Ultimate Reality E-Book

Béla Balogh

• Herausgeber: Fényrózsa bt.
• Kategorie: Religion und Spiritualität
• Sprache: Englisch

Seitenzahl: 409

Veröffentlichungsjahr: 2021

Beschreibung

A bridge building engineer grown up with a strictly materialistic worldview started to question this worldview first when he met a man who had the ability to move objects by the power of his concentrated thoughts only. The result of his research was astonishing. 

If somebody told you your brain cannot generate thoughts, would you believe that?

If somebody told you that the theory of evolution goes against the laws of physics, and the whole scientific world and the media around this theory is telling you lies, would you believe that?

Would you believe your life did not begin with your birth?

Well, you don’t have to. It is quite enough if you understand it.

Even the possible conditions of the „afterlife” are known!  

You can easily replace all you have been made to believe with sure knowledge.

Dear reader! You might be at the threshold of your most astonishing adventure.

Leseprobe

BÉLA BALOGH

ULTIMATE REALITY

The New Paradigm of Life Eternal

Ultimate Reality -The New Paradigm of Life Eternal

ISBN 978-615-01-0508-6 Ultimate Reality – The new paradigm of life eternal [ePUB]

ISBN 978-615-01-0509-3 Ultimate Reality – The new paradigm of life eternal [PDF]

Copyright © Béla Balogh 1999-2021

E-mail: [email protected]

Homepage: www.baloghbela.hu, www.ultimaterealityworld.com

English translation ©Rachel Nemeslaki 2003

WARNING

If somebody told you your brain cannot generate thoughts, would you believe that?

If somebody told you that the theory of evolution goes against the laws of physics, and the whole scientific world and the media around this theory is telling you lies, would you believe that?

Would you believe your life did not begin with your birth?

Well, you don’t have to. It is quite enough to understand it.

You can easily replace all you have been made to believe with sure knowledge.

Dear reader! You might be at the threshold of your most astonishing adventure.

“Fasten your seatbelts!”

ABOUT THE AUTHOR:

The author, Mr. Béla Balogh, was born in 1955 in Transylvania (Romania) by Hungarian speaking parents. He is bridge building engineer grown up with a strictly materialistic worldview. He started to question this worldview first when he met a man who had the ability to move objects by the power of his concentrated thoughts only. In 1987 he emigrated to Sweden, and – while still working as engineer - started to practice guided meditation in order to find some sustainable answers regarding „mind over matter”. The result of his research was astonishing. He wrote this book originally in Swedish, but a more complete version has been printed in Hungarian after the author moved to Hungary in 1999. After 20 years the Hungarian book reached 10 reprints. Physicists, engineers, psychologists and even medical doctors took contact with the author, realizing that this new way of approaching the mysteries of the Universe can give us unbelievable possibilities in almost every field of science.

The Ultimate Reality – as the New Paradigm of Life Eternal has been followed by five other books of great success.

The author also managed to build the Dreamvalley Meditation Center in Hungary, where science and spirituality go hand in hand.

https://dreamvalleycenter.com/index.html

The Hungarian book as well as translations in Russian, German, Swedish and Romanian available soon.

www.ultimaterealityworld.com

ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS

I am grateful to my secondary school teachers, who taught me to always to think through and evaluate things myself, and not to accept anything until I was convinced that it was true.

The Author

PREFACE

“It is a great mystery that although people’s hearts long for the Truth in which they can find pure freedom and happiness, still their first reaction to this Truth is hatred and fear.” Anthony De Mello

When I look up to the sky on a warm summer night and take in the expanse of black space filled with stars, I am often struck by a feeling of awe at the seemingly perfect order of the universe. The sheer immensity of that spectacle has always given me the impression that one might never explore it to its furthest reaches or come to grasp its deepest secrets. At such times, I am often visited by a memory from my childhood, a span of minutes from the time when I was eight years old, standing on the street in my hometown (Cluj, Transylvania, Romania), surveying the surrounding buildings with unusual intensity. Then, having made one final study of the night sky and the stars, like a naive child with an inexplicable, uneasy feeling that something is missing, I asked myself the question: “Could this really be it, everything. Is this all there is?” The answer came from my gut: a resounding “No!”

Later, as my mind one by one assimilated the various components of a strictly materialistic worldview, I came to feel I had found satisfying explanations for such phenomena as the births of stars, the motions of the planets, and constant change in the universe. These arguments, espoused by my environment, claimed everything could be reduced to the interplay between physical forces and chemical reactions. I was persuaded that in the end everything would eventually be explained through the laws of physics, chemistry and biology, and that full understanding of the workings of the universe was merely a question of time and of sufficient research.

