In earlier reviews of several ideas, you’ll remember that these ideas of quantum mechanics were listed, all important: 1) All energy, every last quantum of it, expresses itself in “bursts”, not in a continuous way—like radioactive “decay” doesn’t occur in a steady manner, but does in “bursts”. 2) The particles of energy express themselves randomly; there is no routine manner in which they “move” about. 3) Energy is expressed in either a wave form or a particle form—and so are complimentary; that is, when in particle mode, it is totally correct to consider its energy expressed as a particle; and when in wave mode, it is totally correct to consider its energy expressed as a wave. I like to think of them as the same, but expressed in two ways. Lots of things in nature are examples. For instance, water can also be expressed as ice or steam—of the same chemical composition, but in different physical forms. Of course, this is only an analogy, not an explanation. 4) Measuring the position and the momentum of a particle of energy simultaneously and be accurate is impossible. 5) The “world” of quantum mechanics is nothing like we think of “our world.” And, if you recall, I added a sixth idea. 6) Once observed (measured) a particle is never the same. Another idea, that didn’t make the earlier list, but ties in with the sixth idea is of phenomenal interest, and is still making quantum physicists spend a great deal of time trying to understand its implications. The idea has to do with the unusual event that occurs when particles of energy, for instance in a two particle system, influence each other in any way—and they invariably do. When there is that occurrence, the particles are as if never “away” from each other—forever. Each “knows” where the other is. When one moves or changes, the other simultaneously makes exactly the same move or change—even though they may be as far apart as on opposite “sides” of the Universe! Now, if you think about it, that’s quite a few miles apart! Simple multiplication tells us that the number of miles across a still expanding Universe is astronomical, like light travels 186,000 miles per second (no faster, according to Einstein) and light traveling for fourteen to fifteen billion light years adds up to quite a number of miles. You might say it takes quite a while to cross such a distance! like you determine how many miles light travels in one year and then multiply that number of miles by fourteen to fifteen billion, give or take a few million! Now, take a little time to think about this. The fact is that when one particle in a two particle system is influenced in any way, its “twin” is simultaneously influenced equally! even as far away as across the Universe. How can this be? No one knows, but theories abound. Other questions: What are the implications of this situation? What does it mean for us? We’ll see.

 There are many aspects of modern physics that appear to tax our beliefs regarding how we think everything around us works, even us. For a long time all we “saw” was what was about us, and what we could manage to understand. When such ideas as modern physics came into our lives, we became unsure where we fit into the huge scheme of the Universe. The classical theory of physics from the time of Newton gave us a picture of how things in the Universe worked—how objects moved, and how objects were pushed around. There was a sense of orderliness about it. Only a few knew the mathematics of it, but we allowed that they were on top of things. This is how it was for a long time; however, at the turn of the twentieth century, physical theories began including ideas and aspects that ran counter to our idea of how things worked. The new ideas that began running counter to what we believed had to be dealt with, and the mathematicians went back to work. What they found is that the new and counter theories consistently made accurate predictions of experimental results that could not be explained in terms of the “old” beliefs—Newtonian beliefs. There was the usual resistance; however despite it, physicists have been forced to accept the new theories, and incorporate them into “new” ideas of how the Universe works, even us, considering what now is known.

