9
Extra-Dimensional Theory and the New Physics
At the turn of the twentieth century, the worldview was of three dimensions of space plus time, and time, as described by Newton's classical mechanics, flowed throughout all space simultaneously. However, there was a growing interest in the notion of a fourth dimension, sometimes envisioned as another dimension of space, sometimes as time itself. Some even thought that travel along the axis of time might be possible, just as is travel along the three spatial dimensions.
Remember H. G. Wells's The Time Machine? An inventor builds a device that can transport him forward or backward through time. This machine was nothing if not user-friendly: simply move the control lever in the desired direction and travel into the past or future while remaining in the same space. But as we've seen, the Earth is moving through space and revolving about its axis, so any such sojourn would result in the traveler appearing not only in a different time but in a different space as well.
The idea of the fourth dimension was not only pondered by writers and philosophers, it was taken seriously by scientists; in fact, during the early twentieth century there were more than a thousand academic papers on extra-dimensional geometry. Adding intrigue to this was the possibility that this invisible domain could account for spirits and other psychic phenomena, which were quite the rage. Only Russian P. D. Ouspensky saw that the fourth dimension was not just one of space nor time, but a component of time that had to be extracted mentally with a higher faculty. At this time, there were two developments that soon put an end to any respectability the image of the fourth dimension might have.
Spiritualism, the belief that departed souls can be accessed through mediums and séances, was especially popular at the time. These spirits, emanating of course from the fourth dimension and routinely produced at sessions, were said to be composed of ectoplasm or energy of some sort. But eventually, under watchful eyes, it became apparent that many of the most prominent practitioners were using sleight-of-hand and other assorted gimmickry on an all too credulous public.
Some of these tricksters and showmen had a field day before they were exposed. Other, less obvious mediums and psychics, including the most credible, were unable to produce under the controlled conditions now imposed on them by scientists and a chagrined public. The golden age of Spiritualism had come to an end, and not surprisingly, the fourth dimension had lost some of its luster along the way.
Right on the heels of this began what is now called the golden age of physics, highlighted by Einstein's special theory of relativity (1905) and general theory of relativity (1915). Under special relativity, time is indeed the fourth dimension but taken as is, as a self-evident, no-further-explanation-needed phenomenon, flexible yet permanently bonded to the three spatial dimensions. The positivistic current of thought now predominant was responsible for stunning advances occurring regularly in physics, and little consideration was left for the idea of the fourth dimension as an arcane realm of Spiritualism and the like. Paranormal phenomena then went underground, outside the attention and interest of mainstream science.
Looking back on this era now, with an eye turned to extra-dimensional theory, we see that the idea of the fourth dimension need not have been abandoned so readily. Time is the fourth dimension, but it is a composite dimension, consisting of all extra dimensions (of space) either not apprehended or imperfectly apprehended by us. However, given the confluence of events in the early 1900s, the demise of the fourth dimension is understandable.
Now extra dimensions are again in vogue, in the paranormal and in science. We've come full circle back to a concept that was rejected almost a century ago. Is there something strange in this? Not at all. In the history of worldviews, it's the way it usually happens. They pop up and get shot down, but the good ones keep coming back. The idea that the Earth was round instead of flat was alternately proposed and dismissed for thousands of years before Columbus. Copernicus, who is credited with bringing an end to the worldview of an Earth-centered universe, was aware he was reviving a sun-centered theory that had been rejected long ago.
Why do these ideas keep coming back? Because the long-standing problems they once held hope for solving still remain. So the old theory is resurrected and new versions of it are tried until one works. Extra-dimensional theory is a new version of the turn-of-the-century fourth dimension model, but with the factors of expanded time and consciousness incorporated into it. It works. We've already seen how it can explain paranormal phenomena. In this chapter we'll see how it can explain long-standing problems in quantum theory and lead to a new worldview.
The New Physics
The first thing to say about the new physics is it's not really new. It's just a new way of looking at the physical world that started in the early 1900s with Einstein's relativity theory. This did away with one of two sacred concepts—the idea of absolute time or space—and for the first time, the factor of mind entered the equation. Now, not only must time and space be considered together as space-time, they must be considered together with consciousness, and as coordinates of that consciousness.
The other sacred notion to be shattered was the nature of matter itself. Up until this point, it had always been assumed that matter could be divided into smaller and smaller units of the same kind of “stuff,” until the ultimate building blocks of nature were revealed; at first it was atoms, then later their constituents—electrons, protons, and neutrons. But in the next few decades, hundreds more subatomic particles were discovered under a new, highly specialized field of study called quantum mechanics. Under quantum mechanics theory, the great number of particles now identified can only be understood as forces or transactions rather than “things.” It is the relationships between these particles as they interact that are the “particles.” The essence of matter at this level is mostly empty space, highlighted by exchanges of information, or particles.