As time went one, I became aware of several deficiencies inherent in this approach. In particular, the laws of physics and chemistry could not provide an explanation for even the most basic phenomena of life. Though forces such as thoughts and feelings direct and shape our lives, neither could be measured in any meaningful way: no instrument had ever been invented that could reveal whether at a given moment an individual was thinking of an elephant or a sunset, nor that was capable of quantifying emotions such as fear or love. At first, I believed this must be due to the imperfect nature of the instruments and methods of the day, but later, having learned of the limited precision attainable using man-made devices, I found my materialistic worldview obscured by thick clouds of doubt.

As I grew up, I also discovered the existence of certain moral laws, codes which guide how we behave within human communities. In ethical matters the laws and customs of the community, the “voice of one’s conscience,” greatly influence our decisions and determine our behavior, as do the guidelines set down by various religious teachings. People living in different areas of the world perceive right and wrong in different ways, and as I considered each system of values in turn, I witnessed a philosophical and ethical structure unfold slowly before me. I found it especially fascinating that various world religions all seem to have been founded on nearly identical sets of principles or “commandments.”

Thus, I approached each available concept regarding the composition of the Universe and the laws that govern our personal worlds from two different angles. One thing, however, confused me in particular. It seemed clear that through the ages humanity had attempted to probe the Universe from any number of different perspectives. How could it be, then, that in spite of this amassed heritage of scientific research, philosophical knowledge, and divine guidance, no one has yet managed to create a model of the Universe that actually works. Why has no one been able to assemble a worldview in which all the pieces fit together in harmonious and complementary fashion? Somewhere deep inside I felt, or perhaps suspected, that there must be some way to tie it all together, a theory that would place all worldviews squarely into a common framework....

Unfortunately, I still had only fragments at my disposal, and my impression was that while on the one hand I simply knew too little to begin putting them together, on the other, the mass of information was already too weighty to handle. In the meantime, I was still working as an engineer and bridge builder, an occupation that tied down a great deal of my energy, and so I found myself with little time for pondering the mysteries of the Universe. Fortunately, as it turns out, the fires that had fuelled my interest for so many years never did die entirely.

At the age of thirty-three, I succeeded in emigrating to Sweden, where I came into contact with people interested in spiritual matters, people often labelled as “mystics,” who spoke of universally valid and inviolable “spiritual laws.” Such laws, they said, could not be broken regardless of whether one believed in them or not. My interest was piqued, especially when I was told that these spiritual laws in no way contravened what we have learned of the universe through modern scientific research. Although struck by the feeling that these people might know something ordinary people either do not know or cannot understand, still, I approached each premise with caution, questioning everything I was told. To be honest, I found myself greatly surprised by the simplicity with which these “mystics” sketched out the essential nature and working order of the Universe. In fact, their teachings contained little that could be termed “mystical” at all, but merely claimed that the Universe and all its ways can, in fact, be comprehended. While they did employ a peculiar language and system of symbols to convey their message, these expressions and symbols could all be discovered in altered form in physics and mathematics on the one hand, and in the teachings of various religions on the other. After several years of study, I came to recognise that some “mystics” actually possess an extraordinary body of knowledge regarding the structure of the Universe and the way in which it functions.

While scientific research tends to examine its environment in terms of material factors, religion, on the other hand, interprets the world through teachings on human values and morality. As a third alternative, in the worldview of the mystic, phenomena most people regard as inexplicable, paranormal, coincidental, or simply miraculous are also granted logical explanations. The catch is that virtually no line of communication exists between the three major schools of thought. Only a very few individuals, such as physicist Fritjof Capra, who has explored the parallels between physics and Eastern philosophy, or Paul Davies, who has said that “...the Universe appears to unfold according to some plan or blueprint,” have ventured into this largely untouched territory. Fortunately, it appears that an increasing number of daring thinkers today are ready to follow in their footsteps and depart from a line of thinking that has so far proved nothing but a dead end. Less fortunately, these individuals have had scant effect on those of their peers who (and I’ve met a few myself) are so firmly rooted in the idea of a material and randomly developing universe that their unswerving faith would rival that of the most radical of religious fanatics. I was thus faced with three separate angles on the issue of how the universe functions and three separate ways to interpret the phenomenon of myself within it. Each offered apparently valuable information, but none was enough in and of itself to address every aspect of the question. It was at this point, then, that I made an extraordinary breakthrough...

