Quantum super-position of states, the Heisenberg Uncertainty Principle, quantum entanglement, and other characteristics of the sub-atomic arena have introduced an in-deterministic perception of reality. This has left objective physicists uneasy. Numerous attempts, such as Bell’s Theorem, have failed to extend the rules and logic of familiar classical physics to the subatomic domain. Moreover, many experiments have established that quantum mechanics does indeed apply to the macro-world as well (Nairz, Arndt, and Zeilingerzaq 2002).
New puzzles also come about in Astrophysics. Black Hole, Dark Energy and Dark Matter, and non-zero Cosmological Constant etc.  have complicated the scheme even further.
On the other hand, recent cognitive neuroscience researches have unveiled a new understanding of the mind and consciousness.  Many experiments support new theories like the Brain Lateralization theory, Quantum Mind Dynamics (quantum mechanical functioning of the brain), Holonomic Brain theory (non-locality of consciousness) and transpersonal psychology (referring to a universal psyche). the above theories are explained in the related chapters.    

Aim
In this book, I am presenting a concept, which can reintroduce objectivity as a tool to explore reality. However we have to expand our scope beyond traditional landscapes and redefine objectivity and determinism. Then the new vision has the potential to portray the reality in a new and expanded form.
Together we will revisit the origin of the perceptions from a new angle. We will explore whether this new perspective is capable of offering answers for different astrophysical, quantum mechanical and psychological paradoxes.
The effort to offer an explanation for the unexplained falls into the long sought after the Theory of Everything domain. The so called Theory of everything aims to solve the inconsistencies between Einstein’s General Relativity that explains the gravity and quantum physics that originated from experimenting with subatomic particles. Currently, these two portions of our knowledge contradict each other.

Despite endless efforts made by great physicists, Einstein’s quest for a Theory of Everything still remains obscure. Underneath, I describe one of the problems as an example;

Tripod of reality

In this book, I intend to show that Astrophysics, quantum mechanics, and consciousness build the tripod of reality. In order to achieve a deeper understanding of reality, we must unveil the secrets of the above topics. It seems this to be the main challenge put forth for the human race in 21st century and beyond.

 

Reality Tripod

Defining Reality
When we talk about reality, we have to come to a common agreement about true meaning of the word. Offering a description for the word reality is a dire task. One may suggest that,

Reality is what we sense from out there

However this cannot be a convincing description. Our senses are limited. For example, we just can see a narrow portion of electromagnetic spectrum. On the other hand, fundamental elements of objective world like matter, space, time and energy are not defined to one's satisfaction either. To our knowledge, ultimate quanta of matter are particles. By definition particles are zero size, mass-less objects that intermittently cease to exist. Therefore the observed matter can not be defined in familiar classical terms. We do not know if matter is a separate and fundamental element either. Space on the other hand has a subtle meaning as well and is not a solid foundation to lean on. Time in one definition is made of sequence of events in space. Therefore, it is another mystery and may not be a fundamental element after all. With introducing fields as the origin of energy (gravity, electromagnetic, etc…), the meaning of energy is also not so concrete. The nature of fields remains a mystery. Therefore, it is better to say that,

Reality is what we sense from out there and beyond

However this cannot be a complete definition yet, because it ignores another big portion of reality. Our consciousness is an active part in constructing our perception of the reality. That is why reality for each person is a bet different from the other. In fact quantum mechanics suggests a more fundamental rule for consciousness. The observer may have a rule in altering the reality itself. Observer problem introduces a huge puzzle in quantum mechanics. So maybe we have to modify our definition to,

Reality is what is out there and beyond plus what is inside

Then again, this is not complete yet. The nature of consciousness is a mystery. Is there an underlying realm beyond our consciousness awareness? We know that our awareness is rooted in an unconscious domain. Besides, there maybe a common awareness between living things. In addition, perhaps there is a binding element which is coordinating and synchronizing the whole existence (strong anthropic principle).  So maybe it is fair to finalize our definition as,

Reality is what is out there and beyond

Plus

What is inside and beyond

Or in simpler version we may say,

Reality is what we sense and beyond plus what we feel and beyond

Here, I do not want to portray a dualistic relationship between an individual and the universe. Every evidence is pointing to a unified nature of reality. The above definition is only for analytic purposes.

At the dawn of twenty one century our traditional perception of reality is in a very shaky ground indeed. The naturalistic view proves to be incomplete and inefficient. We have realized that the seemingly solid and deterministic macrocosm has its roots in chaotic and irrational fundamentals of quantum mechanics. We need a completely new perception of reality. How can we go about doing so? The definition of matter, space and time are not as clear cut. Many strange findings question the validity of Newtonian physics and classical science. Even causality is going under question. Many efforts have been directed to extending classical explanations for quantum mechanical phenomena to no avail. These paradoxes challenge our logical thinking. It seems that classical science and logic is reaching to a dead end. Our conventional logic cannot explain the new phenomena. At this point it seems that we need to drastically alter our vision and judgment in order to encompass new findings. We need to open up and revise our so-called logical thinking. Are we ready to completely revamp our rational views?

