Inner alchemy archives - "Little Bang theory"Back to alchemy forum page . Back to Inner alchemy archive.
Date: Thu, 22 May 1997
From: George Matchette
During my meditations, I keep coming up with an understanding to a problem
in particle physics and wanted to invite comments, particularly how they
might be seen from an alchemical point-of-view.
The problem is that, unlike what I was taught, electrons don't go in nice
neat orbits around a nucleus, and in fact there are many more particles
(gluons, quarks, leptons, etc.) than originally observed. One of the
difficulties has been that it seems nearly impossible to predict the next
position of these particles from moment-to-moment. In my meditation, I've
had the aha that there's a reason for this: that in fact these particles
actually come into and out of existence; that each moment is an original
moment of creation that mirrors the big bang theory in the sense that
nothing concentrates into a singularity into a some thing. The difference
is that on a sub-atomic level the passing back into nothing is very quick.
I had the further thought this morning that perhaps the non-existent (but
predictable at least in kind, if not position) particle and existent
particle in fact are indivisible in some way I can't quite yet experience.
I would be appreciate both of your thoughts and references of other
material that speaks on this subject.
From: Dr. Charles L. Tucker
Date: Fri, 23 May 1997
You are quite right in your observations, ie that one can not predict the
next occurance of the appearance of an electron. It depends on the location
of the observer. In experimental physics it has been discussed by Hawkins
that quarks etc. do not exist until there is an observer to witness the
event. In metaphysics terms, it might be stated that nothing in the physical
world can manifest without it first being thought of in the astral. They call
this creating an Egregore. Once this is created, then by applying the second
leg of the triangle (action) the third is manifested (matter). Hawkins, in
his book Brief History Of Time explains the problem of matter and anti matter
and also the problem of time as you mentioned in your letter. You should find
Dr. Charles L. Tucker
Date: Sat, 24 May 1997
From: Diane Munoz
I am a layman to the physics world - or at least that's how most physicists
would see me - but I have studied physics in-depth on my own and I have
some understandings about what George has written about:
>The problem is that, unlike what I was taught, electrons don't go in nice
>neat orbits around a nucleus, and in fact there are many more particles
>(gluons, quarks, leptons, etc.) than originally observed. One of the
>>difficulties has been that it seems nearly impossible to predict the next
>position of these particles from moment-to-moment.
The electron "lost" its solidity in part due to the wav/eparticle theory.
You know, if you're not observing it, it becomes a wave; if you are
observing it, it becomes a particle... and the particle is what you think
you're going to observe. In other words, what you think determines what is
mass around you. So it's not impossible to predict the next position, it is
absolutley predictable because the particle will show up where you want it
I think that this particular "problem" in physics is the most outrageous
scientific support for consciousness being the ground of all being - and I
love your term "little bang theory" by the way - that the scientists have
According to my teacher, everything blips out 14 times per second and
reappears. That what we have come to believe is solid mass, is really
nothing more than waves/particles blipping in and out, and what we're
really seeing/feeling/etc is like a film strip which is so fast we can't
detect any discontinuity... which is why, if consciousness is the ground of
all being, that in a twinkling of an eye something from nothing could
appear any way you choose. If you understand how the blipping in and out
works, you throw a focused thought in there and, blip, there it is.
Date: Sun, 25 May 97
From: MIKE DICKMAN
At the risk of getting boring, I would like once more to tout Tarthang Tulku's
'Time, Space and Knowledge' series to you, not because it pre-empts anything
we're discussing here, but inasmuch as it constitutes and extremely
Commenting on Diane's teacher's 14-to-a-second blip-out, the early Buddhists
('naive realists' inasmuch as they assumed an actual validity - a genuine
ontological status - in 'given reality') established a theory of consciousness
based around 'mental instants', or 'chitta-kshana', lasting less than one
billionth part of the time necessary for -say - a finger snap or a blink.