As quantum theory developed, things got stranger. These particles, or “quanta” did not seem bound by our space or time. They pop into our reality from out of nowhere (quantum creation), disappear without a trace (quantum annihilation), go from one point to another without being in between (quantum tunneling), instantaneously change from one state of being to another, depending on how you look at them (quantum jumping), and are connected to each other in a way that transcends our time (the quantum connection). Sound familiar? Quantum theory was fast becoming a scientific Wonderland, replete with more quanta and bizarre paradoxes, prompting Neils Bohr, one of the field's pioneers, to muse that anyone who is not shocked by quantum theory doesn't understand it.
What was also becoming apparent was the role that our consciousness played in all this. By the 1920s, it was known that light sometimes exhibited the properties of a wave and sometimes of a particle. But the scientific community was stunned when this proved to be the case with the electron as well. Thus, at the subatomic level, matter and energy must be seen as both wave and particle, but never both at once, only one or the other per observation. What seems to determine which property is displayed is the act of observation itself. The choice of the experimenter as to how the observation takes place in effect produces the result.
This factor of consciousness runs right to the core of quantum theory, for herein lies the uncertainty principle first put forth by physicist Werner Heisenberg. This states that the quantities of a particle—its position and momentum (mass × velocity)—cannot both be measured at the same time. The more precisely one is determined, the less is certain about the other. This is not due to any limitation in our instruments of measurement; it's due to the influence the actual act of observation has on the state of the particle. Therefore, a quantum act is a relationship between an observer and a possible event. There is no way to eliminate our consciousness from the equation; it is a determining factor in our reality.
Because of the problems associated with wave-particle duality and the uncertainty principle, matter at the quantum level is best described statistically, as probabilities or tendencies to be in different forms at different times in different places; these probabilities are inextricably linked to us, the observers. The world of the very small suggests that reality must be seen as one inseparable phenomenon, a universal web of matter, energy, and consciousness.
Does this sound a little more familiar? Kind of transfinite? Suggestive of the all-encompassing oneness described by mystics and NDErs? Isn't this what we should expect? For if reality is extra-dimensional, shouldn't we pick up hints of this at the limits of our science through quantum theory? Shouldn't these hints have the earmarks of mystical accounts of the direct apprehension of that extra dimension?
Fritjof Capra devoted a book, The Tao of Physics, to the parallels between the new physics and Eastern mysticism. He finds these parallels striking, as if they were just two different ways of describing the same underlying reality.
These changes, brought about by modern physics, have been widely discussed by physicists and philosophers over the past decades, but very seldom has it been realized that they all seem to lead in the same direction, toward a view of the world which is very similar to the views held in Eastern mysticism….1
At the atomic level, then, the solid material objects of classical physics dissolve into patterns of probabilities, and these patterns do not represent probabilities of things, but rather probabilities of interconnections. Quantum theory forces us to see the universe not as a collection of physical objects, but rather as a complicated web of relations between the various parts of a unified whole. This, however, is the way in which Eastern mystics have experienced the world.2
This interconnecting oneness is just one of many extra-dimensional signs, all of which we've seen before. Capra also notes how quantum theory reveals reality to be ever-changing, dynamic, virtually alive: “The closer we look, the more alive it appears.”3 He also says: “Modern physics, then, pictures matter not at all as passive and inert, but being in a continuous dancing and vibrating motion whose rhythmic patterns are determined by the molecular, atomic, and nuclear structures. This is also the way in which Eastern mystics see the material world…. that nature is not in a static, but a dynamic equilibrium.4
We've seen that things that are separate, or even opposites, in our world are one in higher space, connected through the medium of an extra dimension, and that the expression of this concept is ineffable to those in lower space. Capra again:
The exploration of the subatomic world has revealed a reality which repeatedly transcends language and reasoning, and the unification of concepts which had hitherto seemed opposite and irreconcilable turns out to be one of the most startling features of this new reality…. where particles are both destructible and indestructible; where matter is both continuous and discontinuous, and force and matter are but different aspects of the same phenomenon.5
We saw this in chapter 3. As a being's consciousness (on any level) approaches a threshold in understanding its world, beyond which a higher faculty is needed, its mental tools begin to register confusing input—contradictions and absurdities—as it dimly senses the new order. Recall Ouspensky's example of the dog who begins to sense that this house and that house, or “this” and “that” are both unified as plurals with a higher, extra-dimensional consciousness. Chuang Tzu, a Taoist popularizer, described a still higher consciousness: “The ‘this’ is also ‘that.’ The ‘that’ is also ‘this.’…That the ‘that’ and the ‘this’ cease to be opposites is the very essence of the Tao.”6
These are the kind of paradoxes we've come to now in quantum theory, at the farthest reaches of our scientific and perceptual abilities. We are flirting with the apprehension of an extra dimension, picking up bits and pieces of its higher order, an order that we cannot grasp but can infer. Particles just appearing and disappearing from our space or reappearing elsewhere (as in teleportation); particles violating our sense of time; an underlying, all-pervading oneness; and intimations of a dynamic ineffable reality in which opposites are unified. We've seen all this throughout the book, in the line- and plane-world analogies, in different levels of time and consciousness, and especially in the paranormal. They are all the signatures of an extra dimension.
