1.  Reality

Reality is the conjectured state of things as they actually exist, rather than as they may appear or might be imagined. In a wider definition, reality includes everything that is, has been, or will be, whether or not it is observable or comprehensible. By contrast existence is often restricted solely to that which has physical existence or has a direct basis in it, for example the way that thoughts do in the brain.

The main sources that inform our understanding of reality are religion/theology, philosophy, and science.  Unfortunately most religious institutions have, down through the years, fallen victim to the scourge of corruption and abuse of power, and have consequently lost credibility with many people, especially in developed western democracies. On the other hand philosophy has not managed to keep pace with the rapid expansion and growth of scientific knowledge and is, to some degree, left behind as far as the general public are concerned. Therefore, science is the only credible source at the present time that informs our view of reality.

The general term science includes biologists, physicists, mathematicians, cosmologists, astronomers and all professions involved in the logical research of life, matter and energy, and who study the manifest world in great detail. Thankfully scientists have been largely unaffected by corruption and abuse of power, primarily because all the great scientific discoveries have resulted from the personal endeavours of dedicated scientists who loved their work – people like Galileo, Kepler, Newton, Maxwell, Curie, Einstein, Bohr, and Feynman, to name but a few. Because scientific research did not become ‘corporate’, it did not fall victim to corruption and abuse of power. Having said that, science in recent years, is becoming more ‘corporate’ and consequently more exposed to corruption and abuse of power; mainly because of the huge profits available in pharmaceuticals, genetically modified crops and food stuffs, information technology systems and software, and so on.

In the mid-sixteenth century, when the Christian churches were suffering the worst influences of corruption and abuse of power, the scientific revolution started, when Nicolaus Copernicus published De revolutionibus orbium coelestium (On the Revolutions of the Heavenly Spheres). Since then, scientists have taken our understanding of the universe to extraordinary levels.

For a theory to be accepted by science, it must be validated by either experiment or observation. While this is one of the main strengths of science, it can also be its Achilles heel. One of the shortcomings that scientifically minded people frequently direct toward theology is that blind belief is required to accept its view of reality. However scientists should be careful not to be handicapped by blind non-belief – which can become their Achilles heel.

In most developed countries there is separation between church and state. All the main institutions of these states (particularly political, public service, and financial) are fundamentally influenced by the scientific view of reality. In other words, the paradigm by which these countries operate and behave is underpinned by the present scientific view of reality.

When we look around at the world we have created for ourselves on planet earth, we must seriously call into question the paradigm by which we operate and therefore we must seriously examine the present scientific view of reality.

 

2.  The Present Scientific View of Reality – The Big Bang Model

Many scientists now accept that the universe started with the ‘big bang’, the primeval explosion that brought all space and time, all matter and energy, into being.

In 1931, Monseigneur Georges Lemaître proposed in his hypothèse de l’atome primitif (hypothesis of the primeval atom) that the universe began with the ‘explosion’ of the ‘primeval atom’. This theory later became known as the big bang theory. This theory attempts to explain how the universe developed from a tiny, dense state into what it is today, but it is merely a model to convey what happened in the beginning, not a description of an actual explosion. An explosion is slightly misleading in that it conveys the image that the big bang was triggered in some way and at some particular point in space and time. However, the same pattern of expansion would be observed from anywhere in the universe, so there is no particular location in our present universe which could claim to be the origin. The big bang really describes a very rapid expansion or stretching of space itself, rather than an explosion in pre-existing space.

Emergence of Particles and Matter

The evolution of the universe is frequently described in two eras and eight epochs as summarised in Table 1.

Planck Epoch

The physics of the Planck epoch is unknown, but scientists believe that all four fundamental forces – strong nuclear, electromagnetic, weak nuclear, and gravitational – were united at that time. This essentially means that scientists have no knowledge regarding the ‘stuff’ that existed in the Planck epoch.

Grand Unification Epoch

In the Grand Unification epoch quarks and anti-quarks emerged from the ‘stuff’ of the Planck epoch, and gravity emerged as a fundamental force. Quarks are believed to be fundamental (or elementary) particles – that is, particles that are not formed by a composite of smaller particles.

Hadron Epoch

During the Hadron epoch the remaining three fundamental forces emerged. Shortly after 10^-35 seconds the strong force decoupled from the still unified electro-weak force. At approximately 10^-12 seconds the weak and electromagnetic forces separated.

Hadrons formed from quarks held together by the strong force. There are two types of hadrons; baryons (e.g., protons and neutrons, which are made of three quarks) and mesons (e.g., pions, which are made of one quark and one anti-quark). By the end of the Hadron epoch, free quarks had disappeared.

Lepton Epoch

A lepton is an elementary particle that does not interact with the strong force. The best known of all leptons is the electron, which governs nearly all of chemistry, as it is found in atoms and is directly tied to all chemical properties. There are two main classes of leptons: charged leptons (also known as electron-like leptons) and neutral leptons (better known as neutrinos). Approximately ten seconds after the big bang, the temperature of the universe had fallen to the point at which lepton/anti-lepton pairs were no longer created.

The evolution of the universe then continued, in accordance with scientific theory, with the formation of nuclei of atoms, atoms, molecules, matter, galaxies, stars, planets, and moons.

