A Simple Model For Integrating Quantum And Relativistic Physics with application to the evolution of consciousness by Theodore St. John

Essay Abstract

If you want to make a cake, you have to know more than just the fundamental ingredients. There's also a fundamental process involved that has to be followed. Fundamentally, what makes a cell a cell is more than the physical parts. If you reduce a living cell too much, you destroy the process and fundamentally change what you were trying to understand. You have to include the life process in your explanation. Physics is the study of motion and motion is a process that makes a particle a particle. Reducing motion to 3-dimensional space and 1-dimensional time is a fine tool for Newtonian analysis, and it is still the model in relativistic physics (although they are mixed together as space-time), but quantum physics treats a particle as a whole that contains space and time as vibrations (frequency). This essay presents a geometric model of the quantum particle projected onto a background of motion and reveals the mathematical relations between the two perspectives. The secret ingredient is the way in which "past" time is displayed as the inverse of future time rather than the negative as is done on a linear time scale in other models. The result is a new perspective of physical reality as a process that involves an expanding wave function that effectively "reaches out" into the non-moving field of binary light-dark surroundings (vibrations) and collapses information into its own center. This information, stored in DNA molecules, might be what evolves from data cognition through knowledge (re-cognition) to higher levels of consciousness.

Author Bio

Theodore St. John is a retired U. S. Naval officer who served for thirty years, first as a Nuclear Submariner and then as a Radiation Health officer in research facilities, as Science Advisor at the Naval Dosimetry Center, at naval hospitals in Radiology and as a Medical Physicist in Radiation Oncology. Currently, he volunteers as an Adjunct Senior Research Scientist at the Louisiana Accelerator Center (University of Louisiana at Lafayette). He holds a dual BS in physics and electrical engineering, an MS in Physics and a Ph. D. in Nuclear and Radiological Engineering (specialized in Medical Physics).

Download Essay PDF File

Gene,

Thank you very much for your comments. I just wanted to reply briefly to let you know that I appreciate the post and intend to reply, but I have been preoccupied with a major project away from home and want to wait until I can give it the attention it deserves. I expect to be home in a few days.

Ted

Thank you for reading and commenting on my essay. I appreciate your kind words and will read yours as well.

Ted

Joe,

Thank you for reading my essay and posting a reply. I'm not sure I understand what you mean, or if it refers to my essay, but you seem passionate about it and I appreciate it.

Ted

Gene,

I hadn't read about DNA coordination until you mentioned it, so I looked it up and it appears to me that yes, something more fundamental is occurring. If DNA replication and recombination is controlled, as you mentioned by neurotransmitters and hormones, then it must be a very complicated process. But in order to maintain genome stability and thus avoid mutation and disease it has to be extremely precise and accurate. Also, as you said memory is distributed which further complicates coordination. And more complicated usually means more chance for error, so there would have to be controls to monitor the process, and more controls to monitor the controls, etc. That sounds like a poorly run government, not a natural process.

Instead, what my model may be suggesting is that coordination among cells is a not something that is controlled from the outside of the cells themselves; it happens because every DNA molecule contains within it the exact (to the nth degree) same information so it already "knows" what every other cell in the body "knows". You said, "when the image is working correctly each cell knows where it is and what its function is" but I say, it does not require an image; it already knows because it already has the information. Communication among cells, on the other hand, is what you are referring to when you asked "whether the image in the brain is the response of cells that use this [wave] function." I wouldn't refer to an image, but rather to binary communication. For that, your model sounds good to me. I'll explain why.

You state that the equation (in Feynman #9.51 on pg 9-13) is "The wave function for any system that has an internal freedom that varies back and forth between two frequency (f) values". I am not sure that I would word it that way since I understand, from reading the chapter, that Feynman was describing the probability of an ammonia molecule being in one state or the other when subjected to a time-varying electric field, whose frequency is given by f (and f0 is the resonance frequency of ammonia molecule). So let me see if I understand how you have applied this to describe the eye's response to light. Are you saying that an image, projected onto the retina, contains various frequencies of light, which will stimulate the cells of the retina in such a way that is determined by the quantum state of the molecules within the cells? If so, that sounds reasonable to me.

Changing the state of molecules that have two possible states, such as is the case of ammonia, sounds like a great way to generate binary code. Rather than "focus the image," I would say the function of neurotransmitters is to transmit the binary code. So yes, I would agree that, in a sense, what we describe as "the image in the brain" is actually the response of the cells as opposed to an actual image (i.e. you couldn't see an image if you looked at the cell with a good microscope).

You said, "I think it is also correct to use equations where distance has been 'reduced in rank' to one distance as long as we do the same thing for time." I have no problem with that, except that it seems to imply some operation of "reducing" distance or time. I prefer to think of distance as fundamentally being a single unified dimension, like the radius of a circle. Thinking in terms of three dimensions is a good tool for analysis, and in my opinion, it seems natural because of the transformation process that I referred to in my essay: the same process that separates motion (unified) into our perception of movement through space and time (as if motion, space and time were three different concepts). It is a perpetual three-step process of [I] separation-recognition-return [/I] that is created by and creates apparent opposites. Let me explain this.

