Quantum Spacetime and Consciousness

Philip J. Carter

This eprint represents an Invited Article for the Journal of NeuroQuantology http://www.neuroquantology.com

First published: 2 !ecember 2"#$ %ersion 2: # &anuary 2"#' The current version of this eprint is archived at http://vi(ra.org/abs/#$#2."2")

* +opyright ,hilip &. +arter 2"#$ philip -at. esotec.org http://physics.esotec.org

Abstract
A higher/dimensional spacetime model is proposed0 accounting for nonlocal quantum phenomena while embracing 1pecial 2elativity as a limiting case. The Aspect and 3egidish e(periments are e(plained within this spacetime framewor4. Time is understood as spatial motion relative to higher dimensions0 offering the degrees of freedom demanded by nonlocal effects along with a consistent milieu for 5alu6a7s 8/dimensional 9instein/3a(well theory. 1pecial 2elativity and quantum mechanics converge in the higher dimensions to yield the origins of mass while providing a geometrical mechanism relating mass and spacetime curvature -gravity.. ,art Two introduces a consciousness model within the higher/ dimensional spacetime framewor40 integrating elements of physics0 psychology0 philosophy and metaphysics. 9vidence from dreams is shown to correspond to both the physical model and the consciousness model. A theory of perception is presented on the foregoing basis. Keywords: consciousness0 quantum mechanics0 wavefunction0 relativity0 nonlocality0 entanglement0 space0 time0 spacetime0 mind0 perception0 qualia0 dreams0 branes0 imaginary dimensions0 higher dimensions

Contents
Introduction ....................................................................................................5

Part One: Quantum Spacetime 1.1 The Magical Wavefunction...............................................................................6 1.2 Special elativit! and Min"o#s"i Spacetime....................................................$ 1.% The Transactional Interpretation of Quantum Mechanics...............................& 1.' (ropagation of the Wavefunction....................................................................) 1.5 * Spatial Conte+t for the Wavefunction.........................................................1, 1.6 The *spect -+periment in Min"o#s"i '.space...............................................1% 1.$ The Megidish -+periment in Min"o#s"i 5.space...........................................1' 1.& The -mergence of Time..................................................................................15 1.) /alu0a and the 5.1rane...................................................................................16 1.1, elativit! and the 2rigin of Mass...................................................................1& 1.11 The 3ravitational Wavefunction.....................................................................1) 1.12 The Imaginar! 4allac!.....................................................................................2, 1.1% The Man! Worlds of Quantum Spacetime.....................................................2, Part Two: Consciousness and Perception 2.1 The -+perience of (henomenal Space...........................................................22 2.2 215ective and Su15ective Space......................................................................22 2.% Mind and Matter............................................................................................2% 2.' Quantum Spacetime and the -soteric Model................................................2' 2.5 elativistic Motion in 6reams.........................................................................25 2.6 The Identit! of Space and Consciousness.......................................................26 2.$ The (h!sics of (erception...............................................................................2$ 2.& (h!sics in the '.1rane.....................................................................................%, 2.) (h!sics in the 5.1rane.....................................................................................%1 2.1, -soteric Model of the 5.1rane........................................................................%% 2.11 The *stonishing Mind.....................................................................................%5 Conclusion 7otes eferences ..................................................................................................%$ .................................................................................................%) .................................................................................................',

Figures
1 2 % ' 5 6 $ & ) 1, 11 12 1% 1' 15 16 1$ 1& 1) 2, 21 The comple+ #avefunction 8pure momentum state9.......................................$ Min"o#s"i spacetime.......................................................................................& The #avefunction as a standing #ave in pseudo.time.....................................) * spatial model of the universe......................................................................1, Min"o#s"i '.space.........................................................................................11 7ull surface in Min"o#s"i 5.space.................................................................12 The *spect e+periment in the '.1rane...........................................................1% The Megidish e+periment in Min"o#s"i '.space...........................................1' Time and motion in the three 1ranes.............................................................16 Cross product of imaginar! dimensions.........................................................1$ * conte+t for /alu0a........................................................................................1$ The #avefunction in Min"o#s"i 5.space........................................................1& The domain of the #avefunction...................................................................1) Quantum Spacetime and the Three Worlds...................................................2' The process of visual perception....................................................................2& Su15ective perception of spatial e+tension in 5.space...................................2) The o1server and his null surface...................................................................%, Spacetime in the '.1rane...............................................................................%, Spacetime in the 5.1rane...............................................................................%2 -soteric model of the 5.1rane........................................................................%' Consciousness in Quantum Spacetime...........................................................%$