Scientists have a reasonable knowledge of the sequence of events after the formation of quarks occurred during the Grand Unification epoch, but they have little knowledge of events between time zero and 10^-43 seconds after the big bang.

Another early event that scientists do not fully understand is the inflationary period. It is unknown exactly when the inflationary period actually started, but it is thought to have ended approximately 10^-32 seconds after the big bang. According to Alan Guth (a scientist at the Massachusetts Institute of Technology) during this time the radius of the universe increased by 10³⁰ times in only a fraction of a second.

Is the Big bang theory a credible model to explain the origin of the universe?

The concept of the big bang is based on the mindset that the universe is purely a physical phenomenon. However, for four primary reasons, this model regarding the origin of the universe makes little sense.

Reason 1

In 1927, Georges Lemaître published a virtually unnoticed paper that provided a compelling solution to the equations of General Relativity for the case of an expanding universe. Later, Lemaître explored the logical consequences of an expanding universe and proposed that it must have originated at a finite point in time. If the universe is expanding, he reasoned, it was smaller in the past, and extrapolation back in time should lead to an epoch when all the matter in the universe was packed together in an extremely dense state. Lemaître argued that the physical universe was initially a single particle—the “primeval atom” as he called it—which disintegrated in an explosion, giving rise to space and time and the expansion of the universe that continues to this day. This idea marked the birth of what we now know as big bang cosmology.

However, scientists now know that massive black holes exist at the centre of many, if not all, galaxies. Therefore, if the universe started to contract from its present state, it is logical to suggest that the black hole state would start to dominate long before the universe could contract back to the ‘primeval atom’. In fact, it is reasonable to suggest that at some point in the contraction process, all black holes would unite into one super massive black hole which would then ‘suck in’ the complete physical universe. This logic suggests that the source of the physical universe is the black hole state.

Reason 2

I believe that for any ‘live system’ to exist it must obviously have a source, but critically, that source must continue to play a role for the lifetime of the system by interacting with it, and renewing it on a continuous basis.

A simple analogy to explain this principle is the water cycle. Without getting too complex, the water cycle can be simply explained as follows; water vapour evaporates from the sea and fills the entire atmosphere. When conditions allow, this water vapour condenses to form clouds and the clouds then fall back to the sea as rain. In this analogy, the sea is the source, the water vapour is the non-physical (pre-particle) ‘stuff’ and the clouds are the physical universe. Now, if the sea had completely evaporated in the process of making the clouds, then the cycle would break down and the system would die.

However, the big bang theory requires that the primeval atom (the source) is completely ‘used up’ in the act of creating the universe and therefore ceases to exist as a source. In my view that is completely illogical.

Reason 3

The big bang model predates scientists’ realisation that dark energy and probably dark matter exist, so it must be based on a purely physical universe, which is only 4 per cent of the whole. To suggest that the origin of the universe is based on 4 per cent of reality makes little sense.

Reason 4

Scientists believe that all four forces were united in the Planck epoch. If the four forces ceased to exist at the present time, there would be no gravity to keep all the celestial bodies in existence, there would be no electromagnetic force to bind atoms and molecules, and there would be no strong force to bind the elementary particles or to bind the nuclei of atoms. Therefore, all matter would return to elementary particles, such as electrons and quarks. The elementary particles would then return to the ‘stuff’ that existed in the Planck epoch, which would then account for 100 per cent of the ‘whole’.

However, there is no logical argument to suggest that the ‘stuff’ of the Planck epoch would then return to an infinitesimally small sphere. In my view the concept of this ‘infinitesimally small sphere’ is rooted in the belief that the universe is purely physical in nature. However, since scientists now believe that only 4 per cent of the universe is physical, I believe that we should look to the 96 per cent, rather than the 4 per cent, to understand the origin of the universe.

Emergence of Life

Since the big bang theory is based on the mindset that the universe is purely physical in nature, then scientists (geneticists, biologists etc) have little option but to conclude that life is purely physical in nature.

The scientific understanding of life can be summarised as follows:

1. Life emerged from non-life about 3.7 billion years ago
2. Life evolved, and continues to evolve, based on mutation, natural selection, and time
3. All mutations are by chance.

This essentially means that scientists regard life as a purely physical phenomenon.

Scientists believe that human life (Homo sapiens) emerged about 200,000 years ago and evolved to higher complexity by natural means only. There is no scientific understanding of mind or consciousness at the present time. I believe that the attempt to explain these phenomena using the concept of emergent evolution is really stretching logic and common sense to the extreme.

Emergent evolution is the hypothesis that, in the course of evolution, some entirely new properties, such as mind and consciousness, appear at certain critical points, usually because of an unpredictable rearrangement of already existing entities. This concept has influenced the development of systems theory and complexity theory.

Is the scientific understanding of life credible?

Below are six logical arguments suggesting that life cannot be purely physical in nature.

Argument 1

For any system to exist, it must be influenced by two forces pulling in opposite directions in order to keep ‘tension’ on the system and, thus, keep it in existence. A simple analogy to explain this principle is the example of a clothesline – a system for drying clothes. The clothesline requires two forces pulling in opposite directions to keep it in tension; if one of these forces is removed, then the clothes line will collapse and the clothes will fall to the ground, reaching a state of lower complexity.

