Introduction: Quantum Foam
The previous evening I had read up on the theory of quantum foam by John Wheeler, an eminent researcher on the subject of spacetime (it was Wheeler who invented the term "black hole.")
In 1955, Wheeler proposed that at extreme short lengths and durations -- like a quadrillion times smaller (actually 10-20)than a single proton at what is called the Plank length and Plank duration -- the smooth fabric of spacetime as seen by Einstein's theory of general relativity breaks down and on the qualities of quantum mechanics and becomes chaotic and random, forming a foam like structure, with tiny dimensions or even miniature black holes opening up just for the briefest of moments.
At least that is the theory.
Of course, it has never been verified because we cannot probe space nor time at these immensely small levels. Recently, however, some clever experiments have been carried out which measure light traveling over great distances, where we would expect some effect to accumulate if space at this scale was indeed "foamy, and these findings seem to not support to the theory.
Nonetheless, I find it fascinating because here is a theory where relativity and quantum mechanics start to interact.
So earlier this morning, I tried a session on this topic; some insights came through, but it all felt a bit fabricated, like is is more my own conscious thinking, so I did not post it. Plus I had completely forgotten about an insight I had received during the night, which does indeed feel genuine to me, and which I will share below.
So later that afternoon, I tried again:
Friday 9/13/2019 15:30 P.M.
To back up a bit, I feel that I already got some answer last night, in this image of the shadow of the stairway-railing cast against the wall in the moonlight.
At about 2:50 a.m., I got up briefly and saw an unusual and beautiful shadow projection on the stairway wall, cast by the bright full moon, as shown in the images here:
I thought it was highly synchronistic that I walk out into the hallway, when the moonlight was just right. I mean, in all the years I lived here, I had never seen this happen!* And how often do I get up at night sometimes!? [Often.] So I thought it was so beautiful that I got the camera to take pictures – only the images came out extremely grainy because it was such low-light. And at the moment, when I saw the graininess, I thought “quantum foam,” and it connected to that reading I did earlier in the evening, just some hours before this here happened.
*[Just to add a note, I got up the next night around the same time, and there, too, was a shadow, but it was much smaller and about one foot lower. So the image above is truly unique, in that the orbit of the moon on that day must have been just right to be able to cast light down the corridor; plus it had to be a full moon. Any other day this probably would not have appeared as pefectly as on the night described here].
So are you here?
The Club: We just sent you an insight.
Yes, the synchronicity was not that the moon shined that particular way – that was already pre-determined and was going to happen no matter what.
The synchronicity was that I picked up Wheeler’s book, and decided to skip ahead to that chapter!
[ I’ve been reading that book off and on, and that evening I was interested in quantum foam, and decided to just skip ahead and read the chapter. As a side, amazingly little information was given in that chapter on quantum foam and I had to read up more on it on the internet. ]
Exactly. We can only control so much. The moon, no. You skipping to that chapter, we whisper it in your ear. You getting up in that moment, hello again! [That’s a yes.] Those are the sort of things guidance can do.
So thank you [for] seeing that image in the moonshine. But that was not the trigger, right? Seeing that image was just beautiful, as if framed by the universe. What was the trigger was taking that picture and seeing it all grainy. For the display in reality was not grainy. Sure it was dark, but with my eyes adjusted I saw the real image very clearly.
OK, so go with what you just had:
1) The image appeared as if framed by the universe.
Hmm. The total situation for me at this moment…
[As I sit outside writing this, there is a big disturbance on the street right now, and I move to a quitter spot. ]
That’s life [the disturbance]. Try again!
Fine, for me the total situation concentrated itself on that image.
Exactly, it was a framing needed to make this part stand out to you! In broad daylight, or with the hallway lights on, you would not have noticed any shadows, for it is all over. But here, this cutout was revealed to you to make you notice it. So now, what does that relate to?
The implication is, how in physics we only ever look at a part of reality.
Correct. Here is an isolated part of reality, appearing “AS IF” cut off from the rest. Plus, you were the observer looking at it. It is exactly the same as an experimental setup that frames a part of reality, and will reveal THAT part of reality.
So, on to the next part:
2) To you it appeared smooth and on the cellphone it appeared grainy.
What does that mean to you?
That the results we see depends on the means employed. For once, it is our senses which all present reality in a certain way. So the camera in the cell phone is an extension of our senses, and it is only as good as its technology, and/or the settings for the picture. On a better model and with a tripod, I could have adjusted the aperture and exposure time, and would have gotten a completely different representation: not grainy, but more smooth again.
Correct, so the results observed depended on the setup of the camera. Just like, let’s say it together…
[Both:] … in quantum physics (laughing) …
… where the setup of the experiment will determine the result observed. [ For example, measure either momentum or position of an electron. ]
OK. So then extend this to quantum foam or whatnot.
The idea of the foam came about because Wheeler extended Heisenberg’s uncertainty principle to the Plank length/duration. That set the expectation. Although in an experiment it has never been proven, nor may it ever be [see above].