At this point on time we need to develop non-classical theories that can explain the unexplained. To this end, I believe, we have to expand our scope and introduce physical definitions for zeros and infinities. Unfortunately so far mainstream physics and the dominant theoretical physical theories have chosen to avoid these two fundamental elements.
Underneath I am introducing a model that is based on new and novel findings in science. This model is in line with Einstein's view, which presumes the presence of a sort of reality out there and incorporates Neil Bohr's view because it encompasses mind as a fundamental component of this reality.

Obsolete Frameworks
General Relativity precisely describes the motion of stars and galaxies at large scale. Quantum Mechanics on the other hand, accurately predicts and describes the strange world that we encounter while experimenting in micro scales. Ideally, they would have to work hand in hand to account for the entire reality as a whole. Unfortunately, we have not been able to find a feasible relationship between these two major domains of physics. In fact, they are currently considered incompatible. If we use the mathematics of general relativity in quantum mechanical calculations many times we encounter infinity. Since infinity cannot exist in our present model of the universe, these calculations are discarded and incompatibility is declared.
It seems to me that we have unconsciously decided to avoid paying heed to road signs that are erected in every step of the way. This is all done by clinging to objectivity (Tangibility). The problem is that we are using traditional judgment and logic to define this objectivity. Existing physical theories constantly circumvent singularities and infinities that frequently present themselves in experiments and calculations.
Maybe the time has come to discard the traditional thinking and revise our definition of logic. During 15th Century mathematicians frequently found that positive numbers could not explain all of the functions that existed in the mathematical domain. They realized that they had to expand the field to include and reach to new horizons. The new domain would be different than the one that they had been acquainted with. eventually, they extended the field to accommodate negative numbers. By doing so, many unexplained calculations could then be accounted for and subsequently understood.
Then once again, when faced with the square root of negative numbers (√-n), mathematicians realized that their understanding of math is not complete. So they added yet another arena. They opened themselves to the concept of the so-called imaginary numbers, although the concept was still mysterious and obscure at the time.
It seems that in the field of Physics, we have to explore and adapt to new horizons. Recently many new ideas have been presented in theoretical physics but almost all of them are within a kind of space-time arena. Despite the fact that known physics tells us that space, time and matter are not concrete and that most paradoxes arise when we get close to the boundaries of objective world, we still hesitate to go over the cliff.
Subconsciously we aim to construct theories that avoid delving into a field beyond that of the familiar, space-time. The majority of attempts to find explanations for the unexplained, such as the super string and M theories, loop quantum gravity, etc. have been constructed within framework of the “known” arena.
Inside a space-time setting, our knowledge only deals with computable objects. Therefore, the physical meaning of zero is not defined in the tangible world. In addition, because quantities in space-time are numbered and ultimately finite, we cannot define infinities either. Thus in these kind of models, we regularly eliminate and ignore them and as we call it (normalize these elements) in our equations.
But a sure signal of direction is the fact that calculus has been the mathematics of choice to explain the fundamentals of theoretical physics. Differential calculus, derivatives, tangents, limits of sequence and Zeno problems, all point to” point zero”. Instead of avoiding it we had better open our eyes and take a closer look at point zero and the fundamental role it plays in our physical world.

Many mechanisms have been adopted to bypass zeros and infinities. Even Schrodinger’s equation, which helps us to understand and calculate quantum mechanical functions, has been formulated to help cliff settlers remain on their safe spot (familiar space-time) and continue their calculations in a secure and familiar environment. Theoretical physicists call these run away mechanisms “re-normalization”. Although for practical purposes such normalization is necessary to develop intermediate theories, but the ultimate theory cannot include it. Gordon Kane from university of Michigan in Ann Arbor believes,

“As we go to smaller distances or higher energies, we expect each effective theory to need re-normalization this is not a problem or an unexpected failure of the theory. However, the primary theory (Theory of everything) had better not need such inputs or re-normalization.”⁵⁰

It is understandable if a midway theory, which is not able to go deep enough, requires re-normalization in order to present its mandate. However, as Gordon Kane states, the ultimate theory cannot ignore any portion of evidence and would have to explain every aspect of reality. Regrettably, he further argues: “It has to be a finite theory (One that never gives an infinite prediction for a physical quantity).”

If mathematics is the infrastructure and blue print for physical theories and zero and infinity are indispensable portions of mathematics, then we have to open our mind to the possibility that the ultimate theory may not be a finite theory and therefore may very well contain zeros and infinities.
Through the act of re-normalization, we have left physics as an open system. An open system by nature cannot contain and conclude the entire function. This kind of approach has left a good portion of reality out of our reach and understanding.