Another example to support this principle is the stars, including the sun. They require two forces acting in opposite directions in order to exist; namely their internal pressure (fuelled by nuclear fusion) acting outwards and gravity acting inwards.

In a similar manner life, which is a system that exists somewhere between minimum complexity and maximum complexity, requires two forces acting in opposite directions in order to exist.

Matter is the force pulling toward minimum complexity as explained by the second law of thermodynamics and the concept of entropy. A simple example to explain this concept is a steel pipe, which started its life as iron ore in the Earth. Through processing and the expenditure of a large amount of energy, the iron ore is transformed into steel pipes, which are at a higher level of complexity than iron ore. However, the natural tendency of the pipe is to return to its original state of iron ore, which is the force behind corrosion. Therefore, if a steel pipe is left unprotected for a sufficiently long period, it will return to the iron ore state again, a state of lower complexity – in other words, the pipe is ‘pulled’ to lower complexity by a natural force.

Therefore, since matter is the force pulling toward lower complexity, there must be another force pulling toward maximum complexity in order to keep ‘tension’ on life and thus keep it in existence. This force is likely non-physical in nature – therefore it is not yet understood by science.

Argument 2

Life can only evolve to either lower or higher complexity, if the potential for that level of complexity already exists. Imagine if the four forces of nature ceased to exist at the present time. In this scenario all matter would return to elementary particles (e.g., quarks, electrons) – and finally to the source of elementary particles. However, matter could not possibly go to a level of complexity lower than elementary particles because the potential for that level of complexity does not exist.

In a similar manner, life cannot evolve to higher complexity unless the potential for that higher level of complexity already exists. In other words, a higher level of complexity of life cannot be ‘created’ by a purely physical process.

Argument 3

Humans have the capacity for reason, understanding, care, and compassion. Since none of these attributes are natural characteristics of matter – they must emanate from another source that influences human life.

Argument 4

This argument, which is intuitive rather than logical, suggests that, if you look at life and nature in all its beauty, complexity, and diversity, it makes no sense to say that life is purely physical – only blind non-believers could support that view of life.

Argument 5

At a macro level, scientists accept that dark energy influences the behaviour of the universe by causing it to expand at an accelerating rate. They also accept that dark matter influences the behaviour of galaxy clusters by keeping them gravitationally bound. However, at a micro level, scientists (geneticists, biologists) seem to deny that dark energy or dark matter have any influence on the origin and evolution of life. It is not logical to take the position that 96 per cent of the universe has no influence on life.

Argument 6

Evolution by natural means is unable to prevent the physical aspect of life from evolving to lower complexity, such as occurs with the ageing process, because matter has a natural propensity to return to its source. Matter can achieve this goal only by returning along the path by which it emerged, finally reaching the state of quarks and eventually dark matter. In a similar manner, life cannot evolve to higher complexity by natural evolutionary means only; there must be a non-physical source at a maximum level of complexity to which life has a fundamental propensity to return.

Is the Present Scientific View of Reality Realistic?

Figure 1 is a very simple diagram summarising the present scientific view of reality.

There are many aspects of Figure 1 which look wrong, for example:

1. There are many ‘one way’ arrows, implying there is not a continuous cycle of emanation, manifestation, and return as explained in Reason 2, above.
2. There are three major disconnects which, on their own, should be sufficient to cast doubt over the integrity of the ‘whole system’.

In addition to the three major disconnects shown in Figure 1, there are many other significant disconnects, for example:

1. The failure to reconcile general relativity with quantum mechanics or even to develop a standalone theory of quantum gravity
2. The inability of present scientific theory to explain particle entanglement
3. The inability of science to logically explain many other concepts in quantum physics.

The inability of present scientific theory to explain fundamental realities as described above must cast serious doubt over the integrity of the overall scientific model.

 

3.  Physical and Non-Physical

At this stage in the analysis it is necessary to clarify the concepts of ‘physical’ and ‘non-physical’, which can be described as follows:

1. Physical (or physical universe) can be defined as all forms of matter, energy, and momentum, and the physical forces, laws, and constants that govern them.
2. Non-physical (or non-physical universe) can be described as everything other than the physical. The non-physical state can be viewed as pre-physical or pre-particle – in other words, the state that existed (and still exists) before elementary particles emerged.

The language of physics is mathematics, which can only describe the physical universe. In other words, mathematics must have something (some ‘thing’) to describe – a body, a particle, a wave, a vibration, a string, a membrane etc. Mathematics, therefore, cannot describe the non-physical or pre-particle state – and logically there must be a pre-particle state. Einstein once said: “So far as the theories of mathematics are about reality, they are not certain; so far as they are certain, they are not about reality.”

Dark matter was postulated by Jan Oort in 1932, albeit based upon insufficient evidence, to account for the orbital velocities of stars in the Milky Way. Since then, scientists have acknowledged that dark matter is the ‘stuff’ that keeps galaxy clusters gravitationally bound, and they estimate that it makes up approximately 26% of the ‘whole of reality’.

In 1998 scientists suggested the concept of dark energy to explain their observation that the universe is still expanding at an accelerating rate. They estimate that dark energy makes up approximately 70% of the ‘whole’. The natures of dark matter and dark energy are not understood by science, which means that scientists only understand, at most, 4% of reality.