Introduction
That there is consciousness in the universe is undenia1le. That science in general: and ph!sics in particular: do not address this most stri"ing of all o1serva1le phenomena is glaring. Consciousness: so central to our e+istence: remains a m!ster!. ; A. Zee <1= It should be no coincidence that neither consciousness nor the foundations of quantum mechanics en:oy a consistent theoretical basis within physics. This is not :ust a question of our theories being inadequate ; there are no theories. <hile quantum mechanics is a phenomenally successful effective theory0 it remains une(plained0 as does consciousness. It might not be surprising0 then0 if the solution to one holds the 4ey to the other. This paper develops a logical structure0 a consistent conceptual framewor4 embracing essential principles of both physics -as currently understood. and consciousness -as we e(perience it.. As philosophers have pointed out for millennia0 it is a truism that consciousness is the only thing we ever directly e(perience. =ow ironic0 then0 that the one thing we can ever truly 4now is the thing we 4now least about0 while quantum mechanics undresses the material world ; so called reality ; leaving it but a ghostly apparition. I thin4 it would be fair to say that most people who have seriously studied the foundations of quantum mechanics and/or consciousness would agree that a fundamental reorientation of perspective is required. The consensus would be that there is something we don7t understand which is preventing us from seeing the big picture. It follows that this new perspective will be something outside of our current worldview. 1o we should be prepared for the une(pected0 perhaps something shoc4ing. In reading this paper0 then0 I would as4 the reader to be prepared for the une(pected0 to e(pect to be challenged0 both intellectually and philosophically. The frontiers of 4nowledge do not yield to timidity0 and this is not easy ground. ,art >ne erects a spacetime structure0 what I call Quantum Spacetime0 which can account for observed quantum phenomena while e(tending 1pecial 2elativity into higher dimensions. ,art Two presents a consistent theory of consciousness in the conte(t of ?uantum 1pacetime. In developing this theory of consciousness I introduce some ideas from esoteric philosophy ; :ustified0 I trust the reader will agree0 by the consistent insights they bring. This wor4 is presented as an honest effort to ma4e sense of the nonsensical. 5nown facts -both e(periential and mathematical. and logical consistency are the essential guides0 wherever they may lead us. The reader is invited to follow these logical threads0 whether as a serious inquiry or as a philosophical frolic0 to ruminate upon them0 and to come to his or her own conclusions.

Part One Quantum Spacetime

. The !agical "a#e$unction
Following from @ell7s theorem0 e(periments have demonstrated that the quantum wavefunction does not abide by the laws of 1pecial 2elativity0 which limit signals to light speed A2B. <hat 9instein called Cspoo4y action at a distanceD is indeed a property of the wavefunction. 9ven while e(tended or divided in physical space0 it appears to behave as a holistic entity0 as if fully e(istent in one location. 3oreover0 so called entangled particles respond to each others state regardless of separation in space or time. To address these anomalies we begin by developing an appreciation for the phenomena as demonstrated. 2eferring to the first definitive demonstration of quantum nonlocality by Alan Aspect et al.0 philosopher of physics Tim 3audlin describes what he calls the quantum connection as follows A$B: There are at least three features of the >uantum connection #hich deserve our close attention? 1. The >uantum connection is unattenuated? The >uantum connection <in contrast to a force li"e gravit!= appears to 1e unaffected 1! distance. Quantum theor! predicts e+actl! the same correlations #ill continue unchanged no matter ho# far apart the t#o #ings of the e+periment are. If *spect had put one #ing of his e+periment on the moon he #ould have o1tained precisel! the same results. 7o classical force displa!s this 1ehavior. 2. The >uantum connection is discriminating? 3ravitational forces affect similarl! situated o15ects in the same #a!. The >uantum connection: ho#ever: is a private arrangement 1et#een our t#o photons. When one is measured its t#in is affected: 1ut no other particle in the universe need 1e? The >uantum connection depends on histor!. 2nl! particles #hich have interacted #ith each other in the past seem to retain this po#er of private communication. %. The >uantum connection is faster than light 8instantaneous9? The Special Theor! <of elativit!= confers upon light: or rather upon the speed of light in a vacuum: a uni>ue role in the space.time structure. It is often said that this speed constitutes an a1solute ph!sical limit #hich cannot 1e 1roached. If so: then no relativistic theor! can permit instantaneous effects or causal processes? The >uantum connection appears to violate this fundamental la#? We cannot simpl! accept the pronouncements of our 1est theories: no matter ho# strange: if those pronouncements contradict each other. The t#o foundation stones of modern ph!sics: elativit! and >uantum theor!: appear to 1e telling us >uite different things a1out the #orld. Further violating common sense0 while the Aspect and similar e(periments have focused on entanglement over spaceli4e separations0 a team of Israeli researchers have demonstrated a more general prediction of the quantum formalism0 being entanglement over timelike separations0 meaning entanglement of quantum systems that have never coe(isted. 9. 3egidish and colleagues describe the effect as follows A'B: In conclusion: #e have demonstrated >uantum entanglement 1et#een t#o photons that do not share coe+istence. *lthough one photon is measured even 1efore the other is created: full >uantum correlations #ere o1served 1! measuring the densit! matri+ of the t#o photons: conditioned on the result of the pro5ecting measurement. This is a manifestation of the non.localit! of >uantum mechanics not onl! in space: 1ut also in time. The upshot is that the wavefunction appears to en:oy a spacetime very different from that described by 1pecial 2elativity0 impelling us to reconsider the very structure of space and time. +onfounding the issue0 the wavefunction is a complex wave ; its phase is given by comple( numbers. For the sa4e of nonmathematical readers0 a brief e(planation is in order. A comple( number is composed of both a real number and an imaginary number0 an imaginary number being some real multiple of the imaginary unit0 denoted i and defined as the square root of minus one. @ecause both positive and negative numbers