In those days, my exercise came in the form of a daily half-hour run through the pleasant setting of the small woods near my Swedish home. On a day when the weather was particularly sunny and beautiful, as I jogged diligently down the sawdust running path, pondering the mysteries of the structure and workings of the Universe, I had the sudden feeling that I had stumbled onto something. If I were correct, I might just have hit upon the clear and unambiguous answer to one of my longstanding questions. It was a truly uplifting experience, but one that I was not to enjoy for long, as it was followed in quick succession by another striking realization, and then another, and another.... Soon, I found myself overpowered by the urge to stop somewhere and write it all down, before I forgot anything, or the thoughts became tangled and murky again. I quickly ran home and grabbed a sheet of paper, scribbling down everything that had come to my mind in a feverish haste, as the thoughts continued to pour out with a steadily increasing intensity. I wrote as fast as I could, the muscles of my hand beginning to clench in protest; even so, it proved difficult to keep up with the flood of ideas. I put the ideas to paper without any regard for order, coherence, or the bearing of one thought upon another, filling sheet after sheet, and though the pain in my hand was now excruciating, my mind was swimming in an indescribable state of ecstasy. I knew I had finally found what I had been looking for for so many years. The scene ended about an hour and a half later, when the fount of ideas at last ran dry. Dropping my pen in relief, I slowly began to gather up the papers that now covered my desk, blearily taking in what I had written just moments before. What lay before me was a “working principle” of the Universe. Though it still wanted for lack of order and gave the impression of having been slapped down thought by thought in random fashion, still, the essence was there, and it was shockingly simple. On the other hand, the entire material would need to be processed and enriched if it were ever to be fit for human consumption.

Though it would take some time to sort out completely, I found myself at last in possession of a true “result,” if you could call it that, one I had come upon without having traversed any of the usual mental paths to philosophical discovery. In fact, at that time I wasn’t even sure such a path existed. My “result” diverged so radically both from what was taught in schools and from what I had previously known or believed about the Universe, that for weeks I looked upon the material with a hint of suspicion, not quite sure what to do with it. The arguments seemed logical enough, the concept probable enough, the whole system quite simple in a certain sense. At the same time, though, it was just unbelievable. Could it really be? I asked myself at last, my background in engineering clearly showing. Doesn’t it conflict with the laws of physics? I wondered. Faltering a bit, I began to put the information in order, thinking all the while that if it really was all true, if the structure of the Universe really resembled what I had written on those papers, who would ever believe me?

It took me several years to systematize my original raw material and work out the missing details. First, I combed the material from the standpoint of physics and material science for anything that might be considered dubious. After that, I looked to various spiritual teachings for any possible contradictions. As I did so, the contours of a new worldview began to take shape before my eyes, of a Universe that is within our power to grasp. Within it, the teachings of those who have had the greatest influence on the course of human history and development of morality, individuals such as Hermes, Krishna, Buddha, and Jesus, would figure as prominently as the discoveries of the great scientists of the present age, such as Einstein, Heisenberg, and Bell. In this system the paranormal gained status as meaningful phenomena, fitting naturally into the overall picture, and the “inviolable laws of the spirit world” asserted by important spiritual leaders came into perfect harmony with the laws of physics.

I began my engineering career as a bridge builder. In one sense, this book also represents a kind of bridge, one built not upon the differences between various worldviews, but upon factors that span and unite them all.

PART ONE

Chapter 1

PRISONERS OF ILLUSION

”When Kepler found his long-cherished belief did not agree with the most precise observation, he accepted the uncomfortable fact. He preferred the hard truth to his dearest illusions; this is the heart of science.”

Carl Sagan (1934-1996)

The desire to explain where the Universe came from and why we are here is as old as humanity itself. Most modern individuals expend at least some energy wondering about the purpose of existence, the possibility of life after death, or the proposed existence of a central intelligence versus a world governed by the impersonal forces of thermodynamics and probability. In my view, we are not as far from knowing the answers to such questions as one might suppose, though we are often prevented from recognizing them when we see them, because we are unable to distinguish between reality, which exists independently of us, and illusion, which does not.

Illusion is a peculiar phenomenon, and the way human beings perceive their environment often stands in the way of deeper understanding. Information related to our day-to-day lives reaches us through our sense organs, producing an effect so strong, we accept it as reality without ever thinking to question the validity of our experiences or how the process works. Many illusions are shared by several or even many individuals at the same time, and so find their way into the collective worldview to define reality as understood by the larger community. As a result, the history of humankind is riddled with tragic, even amusing misunderstandings.

In fact, the majority of ideas once held as indisputable truth over the course of human thought and consciousness seem quite ridiculous when viewed from the modern perspective. One ancient legend, for instance, taught that the world was flat and was supported by four enormous elephants standing on the back of a giant turtle. This interpretation offered convenient explanations for any number of phenomena, including earthquakes, which were said to occur whenever one of the elephants shifted its weight.