Extra Dimensions in the New Physics
At the turn of the twentieth century, extra dimensions were depicted as just like our three and as unrelated to time or consciousness. But relativity firmly established time as the fourth dimension, and other extra-dimensional theories quickly became dated. Still, the idea was kept alive by a small number of higher space aficionados who began to refashion their theories into versions more in keeping with the new scientific paradigm.
The best of this early lot was put forth by in 1919 by Polish physicist Theodor Kaluza. His five-dimensional version of general relativity was a bold attempt at unifying the two basic forces that were then known—electromagnetism and gravity (the strong and weak nuclear forces had yet to be discovered). Kaluza's theory made a favorable impression on Einstein, who eventually helped get it published in the scientific journal Sitzungsberichte der Berliner Akademie.
But by the time Kaluza's theory came out, it was already obvious there were three major problems with it. One, it didn't seem compatible with the emerging quantum theory; two, it failed to explain how planetary orbits could still work with a fifth “normal” dimension; and three, that old bugaboo—why can't we see it?
In 1926, Swedish physicist Oskar Klein seemed to have all three problems worked out. He demonstrated that a five-dimensional theory was indeed compatible with quantum theory. The other two problems he solved at once. Klein proposed that we couldn't detect this fifth, extra dimension, and it wouldn't affect planetary orbits because it was rolled up or “curled up” to practically nothing at 10.32 centimeters in length, just large enough for the necessary field activity to take place.
To envision a rolled-up dimension, picture a sheet of paper as a two-dimensional plane world, then imagine rolling the paper up from the side. There are still two dimensions, the length of the paper, and the contracting surface around the now cylindrical shape. But as the paper is rolled up tighter, the dimension around the surface continues to shrink. When this surface becomes so curled up it almost disappears from view, what is essentially left is a one-dimensional line, which is actually a world of two dimensions, one large (the line), and one tiny or rolled up.
By the 1930s, it was known that there were two more forces of nature besides electromagnetism and gravity—the strong and weak nuclear forces—and these could not be incorporated into the Kaluza-Klein theory, as it was called. Thus work was abandoned on the idea, and for decades it lay all but forgotten.
Then, in the late 1960s, some physicists began developing extra-dimensional “string” theories in which they attempted to unite all four fundamental forces by proposing that elementary particles are really tiny bits of “string” existing in up to 22 dimensions of space, with all but our normal three curled up out of sight. The way the strings vibrate, they suggested, gives rise to differences which show up in our space as ordinary particles. But mathematical inconsistencies and just the strangeness of the idea caused these extra-dimensional theories, too, to fall out of favor, with all but a few persistent adherents.
Both the Kaluza-Klein theory and “strings” have since undergone a tremendous renaissance. In the 1970s, physicists working on unifying gravity with the other three forces found some startling connections between their “supergravity” theories and the Kaluza-Klein model. One is that if the simplest of the eight different supergravity theories is proposed in 11 dimensions (four “big” [space-time] ones and seven rolled up ones), it corresponds to the most complicated theory in just four dimensions. This suggests that physical laws become simpler and more comprehensive from a higher dimensional view, something we have seen before. Also, supergravity theories are only workable in up to 11 dimensions, and 11 is just what is needed in the Kaluza-Klein theory to accommodate all four basic forces.
In the late 1980s, string theory made a big comeback. Spruced up with some new math (supersymmetry), the new versions are called “superstrings,” and are usually proposed in either 10 or 26 dimensions, although one model goes as high as 506 dimensions. As before, the most elementary “objects” are vibrating multi-dimensional strings; and just as violin strings produce different frequencies (tones), harmonics, and secondary resonance, so do these strings. We perceive these differences in our space as a vast assortment of elementary particles. As before, the extra dimensions are curled up tightly.
Extra-dimensional theories in science have had their ups and downs over the years, but it now appears they're here to stay. They're our best approximations yet of reality, and yet, approximations nonetheless. We've expanded our framework of space but ignored the factors of time and consciousness. Can it just be coincidence that in these theories, tachyon particles (speculative particles faster than light and our time) and mathematical infinities (our closest transfinite concept) keep popping up? Physicists do their best to cancel these “bugs” out by introducing other infinities into the equations. The problem is they keep popping up. Is this telling us something?