square to positive numbers0 there is no real number that squares to minus one0 meaning that imaginary numbers find no correlate in our real $E# spacetime. They are therefore considered CunphysicalD0 as mathematical abstractions having no ontological status in the universe. ?uantum mechanics directly challenges this interpretation of imaginary numbers0 however. The originator of the transactional interpretation of quantum mechanics0 &ohn F. +ramer0 addresses the problem of complexity as follows A8B: 2ne of the serious o15ections to Schr@dingerAs earl! semiclassical interpretation of the SB <state vector=? is that the SB is a comple+ >uantit!. Comple+ functions are also found in classical ph!sics: 1ut are invaria1l! interpreted either 819 as an indication that the solution is unph!sical: as in the case of the Corent0 transformations #ith v D c: or 829 as a shorthand #a! of dealing #ith t#o independent and e>uall! valid solutions of the e>uations: one real and one imaginar!: as in the case of comple+ electrical impedance. In the latter case the comple+ alge1ra is essentiall! a mathematical device for avoiding trigonometr!: and the ph!sical varia1les of interest are ultimatel! e+tracted as the real 8or imaginar!9 part of the comple+ varia1les. 7ever in classical ph!sics is the full comple+ function Es#allo#ed #holeF as it is in >uantum mechanics. This is the pro1lem of comple+it!. Figure # depicts the most regular wavefunction0 4nown as a pure momentum state0 which ta4es the form of a heli( with the ma:or a(is oriented in some direction x in real space A B. The 4ey point is that the general wavefunction0 while considerably less regular than this0 will share the same dimensionality. <hile the wavefunction is located in our $/space0 the dimensions u and v -forming the comple( plane. are not conventionally ascribed to spatial dimensions in Gature0 the wavefunction being considered an abstract entity0 an unphysical probability wave providing C4nowledge of the systemD. In 2"## this interpretation came under pressure with the publication of a theorem by 3atthew ,usey et al. requiring0 on grounds of consistency within quantum theory itself0 that the wavefunction be an ob:ective entity0 a Cphysically distinct stateD AHB. >n this basis0 the problem boils down to e(plaining how an objective wave might be e(tended in a complex space while wor4ing the magic of nonlocality and entanglement.

u GH

I iv

x
( le+ mp e lan

Co

Figure ) The comple* wa#e$unction +pure momentum state,

.% Special &elati#it' and !in(ows(i Spacetime

The structure of $E# spacetime0 as encoded in 1pecial 2elativity0 comes into clear view in the conte(t of 3in4ows4i spacetime0 illustrated in Figure 2. The $! illustration omits the dimension0 of course0 while the 2! version includes :ust one spatial dimension0 x0 which could be pointing in any direction in space. >ne can view the graphics statically0 as representing a particular event in space and time -defined by the origin.0 or one might visuali6e the time dimension flowing constantly downward0 from the future to the past. Inits are chosen so that the speed of light c is equal to one -e.g. seconds and light/seconds.0 with the consequence that the angled lines/surfaces represent light speed ; the worldline for light ; forming what is called a light cone or null cone! The time and space dimensions are entwined in the "inkowski metric0 being the formula for

displacements in $E# spacetime. The metric appears with two signatures -sign conventions.0 rendering both timeli4e and spaceli4e displacements real. !isplacements s and l are 6ero on the light cone -hence the term null cone0 where the time component of the metric equals the resultant spatial component.. =ence are time and space entwined by the 3in4ows4i metric0 giving them an almost equal status0 but not quite. 1ignificantly0 time enters the metric with opposite sign to the spatial dimensions0 and while one can move in any direction in space -or not move at all.0 time flows irrevocably in :ust one direction. Time: t t 4uture
lH sH ,