The Source of Dark Matter and Dark Energy

A black hole is a region of space in which the gravitational field is so powerful that nothing, not even light, can escape its pull. Scientists believe that it is the result of the deformation of space-time caused by a massive and very compact mass. It is called ‘black’ because it absorbs all the light that comes toward it, reflecting nothing, just like a perfect black body in thermodynamics. Around a black hole there is an undetectable surface that marks ‘the point of no return’, called an event horizon.

Einstein’s theory of general relativity implies the existence of black holes as an end state for massive stars. Also, despite its invisible interior, a black hole can be observed through its interaction with other matter; for example, the presence of a black hole can be inferred by tracking the movement of a group of stars that orbit a region in space that appears to be empty. Astronomers have identified numerous stellar black holes and have also found evidence of super-massive black holes at the centre of many galaxies. After observing the motion of nearby stars for many years, astronomers have found convincing evidence that a super-massive black hole of more than 4 million solar masses is located in the centre of our own Milky Way galaxy.

Logic demands that the source of all should be consistent with the concept of ‘Unity’. The black hole information paradox suggests that physical information could disappear in a black hole, allowing many physical states to evolve into exactly the same state. This suggests that complete unity exists inside a black hole. In other words, everything that is drawn into a black hole is transformed by its enormous internal forces into a ‘homogeneous essence’ or complete ‘unity’. Should this be the case, there is a strong logical argument to suggest that the black hole state is the source of all. Reason 1, as described above, supports this argument.

The emanation of dark matter and dark energy can logically be viewed as the emergence of the original or primeval duality. Since the source of the original duality must be in a state of unity, it is reasonable to suggest that the black hole state is the source of dark matter and dark energy.

Since, at that point, matter had not yet emerged, therefore dark matter and dark energy are pre-matter or pre-particle – in other words they are non-physical in nature. It is therefore not a huge leap in logic to suggest that dark matter is the source of the physical universe and dark energy is the source of the non-physical universe.

Non-Physical Universe

In the absence of any scientific understanding of the non-physical state, the best way to describe the non-physical universe is to use the physical universe as an analogy.

The physical universe emerged from dark matter in two fundamental states, namely mass (matter) and energy. Einstein’s equivalence of mass and energy theory (E = mc²), concluded that mass and energy are actually the same ‘stuff’. This conclusion is logical once it is accepted that they both emerged from the same source – and if they were ‘one’ before they emerged, then they must be related afterwards. Also, as explained earlier, the physical universe emerged from lower complexity (quarks, atoms, molecules) to higher complexity (galaxies, stars, planets).

In summary, we can say that the physical universe emerged from dark matter in two fundamental states, namely physical entities and physical energy.

In an analogous manner the non-physical universe emerged from dark energy in two fundamental states, namely non-physical entities and non-physical energy.

Non-Physical Entities

Physical entities can be viewed as individuated packets of dark matter which are at a lower complexity than ‘pure’ dark matter; so also can non-physical entities be viewed as individuated packets of dark energy which are at a lower complexity than ‘pure’ dark energy.

Also, just as there is a hierarchy of physical entities from higher complexity to lower complexity; so also there is a hierarchy of non-physical entities from higher complexity to lower complexity.

The non-physical entity of the human being is the highest level of complexity of which we are aware, with the exception of dark energy. However, it would be naive in the extreme to assume that there are no non-physical entities between humanity and ‘pure’ dark energy – logic strongly suggests that there is a hierarchy on non-physical entities of increasing complexity between humanity and ‘pure’ dark energy. Of course there are also non-physical entities at lower complexities that humanity, for example the non-physical aspects of animals, birds, fish, trees, plants etc, all of which have non-physical entities. In fact anything with DNA has a non-physical aspect.

Non-Physical Energy

Consciousness can be viewed as a non-physical energy. In the absence of any scientific understanding of mind and consciousness, it is necessary to have some analogy by which we can describe them, if we are to move forward with our analysis.

In 1864 Maxwell wrote A Dynamical Theory of the Electromagnetic Field in which he first proposed that light was undulations in the same medium that is the cause of electric and magnetic phenomena. The concepts of near-field and far-field phenomena in this theory can be used as an analogy to explain mind and human consciousness.

Near-Field Phenomena

Electrical currents directly produce a magnetic field which dies away rapidly with distance from the current. In a similar manner, moving charges produce a type of electrical field that also dies away very quickly with distance. Neither of these phenomena directly produces electromagnetic radiation (EMR); instead they cause electromagnetic field behaviour which transfers power to a receiver very close to the source. An example of this phenomenon is magnetic induction in an electrical transformer. These near-fields do not ‘propagate’ freely into space, but rather oscillate back and forth, returning their energy to the transmitter if it is not received by a receiver.

Far-Field Phenomena

By contrast, the far-field is associated only with the electromagnetic field (EMF) which is far enough away from the moving charges that produced it, that absorption of the EMR no longer affects the behaviour of these moving charges. The far-field is composed of radiation that is free of the transmitter, in the sense that it (the transmitter) requires the same power to send out these changes in the fields, whether the signal is immediately picked up, or not. This distant part of the EMF is the source of EMR.