There are two ways of referring to opposites: 1) negative and 2) inverse. I can choose a distance in any direction. Specifying a negative of this direction creates a conceptual separation (the first part of the process). [I] Recognizing [/I] that the two opposite directions are both part of a single dimension is the second part of the process. We then identify a reference, which we call the origin x=0 (although it is an illusion since there is no such thing as zero space). Reuniting the positive and negative at the origin is the third part of the process. The entire process is thus [I] separation-recognition-return. [/I]

We repeat the process by separating the first (x) dimension into a second (y, using the inverse (y=1/x)), which is also assigned a positive and negative, then recognizing the same origin and reuniting the two dimensions, creating a plane. The inverse creates the illusion of dependent and independent variables, which is also an illusion because there is no y-axis, independent of the x-axis. We think there is because we can move North or South, for example, without changing our East-West coordinate (which are, of course made up for our information).

These two conceptual dimensions (pairs of opposites) are then used to create (or perceive of) the third dimension that is perpendicular to and thus independent of the other two. This third dimension is important because it provides elevation - a higher perspective that transcends both pairs of opposites. It allows us to look down on the opposites, to see the unity and re-cognize reality as a unified field.

My hypothesis needs a lot of work, but that is how I relate it to the expansion of awareness and DNA replication. Awareness grows as we gain information and we experience mini-revelations when the pieces come together. (Ah ha!) Even if we fail to recognize the unity, the process continues, creating more separations and increasing complexity until there is enough information to cause the reunion. DNA replication happens as a reunion but only after the strands separate and each base recognizes its "opposite" and reunites with it. Information only requires two binary bits, but since there are two types of opposites (negative and inverse) there are four bits available (just as there are four bases in the DNA molecule).

Christophe,

Thank you very much for reading and commenting on my essay. The dictionary defines consciousness as "1) the state of being awake and aware of one's surroundings and 2) the awareness or perception of something by a person." I think people tend to use the word "consciousness" and "awareness" interchangeably, but for my purposes, I'd say that the word "consciousness" is the information that has been acquired and stored in our DNA whereas "awareness" is the emergent ability to access, recognize and process the information. Information in the form of raw data is pouring into us with every event, but it is meaningless until enough of it is collected to form a recognizable image and we experience a mini-revelation when the pieces come together. (Ah ha!) Sometimes, even with all of the necessary information, a new perspective is required in order for the metamorphosis to occur.

Imagine looking through a microscope at the interior of an individual cell of a leaf (without knowing it is a leaf). You might see the nucleolus inside the nucleus, clusters of protein, mitochondria, endoplasmic reticulum and other organelles, but if you didn't know what you were looking at you might not recognize it as a cell. As you gained information and backed out to a higher perspective, even if you didn't know the names or functions of the organelles, you could see them all together and suddenly recognize the cell. Ah ha! If not, you could continue to zoom out until a bunch of cells were seen to form a vein-like structure branching out from the stem and then more cells and more branches until you recognized the leaf. More information, new perspective and Ah ha! Recognition. At this point you would see the leaf as a whole.

Who cares about the microscopic details now? You were aware of them, but at some magical moment when everything fell into place, you recognized and therefore became aware of the leaf. The information seemed to process itself when you reached the higher perspective. Perhaps you weren't sure it was a leaf until you were able to see other leaves and branches of the tree or even the whole tree.

This example is trivial, but the moment of transformation can be quite thrilling, even epiphanous. Helen Keller, who could not hear or see since birth, expressed it as follows: (taken from "Dragons of Eden" by Carl Sagan)

"We walked down the path to the well-house, attracted by the fragrance of the honeysuckle with which it was covered. Someone was drawing water and my teacher placed my hand under the spout. As the cool stream gushed over my hand, she spelled into the water, first slowly, then rapidly. Suddenly I felt a misty consciousness as of something forgotten - a thrill of returning thought; and somehow the mystery of language was revealed to me. I knew then that W-A-T-E-R meant that wonderful cool something that was flowing over my hand. That living word awakened my soul, gave it light, hope, joy, set it free! There were barriers still, it is true, but barriers that in time could be swept away."

I think that we all have different levels of awareness simply because we (and our ancestors) have had different experiences. I include our ancestors because our DNA contains all of the information that had poured into them up to the moment of our birth. That, I think, is where we get innate knowledge and instinct.

This is why I touched on the importance of holding truth in the highest esteem. Truth - the information that comes from events that actually happen in the world around us - forms our consciousness and transforms itself into awareness and even wisdom and health. Even if we can't explain it, we gain insight and intuition if we honor truth above all else. Conversely, if we hide truth, deny truth, or allow ourselves to believe what others tell us without any real basis in truth, we become disconnected from our consciousness and are less able to trust the feelings that come from awareness and transcendence. We are less perceptive, less intuitive and we fear anything that doesn't fit the authorized models or dogma.

Branko,

Thank for your comments and for pointing out that we are not politicians. I hope I didn't seem harsh or arrogant. I don't comment on all of the essays that I read, but since SNP commented on mine and asked me to read his, I felt obliged to comment with honesty. And I didn't disagree with him. I just want to know how he (and you for that matter) can support the idea that there was no big bang. Intuitively I fully agree. I think it is fairytale physics. But I am not educated in cosmology and I haven't published much. My MS research was in ion-implantation (see "Surface oxygen implanted in titanium by recoil collisions with 1 MeV gold ions") and my Ph. D. thesis was in stereotactic radiosurgery (see "A geometrically based method of step and shoot stereotactic radiosurgery with a miniature multileaf collimator"). I hope to eventually present my paper to the physics faculty in a seminar, and if it comes up I want to be able to say that the concept of big bang (as well as black holes) is not correct. Personally, I think they comes from the use of the zero origin in space versus time. I haven't read your essay, but if your argument about the CMB is solid, that would be great.

Ted