Indeed, it was only relatively recently that the first tentative theories of a spherical Earth were proposed. In 1492, Christopher Columbus set a course west in an attempt to reach India, landing eventually on an island not far from the American coast. Thinking he had actually succeeded in his endeavor, he called the natives he found there ”Indians.” The misnomer stuck, and generations thereafter spoke of North American Indians and South American Indians, often forgetting that the real Indians lived somewhere else entirely. In spite of the error, history still remembers Columbus’s expedition as having transformed humanity’s perception of its larger environment. It is important to note, however, that the real change occurred not in the actual shape of the planet, which had always been round, but in the minds of those who assimilated the discovery, and its many implications, into their own perception of the universe.

Though with Columbus’s voyage one of humanity’s most enduring illusions had finally been cast aside, naturally, the next stood ready to take its place. For many long centuries, people had believed the Earth stood fixed at the center of the Universe, with all the bodies of the heavens orbiting about it. In fact, without the benefit of a modern primary school science class, it would have been difficult for an ordinary person some centuries ago to imagine otherwise. Men who questioned this premise might even find their lives in danger, as Galileo discovered when compelled to refute his beliefs before the infamous Inquisition. His predecessor, Giordano Bruno had fared worse. Though the Inquisition had found his conclusions contrary to the teachings of the church, Bruno held to his convictions to the end and was condemned to death at the stake. Drastic as such measures may have been, they did nothing at all to alter the facts: The Earth had orbited the sun long before Bruno and would continue to do so long after the wind had swept his ashes away. In the end, the rotation and revolution of heavenly bodies is not a matter of proof at all, but one of recognition. It is not reality that changes, not one world that is substituted for another, but a perception that undergoes transformation within the realm of human consciousness.

Since Galileo, humankind has, at some sacrifice, attained a significantly higher level of consciousness. People today no longer see the Earth as lying at the center of the Universe, and for that matter, have moved beyond even the heliocentric view. The orbits of the planets and paths of the stars have been calculated using Newtonian physics and the results assimilated into humanity’s collective consciousness. At the expense of a worldview founded on faith, materialism, constructed upon theorems that can be proved, has eventually prevailed.

Recently, even areas of the sciences that have enjoyed stability for much of written history have come under renewed scrutiny. The axioms of Euclid, for example, had formed the basis for all geometric speculation for over two thousand years following their initial postulation in the 4th century B.C.E. For centuries no one even suspected any other viable geometry could exist. The first to test this assumption was Hungarian mathematician Janos Bolyai, who explored movement over a curved surface or within a distorted space, where the shortest distance between two points is not a straight line, as it is in Euclidean space.

Bolyai was followed by the genius Albert Einstein, who pointed out that humanity’s view of time and space had been flawed to begin with. Prior to Einstein, time had been seen as absolute and immutable. While many people actually experience the opposite in their everyday lives, still, the thought that time might be fluid and variable proved difficult for most modern, rational individuals to accept. Einstein’s theory of special relativity aroused much suspicion among scientists of the time and continues to frustrate most people today. (Interestingly enough, Einstein received the Nobel prize several years later not for relativity, his most famous theory, but for another unrelated discovery.) Einstein succeeded in proving special relativity both mathematically and experimentally, a feat that remains one of the most drastic interventions in the way human beings think about their universe up to the present time. However, his observations did not stop there. Einstein also noticed that no individual sees the world from the same perspective as another, meaning that no two individuals ever see exactly the same thing. Thus, reality itself must also be different for different people. If one considers that light rays reflected from an object travels along different paths in reaching observers standing at two separate distances away, it cannot even be said that reality for two observers is identical in terms of time. The observer standing closest to the object will see the object before the one standing farther away. Though the difference is actually minimal, its existence forces the conclusion that no two people can ever see exactly the same thing from the same point of view.

Scientific discoveries such as these have done much to propel the development of the human mind, allowing humans first to conquer the skies and then to venture out into space. At the same time, increasingly precise instruments have advanced the causes of both biology and medicine by opening the way for the examination of things as small as the living cell and giving humans a glimpse into the structure of matter. And while such discoveries have relentlessly transformed the way people look at their world, it would seem they have actually begun to relate to each other differently, as well. One rarely hears the argument anymore that violence might be a suitable or appropriate means of resolving international conflict, and though the world is not yet completely rid of the spectre of war, attempts to resolve international conflict through peaceful means occur with noticeably increasing frequency.

Of course, this is all just the beginning. The idea that humanity might live in peace and harmony with nature is still just a dream, and the road to realizing that dream is very long, indeed. Nor have we succeeded in answering the long-standing questions of where the Universe came from and why life exists within it. The failings of evolutionary theory with respect to the laws of physics and especially with respect to the findings of quantum physics have not yet been made clear, while the workings of the human mind remain a mystery. A certain portion of cosmic radiation has still not been accounted for, and perhaps most interestingly of all, the solid materialist worldview is continuously perturbed by unexplained phenomena, generally lumped together under the dubious collective term ”paranormal.”

