Theos-Talk Archives (February 2002 Message tt00854)

Leon,

I also believe that the ether is not dead. It has reemerged as zero-
point vacuum fluctuations which occur anyplace anytime (see e.g. 
http://www.sciam.com/askexpert/physics/physics32.html). So if we 
consider space as something light propagates through, it's fair to 
consider it some kind of medium possessing its own properties. 

As to the string theory and its successor, M-theory, let's not rush 
to invoke them as a proof of anything. They remain highly speculative 
and are themselves in a dire need of proof. 

Max



--- In theos-talk@y..., leonmaurer@a... wrote:
> Max,
> 
> Apparently, the "ether" as the medium for the propagation of light 
is not so 
> dead after all -- even though Einstein "killed it" when he found it 
didn't 
> fit in with the mathematical concepts of quantum theory. However, 
Einstein 
> later reversed his position, and admitted that there must be 
an "etheric" 
> (beyond measurement) medium in which light is propagated through, 
when he 
> realized, after failing to find a consistent Unified Field theory 
to link 
> relativity with quantum mechanics and electrodynamics, that his 
> "gravitational constant," levered into the equations of 
the "standard model" 
> to make relativity consistent with quantum cosmology, was an 
artifact that 
> had no reality unless there was such a "medium." 
> 
> After the advent of string theory (leading to Superstring and then 
to M-brane 
> theory, which is, in essence, a "unified field" theory similar to 
what 
> Einstein was searching for) many physicists have apparently begun 
considering 
> that the "ether," as the medium through which light is propagated, 
is related 
> to the field of sub-quantum energy "perturbations" that surrounds 
the 
> zero-point within the Planck distance (between the "quantum 
particle" and the 
> "zero-point") -- where quantum "probability" supposedly comes into 
play. 
> I've heard that some scientists are considering that the 
Schrodinger's 
> equations, which still doesn't resolve the gap between relativity 
theory and 
> quantum theory, may have to be modified to account for this. 
> 
> It seems to me that the idea of "imaginary probability waves" are 
also 
> nothing more than a mathematical artifact that has no direct 
relationship 
> (other than symbolic) to actual reality -- which, in my view, has 
to be based 
> on fixed laws of cyclic motion (of primal "space") rooted in 
abstract "spin" 
> circling around the zero point in its pre cosmic rest state -- 
which must 
> continue to be expressed causally in the post "big bang" zero-point 
> scientific "vacuum" aspect of metric space... Where all "zero-
points are, in 
> effect, in the same place (or coadunate) -- which may account for 
quantum 
> "entanglement" or "action at a distance" on that scale, and also, 
for all, so 
> called, "psychic phenomena." (Incidentally, HPB clearly pointed out 
these 
> relationships in the SD.)
> 
> The problem with all these scientific theories (not realities), and 
why 
> science has not yet come up with any consistent Unified Field 
theory, is that 
> the materialistic biases of conventional academic scientists forces 
them to 
> ignore the "motive powers" -- (based on the highest 
frequency/energies 
> underlying the unseen and immeasurable coenergetic 
fields "coadunate but not 
> consubstantial" with the "material" fields they can observe and 
measure) -- 
> that are instrumental in energizing both "consciousness" 
and "will." This 
> prevents them from seeing the forest for the trees. A problem that 
will 
> continue so long as they cannot include these energies as well as 
their field 
> interactions and effects in their equations. 
> 
> However, the new mathematics that underlies M-brane theory -- which 
does 
> unify relativity with quantum theories, and merges "waves" 
with "particles" 
> -- is getting closer and closer to a final answer to the 
fundamental 
> questions of; What is light? Where does it come from? What does it 
travel in, 
> on or through? (Although, they are not there yet.) But, when 
those 
> fundamental questions are finally and unequivocally resolved, there 
will be 
> no more separation between the "fundamental principles" of 
theosophy and 
> those of science. 
> 
> And, when, not too long from now, hopefully, this "new paradigm" of 
science 
> is applied (by the practitioners of the new field of "Cosmic 
Engineering") 
> the revolution in technology based on zero-point energy (ZPE) 
supporting new 
> possibilities in space exploration and travel, as well as the 
healing 
> potentials for both humanity and the planetary biosphere and 
ecology -- 
> leading to a possible future "paradise on Earth" -- will be mind 
boggling. 
> All that remains to make that dream a "present" reality, would be 
for the 
> people themselves, individually and as a whole, to accept such a 
new 
> "theosophical science" as the ONLY true reality, and apply its 
precepts to 
> their own mind changes and ways of life -- supported by the idea 
(which they 
> can verify by the world's past history) that "Universal 
Brotherhood" is, in 
> fact, a law of nature that cannot be broken today without "Hell to 
pay" 
> tomorrow.
> 
> For further information (both basic and advanced) on String, 
Superstring and 
> M-brane theories and how they grew out of and relate to both 
relativity and 
> quantum mechanics, dynamics and cosmology, go to: 
> http://superstringtheory.com/
> 
> As to how all that relates to theosophy, go to:
> http://tellworld.com/Astro.Biological.Coenergetics
> 
http://users.aol.com/unIwldarts/uniworld.artisans.guild/einstein.html
> 
http://members.aol.com/uniwldarts/uniworld.artisans.guild/chakrafield.
html
> 
> LHM