Home

quantum mechanics

By Jim Logan

Richard Feynman did a series of lectures at Cornell University in 1964. Asked the question as to whether light was a “wave” or a “particle”, he said unequivocably that it was a particle. The audience member with the question on the nature of light asked about the scientific quandary over this. Feynman responded that that was simply a confusion from the early days of quantum theory, and it was resolved – light is a particle. Feynman’s work in the area of quantum electrodynamics is presented in his lectures and a book summarizing them.

The “Standard Model” of today’s physics has two general classes of particles.  Those that are acted upon, and those that act; fermions and bosons, respectively.  (Named after Fermi and Bose.)

In modern physics it is understood that “solid” things, things we now perceive as “matter”, a rock, the table, a body etc., are on the sub-atomic scale actually a whole lotta space in between these various particles.  An analogy for scale is to envision a fly in the middle of a football stadium as a single atom.  The next atom to it, is outside the stadium.  When one goes to put his hand on something “real”, the solidity is only apparent.  The “forces” that interchange among the micro particles, the “energy” (bosons) and its fields  are what prevent penetration and passing of one “solid” object through another.  Some particles pass through these interstices, the spaces between the sub-atom bits; neutrinos, for example, various “rays” and so on.

When we perceive something as solid, it is only an apparency.

Alfred Korzybski’s work Science and Sanity, had a series of “abstractions”, that is, a further and further removal from the actuality to more and more agreement as to what something is, as opposed to what it really is.  He termed this the idea of the “map”, the image representing a “territory” is not the territory.  These abstractions are constructs not duplicating the actuality. He stopped short at the ability of a being to actually perceive the sub-atomic universe of particles, thinking it not possible.  He hadn’t quite conceived of nor investigated the Static, and the actual source of all this “territory”.

So, what is all this “reality”? What is the actuality? What is actually occurring as opposed to what appears to be.

I recommend several tapes from L. Ron Hubbard on the topic of the make up of energy and matter in space, giving time. The first one is from the 16th ACC, Auditing Techniques: Solids, 31 Jan 57. The next is from the 17th ACC, Outline of a Modern Intensive: Question and Answer period, 19 Mar 57. The third is a tape, Thinnies, from the 18th ACC, 1 Aug 57.

“Thinnies” is a term LRH coined to describe the phenomena of the past, compared to the present. A “mental image picture” a “facsimile” is a thin version of the present. The process at that time to get a reality on this was Then and Now Solids.

“Remember all the complicated mechanism that we’d had to dream up and postulate and throw into existence in order to take a picture of anything and then keep it and then file it and then do this and that with it and all that sort of thing?

“Well, that’s all shortcut if you just consider that they’re thin universe areas one has been in. And that one has a mechanism that thins it down and present time is just a solidification of a continuing solid. And then you do away with all ideas of pictures, unless this is a picture. And that’s why a person could re-experience the whole cockeyed thing though. The whole universe was still there.” 19 Mar 57, Outline of a Modern Intensive: Question and Answer Period, tape lecture.

Perhaps the “field” in quantum field theory is just exactly as described in Scientology – a field of particles, dimension points, created by Statics, shared, interchanged and “solid” because we say they are, and other than that, they aren’t.

Beings alive today, are ensconced in agreements that things are “solid”, and have lost sight of the fact that they are solid to the degree they say they are, as these solidities are all on automatic.  Present time, the energy condensed in a space to give the apparency of matter, all persisting by postulate and below awareness continuous creation, is a continuing apparency of solid, whereas the past is a thinnie, less solid only because it isn’t created to be more.  Nonetheless, as in revivication, a thinnie can be every bit as real as present time to some being.

Auditing, Scientology processing, recovers the abilities of beings to create, and uncreate, including present time, or some thinnie for some point in the continuum that is just as real as now, maybe more so.

What are the agreements, on automatic that make this universe real?

The Factors and Axioms.

Recovery of these postulates on a theta being’s part one can and is again able to see through the entire kit a kaboodle.

 

10 thoughts on “The real world

  1. ““Well, that’s all shortcut if you just consider that they’re thin universe areas one has been in. And that one has a mechanism that thins it down and present time is just a solidification of a continuing solid. And then you do away with all ideas of pictures, unless this is a picture. And that’s why a person could re-experience the whole cockeyed thing though. The whole universe was still there.” 19 Mar 57, Outline of a Modern Intensive: Question and Answer Period, tape lecture.

    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Akashic_records

    “No scientific evidence.” Bah!

    • Scotty,
      LRH took a look at that Akashic record thing, in the 16th ACC, the same lecture series this article refers to. That is a different thing than “thinnies”. Here’s what he said about the Akashic record (note, “make it solid” is a reference to the techniques being developed, in this case differentiating the terminals as solids from the significances, the particles shed by them, and subsequently including Then and Now Solids which I’ve mentioned in the Opening Piece which was the technique for gaining reality on the thinnie).