Each time humanity recognizes a shared illusion, it comes that much closer to understanding reality. Paradoxically, each time such an illusion has been shattered, the majority of those who shared it believe the new worldview to be the final one. And yet, as this book will show, humanity still nurses a number of common illusions, convictions regarding the concepts of time and space, evolution, gravitation, the human mind, matter, and even the soul and spirit, that continue to bar the way to deeper understanding.

Physics is the foundation of all sciences, but since Einstein concluded that E=mc2 the findings of quantum physics have been largely ignored by biology and medicine, because they don’t fit in the matter-based world of Newtonian physics on which biology is based.

Quantum physics tells us the following about the nature of the universe:

Energy and matter are one and the same - it is impossible to consider them as independent elements.

The universe is one, indivisible dynamic whole in which energy and matter are deeply entangled. The atom has no physical structure. Matter can be defined both as a solid and an immaterial force field. Every material structure (including human beings) radiates its own unique energy signature.

Yet doctors are trained to disregard the effectiveness of alternative treatments that are based on the idea that energy fields are the key to influencing physiology and health, such as acupuncture, chiropractic massage therapy, and prayer. Conventional research has completely ignored the role of energy in health and disease.

(The Biology of Belief By Bruce H. Lipton, PH.D)

Chapter 2

IS MATTER REALLY MATTER?

Most human beings perceive the world around them based on information gathered through their sense organs. The process by which this is done is fundamentally linked to the properties of substances, what scientists call matter. This means of perception has always offered such a firm basis for consensus that few have bothered to question its validity or to doubt the nature of matter as currently conceived. On closer examination, however, we find there is more to a complete understanding of the concept than is traditionally revealed by our perceptions alone.

The task of defining matter has presented a serious problem not only for history’s philosophers, but for modern researchers, as well. In ancient times matter was thought to consist of tiny, indivisible “building blocks,” of which the entire material world was constructed. The word “atom” comes from the Greek and means precisely “indivisible,” though today we are all too aware that the integrity of the atom can no longer be taken for granted. Twentieth-century science has dedicated much of its energy to divining the exact composition of matter and to separating it into its constituent parts. First the existence of an atomic nucleus, a central core for the atom, with electrons orbiting about it, was postulated. Later, the nucleus itself was discovered to consist of subatomic particles called protons and neutrons. As the process of investigation continued, these subatomic particles were further broken down into even smaller components called mesons and baryons, which themselves have proved to be composed of exceedingly minuscule particles, now called quarks. In fact, a consideration of progress in this matter to date might lead one to believe science could carry on subdividing particles into smaller ones ad infinitum, but research into what happens when it actually does has led to some rather startling conclusions:

“Constituent particles of matter are no longer regarded as solid, indestructible particles. Particles without mass such as photons show characteristics of matter, whereas counterparts of particles, for example positrons and electrons can entirely be converted into energy of radiation. Such elementary particles as quarks could not be observed directly, and it is likely that they will never be set apart and examined as isolated phenomena.” (Tor Ragnar Gerholm: Swedish National Encyclopaedia, 1997)

“Physicists had to give up looking for basic elements of matter when they found so many basic particles that they could hardly be called basic. Physicists have found matter very shaky in their experiments for the past few decades and have seen at subatomic level that matter does not exist in particular places but shows a tendency to exist.” According to the book “Hands of Light” by Barbara Ann Brennan, a physicist and former worker of NASA Goddard Space Flight Center.

The idea that “matter does not exist in a definite place, but displays only a tendency for existence,” that is, that particles of matter cannot be pointed out for certain or pinned down for examination, clearly challenges the intuition. If correct, then a physicist may expect to divine the nature of matter by dividing it into smaller and smaller particles with as much success as the biologist who pursues life with the scalpel: in both cases, the object of examination has, in essence, slipped through the fingers of the examiner by the very nature of the process employed.

Before any analysis of matter becomes too focused on the behavior of particles, however, it must also consider the recent discovery that matter, like light, displays a peculiar dual nature, sometimes behaving like a particle and sometimes like a wave, depending on the conditions to which it is subjected.

“They succeeded in proving as early as in 1925 that an electron ray can behave as a wave because there is interference when an electron ray collides with a crystal. This made it possible to measure the wavelength of an electron. The result agreed exactly with what Louis de Broglie had calculated in advance. So electrons could not be determined as a small bullet or as a “material” object in general. In the world that surrounds us, it is straightforward that an object, for example a football never behaves as a wave. Photons, electrons and atoms, which are ‘non-objects’ appear as something that is only sometimes an object, that is to say something that can only sometimes be determined on the basis of its position, shape and mass. Then it also happens that photon rays (beams of light), electron rays or even atom rays behave as waves. An electron is no wave, and neither is it a particle. It is an electron.” (Svante Svensson, Molekylerna genomskådas, Liber Publishers, 1983)

In this paradox, we face one of the most disputed mysteries of physics, the question of whether our environment consists primarily of particles that sometimes exhibit the properties of waves, or of waves that occasionally behave as if they were particles. While modern physics currently favors the position that it is both, everyday experience would still lead us to believe that the objects we encounter in this universe are indeed tangible, that they do, in fact, have substance, and that they hence have little to do with waves. On the other hand, scientific experience has often shown that everyday perceptions of the truth can sometimes lead an investigation down the wrong path.