W or ld lin

fo r

Metric

Ci g ht

Timeli"e 6isplacements -nerg! real Mass real

-*C -*C

Spaceli"e 6isplacements

x y (ast

%6

26

d l 2 Hd x 2 Id y 2 Id z 2 Jd t 2 -nerg! real t Mass imaginar! h Cig r 8tach!ons9 fo e in l ld or W Metric , sH ds2 H d t2 J d x2 J dy 2 J dz2 lH

Space x

Figure % ) !in(ows(i spacetime

1pecial 2elativity restricts displacements to within the light cone0 imposing light speed as an upper limit0 while the light cone encompasses all possible causal relationships between an event at the origin and an event in the past or future. +onsequently0 attempts to e(plain nonlocality on the basis of faster/than/light particles -tachyons. have inevitably run into causal parado(es. The timeli4e displacement s is interpreted as time experienced. 1ince photons adhere to the light cone0 where s J "0 it follows that photons don7t e(perience time. 1pecial relativity has been tested to very high precision ; any theory of space and time must include it as a limiting case.

.- The Transactional Interpretation o$ Quantum !echanics

The transactional interpretation -TI. is not a new formulation of quantum mechanics but an alternative interpretation of the standard formalism0 ma4ing identical predictions A)B. <hile appearing li4e science fiction and having consistency problems of its own -potentially resolvable under the current framewor4.0 TI resolves many long/standing parado(es in quantum mechanics. >riginator &ohn +ramer was inspired by the absorber theory of &ohn Archibald <heeler and 2ichard Feynman0 describing electromagnetic interaction as a time/symmetric processK the electromagnetic wave equation has two solutions0 4nown as retarded and advanced0 which correspond to electromagnetic waves traveling forward and bac4ward in time. It turns out that the relativistic version of the 1chrLdinger equation -which governs the evolution of the wavefunction in time. also has advanced and retarded solutions0 suggesting that the wavefunction propagates both forwards and bac4wards in time.

According to TI0 each quantum event involves a transaction between an emitter and an absorber. The emitter sends out an Coffer waveD0 which at some time in the future is received by any number of absorbers0 each of which sends a Cconfirmation waveD back in time to the emitter. The emitter receives the confirmation waves at the same instant that it emits the offer waveM +ramer describes the interaction as a Chandsha4eD between the emitter and absorber0 occurring in what he calls Cpseudo/timeD. <hen certain criteria are met0 a transaction is completed between the emitter and an absorber and the wavefunction collapses0 manifesting the associated event. !espite its parado(/resolving powers0 reaction to +ramer7s theory has been muted. <hat is this Cpseudo/ timeD0 and how can anything travel forward and bac4 in timeN Indeed0 I would suggest that philosophical concerns have presented the greatest obstacle to TI being ta4en seriously by the community ; physics simply cannot provide a philosophical or cosmological conte(t for it. Oet us 4eep in mind0 however0 that timeli4e entanglement has been demonstrated in the laboratory0 for which effect some form of pseudo/ time is logically required0 while giving notice that we should ta4e TI seriously.

*1sor1er (seudo.time Confirmation #ave

-mitter

2ffer #ave x

Figure - ) The wa#e$unction as a standing wa#e in pseudo/time

+ramer points out that the offer and confirmation waves can be represented as a '/vector standing wave0 as illustrated in Figure $. The correct picture is to see these standing waves in motion0 each oscillating as indicated by the small arrows. It follows that this entire picture0 encompassing the space and Cpseudo/ timeD dimensions0 is changing in time -but obviously not in physical time.. 9(pressed another way0 according to the standing wave representation of TI0 pseudo/time is in fact a dimension of space.

.. Propagation o$ the "a#e$unction

>ne further detail will allow us to connect the dots. >n the basis of both quantum and relativistic principles it has been shown that the wavefunction propagates according to the following formula APB:

#$ J c2

-#.

where # is the phase velocity0 associated with the propagation speed of the wavefunction0 and $ is the group velocity0 associated with the particle7s classical velocity. ,article velocities never e(ceed light speed c0 while wavefunctions never propagate at velocities less than c. The formula implies that a lightli4e wavefunction -such as that representing a photon. propagates at the speed of light0 while the wavefunction of a massive particle at rest propagates at infinite velocity -action at a distance.. For this reason the propagation of the wavefunction is generally considered unphysical.