We hesitate to go over the edge of the cliff because we believe that, we are not capable of examining or measuring or even comprehend singularities or infinities. But read on and see if this kind of reasoning is in fact realistic.
All this is happening despite the fact that we have the appropriate tools to explore zeros and the non-computable. Imaginary numbers were introduced in the 16th century. The nature of complex numbers (a combination of real and imaginary numbers) was gradually constructed and today we have reached a point where we have a much clearer understanding of this system. As a matter of fact complex numbers are now a fundamental part of mathematics and physics at a deeper level. The complex number system can guide us to define zero and infinities in the physical world. That is if we open our scope and imagine a physics that surpasses and goes beyond our space–time.

Not only have we not paid heed to the clearly visible road signs, but we have also attempted to cover them up. Theories like Super Gravity, Super Symmetry, Super String and the like, are introduced primarily to cancel out zeros and infinities. In his recent book ”The Trouble with Physics”⁷⁴, Lee Smolin the head researcher at Perimeter institute for theoretical physics mentions how in the past quarter of century a major break though has been lacking in physics and the main paradoxes are still unsolved. This is despite of the major advances in theoretical physics (such as electromagnetism, Einstein’s relativity theories, Atom’s structure and particle physics, etc…) in the previous quarters of the century. Although, one would expect the same progressive trend it has not happened so far.
It seems that remaining in the present framework is halting the progress. It seems that the fundamental questions in astrophysics, particle physics and quantum mechanics cannot find answers within the current axioms. We need a new and radical approach to find the way out of the present dead-end.
At the same time, a theory that can only solve the conflicts between two major components of today’s physics, namely General Relativity and Quantum Mechanics, cannot be considered as The Theory of Everything. To be able to claim universality, such a theory must also explain the emergence of life and the mystery of mind. The old dilemma between consciousness being a fundamental entity or the product of the brain has reached new horizons.
In addition, spirituality remains an orphan that has been left aside by science and being sponsored by clergies. Lacking scientific scrutiny and prisoned by rigidity of the religions, it has long been facing a dead-end. As a matter of fact, its outdated religious framework creates major clashes and destructions in today’s human societies. A complete revision and major overhaul of fundamental beliefs of spirituality is long overdue. A new framework is needed.

Next I will start this venture by offering a fundamental theory utilizing intuitions derived from investing the perception proper. With the belief that cause and effect are parts of one system and by reviewing our only tool of comprehension (perception) we should be able to collect evidences which guide us to obtain a deeper understanding of reality. 

Mathematical domain versus physical world

Although we will make use of mathematical concept as often as we can, do not expect that this model be a traditional physical model, based on and derived primarily from a LaGrangian mathematical structure. One main reason for this is that mathematics although helpful in clarifying the concepts, may not be a fundamental entity.  It seems that the reality does not match entirely to the simplistic platonic mathematical world. Roger Penrose looks at the Platonic Mathematical circle as a perfect and separate entity. He believes our physical world is utilizing just a portion of that perfect world. ⁵⁶

An actual spherical object in space-time 

 An ideal sphere found in geometry

In the contrary, the brain lateralization theory postulates that mathematics is a part of the analytical function and a construct of the left hemisphere. According to the theory left brain creates a simplistic and comprehensible mathematical framework to categorize objects and their relations with each other.  Look at the simpler shape of a geometrical sphere comparing to a more complex physical sphere like a planet. The lateralization theory of brain hemispheres suggests mathematics as a human brain invention not a fundamental entity.

For all practical purposes, one can assume that the valid portion of mathematics is the portion that is consistent with the physical world makeup. However, there is a fine line in here. While quite often mathematical propositions guided the physicist to new discoveries, one should be cautious of capitalizing on complicated mathematical constructs that pulling us farther away from tangible physical world. Many times this kind of mathematics can be non-physical. May be this is what is happening to the leading candidate for the Theory of everything, the Super String Theory. The majority of its components, which are based on mathematical propositions, are not observed.
Occasional use of math equations in this book should not be a deterrent to readers who are not as proficient in mathematics. At the end of each mathematical proposition there is an assertion written in plain English so the reader can follow through the discussion with ease. 

I would like to clarify that this model is not a reductionists attempt to explain reality from the bottom up. Reductionism is a simplifying an analytical function of the left cerebral hemisphere and although has been very helpful in building our today’s common sense, it is shy in describing a deeper understanding of reality.
This is a new speculation from a new axiom and I hope it proves itself helpful in explaining the unexplained. The following model attempts to answer a wide range of mysteries, which are facing us today. Hereinafter I call it the Universal Model.
While we have tried not to stray from current knowledge, some of the ideas presented may not be completely agreed upon by mainstream scientists. Although the introduction of new ideas is the way for science to evolve the reader is cautioned to use his or her own judgment before adopting any of the presented concepts.

The arguments presented are open for debate. The reader is encouraged to email his/her inputs to correct, modify or develop the contents. Please send your emails to; zpfields@yahoo.ca

Stop Global Warming