      Begin quote:

      Whose significances are you changing around? Changing around mama’s, papa’s and teacher’s and cousin’s and aunt’s and sister’s, you see? Those are the things that significant processes address themselves to. See, it’s just secondhand thought! You might say he’s a used-thought market! Are you going to change this around in this fellow?

      Well, the wonderful part of it is, today in Scientology, that you can change this around in this fellow: By doing what? By making it possible for him to confront and hold together and hold still and make solid, terminals. And you can bring about a major change in the person.

      Now; I’ll give you an example. Had a preclear once; he talked to me about the Akashic Record. This is a wonderful mechanism that somebody dreamed up on the backtrack and it runs like this: It is everywhere at all times and it has no time in it and it’s got everything written in it that ever happened and everything written in it that ever will happen. It’s a library which is without time or space, which contains a totality of significances. And this fellow had this thing on the brain. He didn’t have it on the thetan, because he didn’t have one. But he had it on the brain.

      And he just went round and round about this Akashic Record and Akashic Record. And it would know everything. And if you could only get at it, but it had no time and location in space. In other words, he was insane on this one subject.

      In other words, everybody who had ever processed him had been processing a piece of this Akashic Record. And how far do you think this case had gotten under auditing? He had gotten exactly nowhere.

      And I took hold of this case and I made him carefully locate the person and place he had learned about the Akashic Record. And I made him make that one solid. And that was the end of the Akashic Record. Just like that! We did a record-ectomy. Bang.

      By doing what? By locating the terminal which shed the record. Do you see that? So we could have processed significances on this case forever! And we would have gotten nowhere. But we processed a solid and we got somewhere just like that. Bang.

      End quote: Final Lecture: Question and Answer Period, 12 Feb 57, 16th ACC.

  2. I remember when I was in high school, the physic teacher made the double slit experiment showing that light behaves as both particles and wave.
    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Double-slit_experiment

    As far as know, current mainstream science still has not settled down this paradox (i.e.: particle or/and wave). Different theories come to different conclusions: a) particle only, b) wave only, c) both particle and wave, d) neither wave nor particle.
    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wave%E2%80%93particle_duality

    Anyway, the particle-wave paradox is just an emergent property of more fundamental agreements on automatic which make this universe real for us.
    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Emergent_properties#Emergent_properties_and_processes

    • Mabu,
      That Feynman video from 64 addressed that exact point, the double slit experiment and the “paradox”. I recommend the series of videos he did at Cornell in 1964. That question comes up in the Question and Answer period of one of the first couple, if not the first.

  3. I absolutely agree, Jim. Determination of Identity is at the root of the problem regarding this subject.

    You’re right of course that facsimiles differ from “The Akashic Record” in that facsimiles are YOUR experience rather than a homogenized, collective “record of experience”.

    I can see now why “The Akashic Record” would not be useful in helping anyone. It is essentially the Group Bank.

    Good thing I didn’t step in it.

    Thanks Jimmy!

  4. Determination of identity is via admin scales defining be-do-have, which leads to ethics conditions. Interestingly enough, one finds WHERE one is before WHO one is. Going to The Factors, “WHERE one is,” is self-determined (wherever one outthrusts points to view defines one’s location). And that’s ethics. Fortunately, there is an easy gradient to ethics, but I believe one must grasp a notion of the high end.

    People talk about “other universes.” Personally, that hasn’t ever really captured my attention. I just had an “Aha moment” (or “Duh moment”), realizing that any universe has thetans and particles. Understanding thetans is probably like ‘making an auditor’ – it’s training and experience. Again, understanding thetans is ethics, and interacting with others requires an understanding of their self-determinism and ethics.

    There are all kinds of ethics technologies available in Scn. I like admin scales because they aren’t hard to use. An org board would be another perhaps more sophisticated or precise way of organizing one’s activities, goals and purposes and ideal scenes and whatnot to get a grasp on what one wishes to do *and an admin scales works with it).

    It is “wishes” to do, but I believe there is definition to life, and that there are right wishes, and wrong wishes, by definition of life, just as there are definitions to Conditions Formulas. It’s odd to see Scns lose that distinction in so many ways, and that is how to “firm up” and communicate this, that I’m working on, to try to resolve. It’s a mind-blower. What is it that went so wrong that a Scn would come to think it is “right” to turn one’s back on one’s own family and friends and sacrifice oneself in pursuit of something which by inspection can be seen to be NOT-Scientology? There are instances of this bizarre phenomenon all over the place, and MD’s have written books about it. It is, actually, what Scientology is here to resolve, yet one must take up this resolution oneself. There is no other way to get ethics. I’m finding that it leads to a definition of “good” way the heck up in the upper bands of Ethics.

    (If I keep going like this I’m going to have to add “Ethics” as a middle name. I’m getting worried. Everything looks like Ethics to me. From Aristotle to LRH to the keyboard, it’s all ethics! HELP!! I’m being overwhelmed by ethics and it’s making me dizzy! Is there like, a rundown to fix this? Or is it ‘the way out is the way through’?)

    I know I drifted off topic – but the relationship between particles and theta is ethics.

What is your view?

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s