The far-fields propagate without ability for the transmitter to affect them, and this causes them to be independent in the sense that their existence and energy are completely independent of both transmitter and receiver. A simple definition of EMR is that the far-field that composes EMR, is generally that part of the EMF that has travelled a sufficient distance from the source so that it has become completely disconnected from any feedback to the charges and currents that were originally responsible for it. It now freely generates itself, as a result of changing fields.

Mind and Consciousness from this Perspective

Again logic suggests that life includes both physical entities and non-physical entities, for example a human being has a physical aspect which can be described as a physical entity and a non-physical aspect which can be described as a non-physical entity. Darwin’s theory of evolution describes the process by which the physical entity evolved but cannot describe the evolution of the non-physical entity – that is why there is no scientific understanding of mind or consciousness.

If life has both physical and non-physical aspects, it is logical to suggest the following:

1. One strand of our DNA is encoded by dark matter for the physical aspect of life and one strand is encoded by dark energy for the non-physical aspect
2. Mind is an energy generated in our DNA (double helix) – analogous to the way a magnetic field is generated by an electrical coil.
3. Mind is then transferred to the brain for ‘processing’ – before mind is processed by the brain it is unconscious and after processing it becomes conscious. Therefore mind can be viewed as a ‘near-field’ phenomenon.

Consciousness, on the other hand, is a far-field phenomenon. Once emitted, it becomes independent of its source (like EMR) and travels freely through space.

While the main source of human consciousness is mind, it is also influenced by other sources/forces, the main ones being politics, science, and religion. There are, of course, other influences as well, such as art, music, literature, philosophy, etc, but these are usually voluntary, while we cannot live in a society that is not influenced/controlled by politics and religion, and influenced/informed by science.

It is important to understand that all forms of life (everything with DNA) emit consciousness. Therefore, when in New York City, one feels the ‘hurried and high-octane’ consciousness of human beings. On the other hand, when walking through the forest in the middle of the country, one feels the relaxed and tranquil consciousness of nature – and they are two distinctly different feelings.

How can Science address Consciousness?

As stated earlier, scientists have no understanding of the non-physical phenomena of dark matter or dark energy or of the non-physical universe.

Furthermore, they are still continuing their research based on the science of the physical. The LUX project in the USA has for the past ten years been trying to find particles of dark matter, and to date they have been unsuccessful. The European Organization for Nuclear Research, known as CERN operates the largest particle physics laboratory in the world. It is understandable and necessary that scientific research should progress in this manner.

It will probably take scientists many years of research to ask the question: What if dark matter and dark energy are non-physical in nature? At that point they will have two options:

1. They can attempt to gain an understanding of ‘pure’ dark matter or ‘pure’ dark energy, which will be an extremely difficult task.
2. Or alternatively they can first attempt to gain an understanding of some other non-physical energy which is at a much lower level of complexity than dark energy, for example human consciousness, or animal consciousness, or plant consciousness, etc. This is the approach that evolved to date in their research of the physical universe; where the first gained an understanding of the physical entities and energy which make up the physical universe – and only now are they attempting to understand dark matter.

The wisdom of the second approach can best be explained by the following example: It is much easier to examine the nature of a water molecule than to examine the nature of the sea. Of course, knowing how a water molecule behaves tells you little about the behaviour of the sea – but it is a good place to start. In a similar manner, knowing the nature of human consciousness will not provide a full understanding of dark energy but it is a good place to start.

As stated earlier, one gets a completely different feeling when in NYC, than when having a walk in the forest. We can easily dismiss this difference of feeling  as imaginary (in the head) or alternatively we can attribute it to the auditory and visual senses –  the fast moving people and traffic, the hooting of horns and sirens, the constant activity in NYC,  compared the calm and serenity of the forest.

Obviously the auditory and visual senses have an effect on our feelings. However, at a very subtle level, there is also a non-physical energy, called consciousness that influences the way we feel in both situations. The consciousness in NYC is dominated by human consciousness where as the consciousness in the forest is dominated by nature consciousness.

We can understand this situation much more easily if we go back to the analogy of EMR. Because of all the street lighting and other light sources in NYC, the background lighting level at night is much greater than that in the forest. Similarly, if we accept that people emit human consciousness, then it is obvious that the background level of human consciousness is much higher in NYC than in the forest.

However we need to acknowledge that the non-physical energy we call human consciousness is every bit as ‘real’ as the physical energy we call EMR. Of course we can easily measure and quantify the lighting levels, where as we have no way (yet) of measuring and quantifying human consciousness, or of discriminating between human consciousness and nature consciousness for example.

However, the human brain (especially when properly trained) can obviously discriminate between human and nature consciousness and therefore must be able to ‘measure’ consciousness in some way. Therefore if science can study in more detail how the brain performs this function, they may at some time in the near future be able to design equipment that can measure consciousness and discriminate between the various kinds.

Since human consciousness is at a much lower level of complexity than ‘pure’ dark energy, I believe that if we start by analysing human consciousness, we will gain an understanding of dark energy much faster than if we attempt to understand dark energy right from the start.

 

4.  A New Scientific View of Reality based on the Grand Interactive Model

Based on the logical arguments thus far, an alternative model of reality emerges to explain the origin and evolution of the universe – which I have named the Grand Interactive Model. This model not only logically explains the origin and evolution of the universe, but is also consistent with the concept of the inflationary period and the observation that CMB is uniform in all directions.