.0 A Spatial Conte*t $or the "a#e$unction

The demonstration of timeli4e nonlocality logically requires that time is more fundamentally a dimension of space. <hile our classical universe appears consigned to constant motion along that spatial dimension0 the quantum world seems not so constrained ; the wavefunction reaches across time as it reaches across space. The solution to this problem lies in the dimensionality of the wavefunction itself. If indeed the wavefunction is an ob:ective wave -,usey7s theorem.0 it follows that it must be e(tended in an ob:ective space of corresponding dimensionality. +learly0 since the wavefunction is a comple( wave0 it will not fit in our three real dimensions0 yet it is locali6ed and e(tended in our $/space. There is only one way out of this impasse: without further ado we postulate the e(istence of three superimposed -interpenetrating. spaces0 as follows: Q A 8/space0 having three real plus two imaginary dimensions. Q A '/space0 having three real plus one imaginary dimension. Q A $/space0 having three real dimensions -representing our empirical universe.. These spaces may be thought of as branes -more precisely0 %&branes.0 as conceived by string theory0 and in accordance with string theory our model requires the branes to be transparent to gravity while confining other fields. +orresponding dimensions of each brane coincide -they are the same dimensions appearing in different branes.0 and each brane sees the same gravitational fields and waves according to its particular dimensionality. 1ince matter fields are confined to a particular brane0 the higher/ dimensional branes remain empirically unobservable. Figure ' introduces a graphical device depicting the proposed spatial configuration. <hile shown delineated vertically for clarity0 4eep in mind that the three branes are in fact superimposed ; they each include the same dimensions up to their particular dimensionality.

5.1rane '.1rane %.1rane

x x x

y y y

z z z

w w

v eal Imaginar!

Figure . ) A spatial model o$ the uni#erse

An imaginary spatial dimension is considered an actual CdirectionD in the universal spatial fabric0 orthogonal to the real dimensions and measured in imaginary units. The reader might find this a challenging concept at first0 representing a radical departure from conventional thought. Gevertheless0 the fact remains that if 1chrLdinger7s equation and ,usey7s theorem are both correct0 then imaginary dimensions must e(ist ob:ectively in Gature. <e will develop our intuitive appreciation for imaginary dimensions in the course of this paper ; for now the reader is encouraged to thin4 of them simply as spatial dimensions measured in imaginary units. The local spatial geometries of the '/brane and 8/brane are described by what I will call "inkowski '& space and "inkowski (&space0 e(tending the principles implicit in 3in4ows4i $E# spacetime into higher dimensions. >n this basis we surmise the spatial metrics as follows. Gotice that these are spatial metrics only0 without reference to time:

10

$/brane: s2 J x2 E y2 E '/brane: s2 J x2 E y2 E 8/brane: s2 J x2 E y2 E

2 2 2

-2.

E w2 E w2 E v 2

-$. -'.

-G.@. Throughout this wor40 imaginary coordinates are set in bold0 while differential and interval symbols are generally omitted: the glyphs x0 y0 0 w0 v0 are applied as logical symbols and may denote an interval0 a coordinate0 or a dimension0 depending on conte(t.. The metric for the $/brane is of course the familiar ,ythagorean theorem0 being the distance metric for 9uclidean $/space. 9(perts will note that 3in4ows4i '/space corresponds to so called 9uclidean spacetime0 where time is rotated on the comple( plane into Cimaginary timeD0 J it. Imaginary time has many important applications in physics and plays a crucial role in Feynman7s path integral formulation of quantum mechanics. 1ignificantly0 however0 here we understand the fourth -imaginary. dimension as spatial0 J w0 as shown in Figure 8. w/i
(h ot on nc tio n
-*C IM*3I7* K

The Realm of the Wavefunction

Wavefunction of particle at rest

(h o

to n

#a ve fu n

ct io n

The Realm of Matter

av ef u

sH

sH

Metric ds2 H dx2 I dy2 I dz2 I dw2 Figure 0 ) !in(ows(i ./space

3in4ows4i '/space -the '/brane. provides a natural environment for the comple( wavefunction0 as the reader may demonstrate by substituting Figure 8 for the comple( plane in Figure #0 with the imaginary dimensions aligned. The imaginary dimension w corresponds to the pseudo&time of TI. Accordingly0 the wavefunction can be understood as a standing wave e(tended in 3in4ows4i '/space0 confined to the Cspaceli4eD region on or outside its null cone0 anchored in space for its entire e(istence0 from the moment of emission until the moment of absorption0 while physical time -the present moment0 w J ". passes over it. 5eep in mind that there is no time dimension in 3in4ows4i '/space itself ; all four dimensions are spatial0 implying that the metric can be interpreted only as a measure of spatial distance. The null cone being defined by s J "0 there is 6ero distance between any two points on the null cone0 presenting what appears to be a parado(: Q 9very point on a null cone represents a single location in 3in4ows4i '/space0 given by the origin.