Supergravity and superstring theories begin to point in the right direction. Both assume a larger, extra-dimensional reality where natural laws are simpler and more comprehensive. Their tiny but just large enough dimensions do allow for some of the bizarre antics of subatomic particles, by providing a medium for them to “tunnel” in and out of our space and just appear elsewhere, etc. But they offer nothing for the other esoteric aspects of quantum theory—the ineffability, the unification of opposites, the transcendence of our time, the life, the oneness, not to mention the entire range of paranormal phenomena. And these are theories that aspire to be the Theory of Everything, or T.O.E. There's clearly something missing.
Bucke gives it here, and at the same time puts the quest for the T.O.E. in perspective. “Especially does he obtain (with cosmic consciousness) a conception of THE WHOLE, or at least of an IMMENSE WHOLE, as dwarfs all conception, imagination or speculation, springing from and belonging to ordinary self-consciousness, such a conception as makes the old attempts to mentally grasp the universe and its meaning petty and even ridiculous”7 (emphasis in original).
Expanded consciousness—we seek the Theory of Everything, and yet strangely are content with the little we know of consciousness and time. We need an expanded framework of space, time, and consciousness. This is why we can't “see” an extra dimension; it takes a higher faculty of mind; and this is why an extra dimension doesn't affect planetary orbits—it cannot be incorporated into our mathematical context. It has its own higher space-time context, one that our world must be incorporated into. These conventional extra-dimensional theories and their mathematical constructs of curled-up extra dimensions are still just extensions of our self-consciousness.
We can go no further without an expanded framework. Gopi Krishna noted: “But no attempt made by the intellect, assisted by all the inventions of science, can penetrate the veil, because the veil itself is the creation of the intellect. It is only by self-transcendence that light begins to penetrate into the darkness, dissolving the problem, as shadows melt at the approach of dawn.”8
Let's now look at the most profound paradoxes in quantum theory for which these extra-dimensional theories offer no solution. We'll look at them under the light of an expanded framework of space, time, and consciousness, and see if the problems dissolve with a transcendent point of view.
The one that best illustrates the bizarre nature of quantum theory is the classic double-slit experiment. Electrons are propelled toward a screen with two holes in it, and behind this screen is another screen that acts as a detector. Remember that electrons sometimes manifest as waves, sometimes as particles. When the electrons reach the first screen, they can pass through either of the two slits; as they reach the second or detector screen, there is evidence not of particle traces but of a wavelike interference pattern, meaning that the electrons were wavelike and canceled each other out upon impacting the second screen. This is surprising, since electrons are generally treated as particles; but it gets stranger.
If one of the slits in the first screen is covered, the electron(s) traveling through the other slit now reveals itself as a particle. In other words, the act of observation has apparently changed the electron's nature from wave to particle. Now for the pièce de résistance. If the covered slit is then uncovered, even as the electron is between the two screens, a wave pattern instantaneously appears on the second screen, as if the electron knew at that instant that the second slit was now open. Even if the experimenter utilizes a device to observe which slit the electron has passed through, the wavelike effect still changes to that of a particle.
The standard explanation of this is called the Copenhagen interpretation. It says a wave and particle are different yet complementary aspects of the same phenomenon, and both descriptions must be employed. It also describes particles in terms of probabilities (location and momentum) known as “wave functions.” Now, because of the uncertainty principle, it is impossible to know the exact location and momentum of a particle at the same time, so the wave function is a system of probabilities as to a particle's status. And when a measurement is taken, the wave function is said to “collapse” into a specific value.
The Copenhagen interpretation says that out of those many possibilities, the observer causes one—the “measurement”—to become objective reality. In the double-slit experiment, the “wavelike” electron has two possibilities of travel through either slit until a measurement alters the wave function and fixes a specific value for the electron which is now a particle.
The Copenhagen interpretation still is the prevalent one in the scientific community, but even so, many physicists are wary of it. They feel it is deeply unsatisfactory, partly because it offers no explanation as to exactly when in the course of an observation the wave function collapses into objective reality. Far more troubling is the fact that without an observation, no particle can be said to physically exist at all, and it is hard to imagine how an act of observation can affect reality to that extent. Paul Halpern in Time Journeys (1990) remarks:
It seems as if quantum mechanics provides an answer to a hackneyed philosophical question: If a tree falls in a forest where there are no listeners, can it be said to make a sound? The Copenhagen interpretation of quantum mechanics implies that the answer is no. Only when there is a measurement (observation), can the falling tree be said to make a sound at a definite time.9
No observer, no sound? You're probably thinking this isn't reasonable, and you're not alone. Many physicists, even ones who support the Copenhagen interpretation, think so too. They'd prefer to believe that there is an underlying objective reality independent of observation or measurement. So to get out of this quandary, they postulate that the Copenhagen interpretation is “operative” only below a certain threshold, at the microscopic level. This seems a safe escape. But then again, there's that famous “Schrödinger's cat” paradox, where those consequences supposedly confined to the quantum world turn into real ones m ours.