As explained earlier, scientists estimate that the universe is made up of 4 per cent ordinary matter, 26 per cent dark matter, and 70 per cent dark energy. (These figures may vary somewhat depending on the source.) My own belief is that the percentage of ordinary matter is much less than 4 per cent of the total – and that it may actually be infinitesimal. However, for the purposes of presenting the arguments in this article, the 70/26/4 per cent estimate is used.

The Grand Interactive Model

Planck Epoch

The physics of the Planck epoch is unknown. The Grand Interactive Model posits that dark matter and dark energy emerged from the black hole state in the Planck epoch. They then proceeded, with velocities much greater that the speed of light, to create all of space. Since matter did not yet exist at that time, dark matter and dark energy could have expanded at ‘velocities approaching infinity’.

The Physical Universe

In the Grand Unification epoch quarks formed from dark matter and gravity emerged as a fundamental force. The physical universe then evolved in accordance with scientific theory, with the formation of hadrons, leptons, nuclei of atoms, atoms, molecules, matter, galaxies, stars, planets, and moons – all the way up to the universe as we know it today.

The Non-Physical Universe

Physical entities emerged from dark matter; so it is logical to assume that non-physical entities emerged from dark energy and formed a non-physical universe in an analogous way. These non-physical entities are not observable or detectable by the science of the physical universe.

Life

When conditions allowed, matter and non-physical entities united to form life. Life, mind, and human consciousness are therefore influenced by both the physical and non-physical aspects of life. The natural propensity of the physical aspect is towards lower complexity, as explained by the second law of thermodynamics and the concept of entropy; and the natural propensity of the non-physical is toward higher complexity which is consistent with present scientific theory explaining the continuing expansion of the universe. They are therefore the two forces keeping ‘tension’ on life, thus keeping it in existence.

The New Scientific View of Reality

Figure 2 below represents the new view of reality which results from the Grand Interactive Model. There is a fundamental logic to this model for the following reasons:

1. The lines connecting each aspect have arrow heads in both directions representing the reality that every aspect influences, and is influenced by, every other aspect – in other words it is fully interactive
2. There is a continuous connection between the source of the universe and human consciousness
3. There is a continuous cycle of emanation, manifestation and return throughout the life of the ‘whole system’
4. The source continues to interact with the ‘whole system’ continuously throughout its life
5. There are no major disconnects.

Scientific Support for the New View of Reality

EMR and Special Relativity

Plotted on log scales, the EMR spectrum is shown in Diagram 1.

Diagram 1, Electromagnetic Spectrum

The EMR spectrum can be viewed as a boundary condition between the physical and non-physical states.

This viewpoint is supported by Einstein’s special theory of relativity; which makes the following predictions, as the speed of a body approaches the speed of light:

1. The mass of the body approaches infinity
2. The length of the body (in the direction of travel) approaches zero
3. Time, in the frame of reference of the body, approaches zero.

Prediction 1 implies that a body can never reach the speed of light while in the physical state. It forms a black hole as it approaches this speed, which is a non-physical state.

Prediction 2 also means that a body would cease to exist in the physical state (length equals zero) at the speed of light.

Prediction 3 means that time does not arise at the speed of light.

Therefore the physical state cannot exist to the left of the red line in Diagram 1.  However this does not mean that nothing exists to the left of the red line, it merely means that nothing exists in the physical (particulate) state – in other words ‘no thing’ exists.

This gives credence to the concept that matter emerges from ‘right to left’, in other words it emerges from the non-physical state. This in turn supports the suggestion that dark matter and dark energy are non-physical in nature; and that a physical reality emerged from dark matter, and a non-physical reality emerged from dark energy.

Inflationary Period

The Grand Interactive Model suggests that dark matter and dark energy emerged in the Planck epoch. In these states, velocities could have approached infinity since matter did not yet exist. Even in the Grand Unification epoch, when quarks emerged, velocities could have approached the speed of light since matter had not yet started to ‘clump together’ – which only started in the Hadron epoch. Therefore the inflationary period could logically have occurred during the Planck and Grand Unification epochs and possibly the early Hadron epoch.

Cosmic Microwave Background (CMB)

The Grand Interactive Model can logically explain the observation that CMB is uniform in all directions:

1. By the time quarks emerged, dark matter would have already expanded to fill ‘all of space’. Therefore quarks would have emerged uniformly throughout space
2. During the Grand Unification epoch and the early part of the Hadron epoch, because matter had not yet started to ‘clump together’, particle velocities, and therefore temperatures, would have been extremely high throughout all of space, which explains the uniformity of CMB in all directions.

 

5.  Present Scientific Theories as viewed from the Grand Interactive Model

Electromagnetic Radiation and Special Relativity

These two theories takes us to the edge of the physical state, however they do not predict what exists on the other side of the electromagnetic spectrum – on the other side of the red line in Diagram 1.

Velocity and Time in the non-physical state

Earlier it was suggested that during the Planck epoch dark matter and dark energy (both of which are non-physical) could have expanded at velocities approaching infinity. This suggestion is supported by the first prediction of special relativity which states that as the velocity of a body approaches the speed of light, time approaches zero. Since velocity equals distance divided by time, then velocity can be infinite in the non-physical state.