11

It follows that entities e(tended or separated in real $/space can occupy one point in 3in4ows4i '/space0 given appropriate orientations or displacements in the w direction. +oming to terms with this parado(0 as we shall see0 requires a radical reconception of both space and consciousness. For now0 the reader is as4ed to contemplate the logical consequence that0 while e(tended in three real dimensions0 a lightli4e wavefunction adheres to its null cone and therefore occupies one location in 3in4ows4i '/space0 there being no distance separating any parts of it. In a nutshell0 here is revealed the mystery of the holistic wavefunction: the solution lies not in the wavefunction itself0 but more fundamentally in the hidden structure of space. The wavefunction of a massive particle at rest propagates at infinite velocity0 or hori6ontally in Figure 80 and therefore does not adhere to a null cone in 3in4ows4i '/space. +onsequently0 it is required to be oriented in the v direction to meet a null geodesic in the 8/brane -x2 E y2 E 2 E w2 E v2 J ".. According to this model0 the evidence demands that the following principle holds: Q All wavefunctions adhere to null geodesics ; lightli4e wavefunctions adhere to a null cone in the '/ brane0 while massive particle wavefunctions adhere to a null surface in the 8/brane. A wavefunction cannot e(ist off of a null surface. It follows that0 while e(tended in three real and two imaginary dimensions0 each wavefunction occupies :ust one location in the 8/brane0 defined by the origin of a null surface.

w/i

sH,

x v/i

Figure 1 ) 2ull sur$ace in !in(ows(i 0/space

The structure of 3in4ows4i 8/space0 representing the local spatial geometry of the 8/brane0 is illustrated in Figure . &ust one real dimension -x. is shown0 pointing in some direction in real space0 the w and v dimensions being imaginary. The plane corresponds to 3in4ows4i '/space0 which intersects the 8/ dimensional null surface at the '/dimensional null cone. Analogous to the null cone in 3in4ows4i '/space0 the null surface represents a single location in 3in4ows4i 8/space. According to the 8/dimensional metric0 the null surface is pro:ected in the v direction only from the Cspaceli4eD regions of 3in4ows4i '/space ; a fact providing insight into the divergent properties of matter and the wavefunction. As a direct consequence of this model0 two distinct wavefunctions0 on separated null cones in 3in4ows4i '/space0 can be pro:ected onto one null surface in 3in4ows4i 8/space ; that is0 by a suitable displacement in the v direction they become one entangled wavefunction in the 8/brane. It follows that there are two levels of quantum nonlocality0 corresponding to locality in the '/brane and the 8/brane. Turning this around0 a more accurate picture would be to consider highly unified structures in the 8/brane being

12

sH,

pro:ected into spatially separated structures in the '/brane0 then again into still greater diversity in the $/ brane. It is suggested that the holistic structures in the 8/brane can in principle provide a mechanism upholding causality within the system while avoiding the causal parado(es typically dogging faster/than/ light schemes.

.1 The Aspect 3*periment in !in(ows(i ./space

To test out these ideas0 let us see what we can ma4e of the Aspect e(periment in the conte(t of 3in4ows4i '/space. For the sa4e of e(pediency0 :ust the bare facts are presented here. 9ntangled photons0 produced at the same time by the same source0 are 4nown to always share the same polari6ation0 the light waves ta4ing some preferred a(is normal to the a(is of propagation. Aspect et al. sent pairs of entangled photons in opposite directions through polari6ers to detectors situated some twelve meters apart. @y cleverly measuring the polari6ation of the photon pairs at opposite wings of the e(periment0 Aspect demonstrated that )ell*s inequality was violated+ establishing quantum nonlocality as an empirical fact of Gature A#"B. w/i
ight a1sor1er Ceft a1sor1er -mitter
sH ,
sH ,