Austrian physicist Erwin Schrödinger, one of the founders of quantum theory, proposed a thought experiment in 1935 that, under the Copenhagen interpretation, allows a cat to be dead and alive at the same time—until an observation settles the matter. The experiment begins with a cat sealed in a box along with a vial of poison gas. There is also a device such as a Geiger counter, and attached to it a lever set to break the vial of gas. Now, a radioactive particle is sent inside, and it exists in two possible states, decayed and undecayed, until it is observed. Possibility number one: The particle decays, which sets off the Geiger counter, which triggers the lever, which releases the gas, which kills the cat. Possibility number two: The particle remains undecayed, and the cat lives.
Since the particle's status is undetermined until it is observed, and the particle's status is a matter of life or death for the cat, the cat's status is likewise undetermined, until someone opens the box and looks. (Until then it is in some complex “wave-function-like” state of dead plus alive, dead minus alive, dead plus the square root of alive, etc.) And there's no reason why we couldn't take this one step further, that until someone actually observes the person who opened the box, then he exists in the same kind of undetermined state as well, somebody who finds a live cat, or somebody who finds a dead one.
It should be apparent by now that the Copenhagen interpretation lends itself to some enigmatic profundities. Yet it's actually tame compared to its only real competition to date, the “many-worlds interpretation.” This theory, put forth in 1957 by Hugh Everett, a Princeton graduate student, maintains that all of the different possibilities in the wave function represent different possible universes; any time a quantum observation or measurement is made, another world is forged, carrying the observer with it, until another observation is made, and the process repeats itself, with that world then splitting off into different branches. The observer is unaware of all this, as the reality he finds himself in is to him the only one.
What this amounts to is that there are countless billions of worlds constantly branching into billions of others and still others, with countless copies of each of us inhabiting them, but aware of only the one we're in.
The theory is compatible with observation, and in the case of the double-slit experiment, it says that in the act of observing which slit the electron passes through, the observer “splits” into two worlds, one for each slit. Instead of collapsing, the wave function splits into duplicates, accompanied by each possibility's respective observer. In the case of Schrödinger's cat, there are two worlds, one with a live cat, and one with a dead one, and by making an observation, we branch off into one or the other.
As far-out as this theory may sound, it does have some proponents in the scientific community, and it is impossible to prove or disprove. However, most physicists still favor the Copenhagen interpretation, despite its inherent two-at-a-time type problems, finding the many worlds theory simply too much, not to mention it's impossible to ever observe.
Both of these interpretations of quantum theory are shocking if taken at face value and constitute completely new and different worldviews. Paul Davies, in Other Worlds, says:
Science, it is usually believed, helps us to build a picture of objective reality—the world “out there.” With the advent of quantum theory, that very reality appears to have crumbled, to be replaced by something so revolutionary and bizarre that its consequences have not yet been properly faced…one can either accept the multiple reality of the parallel worlds, or deny that real world exists at all, independent of our perception of it.
Scientific revolutions tend to be associated with a major restructuring of human perspectives (new worldview)…It is therefore remarkable that the greatest scientific revolution of all time has gone largely unnoticed by the general public, not because its implications are uninteresting, but because they are so shattering as to be almost beyond belief—even to the scientific revolutionaries themselves.10
But the thing is, neither the Copenhagen or many-worlds interpretations are “scientific” theories. They are philosophical interpretations of the outcome of scientific experiments. The structure itself of quantum theory is undisputed; the results have been verified repeatedly. But what do these results mean? What is the underlying reality that gives rise to these paradoxes? As with any worldview, some philosophy must be added.
Davies, as quoted, said the Copenhagen and many-worlds interpretations were “almost beyond belief—even to the scientific revolutionaries themselves,” and the “revolution…has gone largely unnoticed by the general public.” These two situations are related. One senses a reluctance on the part of scientists to promote these theories because they are so bizarre, virtually “beyond belief,” even to themselves. It may be most accurate to say that, in general, physicists are ill at ease with both of them, and only align themselves with one or the other for lack of another alternative.
But there is one. We may consider these paradoxes in an expanded framework of space, time, and consciousness—extra-dimensional theory.
This starts with the assumption that our normal world of three dimensions of space plus time is but a cross-section of a vaster, extra-dimensional ground. Thus, in contrast to the Copenhagen and many-worlds interpretations, there is one objective reality independent of our perception of it. Our perception of it is just limited to a cross-section at a time. In quantum mechanics, we are at the absolute limit of our powers of perception, not the limit of reality, the limit of our means of intelligibly perceiving it, with logic and its extension, science. Therefore, even though the cross-section we experience in everyday life is clear and distinct, when we get right up to our perceptual limits, the picture becomes hazy and ambiguous. Our view of reality then becomes a mode of possibilities for different cross-sections.
This is exactly what happens in the case of the wave function. It represents a set of different variations that we are capable of apprehending. Then when a measurement or observation is made, that part becomes registered in our cross-section or imprinted on our three-dimensional map of reality.
