Theos-Talk Archives (February 2002 Message tt00872)

Hello leonmaurer,
Wednesday, February 27, 2002, you wrote:

> Today, however, the leading edge of physical science (11 dimensional 
> Superstring/M-brane, quantum gravity theories, etc.) recognizes that such 
> vacuum space contains "perturbations" or vibrating fields of sub-quantum 
> energy calculated to be in the form of vibrating "strings" (or "rays" as we 
> say in theosophy) that fills it completely. 

I must say Leon, that while I am very interested in all the newest thought
on these things, you describe it in a way that seems to maintain the
mystique of science. Can you not translate it into a language others can
relate to?

Well, I suppose, the very inventors of these theories first failed in that
and one should not expect you to do any better. But if you can, using
analogy, metaphor and the other staples of explanation, please try simplify,
or explain simply, what superstring theory, and M-brane theory, are trying to
describe.

> It follows that, if so, and those vibrations or transcendental fields are 
> vibrating at frequencies much higher than that of the electromagnetic 
> spectrum -- they must act as "carriers" of the physical light and other 
> electromagnetic waves that move through them -- much like the way high 
> frequency radio waves "carry" or modulate the lower frequency waves of the 
> sound and picture images they transmit to our receivers (which are analogous 
> to our eyes and ears, by the way). 
Actually, I would say our eyes an ears are capable of discerning the
frequencies higher than that of the electromagnetic spectrum. It's just that
science, up till now, has refused to acknowledge it.

> Thus, this property of the vacuum would appear to make such zero-point energy 
> (or "fifth force") the supposed "ether" or etheric force that is necessary to 
> support or "carry" the entire physical universe, including all its 
> electromagnetic forces (including "light") as well as the electro-weak, 
> strong, and gravitation forces that hold everything together. 

I'm not sure that you have accurately identified ZPF with the laya point,
although it seems that the two could be so equated. However, it is my belief
that ZPF is a condition of every point in the physical world (everywhere and
nowhere), but a laya point is of a completely different order. We must
always bear in mind that our physical world is but an phenomenon of a
higher noumenon.

> As an added observation... This etheric force supposedly filling the "vacuum"
> of space, if incorporated across the board in scientific thinking, would 
> account for "action-at-a-distance" or the entanglement of fundamental quantum 
> particle-pairs noted in recent CERN experiments -- (as well as its static 
> "zero-point" root accounting for "Inertia")... While, also accounting for 

Inertia is not possible, it is merely a description of a (transitional)
state, the dynamics of which are well understood in physical physics. But in
a higher state much is happening. Inertia is a process, despite the
perception that it is somehow a tendency to stasis. Stasis is impossible,
except only as a brief perception in centuries of scientific observation.
But centuries are too short to proclaim certainty on things acting over
millenia.

> many observations or experiences of psi phenomenon, explaining the roots and 
> "mechanics" (or coenergetic "field effects") of consciousness, perception, 
> mind, memory and will, and possibly negating or modifying the current 
> theories of non causal quantum "indeterminacy"... All of which have been and 
> still are baffling established physical science... (More or less verifying 

Baffling because those who perceive these phenomenon are as yet unable to
reduce their perceptions (because they do not understand fully what they
perceive) to terms which the rest of us can grasp.

> Einstein's observation that "God doesn't play dice"-- while confirming all
> the Cosmogenesis theories and fundamental principles of theosophy.) 

All Cosmogenesis theories? I would venture that SDs is the only one, so far,
that subsumes, or otherwise explains, all others - and accommodates Einstein
and Quantum physics. If there is another "theosophical" work which does as
much or better, I would very much like to know of it.

Leon, I admire your quest to validate in science the scientific implications
of IU and SD. But you must be aware, having read them both, that science as
commonly practiced is an intellectual trap for the unwary. It is so easy to
surf on the physical wave. You will even extract some limited benefit
therefrom. But you also might find yourself confined to a spinning vortex
promising everything, but yielding only further promises.

-- 
Best regards,
Alan
mailto:alwilli@iafrica.com