven.

Since the results of their calculations and experiments were far beyond normal human comprehension, Niels Bohr and other physicists such as Albert Einstein had themselves great difficulty in understanding them. Einstein disbelieved many of the results of the scientific studies of his time, including even some of his own, because they contradicted his understanding. This led to his well-known saying, "God does not play dice." According to other sources, he is quoted as saying, "The old man does not play dice".

The fundamental elements of the quantum world are the elementary particles. What do we mean by that? Elementary particles are the smallest particles, i.e. particles that were assumed not to be made up of other particles and thus to be indivisible. In addition to the photons of light, these are, for example, electrons, neutrinos, protons, and neutrons.

As recent findings in particle physics have shown, the latter two, so-called "heavy particles" are in fact composed of quarks

For all these particles there are identical antiparticles, the so-called "antimatter". Antimatter has an opposite charge. You can also say it moves backwards in time. If matter and antimatter meet, they cancel each other out. They annihilate in a flash of energy.

The ancient Greeks called the smallest particles "atoms", i.e. indivisible. However, the particle we know today as an atom is divisible. Its nucleus consists of protons and neutrons. Indivisible electrons orbit around the atomic nucleus. Although this atomic model, which was originally developed by Niels Bohr, is now outdated, it is still used for the sake of clarity.

Figure 4: Niels Bohr's atomic model

Wave or particle?

Just as the photons of light – which propagate as a wave – have no mass, but still have particle properties, quantum objects also have wave properties. This is called "wave-particle duality". You cannot say of quantum objects that they are either wave or particles, because they have properties of both.

As a consequence, it is not possible to determine the exact location of a particle. One can calculate its whereabouts in a certain area of the wave with a high degree of probability, but not where it actually is. However, this should not be understood to mean that the particle is really located somewhere within the wave. In fact, it is the case that the particle is nowhere. You could perhaps put it like this: it can appear anywhere in the wave if and when the need arises. This is called "superposition of particle states".

Quantum objects react to the observer as if they had a life of their own. It seems as if they behave as they please. This means that an individual quantum object is unpredictable. However, when many particles of the same kind are subjected to the same force, they behave predictably as a whole in the way we are used to in our everyday world.

Let's take for example an older-generation television set, i.e. one without an LCD flat screen. The pictures you see on such a TV are being constantly depicted on its screen by a beam of electrons.

These electrons are shot from the back of the picture tube onto the screen at about one third of the speed of light.

Figure 5: Picture tube with electron beam

It is impossible to say where a single electron will hit the screen. In fact, it is only because it is highly probable that a calculable amount of the electrons will arrive at the desired point that a readable image appears on the screen. A few electrons land in completely different places – including, possibly, on the moon – but that is of no consequence in view of the large number of electrons involved.

When you aim a rifle at a target and fire a bullet, you can precisely determine its trajectory and point of impact. However, when scientists shoot an electron at a specific target, they can neither track its trajectory nor predict where it will hit. The electron seems to behave as it pleases.

Physicists refer to this phenomenon as "objective probability". Only if many electrons are fired at the same target will a mathematically calculable percentage of these electrons hit the desired location.

Of course, electrons share this property with all other quantum objects. The same behavior is also observable in radioactive atoms. These atoms are unstable and decay after some time. Although it is impossible to predict when a single atom will decay, the totality of these atoms decays according to a very specific calculable pattern. The technical term for this is "half-life".

For example, strontium 90 has a half-life of 30 years, cesium 137 one of 28 years. In the case of strontium 90, this means that half of its atoms will have decayed within 30 years, and that after another 30 years, half of this remaining half will have decayed as well. After 60 years, a quarter of the atoms will still be present. Of these, half will again decay after another 30 years, and so on.

Let's now return to Niels Bohr's atomic model and consider the wave-particle properties of quantum objects. In fact, there is no fixed atomic nucleus around which electron beads orbit. Instead, small electron waves surround the nucleus, which is itself just a tangle of waves.

If you cannot fathom it, take comfort in the fact that physicists cannot either. No one can tell you what it really looks like inside an atom.

On their own, quantum objects behave unpredictably. It is only as a whole that they are most likely to react in the way we are used to in our everyday world. This predictable behavior is referred to as a "probability wave".

Throughout his life, Albert Einstein did not agree with the idea of the indeterminacy of quantum objects. He believed that everything had a cause and that its effects had to be predictable. When he said, "God does not play dice," he meant that nothing happened by chance; in other words, that everything was well defined and predictable. This is called "determinism". However, the findings of quantum physics teach us that the events in this world are not (pre-)determined.

But does that mean that everything happens by chance? After all, this would also be a kind of determinism. Although the results of chance would not be predictable, chance – instead of free will – would be the determining factor in everything that happens.

This is one of the big questions arising from quantum physics. Maybe the answer is to be found in one of its most amazing experiments, the so-called "double-slit experiment". American physicist Richard Feynman said that this experiment "contains the only mystery of quantum mechanics"6.

Double-slit experiment

If we throw tomatoes through a plate with two slits onto a wall, a characteristic picture emerges. The pieces of tomatoes that have crossed the slits form two elongated red lines on the wall (cf. Fig. 6).

Figure 6: Double-slit experiment with tomatoes

If we carry out this experiment with water, a completely different picture emerges. A wave machine placed in front of the double slit generates water waves. Whenever one of these waves hits the double slit, a new wave forms behind each of the two slits. These waves overlap and travel further to the wall or screen, where wave troughs and wave crests appear. This results in a so-called "interference pattern" (cf. Fig. 7).

Figure 7: Interference pattern created by water waves

In 1802, the English physicist Thomas Young wanted to find out whether light is made up of particles (as Newton had postulated) or behaves like a wave. In order to do so, he devised and performed the double-slit experiment with light.

What did he see when he sent light through the two slits? He observed the same interference pattern that we know from water waves.

How could that be?

Light waves behave exactly like water waves and superimpose each other after passing through the double slit. This also results in an interference pattern when the waves hit the screen. This proves that light has wave properties.

Around 1900 however, Max Planck proved that light waves can also behave like particles. These particles are called "photons". Therefore, light has both wave and particle properties.

The set-up of the double-slit experiment is very sophisticated. It relies on precisely calculated slit spacing and tiny slit widths, so it is not easy to replicate. Should you nevertheless not be able to resist the temptation to try it out for yourself, you can find instructions on how to do a simple dual-slit experiment on this website: https://www.instructables.com/How-To-Make-a-Simple-Double-Slit/.

Figure 7a: Interference pattern in the double-slit experiment with light waves

Especially in the first half of the 20th century, numerous variations of Young's experiment were made, and these produced results that were so incredible that it took physicists a long time to explain them.

For instance, the experiment was also carried out with electrons. For this purpose, a crystal was used whose atomic lattice structure acts like a plate with slits.

When carrying out interference experiments with electrons, the gap between the slits must be very small, namely of the order of atomic diameters.

Scientists assumed that electrons would behave like particles because they have a mass. They therefore expected the same result as with tomatoes.

However, when they sent an electron beam through the double slit, it behaved exactly like light. An interference pattern appeared on the screen. The electrons therefore behaved like a wave.