A simple analogy to the collapse of the wave function can be made by bringing back our old friend Samson, a being who mentally inhabits a world of two dimensions of space plus time. Imagine him at play once more, this time with a multicolored, three-dimensional cube. As Samson jostles his new toy about, the spatial dimensions of the cube change for him in time. Now when he pauses, and the cube comes to rest, he will register just one of the cube's surfaces, out of several possibilities.
Samson, as the observer, is not creating reality with his observation; he is just inadvertently choosing which variation is seen at a given time. He doesn't split into different Samsons either. For we know that in higher, three-dimensional space, all possible views of the cube are just different vantage points of the same object; that is, they are all parts of one extra-dimensional phenomenon. Similarly, in quantum mechanics, we dimly sense an extra-dimensional reality as motion in time, and with a measurement we reduce it to a tangible impression in our space.
Thus our wave function is an incomplete description of reality in that it is only a collection of possible views accessible to us. It does not collapse with a measurement but disappears, as our apprehension is limited by our psychic state to one cross-section at a time. This makes understandable the most baffling part of the double-slit experiment: how an electron traveling between screens can instantaneously “know” that the covered slit in the first screen has now been uncovered. The wavelike interference pattern immediately appears again because it was there all along, and having shifted our focus, we again detect it.
For example, consider this analogy. We know that each of our eyes registers a two-dimensional image which is then combined in the brain to form a three-dimensional one. Now in theory, if we were to cover one eye, we would revert back to a two-dimensional picture. (This works only to some extent as it is impossible to exclude natural conceptual adjustments.) At any rate, if we look at a three-dimensional object, then cover one eye, we see a two-dimensional surface; uncover the eye, and the three-dimensional image returns. We have not changed the nature of the object by observing it differently, just our representation of it. Similarly, in quantum physics, we reduce a set of potential points of view, a wave function, to one, with a measurement.
In the case of Schrödinger's cat, however, the status of the cat is determined before the observation by the Geiger counter. It serves as a tool capable of extracting a possibility of the particle's state (decayed or undecayed) and permanently recording an impression of it in our three-dimensional world. Some adherents of the Copenhagen interpretation likewise maintain that the matter is settled here, but the difference lies in the fact that under the Copenhagen interpretation reality is produced there. Under extra-dimensional theory one side of it has been selected randomly by the Geiger counter to be registered on our “map.” Correspondingly, the proverbial act of the tree falling in the forest will be recorded in our world as soon as the extra-dimensional activity that sets the appropriate forces in motion are registered as “cleanly” within our cross-section with or without an observer.
Thus to resolve these paradoxes in quantum theory, we begin by acknowledging that they are built on false premises. These are: (1) that the wave function is a complete portrait of objective reality, albeit prospective ones; and (2) that our observational capacities can perfectly apprehend all of reality. Still, the Copenhagen interpretation, the many-worlds interpretation, and extra-dimensional theory are all compatible with observation. But let's look at one more quantum paradox, one that transcends time itself, or, at least, “our” time.
It was discovered in 1935 that once two quantum particles interact, they seemingly retain an influence with each other, no matter how far apart they may later travel. And the effect is instantaneous, even if the distance between them is such that the influence must be faster than light. Einstein called this “spooky action at a distance” and was so vexed at this apparent superluminal link, as well as other quantum oddities such as the uncertainty principle, that he never accepted quantum theory as a coherent system. In fact, in a classic debate with Neils Bohr on “probabilities,” Einstein was prompted to utter the famous line—”God does not play dice [with the universe].” We now see that Einstein was right; it just appears dicelike when we apply “three-dimensional logic” to an extra-dimensional reality.
Einstein proposed a thought experiment, suggesting there was a hidden variable (or variables) that could effect a more conventional explanation for these superluminal connections and quantum theory. But in 1965, Irish physicist John Bell developed a mathematical way to test for such variables. The result was that faster-than-light influence must be maintained—the so-called quantum connection is real.
The connection can be envisioned by starting with two electrons in an interactive state. These have a characteristic spin about their axis, either up or down; when one is up, the other one must be down. When these particles separate, no matter how far apart or how fast they are traveling, even right up to the speed of light, if the orientation of one is altered, say from up to down, then the other particle will instantaneously register the opposite orientation, maintaining the original symmetry.
The Copenhagen interpretation implies that when a measurement of one particle shows that its orientation is changed, then that information somehow travels to the other particle at faster than light speed so it can also change. This explanation in itself might seem to be a problem seeing as how the transmission of that information would supersede special relativity and cause and effect. Physicists have managed to get around this by adding the aforementioned causal ordering postulate (COP) to relativity, which “allows” superluminal connections as long as they do not constitute an intelligible signal; and they are not intelligible here because the information of the particles' status must be compared at below light speed.