w/i

w/i x x

8a9

819
Figure 4 ) The Aspect e*periment in the ./brane

8c9

Figure H depicts the Aspect e(periment in the conte(t of 3in4ows4i '/space. Three stages of the e(periment are shown0 advancing in time from left to right. Gote that the two wings are of different lengths to emphasi6e that one photon will always be absorbed before the other. a. The left diagram illustrates the moment in time when the photon pair are created. 1ince spatial distance on the null cone is 6ero0 the complete offer waves and confirmation waves occupy the same location in 3in4ows4i '/space. This picture therefore manifests spontaneously0 with both wings constituting one holistic wavefunction. Intil the transaction is complete0 the entire wavefunction is confined to its null cone -birth cone. in 3in4ows4i '/space0 while physical time -w J ". passes over it. b. The center diagram illustrates the moment when the first photon is absorbed. 1ince time has passed0 the dimension w has moved downwards along with the wavefunction -the x a(is0 the present moment0 has moved up.. It is observed that the photon7s polari6ation will either match the polari6er a(is0 passing through to be absorbed by the detector0 or will be normal to the polari6er a(is0 to be absorbed by the polari6er. >f relevance here is that this process occurs across both space and time -from our perspective in the $/brane.0 spontaneously throughout the spatio/temporally holistic wavefunction. Ipon absorption0 :ust this one wing of the wavefunction spontaneously collapses0 being the process of state reduction0 which is not our primary focus here A##B.

13

c. The third diagram illustrates the moment in time when the second photon is absorbed. The same process occurs as for the first photon0 with the e(ception that the polari6ation of the second photon has already been determined by the first measurement according to conservation laws. Therefore0 the measured polari6ation of the pair will always correlate. Another way of understanding this phenomenon is to imagine that the wavefunction is animated by the passage of time over it and can change its state only when so animated. <hen time -the moment0 w J ". passes off a wavefunction or branch of a wavefunction0 that branch collapses to some eigenstate while the superposed -uncollapsed. record remains etched in space0 eternally fro6en into the receding w dimension. =aving passed into cosmic history0 into the past0 no longer animated by the moment0 the first branch cannot change its state0 effectively fi(ing the polari6ation of the second branch. Oet us ta4e stoc4 of how our understanding is measuring up to the three features of the quantum connection as presented by Tim 3audlin: Q The quantum connection is unattenuated because in 3in4ows4i '/space there is no distance between any two points on the null cone. Q The quantum connection is discriminating because it occurs only between wavefunctions on the same null cone -or on those which are entangled.. Q The quantum connection is instantaneous because there is no distance between any two points on the null cone0 and therefore no distance for the quantum connection to travel.

.4 The !egidish 3*periment in !in(ows(i 0/space

2epresenting the first demonstration of entanglement over timeli4e separations0 the 3egidish e(periment further challenges our understanding of ?uantum 1pacetime while demanding that we loo4 still more deeply into the mechanisms of nonlocality. According to the formalism0 wavefunctions may be born entangled by emission from a common source0 or they may become entangled by a process 4nown as a )ell State projection measurement. The 3egidish e(periment invo4es each of these processes A#2B. w/i
.

Lell State pro5ection

% -

c 1 x a

Figure 5 ) The !egidish e*periment in !in(ows(i ./space

14

Figure ) illustrates the e(periment in the conte(t of 3in4ows4i '/space. The general principles are analogous to the Aspect e(periment and don7t need to be repeated here. >ne might imagine the x/a(is moving upwards0 from a to e0 corresponding to a physical timeline0 as follows: a. A photon pair is created in a ma(imally entangled state ; photons # and 2. b. A polari6ation measurement is performed on photon #. c. A second entangled photon pair is created0 photons $ and '. d. A @ell 1tate pro:ection measurement is performed on photons 2 and $0 entangling them. e. ,olari6ation measurement of photon ' demonstrates correlation with photon #. ,hoton # and ' are thus shown to be entangled0 even though they never coe(isted. The e(periment can be understood according to the same general principles underlying the Aspect e(periment0 with one glaring e(ception: <hat is a @ell 1tate pro:ection measurement0 and how does it entangle separated particlesN According to the formalism there are four possible @ell states -ma(imally entangled states.0 and the measurement essentially as4s which of the four states the two particles are in0 which leaves them entangled in one of the @ell states. >ur e(planation of the 3egidish e(periment consequently boils down to understanding how separated particles can become entangled through @ell 1tate pro:ections. A vital clue is that the @ell 1tate pro:ection measurement protocol involves the simultaneous measurement of photons 2 and $. The measurement process collapses each wavefunction to an eigenstate of the measurement basis0 relocated in 3in4ows4i '/space onto null cones originating at the events. @ecause these null cones have the same w coordinate -the measurements are simultaneous.0 they are spacelike separated ; that is0 each origin is outside the other null cone. This turns out to be crucial0 as the reader may demonstrate by referring to Figure . >nly spaceli4e separated particles in 3in4ows4i '/space can be pro:ected to each others null surface in 3in4ows4i 8/space. <e consequently propose the following: Q @ell 1tate pro:ections are pro:ections of a null cone on the v dimension to intersect a null surface in 3in4ows4i 8/space. Accordingly0 it is possible that the measurement process pro:ects one photon7s null cone onto the null surface of the other0 or it is possible that both null cones are pro:ected onto some null surface. The effect would be the same ; since the null surface represents one location in 3in4ows4i 8/space0 the two photons become entangled. >ne could visuali6e the process in Figure ) as a null surface e(tending out of the page from one of the null cones0 with the other null cone -defined by its origin. pro:ected onto it0 thus entangling the two photon pairs. 2ather than thin4ing in terms of wavefunctions0 it can be useful to view entanglement in terms of null cones and null surfaces in 3in4ows4i '/space and 8/space. In general0 two wavefunctions may be considered entangled if the null cone/surface of one -defined by its origin. intersects anywhere the null cone/surface of the other.