Approaching the essence of the matter from a less obvious perspective, consider instead what would happen if matter were assumed to be a wave, an experiment for which both the mathematical and physical means are available. Einstein’s theory of special relativity produced the famous equation E=mc2, where E is energy, m is mass, and c represents the speed of light in a vacuum. Since the speed of light in a vacuum is presumed constant, this formula describes the precise relationship between mass and energy, allowing us to calculate just how much energy a particle of given mass represents. Thus, particles, which we tend to perceive as substance or “matter,” can also be construed as minute “packets of energy.” Moreover, as Max Planck discovered in 1900, their associated energy values can be expressed equally well in terms of frequency, with higher energies corresponding to higher frequencies.

Thus, we find that various subatomic particles can, in fact, be said to correspond to various types and frequencies of waves.

We have seen that what we perceive as matter can be convincingly described as a wave; however, physicists who have probed the issue emphasize that in the case of matter, calculations point not to the type of wave that progresses through a medium in a particular direction, but to what is called a standing wave. In contrast to its name, however, a standing wave should in no way be imagined as a static phenomenon. Secondary school physics teachers often illustrate standing waves using a rubber band of several meters’ length, secured at one end to a stationary object, such as a wall or desk (see Figure 1). A student standing at „B” and gripping the free end of the rubber band produces a steady series of waves that travel along the band to the fixed end at „A”, where they are reflected. As they return along the band toward „B”, these waves encounter the original stream of waves proceeding in the opposite direction, resulting in an interference pattern composed of both. Results vary, but at certain frequencies, the pattern can be shown to take on a regular form.

Standing waves possess several important characteristic properties. We may note, for example, that with a standing wave, all parts of the medium vibrate simultaneously, not sequentially as with a progressive wave. In addition, amplitude in a standing wave is distributed such that certain points in the pattern, called nodes, are virtually at rest, while others, called anti-nodes, vibrate consistently at maximum amplitude. Standing waves of this variety also occur in organ pipes, where they consist of fluctuations in the flow of air within the pipe, and along the strings of musical instruments (violin, guitar), in which case the string itself provides the medium for vibration.

Irrespectively of the length of the string, only whole number of loops can be generated. (a - fundamental mode. b - first overtone. c - second overtone)

In Figures 3 a, b, and c, the waves shown display perfect symmetry with respect to the center of the membrane, whereas in d, e, and f, symmetry occurs only with respect to one of its diameters. Thus, standing waves may be characterized not only by their frequency, but also by the type of symmetry they exhibit.

Returning to the subject of matter, both the atomic nucleus and the electrons that revolve about it have been shown in certain experiments to possess properties characteristic of waves.

In this illustration, the electron appears as a standing wave, much like the standing wave occurring along the string of a violin shown in Figure 3. As appealing as this analogy may be, however, observe that in the case of the violin or organ pipe, the sound the instrument makes will stop the moment we cease to move the bow or produce an inflow of air. In other words, a standing wave only “stands” as long as we continue to feed it with energy. Thus, if we hope to describe a particle of matter such as an electron or proton as a standing wave, then we must also address the issue of what maintains it. The actual question here is, “is it more probable that the electron engages in ‘perpetual motion’ in contradiction to the laws of physics, or must we rather assume that electrons, too, need a constant supply of energy in order to sustain the frequency and symmetry of their vibration?” To fully grasp the difficulties involved in completing the above analysis, however, one need only examine figure 3 and 4. The simple, two-dimensional theoretical model for the electron shown in Figure 4 may conveniently resemble diagrams of the electron from secondary school physics texts, but it unfortunately ignores the reality of three dimensions, a circumstance that tends to complicate matters even further. Figure 5. illustrates what the same standing wave might look like from two different perspectives, the first from the “side” and the second from the “top”.

In such cases, the standing wave associated with a given particle does not even form a single, unbroken pattern and thus defies description as an “orbit” in the classical sense. One approach used in the past by certain physicists to impose meaning upon such three-dimensional standing wave patterns was to interpret the electron as a particle, which could be found with greatest probability in areas of the pattern exhibiting the largest amplitude. However, this view has since gone out of fashion.