This is another way of looking at time travel as it implies that entities that exist in the non-physical state can experience the past, the present, and the future simultaneously.

The EMR spectrum is a boundary condition

The EMR spectrum is shown as a red line in Diagram 1. As stated earlier, this line is a boundary condition between the physical and non-physical states – in other words the physical state cannot exist to the left of the red line and the non-physical state cannot exist to the right of it.

A simple analogy for understanding this boundary is the temperature of 100 C in relation to water at standard atmospheric pressure – water cannot exist in the liquid state above 100 C. In an analogous manner, physical entities cannot exist above the speed of light.

Image 1 is a further analogy to help visualise this boundary condition. As conditions move away from the boundary, velocities reach ‘free stream’ values. Similarly, as conditions move to the left of the EMR spectrum (as shown in Diagram 1), velocities approach ‘free stream values’ – which are infinite.

Image 1. Boundary Layer Conditions in Fluid Dynamics

 

General Relativity

Newton’s Law of Universal Gravitation

Newton’s law of gravity, published in 1687, states that the force of attraction between two bodies is directly proportional to the product of the two masses (m₁ and m₂) and inversely proportional to the square of the distance (d) between them:

F = G *m₁*m₂/d²   (G is called the gravitational constant)

This law predicted the orbits of planetary bodies for 230 years until Einstein presented his general theory of relativity in 1917.

General Relativity

Having published his theory of special relativity in 1905 which dispensed with the concept of absolute time, Einstein realised that Newton’s theory of gravitation was based on the concept of absolute time. He therefore needed a new theory of gravitation, which would be compatible with special relativity. Einstein named this revised theory of gravitation, the general theory of relativity. This theory demonstrated that space-time, which is a four dimensional continuum, is curved. It also demonstrated that planetary bodies, such as the Earth, move in curved orbits because they follow geodesics in space-time, and not, as Newton had thought, because of a force called gravity. Therefore the path of a planet orbiting around a star is the projection of a geodesic of the curved four dimensional space-time geometry around the star, onto three dimensional space.

General Relativity from the perspective of the Grand Interactive Model

Einstein suggested that the underlying reality of planetary motion is the warping of space-time, and therefore planetary bodies move in curved orbits because the follow geodesics in space-time rather than due to the attractive force between the bodies.

However, reconciling general relativity with quantum mechanics, or even creating a stand-alone quantum theory of gravity, has challenged some of the greatest scientists for decades. Their failure to achieve this goal suggests that general relativity is a ‘work in progress’ rather that a finished product. It is obvious that a deeper understanding regarding the concept of ‘the warping of space-time’ is required – in other words what is nature of the ‘stuff’ that is warping.

Earlier, it was explained that dark matter and dark energy emerged in the Planck epoch and proceeded with infinite velocity to fill all of space. It was also explained that quarks emerged from dark matter. Also scientists believe that quarks and gravity emerged during the grand unification epoch. Therefore, it is reasonable to suggest that gravity is a force that exists between quarks and dark matter, since they were the only two phenomena that existed at that time.

The nuclei of atoms (protons and neutrons) are made up of quarks and therefore form a significant portion of all matter. Also, since dark matter permeates all of space, then celestial bodies are ‘submerged’ in it. Therefore gravity has two components, one of which is stored in the celestial body and the other is stored in dark matter.

There is therefore an attractive force between dark matter and the quarks in the celestial body. However, the quarks in the celestial body cannot move to the dark matter as they are bound by the strong force. Therefore the dark matter must go to the quarks. Consequently all bodies attract dark matter and as a result there is a ‘density’’ or ‘concentration’ gradient of dark matter around all celestial bodies. The density is greatest at the celestial body and it reduces as the distance from the body increases, levelling off at the ‘background’ value at some distance out.

Therefore when a smaller body comes into the ‘density gradient’ of a larger body, its quarks will be attracted to the dark matter which is fixed (held in place) by the attractive force of the larger body. Consequently the smaller body will travel in the direction of the increasing density and therefore fall towards the larger body.

Therefore Einstein’s ‘warping of space-time’ is really density gradients of dark matter in space. This can best be visualised by the following example:

1. Take the Milky Way as a closed volume which can be viewed as a cylindrical space with a diameter of 100,000 LY and a height of 13,000 LY at the centre and 1,000 LY at edge
2. The massive black hole at the centre will cause a dark matter density gradient from the centre of the galaxy to its edges. This can be viewed as the ‘background’ density level for the Milky Way. Over relatively small distances, such as the diameter of our solar system, this gradient will be almost flat
3. Then superimpose on this background density level, the density gradients of dark matter due to all the 100 billion stars in the Milky Way
4. Next superimpose the density gradients of all the planets on the resultant density of their respective stars from step 3 above
5. Finally superimpose the density gradients due to the various moons on the resultant density gradient of their respective planets, from step 4 above.

If all these gradients were simulated on a three dimensional space representing the Milky Way with the density gradients colour coded in four colours – red representing the background level with orange, yellow, and green representing the density gradients due to the stars, planets and moons respectively. I believe that exercise would generate a picture of space which would closely resemble Einstein’s concept of the warping of space-time – the difference being that the density gradient of dark matter is a real phenomenon whereas the warping of space-time is a concept. Of course, to get the full picture, it would be necessary to complete the exercise described above for the complete universe and not just for the Milky Way.