 The interesting idea to which I referred, that now presents itself to be considered, has to do with one consequence of the accurately predicted results and is called nonlocality. As you would suppose, its converse is called locality. Locality is the principle that an event which happens at one place cannot instantaneously/simultaneously affect (or cause) an event to happen any other place in the Universe. It takes time for an event that happens at a far away place to become known where, say, we (as observers) are at the moment. Like, if a star explodes a million light years away, it would take a million years and all those miles to travel before the light from its explosion reaches us to be observed. It’s doubtful we’d hear the noise of the explosion—its having to travel through a virtual vacuum. Locality is a necessary phenomenon of Einstein’s Theory of Relativity, which predicts and determines that no signal—our exploding star’s—can travel faster than the speed of light, going where it’s going. However, with nonlocality, as you read above, any event happening to (or the measuring of) one particle triggers—although does not cause—a “message” to its “twin-other” particle  instantaneously/simultaneously instead of there being a passage of time to travel the distance—no matter how far apart the particles may be. The rule of locality appears not to hold. Locality appears to be a dead issue in this instance. Nonlocality reigns! What does this mean? For one thing, and this is of immense importance, we must change our thinking about the way the Universe operates. It is no longer correct to think of it as composed of non-related, separate parts that function totally within a locality framework; that is, an event happening anywhere in the Universe must “send “ a signal of that event’s occurrence in the conventional “it takes time to get there” manner. It appears that we must consider the Universe as an integrated whole; that, when an event occurs in one place of its hugeness, another and a similar event occurs simultaneously/instantaneously in another part. Time appears not to be involved! This means that each part of the universe is equally sensitive to all other parts—intricately tied together and intrinsically having capability of responding the same as all other parts. It means that when an event occurs in any part of the Universe, the whole Universe is involved in and reacts simultaneously/instantaneously with that event. To one Physicist, David Bohm (a former associate of Einstein, professor of theoretical physics at Birbeck College of University of London and regarded as one of the pre-eminent theoretical  physicists of our day) it means that each part of the Universe “carries the ‘DNA’” of the whole, with the capability of replicating the whole, or another whole, no less than human or other life DNA is capable of replicating the whole of each in the species. To me, it means that the all or none principle is in effect. If an event occurs anyplace in the Universe, the whole Universe responds to, or is aware of, the event, and as a unit, a whole—a truly amazing meaning! We would think that if no event occurs, the Universe would be quiescent, at rest—non-active. Yet this never is the case, since something, some event somewhere, is always occurring, nothing is totally without action or event. Energy never ceases to be in motion. This idea of nonlocality, though, is radical thinking. How did this “new” way of viewing our Universe—and us—develop?

 After quantum mechanics had been developed (in 1935), Albert Einstein (author of the Theory of Relativity ) and fellow physicists Podolsky and Rosen published a paper which stated that under certain circumstances quantum mechanics predicted that the “stable” locality principle did not hold up. It was defeated by the facts presented by quantum mechanics principles. What they were saying is that if one could put a particle in a measuring device (thereby observing it) at one location, by the simple act of doing this, another particle would be simultaneously influenced in like manner, no matter how far away. They simply didn’t believe this effect could happen, despite the accuracy of their mathematics and soundness of their logic. Einstein called it “spooky action at a distance,” and forthwith viewed it as simply evidence that quantum mechanics was incomplete—blaming it on what he admitted were his doubts about quantum mechanics from the beginning.

 J. S. Bell, a physicist of considerable caliber himself, just short of thirty years later, by logic and by taking into account hidden variables (a concept considered but not put to use before) reviewed and studied the findings of Einstein, Podolsky and Rosen, and then proved that the results predicted by quantum mechanics were not attestable if the Newtonian and beyond principle of locality were kept in the equation. He stated that if the experiment that was set up by Einstein, Podolsky and Rosen got the results predicted by quantum mechanics, then the principle of locality would have to be eliminated; it would have to be denied as false—there was incompatibility in the experiment. He developed his personal Theorem (Bell’s Theorem.) And years later, by later experiments that were well designed and completed, the predictions of quantum mechanics proved to be true and accurate. The bottom line is that the principle of nonlocality is absolutely necessary to account for all models of reality—this instantaneous connection between particles must occur. Bell showed that despite Einstein’s Relativity forbids instantaneous connections (time is required); despite that no such type of connections ever showed up in the experiments done by Einstein, Podolsky and Rosen; despite that the quantum theory itself predicts no such observable instant connections; despite all these “contradictions”, there is an absolute requirement that an instantaneous connection occurs to account for what happens when activity of one particle influences activity of another. Locality is no longer valid. What this means to me is that our Universe is complete within itself—no part is separate from any other; there is total integration. If you trigger an event in any part of it, it is the same as triggering the event into the whole of it. If you excite one part of it, you excite it all—analogous to the “all or none” principle found in our heart muscle and in our neurons. If you excite one muscle cell in the heart, it’s the same as exciting all of its cells, as it is that either a neuron “fires” (being charged to do so), or it doesn’t. In the broadest sense, whatever I do, or whatever action I take causes an instantaneous/simultaneous action in all parts of the Universe. It’s amazing, awesome and “spooky action at a distance”, as Einstein said.

