|
home | what's new | other sites | contact | about |
||
|
Word Gems exploring self-realization, sacred personhood, and full humanity
Soulmate, Myself:
David, an accomplished psychic in my city, received a message from Spirit Guides. They wanted us to know that Twin Souls are never separated. This statement might seem somewhat anomalous as almost no destined couples are allowed to be together in this world. Moreover, the Guides were quite adamant. They emphasized this concept with some vigor and wanted to be very clear on this point – Twins can never be separated. I’ve thought about this message over the years, especially in light of research-findings in quantum physics. Let’s survey some of this material, along with other related information. 'put asunder' It’s interesting how the New Testament phrases the famous “no divorce” directive for Twins. You can read about it in the “Divorce” article. In Matthew 19 Jesus was discussing the permanency of Twin love, and he could have phrased it in many different ways. He could have said, “they will always love each other,” or “true love goes on and on,” or many other variations. However, he framed this issue of eternal lovers as ones who cannot be “put asunder.” This is archaic language for “cannot be divided” – that is, Twins can never be separated. ‘entangled particles’ If two particles, two identical particles, derive from a common source, they take on a characteristic known as “entanglement.” This means that, no matter how far apart they drift – it could be on opposite sides of the universe – the particles immediately affect each other’s movement. The problem here is that, according to Einstein, nothing is supposed to go faster than the speed of light, and yet entangled particles “break this law” with impunity. Distance doesn’t matter to them. They affect each other with immediacy, no matter how far apart. ‘hidden variables’ Einstein tried to make sense of this faster-than-light problem. He suggested that the entangled particles, having derived from a common source, contained what he called “hidden variables.” These allowed the particles to somehow remain in contact with each other. Einstein was wrong on this. Some years later physicist John Bell famously disproved the “hidden variables” theory, such that, there are no hidden variables. Later, too, French physicist Alain Aspect confirmed Bell’s work. In an experiment concerning entangled particles, Aspect measured the speed of light, traversing a space of 12 meters, to be less than 40 nanoseconds (nano = billionths). Why was this important? Light requires 40 nanoseconds to span 12 meters, and if a signal is received in less than “the 40,” then the effect is “non-local.” It means that the speed-of-light barrier has been breached. 'non-local' Editor’s note: In the literature concerning these matters, one often comes across the term “non-local.” Here’s what it means: Einstein said that no event could create an immediate effect somewhere else in the universe. It takes time for light to move about, even though it careens at 186,000 miles per second; however, the universe is not a small place. For example, our Sun is “8 light minutes” away from us. If the Sun blew up this moment, we wouldn’t know about it for 8 minutes. And, of course, all of the other stars are so far away that we measure their distances from us in “light years.” This means that what we do in our own little cosmic neighborhood is just our own “local” business. Other parts of the universe have no way of knowing what we do because it takes light, even at the “speed of light,” so very long to reach these other sectors. All of these districts, way out there, are called “non-local.” We can’t affect them. Or not. Because if you happen to be a member of an “entangled particle” unit, each mate will affect the other immediately, no matter the distance. And this is what bothered Einstein. He tried to maintain that all events in the universe have a “local” cause – except for those nettlesome entangled particles. Can we break the speed-of-light ‘law’? Niels Bohr, as usual, had an iconoclastic view. The annoying thing about Bohr, especially to Einstein, is that Bohr had a habit of being proved correct. Bohr insisted on the “indivisible nature of quantum mechanics” and treated all of space and reality as a unit. If two particles had separated, Bohr said, and because they still affected each other, it was wrong or incorrect to divide their regions of space as separate “non-local” places; rather, he said, the particles need to be seen as a unit. Our day-to-day concepts of the world, Bohr said, are rooted in common everyday experience. Our minds have been conditioned to accept a limited view. “Common sense” is good, and a lot of people could use more of it, but problems begin when we’re dealing with an aspect of reality unfamiliar to us; such as, the sub-atomic world, or speeds faster than a Buick. Now we’re out of our depth. We are therefore incapable of forming an accurate picture of the atomic world. “We have to deal with the wholeness” of reality, said Bohr, “that is completely foreign to classical physics.” In a philosophical moment, Bohr mused, “Clarity and truth are incompatible variables.” If an answer is true, then I am sure that it is not clear. “Although there [might be] no influence of one experiment on the other, there is a change in the very conditions of possibilities of knowledge.” We cannot prescribe what the world should be on the basis of our prejudices. really just one particle all along David Bohm, another famous physicist, goes a step further. The “problem” of entangled particles – which is not a problem as such, but only if we insist on a certain materialistic view of reality – the problem, he says, is that we have wrongly interpreted the nature of matter and the universe itself. He echoes Bohr in his assertion but also clarifies that the message or “signal” between the two particles never travelled across space and time at all because, space, time and distance are all an illusion, artificial constructs of the human brain. The two particles were really just one particle all along and the true nature of reality is not a collection of separate objects but rather one undivided whole in perpetual dynamical flux. The world is, in fact, an unbroken system, and it’s incorrect and misleading to analyze it into parts. Cool, eh? Editor’s note: If we consider it hard to believe that the universe is an undivided whole, we’ll want to review physicist Peter Russell’s lecture on “the universe from light’s point of view.” Time and distance expand or contract in relation to the speed of light. It’s a “sliding scale,” and “common sense” can’t help us make sense of it because we’re not used to things moving at some meaningful fraction of the speed of light. 'Twins are never separated' supported by quantum physics Twins are like those entangled particles; and they're never separated because, well, they were never separated in the first place. If we had better eyes we could see this. Our “common sense” begs to differ, but then, what does it know? I like something Einstein said about this confusion: "Reality is merely an illusion, albeit a very persistent one." The separation of Twins is like that.
|
||
|
|