A larger problem is that the Copenhagen interpretation of the quantum connection suggests that an act of observation creates reality not only in the immediate area, but also creates it simultaneously at an unlimited distance as well. This is scarcely conceivable. Fortunately, there's a much simpler explanation, already offered by Dr. Bohm: an extra-dimensional one. Bohm has us understand the symmetry of the quantum connection as an extension of this setting.
Picture a fish tank stocked with swimming fish, two television cameras aimed at the tank at right angles (one in front, one on the side), and two television screens at different locations receiving images from the cameras. What is seen is a relationship between the two images. In other words, two complementary, two-dimensional images represent one higher-dimensional actuality. If a fish shows a certain movement on one screen, a corresponding movement will instantaneously be seen on the other screen, from a different vantage point. The content of one screen does not cause the content of the other to change, nor does any information pass between them; they are merely two-dimensional images simultaneously reflecting different views of a three-dimensional reality. Similarly, Bohm postulates, the quantum connection demonstrates a non-causal abstraction of a still higher-dimensional reality. Bohm states:
One finds, through a study of the implications of the quantum theory, that the analysis of a total system into a set of independently existent but interacting particles breaks down in a radically new way. One discovers, instead, both from considerations of the meaning of the mathematical equations and from the results of the actual experiments, that the various particles have to be taken literally as projections of a higher-dimensional reality which cannot be accounted for in terms of any force of interaction between them. 11 (Emphasis added.)
Bohm's theory says that what we perceive as separate particles within our “subtotality” are really parts of one multi-dimensional whole. Extra-dimensional theory says that which is separate in our space is connected and part of one phenomenon in higher space. In this respect, they are the same; in regard to the quantum connection, they offer the same simple solution that works. These related particles only seem separate because we can't apprehend the extra-dimensional whole. As the Bhagavad-Gita says: “Undivided, He seems to divide into objects and creatures.”12 In higher space, all these parts are joined together by a faster-than-light medium that connects; it is that which connects everything in our normal three-dimensional world—an extra dimension.
With this in mind, let's make a comparison between the three contenders for a new worldview: the many-worlds interpretation, the Copenhagen interpretation, and extra-dimensional theory. The many-worlds interpretation is a lot to accept. Billions upon billions of universes being created every second seems so uneconomical. The world we do perceive is so frugal, with matter and energy continually recycled, that it is hard to conceive of such outright ostentation, not to mention the fact that it seems to sidestep the first law of thermodynamics, that energy cannot be created from nothing.
Even some proponents of the many-worlds theory have had second thoughts about it. Bryce DeWitt admits, “It is not easy to reconcile with common sense. Here is schizophrenia with a vengeance.”13 John Wheeler, who helped Everett formulate his theory, has given up on the idea. “I once subscribed to it. In retrospect, however, it looks like the wrong track…its infinitely many unobservable worlds make a heavy load of metaphysical baggage.”14 Quantum physicist J. S. Bell probably sums it up best in Quantum Mechanics for Cosmologists, “If such a theory were taken seriously it would hardly be possible to take anything seriously.”15
The Copenhagen interpretation tries to keep strictly to observation and the simplest way to explain experimental results. This is the scientific way, and it's generally commendable. But ironically, by virtue of trying to exclude any philosophical implications here, it ends up being the most philosophical of the three theories, for it postulates that there is no objective reality without measurements and observations, even if the reality is separated from the observation by vast expanses of space and time.
Extra-dimensional theory reinstates what science has always endeavored to study and what most physicists have always felt most comfortable with: one objective reality, independent of any particular perception. It is said that a good scientific theory helps explain phenomena in other areas of study, and extra-dimensional theory does this by providing an expanded framework within which the paranormal can be included and understood.
There is a trade-off in this, though. We must abdicate Man's assumed position as the summit of mental evolution in the universe. Heretofore, it has been thought that all of reality could be rendered subservient to logic and science. This is just the scenario that quantum mechanics clings to so tenaciously, hence the problematic Copenhagen and many-worlds interpretations. But has the evolution of consciousness come so far just to end with our self-consciousness? Just as it was hard but necessary to accept that our physical world is not the focal point of the entire universe, it is now so for the conceptual nature of Man.
In The Structure of Scientific Revolutions, Thomas S. Kühn points out that normal science presupposes a certain conceptual framework of reality, one that is accepted without question by a scientific community; given such a framework, scientific research tends to gear toward filling in the missing pieces of the puzzle rather than the exploration of the unknown. This is where we stand today in the age of specialization where every scientific discipline is broken down into ever more specialized fields of study, to tie down those loose ends. Are we at the point where we can no longer see the forest for the trees? For as we carve up that which is to be studied into smaller and smaller parts, the specialist comes to know more about less, while new worldviews are always broader, more comprehensive.