 It must be kept in mind, though, that, even knowing this “new” idea is well defined and proven, it doesn’t ipso facto explain what is happening or how it happens.  It’s one thing to say something is; however, it is another thing to say how or why  it is.  To say that electrons must affect each other instantly doesn’t answer why what is happening millions of miles away to one is happening to another that is being measured or observed at a given moment. The question that arises is, “Why should the electron, either one, be affected at all by measuring it?” When we measure something, it usually isn’t our intention to change it.  However, as I mentioned in one of the ideas of this “new” physics—quantum mechanics—the act of measuring a property of one particle always changes the system being measured, of which the measured particle is a part. And when we think of “system”, we must include ourselves as part of it. The system includes not only the electron being measured; it also includes the other one which isn’t there at the time, and which can be the observer. The diktat that for any thing to “exist” it must be observed must always be factored into the equation. And don’t forget the “collapse” from wave form to particle form issue. I discussed this in a variety of ways in other places.

 Earlier, also, I mentioned that a characteristic of quantum mechanics is potentiality. The “ocean of energy”, “quantum energy”, “quantum ether”, from my point of view, is just that—a potentiality. It remains “latent energy” until it is “disturbed” by any act of observing or measuring, at which time, the latent (not static) becomes dynamic, vibrant and full of life. I recall I considered it in wave form until any observation or measuring changed it to particle form—from latent to dynamic. Also it must be kept in mind that physicists have been trying for over sixty years to understand the results, and there is no consensus how to interpret the findings. There is patent agreement, however, that the results occur and are valid.

 I’m going to tuck into this insignificant spot my belief why the principle of nonlocality holds as it is defined by Bell’s Theorem. It has to do with the diktat that for anything to exist, it must be observed by another thing—each depends on the other for existence, continuously being observed. This is true for a two particle system and true no matter how many particles are involved, but never fewer than two. After an initial “recognition” or observation, each particle forever knows the other’s position and state and, more than knows, acts in a simultaneous/instantaneous way to changes in the spin of one or the other. This holds true no matter how far apart they may be or how many particles are involved—the ontology of recognition is maintained. The validity of each other’s existence, having been observed and identified as existing, continues forever, and is not time/space dependent. Recognition of existence is a noncausal, nonlocality issue; and is converse to causal and locality principles that Einstein’s Theory of Relativity binds. However the distance apart they may be, even across the Universe, their existence continues dependent on having been observed, and will continue forever. God doesn’t destroy energy nor the particles of which it is made—“once observed, forever observed.” I’m reminded of what Einstein said, “God doesn’t play dice.”  I’m further reminded of Bohm saying, in a respectful response to Einstein’s remark,  “Don’t tell God what to do!” Each, of course, had the deepest respect for each other’s work and contributions to understanding the enigma of the Universe.

 Regarding Bell’s Theorem, the implications are staggering. Professor Henry Stapp, Quantum physicist calls Bell’s Theorem “the most important discovery in the history of science.” Before, Bell’s Theorem, when Newtonian rules ruled, it was generally considered that we were dealing with a purely objective world—neatly divided into parts and wrapped up in mathematical proofs. However, since the strong intimation and ultimate proof of the tenets of nonlocality by Bell’s Theorem, we are forced to consider that the entire notion of a solely objective world is in conflict, not only with quantum mechanics, but with all the experiments that proved its purity and factual evidence. Professor and physicist Clauser, in 1972, confirmed the predictions of quantum mechanics working his conclusion through elaborate designs. The bottom line of Bell’s logically/mathematically tight findings is that we, without question, have to accept that there is a profound interaction between consciousness and the physical world. We, and our consciousness, are parts and parcels of the Universe. My “could say” title is fast becoming more apt—and would justify my giving this writing the new title. However, not yet. More is involved in these remarkable ideas. (I remind you, though, that we must not consider that the physical “we” gives rise to the non-physical consciousness. Materialistic issues can not be employed to explain non-materialistic concepts. The brain does not create—small “c”—the mind; nor should we entertain any ideas that it does.)