Standing waves are characterized by both their frequency and symmetry. By varying these two properties, any number of interesting standing wave patterns may be produced. When, in the middle of the last century, Erwin Schrödinger applied his celebrated wave equation to the simple hydrogen atom with its single electron, he discovered a whole series of standing waves possessing a broad variety of forms, several of which are presented below:

Despite his success in depicting standing wave patterns for this particular type of atom, Schrödinger never claimed to know precisely what it was that orbited within them, if anything at all.

Schrödinger examined the standing wave patterns produced by a single particle residing within a simple atom. Entire atoms containing larger numbers of particles, however, require that we consider the composite formed by many component waves. The stable Sodium atom, for example, contains 11 protons and 12 neutrons in its nucleus, totaling 23 various types and frequencies of standing wave. If we also include the atom’s 11 electrons, then the sodium atom as a whole may be described as a single energy packet composed of 11+12+11=34 different standing waves patterns. Atoms themselves often bond together to form molecules, which in turn comprise the living and non-living matter that make up our universe. Thus, everything we call matter, every stone, flower, automobile, or human being, represents its own unique composite of multiple compounded standing wave patterns.

Although the characterization of matter in this fashion runs counter to most of what humans sense about their world, indications are that there is really no such thing as a “particle of matter,” but only standing waves that exhibit the properties of matter. In order to discuss the place of matter as a wave in the universe, however, we must first determine what frequencies matter represents, and where these frequencies lie along the electromagnetic spectrum, a task easily accomplished using what physicists call “spectrum analysis.”

“Lightening an atom means allowing for certain photons, - whose energy is determined by their frequency, that is wavelength - to interact with the atom. If this energy corresponds to the difference between the different levels of energy of the electron, a phenomenon based on resonance occurs. The electron absorbs the energy of the photon, and simply changes its waveform... And the reverse happens when an electron generated to a higher level of energy emits a photon and returns to the lower level of energy.” (Svante Svensson: Molekylerna genomskådas, Liber Publishers, Stockholm 1983)

From the wavelength of an absorbed or emitted photon, we can determine with accuracy the frequency of the standing waves that form atoms. If we apply the method to a broad range of types of matter (contained in Fig. 7. The periodic table of elements) and compare the frequency values obtained to those appearing on the standard electromagnetic spectrum, we discover that “matter” covers a wide range of “frequency bands,” extending from that of radio waves to the upper limit associated with gamma radiation. (See Figure 7.)

It is at this point we might address the question of why humans perceive as substance what is, in actuality, a wave. Austrian physicist Wolfgang Pauli proved that no single atom may possess two completely identical electrons. This discovery, called the “exclusion principle,” states that a given electron possessing certain properties will not allow for the existence within the same atom of another electron with the same properties. The exclusion principle invites the question of what happens when we attempt to “squeeze” two identical atoms together, to force them to occupy the same physical space. If the two atoms are truly identical, then they are obviously composed of completely identical electrons, protons, and neutrons, and hence, by the exclusion principle, the merger will be obstructed. In other words, standing waves of identical type and energy regard each other as an obstruction or, put more simply, as matter.

At the day-to-day level, we experience matter as fundamentally different from light, sound, or radio waves, but in drawing this conclusion we necessarily compare matter with more matter, objects with other objects, and objects and substances with their effect upon our skin, lungs, and internal organs. We note that light, sound and radio waves all have very different effects on us than do the substances and objects we label matter. The problem is that our bodies are constructed of the same materials, the same atoms, or the same composite wave patterns, as the things we are examining. In the course of taking on sustenance, the human body and its various systems assimilate the same substances they are used to detect. Thus, the matter within and the matter without obviously possess the same type of energy, since the electrons, protons, and neutrons in the water and carbon our bodies are made of are no different from those in the water and carbon found in our environment. When we perceive something as matter, therefore, we are simply comparing packets of energy belonging to similar frequency bands, a set of standing waves inside our bodies with a similar set outside our bodies. The process of human perception of matter using the tips of fingers, the surface of the skin, the mouth or the lungs involves a comparison of two nearly identical energy levels.

Seen from this perspective, matter becomes a set of composite standing waves belonging to a relatively wide range of wavebands that only exhibits the properties of matter when compared with itself. In other words, what we call matter is actually just a property, and as with any property, must be placed within a broader context. As a property, the label “matter” does not apply to any single energy level but denotes a behavior exhibited by standing waves belonging to similar wavebands when they are in close proximity to one another. The atoms within us, just like those outside our bodies, contain a large number of electrons, neutrons, and protons of identical waveform, and hence appear both material and mutable with respect to each other.

However, the way we experience matter changes crucially when the internal frequency of an object is changed. The case of water typifies this phenomenon. When we lower the energy level of water, thus reducing the frequency of the standing waves that comprise its molecules, the water freezes into solid ice. If, on the other hand, internal frequencies are raised, the water boils and is transformed into steam. Our bodies penetrate steam more easily than ice and in certain concentrations may even breathe it in and out without being particularly aware that we are doing so.