The perception, then, of, e. g., a simple colour such as blue long before it
was ascribed to 'Jane's dress' or 'the sky on a late autumn afternoon', would
occur in more or less the following pattern:
- a moment of consciousness passes
- two moments of unconscious vibration arise
- a single instant of actual physical apprehension of the object by one of the
sense bases (in this case the eye)
- a single instant of visual consciousness
- a single instant of recipient consciousness becoming consciously aware of
the fact that one has had a visual consciousness
- a single instant of investigatory consciousness
- a single instant of determinatory consciousness
- seven instants of perception
- two resultant moments of registration
What is interesting here is that, not only are 'things' whipping in and out of
existence, but so, too, is 'consciousness'...
The discovery that time and space could not be ontologically established by
reason of the simple fact that no matter how subtly one examined them they
always remained infinitely divisible beyond that, led to a second school of
thought proclaiming that all that arose before the awareness was simply the
reflection of the nature of awareness itself and totally without ontological
reality beyond that.
This vision was subsequently criticised as establishing 'a/the Mind/Awareness'
as a primary, and hence demonstrable, reality, whereas the only thing that is
demonstrable about awareness is that it has no established nature of its own
but is capable of infinite change and is 'open-natured' - 'void' as it was
exquisitely badly translated by our Victorian forebears...
This rather bleak vision was subsequently shown to be rather one-sided
inasmuch as (if I use that word again I'm gonna scream!) it did not account
for the extraordinary and equally demonstrable fountaining into being of 'all
and everything', good, bad, and indifferent, regardless of its ontological
status, and the final view of particularly Tantric and the higher reaches of
Chines (Ch'an, Hua-yen, etc.) Buddhism seems to be, more or less, that
'reality' (whatever the hell THAT is!)(and which seems to be identical with
what is generally termed 'consciousness/awareness', its corollary and
opposite) is essentially an infinite openness, radiantly lucent and energetic
by nature, that is all-encompassing in its presencing/appearance/activity...
Don't know how clear all that is, but - in an attempt (vain, no doubt!) to
forestall the rude comments I already hear screaming my way from George Leake
- it's somewhere here that I, personally, establish what I would call the
For what it's worth.
Date: Mon, 26 May 1997
From: Bernard Bovasso
> Don't know how clear all that is, but - in an attempt (vain, no doubt!) to
> forestall the rude comments I already hear screaming my way from George
> - it's somewhere here that I, personally, establish what I would call the
> 'prima materia'...
As coincidence would preemptively have it, I just replied to a post on this
list immediately before I read yours (from Sheryl) that addresses some of the
ideas you have teased. Check it out before Leake gets his hands on you!
Date: Mon, 26 May 1997
From: Victoria GaVoian
> From: Diane Munoz
> I am a layman to the physics world - or at least that's how most physicists
> would see me - but I have studied physics in-depth on my own and I have
> some understandings about what George has written about:
I too am interested in learning physics on my own. Can you suggest some
books for beginners then on to advanced. I have a friend that teaches
physics in case I get into trouble.
Thank you...Victoria GaVoian
Date: Tue, 27 May 1997
From: Diane Munoz
>From: Victoria GaVoian
>I too am interested in learning physics on my own. Can you suggest some
>books for beginners then on to advanced. I have a friend that teaches
>physics in case I get into trouble.
I started with anything on quantum physics. the best way to go
about it, I think, is to tell you of some authors who have addressed
physics particularly with the laymen in mind: Fred Alan Wolf, Michael
Talbot, Ishtak Bentov. Also, there is The Dancing Wu Li Masters by Gary
Zukav. On a more advanced level, there is are a couple of books out there
that David Bohm cowrote. "Unfolding Meaning" is a transcription of a
conversation explaining the implicate order which is very good. There's the
Quantum Self by Danah Zohar and The Self Aware Universe by Amit Goswami. I
also really enjoyed Where Science and Magic Meet by Serena Roney-Dogal.
Also, anything on how the brain works pretty much addresses quantum
The other thing that is an interesting way to go is through science
fiction. For instance, Orson Scott Card is an awesome writer who takes a
lot of the quantum physics subjects and works them out in stories that are
very interesting and cause you to think very expansive thoughts ;-) The
Ender series is a good example, as is Wyrms, and The Worthing Saga.