 Besides my belief regarding why nonlocality, in the instance of simultaneous/instantaneous influence between/among particles (their having been changed in any manner by observing or measuring), others have proffered ideas to explain the staggering occurrences spelled out by experimental proofs. French physicist Bernard D’Espagnat, in 1979, discussing quantum mechanics in general, said in effect that the entire idea of an objective world is in conflict not only with quantum theory, but in conflict with facts drawn from experiments done to show proof of the ideas: “. . . .in some sense all these objects constitute an indivisible whole.” In my book Why Not Do God? Using Your Spiritual Dimension of Personality I bring this to a reader’s attention when I discuss the “missing dimension” (the Spiritual dimension practically never mentioned in theories of personality, other than tangentially by C. G. Jung.) Actually, throughout my book, tenets of quantum mechanics are intimated, but not spelled out with nomenclature. The book isn’t intended to be a vehicle for information regarding quantum ideas; but is a primer intended to discuss the neglected Spiritual dimension, and to introduce it into meaningful therapeutic application. I also intimated “wholeness” referring to God’s energy as “the power behind the  throne.” (See the flow chart diagram on the Shrink’s Theory Page.) Another idea to explain the staggering occurrences spelled out in quantum mechanics is of Physicist Jack Sarfatti of the Physics/Consciousness Research Group. He believes that no actual energy requiring signal is transmitted between distant objects. He opines (but doesn’t define nor describe) that “information” is transmitted. Because he doesn’t define nor describe what “information” is transmitted, nothing can be made of it at this time. However, at later time, he may define or describe what he means. It will be welcome, of course. One suggestion is that the ideas (findings) of quantum mechanics—and particularly nonlocality/noncausality concepts—have thrust us into a new belief: an elemental oneness of the world (I would say Universe); that this oneness is not affected by time/space separation. It is suggested that an invisible wholeness unites all objects—everything that came into existence when the Universe came into being—(Creation by an Intelligent Designer, as I view it.) Allusion to the poet Charles Williams defines this suggestion: “Separation without separateness; reality without rift.” This explanation comes close to my explanation; however, I sense mine has a broader coverage, and will go beyond this suggestion. As I list these suggestions, it’s like I can hear laughter from the ranks of the materialistic/cognitive scientists; I sense their jocularity: “Pure fantasy! Pipedreams (opium, mescaline, marijuana, LSD, “crack” cocaine generated fantasies); he’s on “sauce”, again; nothing that can’t be measured and defined by height, breadth and width, that doesn’t meet the rigors of scientific scrutiny exists—all else is epiphenomenal! Absolute seeing is absolute believing! (or the British), poppycock!” All this represents, unfortunately, much of the present thinking of many in the field of psychology—and many in the field of psychiatry, which has succumbed to the pressures of the pharmaceutical industry, especially the psychotropic pharmaceuticals industry.

 In earlier words I revealed recent “new” and different “break-through” thinking of two researchers. One, describing his thinking that behavior is genetically determined (Tabula rasa based); and another researcher who proffers that the synapses (even to include genetically encoded “memories”) contain the essence of human behavior (More about the Mind and Quantum Energy) Though each researcher stands tall regarding his work, why do I sense what they’ve done is to sew new patches on an old coat? In one (the genetic approach), I feel the old argument between the strength or influence of environment as more/less than genetic makeup has been kindled—again! The other (synaptic  cause of behavior, including the mind’s explanation) describes well what the purposes of the synapses are, but falls short of telling what goes on other than materialistic activity. Neither mentions the undisputed ideas proven by quantum mechanics, and the obvious connection between nature’s (Creator’s) intelligence and human intelligence—a grievous elimination. Neither mentions the characteristic of nonlocality or noncausality issues. I am reminded of my much earlier statement that I feel it should be mandatory for those who plan professional service in the mental healthcare field are well versed in the basics of quantum mechanics, so the non-materialistic world can be revealed to them; and being revealed, make for less bias and prejudice being thrust at what they call epiphenomena. Even basic knowledge of quantum mechanics would reveal that Bell’s Theorem makes obvious the fact that there is an interrelation of human consciousness and the observed world (ontology through observation.) Human consciousness and the physical world cannot be regarded as separate, distinct entities. There is an apparent lack of appreciation for the obvious fact that the external world is shaped—to a considerable extent—by human thought. We cannot separate ourselves from the world “outside” ourselves; we are intimately associated not only with the earth we inhabit, but with the cosmos—the Universe. We are made of the same stuff as stars. Perhaps a new attitude would lead to a beginning of the new science Jung (and many others) believe(d) necessary to meld conscious-unconscious, light-dark, objective-subjective, etc. Appreciation for our humanness might soar.