No matter, the idea is that consciousness is an active component of what it can and will see. [For example with Heisenberg's uncertainty principle, to setup the experiment for either position or momentum, and thus that part will be revealed. ] And that extends to ALL levels [in 3D]
So even at this immense subatomic scale? Is not somehow immutable to this, just the way it is?
No, we would say. At that point it is becoming space and time and, wait for it: consciousness. So the separation has already started, the churning is in progress, so to speak.
So in a way, it is both smooth and frothy [or neither], depending on how you look at it, as it was in the experience last night.
So there is no “ultimate” answer, no “ultimate” reality?
No, once matter, time and consciousness separate, it will appear as how consciousness looks at it. By the way, smooth and “frothy” (foamy, grainy) are but two ways to look at it, there are others.
So the implication is, we will never be able to know the reality?
No, just that there is, how shall we say it, it depends on how you look at reality.
THAT IS THE TRUE REALITY. It depends on how you look at it.
[Another disturbance again, moving somewhere else once more ]
So are there “wrong realities” as well? Wrong ways of looking at it?
Absolutely, just because some theory postulates it, it does not have to be right. String theory, for example ( laughing).
Well, again, the issue with dimensions, that are at the core of this [theory].
OK, I remember what I wanted to ask before the interruption: While my eyes saw a smooth reality, with the camera grainy, the eyes have “a better” technology adapted to low light. Is that not a better representation then?
Well, your eyes also give you only a slice of reality, based on light. What about the non-visible spectrum? Electromagnetic waves, sound waves, gravity... Again this is only to be seen as an example, as to that the setup, the observer, can only see reality in a certain way as given by the apparatus.
That’s [Immanuel] Kant: we can never know the thing-in-itself.
Not through the senses, no. However there are other ways to experience, as you once realized.
When all the senses and thought fell away.
Yes, that goes in the right direction. Let’s leave off here, too many distractions to continue; life is calling you.
Yes, However great talk. Until next time.
Interlude: I now work out for about about 30, some intense cardio this evening, and afterwards an insight comes through in a flash:
So much insight just came through at once. Let me see if I can repeat it.
The Club: No worry, slow down, we got it all for you. Start from the beginning and we will dissect it for you.
OK, I still was not happy with the answer just an hour ago. How can Heisenberg be right and not be right? I mean, it can’t be both?
[ Does Heisenberg’s uncertainty principle extend beyond the atomic scale and has universal applicability at any scale? Can it be applied to this plank scale? Or are there layers or scales far below of what we can discern where different laws apply (such as what David Bohm asked about)? ]
Well, there is also the excluded middle. [Logic extended past “it’s A and B” OR “it’s neither A nor B”.]
But let’s start over. Remember the whole discussion about what numbers are, and that it starts from the first distinction (0 versus 1, me versus you) and then all numbers fall into place naturally, and the imaginary number is but a logical extension of that process.
So it’s human centric [“homeocentric”], and that is seeing things separated: 0 versus 1.
Now, Heisenberg’s uncertainty principle took this further, you can only see 0 or 1, momentum or position, not both together, or only a more fuzzy answer for both [and thereby you have this uncertainty]. So he just extended the first distinction to the level of the quantum, and lo and behold, the math matched it. A math based on a human centric view of the world. [As in, how could it be different?]
Now, both Bohm and Einstein came at it from the angle of wholeness, not separation, another view of reality, so their findings fit that sense.
[I also got this: all this here is an expression of the two great movements: separation vs contraction -- the pulse of Being ]
Superstrings again take the model of separation, splitting into more and more dimensions, to the extreme. It really is a theory of math taken to its extreme.
So you could say, Bohm and Einstein were philosophy first physicists, Heisenberg a math first physicist, and that yields different representations of reality.
So it’s the starting point, the way we question, that gives a result or presupposes it.
OK. Thanks. That was the insight but it all came so fast.
So it sounds like there really will be no ultimate answer.
Not while consciousness is separated out from matter and time. The “ultimate,” if you want to call it, can only be experienced. By who or what? If the observer falls away? By itself. And thus by everything. You really are doing it right now [in this moment of living].
You mean “samsara is nirvana” ?
[The Buddhist insight, that nirvana is really no separate thing to be obtained, but can be found right here in this living. That insight is the enlightenment, that this reality here is all there is ]
Good place to stop.
Enjoy the game tonight, and when you have your beer, look at the froth, the “quantum foam.” We laugh.
Cheers to that!
Afterwards: Sitting here quietly, thinking about this: So no matter how hard I press for it, there is no answer to be had. You only see it in one of two ways: as separating/separate, or as coming together/contracting.
The mystery itself cannot be fathomed through thought and mathematics, albeit both give different windows into it, showing maybe different aspects of it.
Read a follow-up article here, which explores this topic.
Namaste — I bow to you and the Divine in you.
Copyright © Hanns-Oskar Porr