 Thus, the key to “matter” is to be sought in the relationship between the frequency bands, and hence total energy, any two samples represent. In the end, everything depends on what is compared to what, on the concept of relativity, extended to encompass the manner in which the universe is perceived by human beings as they venture to understand it.

Chapter 3

RELATIVITY AS THE ONLY INSTRUMENT OF MEASURE

“A man with a watch knows what time it is; a man with two watches isn’t so sure.”

Anonymous author

Though the observation “everything is relative” is one most people are accustomed to using, few realize how far this great truth actually extends. The word “relative” comes from the Latin and means “dependent on another thing.” When we say that something is relative, we mean that we are able to define its position, quality, size, value, or other specific property only in relation to something else. Readings taken from scientific experiments exemplify how humans tend to express the properties of objects and phenomena in terms of numbers. As we saw in the previous chapter, however, readings and measurements represent perceptions conveyed to us through our sense organs, and thus arise from the process of comparing the frequencies inherent in our bodies with those of the world around us. It is precisely this process of comparison that has given birth to the perception that the universe consists partly of matter and partly of waves.

If we accept that each object and phenomenon in the Universe can be perceived or described only by comparing it with some other object or phenomenon, then it becomes imperative that we understand the nature of the information our sense organs provide us. The nature of sound might be a good place to start, since sound is something experienced as early as the embryonic phase and is thus one of the first types of information a human being will process. It seems obvious to most today that the concept of sound is integrally linked to that of waves. Certainly, high school textbooks have little trouble convincing us not only that sound waves exist, but that their properties are related to the qualities of the sounds we hear. These same texts explain that the human ear is capable of detecting frequencies ranging from 16 to 20,000 Hz, and that each sound wave forces the eardrum to vibrate at its own frequency. The anatomical structure of the inner ear then forwards the information to our brains, where it is interpreted. One nuance of this scenario that is often missed is that the eardrum can only vibrate within a certain range and therefore possesses only limited capabilities. In fact, for most people, with less than perfect hearing, the actual range managed by the eardrum is narrower than 16 to 20,000 Hz. Thus, what is a sound to one person may not be picked up at all by another. Most importantly, though, the description of the process of hearing given above defines sound as a wave phenomenon in terms not of anything absolute, but of individual capability. Again, when we label a given wave as a sound, we must realize that we are making a comparison.

Continuing along this line of reasoning, suppose we compared the eardrum’s ability to resonate with the frequencies of various external sources. Sounds possessing frequencies of less than 16 Hz may no longer be compared to the vibrations of the eardrum, since the eardrum is unable to resonate at such low frequencies. Scientists have termed waves whose frequencies approach the range of audible sound as infrasound. By the same token, waves with frequencies just above 20,000 Hz are called ultrasounds. Those who enjoy watching documentary films or reading books on nature have certainly had occasion to wonder at the hearing capabilities of bats and dogs, both of which can detect ultrasounds just as we hear the rain fall or a car pass by on the street outside our window. What this really means is simply that the ears of bats and dogs are capable of vibrating at higher frequencies. What the bat hears is only ultrasound to us with respect to the natural restrictions imposed upon our own ears. To the anatomy of the bat, however, the frequencies we call ultrasounds are sounds just like any other.

We gain an even deeper understanding of the workings of the Universe when we approach the concept of sound through one of its most frequent and pleasant applications: that of music. The traditional scale employed by Western musical composition includes seven basic sounds, called notes. The scale also boasts an eighth tone, called the “octave,” which corresponds to the first in terms of its quality, but which resonates at a higher frequency. Each note in a melody can be paired with a distinct frequency, with higher frequencies representing higher tones. Low C and high C are not the same note, because they each possess a different frequency, but if we play a tune in the lower octave and then again in the higher one, anyone would probably recognize it as the same melody.

Returning to the original discussion, we have already noted that because a given wave cannot be detected by the human ear does not imply that no other creature can hear it. Thus, a wave of below 16 or above 20,000 Hz is only denied status as a sound if we accept that only human beings should be allowed to decide what constitutes a sound in the first place. Thus, the process of octave-by-octave repetition need not terminate above 20,000 Hz, just because our ears cannot hear above that frequency. The cry of a bat reflecting off a cloud of airborne mosquitoes may be an “ultrasound” to the human observer, but to the bat it sounds like "food!"

Interestingly, the phenomenon of repetition at higher and lower frequencies does not limit itself to the realm of sound alone. A prism placed in the path of a beam of white light will separate it into the seven fundamental colors of the rainbow, arranged in order of increasing frequency from red to violet.