This is all too often the case in paranormal research as well. Researchers specialize in a particular phenomenon (or aspect of that phenomenon) and try to explain it in terms of current scientific knowledge, within the accepted framework. (A fine approach if there were just one or two types of phenomena, but the sheer number of them calls for a new framework.) For example, as mentioned in chapter 6, psi subjects in the lab have been able to affect subatomic particles in devices such as random number generators (RNGs); some parapsychologists have proposed a way of how this might be done, in accordance with “acceptable” quantum theory, i.e., the Copenhagen interpretation.
The tests involve the random rate of decay of radioactive particles which are truly quantum events in that prior to each psi measurement the particle exists in the probabilistic “wave function” state. Since the wave function can be thought of as a range of information of the particle, some parapsychologists feel that the subject's consciousness may be able to somehow interact with this information to either intuit the next outcome (precognition), or actually cause it (PK).
But such a hypothesis neglects all other forms of PK and precognition, all other psi phenomena, and all other paranormal phenomena as well. Yet an extra-dimensional framework of space, time, and consciousness, which can explain those other phenomena, can also explain these “micro-results.” I'll demonstrate with one more plane-world analogy.
Figure 16 shows the plane world existing on the surface of water, say a pond, and near the shore; here fine particles of dust, sand, and dirt are constantly being blown out over the pond, causing tiny “points” to instantaneously appear and then disappear from the plane world. Plane beings consider this to be the activity of “elementary particles” moving about their world.
Figure 16
Researchers on this world elect to study this phenomenon by setting up a laboratory of sorts, consisting of a grid or square (as in the illustration). They wish to see if there is a pattern to the way the particles act in the lab; they will discover that the distribution seems to be a random process, that is, in the long run an equal number of particles appear in each of the four quadrants of the square. For example, with 1,000 particles, roughly 250 will be within each quadrant. They cannot predict exactly when the next particle will appear or in what quadrant as each quadrant has a one-in-four chance. So prior to each particle's “registration” it would exist in a probabilistic state—a wave function—which then collapses into a specific measurement or quadrant.
Now the researchers will conduct a two-part experiment, to test a special plane being's alleged ability to: (1) predict which quadrant the next particle will appear in, by a score better than chance—more than 25 percent—which would be precognition; and (2) cause a greater number of particles than chance predicts (25 percent) to fall in a selected quadrant, which would be PK.
In the experiment, the Star is once more the subject and the Square, Triangle, and Circle the observers. In part one, the Star is able to utilize his higher, three-dimensional consciousness, with which he can mentally rise above his normal two-dimensional space and “see” particles traveling toward the grid through the third dimension (a dimension that before existed to him only in time, and in an inside-out direction). He is able to see that some of the particles are definitely headed for certain quadrants. Accordingly, he makes his prediction. Because he has only partial use of the higher sense, he will succeed only a small percentage of the time, but this percentage is enough to boost his score above chance. Let's say that after 1,000 guesses, he was correct 31 percent of the time, instead of the expected 25 percent. This would be a significant score and suggest precognition.
In part two (PK), the Star again utilizes a part of higher consciousness, this time to maneuver his extension in higher space (a part of himself he is scarcely aware of, if at all) and “deflect” some of the particles into the desired quadrant, say number four. He must cause more than the expected 25 percent to fall in it and again he succeeds—this time scoring 32 percent. This is also a significant result, and suggests PK.
The researchers of the plane world might try to explain these scores within the accepted framework of their science, by hypothesizing that the Star's consciousness interacted with the wave function of the particles, and thus knew how it would collapse (precognition), or somehow caused it to collapse in a certain way (PK). Of course we know that's not how it happened. This micro-psi was originated in extra-dimensional space by the awareness and utilization of higher consciousness—as is all psi activity, in any world of space and time.
It's also apparent that their wave function is incomplete; it consists only of components capable of registration on the plane world. Yet there are other possibilities. For example, particles could continue to drift in the third dimension right over the plane world, or settle on trees, plants, etc., and in such cases remain in extra-dimensional space. Indeed, most of the wave function (set of possibilities) exists in extra-dimensional space—as it does for us.
New worldviews are also simple. The Earth is round. The Earth orbits the sun. Even with the seeming complexities of the last few, they are still basically simple, just new, broader ways of looking at reality. Einstein for example, in his best years, favored simple yet compelling reasoning and thought experiments over complicated mathematics. In fact, he demonstrated the relativity of the present using mathematics no more advanced than arithmetic.
We're at the threshold of a new worldview. But which one? The Copenhagen and many-worlds theories, though worlds apart, are simple. Which would you choose? There's no need to defer to the experts, for your choice is as good as theirs; it's a simple philosophical preference. Yet maybe you feel there is something more to reality, something our science has not yet grasped, or cannot grasp. If you're one of the many millions who have had a paranormal experience, you know this.
Another level of reality? Another realm of existence? A spiritual world, different and separate from the sense-world? No. There is only one Reality, embracing all worlds, interpenetrating all realms of existence, and connecting all levels of reality.
Extra-dimensional theory is simple. Which do you choose?