 Most of us, in living out our daily lives, spend little time—if any at all—contemplating the immensity of our Universe. For us, the space in which we live takes up most of our thinking. And thinking processes come about gradually, beginning with infancy (some would include the uterine period.) Without knowing for sure, we can assume that a newly born infant has little or no awareness of the environment in which he/she is born. Maturing, the “world” begins to expand and become larger and larger both in sensing and traversing. From bassinette to crib; from crib to “baby” bed; to “my big bed comes to most children (in the United States, at least.) From lying without mobility, to turning over, to sitting, to standing alone, and progressing through unsteady walking to skilled walking is generally the physical changes that occur. There are the other developmental tasks through which the human progresses in their different spheres of environment. We practically never are aware of the whole world until we’ve progressed through considerable maturation processes to adulthood. And, relatively speaking, there are few people who travel to foreign countries during their lifetimes. This circumstance has exceptions, of course. During war there are many more who find themselves outside of their homeland, crossing oceans to other continents to do battle with the enemy. The generations (mostly males, with increasing number of females) who lived during the different wars since World War One traveled more often and farther distances than the generations before them. Our immigrants mainly came early in the twentieth century from other countries; however, once implanted in this country, most stayed, usually only a few returning to the “old country” to renew acquaintances and visit family members who didn’t make the move to a new land.

 In the Eastern hemisphere, there is relatively more “country hopping”; however, mainly because the distances among the different countries are less. Travel across oceans is still a luxury to most in the Eastern hemisphere; so, we can assume that, even though many have traveled to different countries close by, most haven’t traveled to distant countries. People in some countries never ever leave them, to go anywhere! Everything is relative, of course. All this brief “fill-in” and faintly defined observation does (besides bore) is to remind us that most humans have little awareness of the total world, much less the Universe; except, those of us who have been exposed to a modicum of education or knowledge. (What about primitive people who know only small areas of our world—their territory, their villages, their small place in the jungle.) Actually, only a relative few have a concept—and an unsure one at that—of the immensity of the Universe in which we live. Even when its size is described, most have difficulty in grasping. When one hears that there are millions of stars in one galaxy, to grasp it is quite a stretch; however, when one hears that besides those millions of stars in one galaxy, there are millions of galaxies, the size of it is near to being incomprehensible.  Think of it. That’s a million times a million! and that’s only the beginning of the Universe’s content! Most of the Universe is made up of material we can’t see! dark material that makes up most of it—the proven nature of it, we don’t know. Then, there is that incomprehensible distances among stars, galaxies and the other objects that occupy the Universe. And what about planets—some like ours, some quite different? and moons that might resemble ours, or are different? The mind is brought nearly to a standstill trying to put it into perspective. How, then, can anyone comprehend that we are part of, integrated into, melded into this huge system that began by a massive explosion fourteen or fifteen billions of years ago, and from an atom-sized particle, the nature of which we don’t know? much less believe even a modicum that our thoughts have an impact on this immensity? And, yet, they do, and we are part and parcel of it; we are no less than all of it! put together! every last quantum of it! It appears to be overwhelming!

 All this and more must be as, “We know all about that.” Working physicists must know “all about that”, and more. They must know and accept such concepts of the Universe, that doing so makes it appear their imagination has gone wild. They have to know and accept the concepts of Einstein’s Theory of Relativity, the science of massive objects of cosmic proportions—galaxies, nebulae, etc.; and Quantum Theory, the science of the diminutive—electrons, photons, protons, quarks, bosons, etc. And, what is more, they have to know and accept that we are caught up in the middle of these concepts, and of us they have to accept that our awareness, our knowing of these massive objects of cosmic proportions and of these diminutive objects of the world of quanta causes them to exist! Emulating Einstein, “It is spooky action up close and personal!” (Right about now, I’m tempted to say, “Change the title of this tidbit to The Universe is us”, but not quite.) Knowing all the concepts of the science of massive objects and the science of diminutive objects; and knowing we are in the middle, ultimately the entire Universe (with all its “particles”, including those constituting human beings, their laboratories, all their measuring instruments, etc.) has to be understood as a single undivided whole, in which analysis into separately and independently existent parts has no fundamental status. We are one with the Universe. We are one with nature’s intelligence/consciousness (the Creator’s). We are factored into the whole and being so, the whole becomes more than the sum of the parts—the whole is complete resulting from the Creator’s energy, of which none other exists.

 Our roots are deep in the Universe. Our mind is of the Universe, as is the vibrant life of all materialistic objects lacking a mind. Our mind exerts measurable effects on the physical world—the Universe, really—the world that includes ourselves en toto, bodies, organs, tissues, to the level of the cell and its structures. Our minds exert measurable effects on other minds, effects that add to or subtract from the quality of other lives. It is our exquisite responsibility to show reverence and respect, love and compassion for each other, unequivocally and without reservation. This will make us human!