I believe that this new understanding of gravity will enable scientist to come up with a theory of quantum gravity and also may lead to a unified field theory.

Other Scientific Concepts as viewed from the Grand Interactive Model

Time

Based on the concepts suggested by the Grand Interactive Model, it’s logical that time first emerged in the grand unification epoch. Since quarks and gravity also emerged in that epoch, it’s reasonable to assume that quarks, gravity, time, and dark matter are intimately connected. I suggest that gravity and time are two sides of the same coin. As discussed earlier, gravity is a function of the density gradient of dark matter. I further suggest that time is a function of the velocity of quarks relative to dark matter. High relative velocity equals slow time and as velocity decreases time speeds up.

Therefore in the grand unification epoch, when quarks were travelling at the speed of light, time ran very slowly. As the velocity of quarks slowed down due to the clumping of matter, time speeded up. This principle explains time dilation as predicted by both special and general relativity.

Time dilation as predicted by special relativity is a direct result of the above principle – as the velocity of a body increases, then the velocity of quarks through dark matter increases and therefore time slows down.

Time dilation as predicted by General Relativity is based on the concept that as the gravitational field increases, the velocity of quarks relative to the dark matter increase due to the increased density of dark matter, therefore time slows down.

Bending of Light by a Gravitational Field

The ‘density gradient’ of dark matter is responsible for the bending of light by a gravitational field. This bending of light is analogous to the refraction of light by water. Image 2 shows a pencil partly immersed in water which looks bent due to refraction – the light waves from X change direction and so seem to originate at Y.

 Image 2, Refraction of Light

A logical outcome of the refraction of light by a gravitational field is that the velocity of light will be reduced by an increasing gravitational field; otherwise the refraction would not occur in the first place.

Particle Entanglement

Quantum entanglement is a physical phenomenon that occurs when pairs or groups of particles are generated and interact in ways such that the quantum state of each particle cannot be described independently—instead, a quantum state may be given for the system as a whole.  It thus appears that one particle of an entangled pair “knows” what measurement has been performed on the other, and with what outcome, even though there is no known means for such information to be communicated between the particles, which at the time of measurement may be separated by large distances.

As an example; imagine there are two entangled particles, A and B, so the characteristics of particle A are opposite to those of B – for example, if A has a clockwise spin, then B has a counter-clockwise spin. Now imagine that particle B is moved to a location thousands of miles from A and then the spin of A is reversed. Scientists have demonstrated that, at the instant the spin of A is reversed, the spin of B (in the remote location) immediately reverses. Since there is no obvious link between A and B, scientists do not understand this phenomenon – which Einstein once referred to as ‘spooky action at a distance’.

This phenomenon can be explained by the Grand Interactive Model as follows:  If we accept that these elementary particles (A, B) emerged from dark matter; then it is reasonable to assume that they were encoded by dark matter. In addition, since dark matter permeates all of space, both particles are immersed in it; therefore, dark matter is the link between particles A and B. Furthermore, since velocities in dark matter can be infinite, it’s reasonable to assume that the characteristics of B changed at the same instant that the characteristics of A changed.

Formation of Black Holes

When the hydrogen in a star becomes exhausted, the fusion process ends and the star cools down. The star then collapses under its own gravity. As this process unfolds, the density, and hence the density gradient, of dark matter near the surface of the collapsing star increases, thus increasing the gravitational force.

When the radius of the collapsing star reduces to the Schwarzschild radius, the force of gravity dominates all the other fundamental forces and hence all matter returns to quarks – as the strong force can no longer bind the nuclei of atoms. When the radius reduces below the Schwarzschild radius; the quarks return to the dark matter state which then merges with dark energy and thus returns to a state of unity – it is this merging that produces the massive amounts of light.

If the size of the collapsing star is sufficiently large, the merging of dark matter and dark energy may cause an explosion resulting in a supernova.

 

6.  Conclusion

The new scientific view of reality is more logical than the present one, for the following reasons:

1. Overall, it looks more connected and balanced (compare Figure 1 to Figure 2)
2. It reflects much more accurately any reasonable understanding of life, mind, and human consciousness.
3. There is a continuous interconnection between the source of the universe and human consciousness.
4. It reflects the obvious reality that everything in the universe affects, and is affected by, everything else; it is fully interactive – hence the name, The Grand Interactive Model.
5. The source continues to influence the universe by constantly interacting with it and renewing it on an ongoing basis.
6. It logically explains many concepts in physics that are either counter intuitive or not fully understood, for example: quantum entanglement, wave-particle duality, quantum tunnelling, the inflationary period, the uniformity of CMB, and many more.
7. It provides a deeper understanding of the warping of space-time that will enable scientists to reconcile general relativity with quantum physics.
8. It logically explains what humanity must do to evolve to a more enlightened paradigm that will eventually put an end to all the poverty, starvation, conflict, war, and suffering that afflicts our world at the present time. This is the single most important benefit to humanity that emerges from the new scientific view of reality. For the arguments supporting this point, see the Blog dated 09 Sept and titled Corruption and Abuse of Power are the Source of all the Major Problems in our World.