Can we come up with a reasonable account of why we see a Universe of hydrogen,
made of electrical particles and falling together by gravity to galaxies and stars? Since all our modern cosmologists have
failed on this, let's go back a few thousand years.
There were some physicists, a long time ago, several thousand years ago, who built
their physics into the Sanskrit language, and left it there for all to see. And long before we Europeans even discovered that
there is such a thing as energy, those early physicists had Einstein's famous equation, "E equals m," built into
that language. They already saw that the whole world is made out of energy, Shakti, and that even if we divide it up into
matter and energy,
Akasha and Prana, as we all usually do, it's
still only energy. And that idea went from the Sanskrit, through Swami Vivekananda and Tesla, to the Einsteins in 1905.
Now Richard Feynman
has said that it is important to realize that in physics today, we have no knowledge of what energy is. So, let's go back.
Maybe those earlier physicists saw something we missed.
The name which those early physicists used for this Universe was Jagat, the changing.
But since change is seen only in time, and only with respect to the changeless, they saw that there must be, underlying this
Universe, something changeless, not in time, and also infinite and undivided, because it's also not in space.
Their problem then
was this: "If what exists is changeless, how do we see it as changing?" And they saw that it can only be by mistake,
because one can't change the changeless. So they studied mistakes.
Maybe that is what we missed. Those physicists pointed out that in order to mistake
a rope for a snake; there are three things that one must do. First, one must fail to recognize that it's a rope. That, they
called the veiling power of the mistake, Avarana Shakti. Next, one must jump to the conclusion that it's a snake. That, they
called the projecting power of the mistake, Vikshepa Shakti. And finally, one must have seen the length and diameter of the
rope in the first place or one never would have mistaken it for the length and diameter of a snake. That, they called the
revealing power of the mistake, Prakasha Shakti, because something of the rope must show through in the snake.
Had those early physicists known what we know now, that the Universe is made of hydrogen,
falling together by gravity to galaxies and stars, they would surely have seen that it arises by Vivarta, by this mistake,
by what I have chosen to call apparitional causation. It is the mistake of seeing things in time and space. And they would
surely have seen that inertia is the changeless showing through in the mistake, and that electricity and gravity are the infinite
and the undivided showing through.
As we mentioned before, Richard Feynman has said that it is important to realize that in physics today
we have no knowledge of what energy is. Perhaps those early physicists would have said that it's the Underlying Existence
showing through.
Now it's interesting to notice that we modern physicists have no other explanation for gravity, electricity and inertia.
We have no answer to the question: Why, if the hydrogen is dispersed in space, must it fall together to galaxies and stars?
Why, if the particles are minuscule, must they be electrically charged? And why, if they are moving, must they coast?
But even accepting
the point of view of those earlier physicists, there is still a serious problem: If we see an electro-magnetic duality, why
doesn't the undivided show through and close that duality down? And if we see a gravitational plurality, why doesn't the undivided
show through and close that plurality down?
Here we turn to our modern physicists, Heisenberg and Pauli. The collapse of the electrical
duality of the proton and the electron in the hydrogen atom is prevented by Heisenberg's uncertainty principle. And the collapse
of the neutron star is prevented by Pauli's exclusion principle. So much for why we see hydrogen at all, but there is still
a problem: In an expanding Universe, why doesn't the density go down? Perhaps, through Heisenberg's uncertainty principle,
the hydrogen recycles from the boundary of the observable Universe and keeps the density up. Now the observable Universe must
have a boundary imposed by its expansion, since objects receding from the observer faster than the speed of
light cannot be seen or gravitationally felt by him or her. Now this boundary, imposed
on the observable Universe by its expansion, is of the nature of an event horizon and no observer can see anything disappear
beyond it. Not only that, but as the speed of the particle away from the observer approaches the speed of light, both its
mass and its energy, as well as its radiation, will be seen to approach zero. But if its mass, and therefore its momentum,
approaches zero,
then our uncertainty in that momentum must also
approach zero. Then by Heisenberg's uncertainty principle, which is the root notion of quantum mechanics, our uncertainty
in where it is must approach totality. It may be found anywhere in the observable Universe.
Now if, through Heisenberg's uncertainty principle, the hydrogen can thus recycle with its negative entropy
restored, the Universe may continue in this way indefinitely. And it may be that through Pauli's exclusion principle the low
mass Fermi particles recycle from black holes.
John L. Dobson, May 17, 2006, Hollywood, California