.5 The 3mergence o$ Time

The arrow of time demands that the imaginary dimension w be in motion relative to the three real dimensions0 with each moment of time in our $/space corresponding to a slice of the '/brane at some coordinate w. Fenerali6ing: Q Time is spatial motion relative to a higher dimension. @oth time and energy originate in spatial motions of the imaginary dimensions w and v relative to each other and to the three real dimensions. <hile time in our physical world is motion of our $/brane relative to the imaginary dimension w0 time in

15

the '/brane corresponds to spatial motion of all four dimensions relative to the imaginary dimension v. 3oreover0 these spatial motions require that the 8/brane itself includes a time dimension0 understood as motion of the 8/brane relative to some higher dimension -call it u0 which is itself static and not otherwise relevant to our current discussion..

5.1rane Time real '.1rane Time imaginary %.1rane Time real

x x x

y y y

z z z

w w

eal time t5 Imaginar! space v M real time t5 H Imaginar! motion 8time9 t4 Imaginar! space w M imaginar! time t4 H eal motion 8time9 t3

Figure 6 ) Time and motion in the three branes

From this model it becomes clear how so called Cimaginary timeD -which is in fact motion of the imaginary dimension w. becomes rotated into real time as we e(perience it in our world. If we assume time in the 8/ brane -t(. to be real0 time in the '/brane corresponds to motion of the imaginary dimension v in real time0 so '/brane time is imaginary -t4 J v/t(.. Accordingly0 time in our $/brane -t,. corresponds to motion of the imaginary dimension w in imaginary time -t4.0 yielding real time -t, J w/t4.. It follows that physical time enters into the 3in4ows4i metric for $E# spacetime as a real quantity0 which will always be positive when squared. =owever0 as a subtle twist0 we note that physical time t, and the associated spatial motion are of opposite sense ; while the imaginary dimension w moves from the future to the past0 time t, moves from the past to the future. +onsequently0 when substituted into the spatial metric for 3in4ows4i '/space0 time t, adopts a minus sign0 yielding the correct spaceli4e metric for 3in4ows4i $E# spacetime:

l2 J x2 E y2 E

; t,2

-8.

The alert reader might legitimately complain that we have not solved the problem of time at all0 but have :ust pushed it further bac4 to une(plained spatial motions. <hile these motions can indeed find a consistent e(planation0 a genuine understanding will require insights from the second part of this paper.

.6 7alu8a and the 0/brane

5alu6a7s 8/dimensional 9instein/3a(well theory is essentially Feneral 2elativity formulated in a 'E# spacetime -four real spatial dimensions plus one real time dimension. whilst yielding both 9instein7s gravity and 3a(well7s electromagnetism in ,-. spacetime. Accordingly0 the fourth spatial dimension0 while real0 is treated differently from the first three dimensions. 5alu6a imposed a restriction on the coordinates0 4nown as the cylinder condition0 effectively preventing the fourth spatial dimension from appearing directly in the laws of physics. As a result of this mathematical sleight of hand0 all fields -including electromagnetic and gravitational fields. are confined to the first three spatial dimensions A#$B. Oet us consider the elegance of this result. <e are not :ust tal4ing about the prediction of phenomena0 but the derivation of fundamental physical law from the geometry of higher/dimensional spacetimeM Gevertheless0 despite efforts to compactify the e(tra dimension -5alu6a/5lein theory.0 5alu6a7s theory has yet to find a consistent conte(t in physics ; why don7t we observe the fourth real dimensionN =ere we ta4e a different approach: rather than trying to shoehorn 5alu6a7s theory into our physical world0 where clearly it does not belong0 we ac4nowledge that it must apply to some other space having properties suggested by the theory itself. Gor can it apply to the '/brane0 since in 5alu6a7s theory the fourth spatial dimension is

16

real0 in contrast to the imaginary fourth dimension of 3in4ows4i '/space. To address this question we must introduce an important principle A#'B: Q Two imaginary dimensions may combine as a cross product to pro:ect an orthogonal real dimension0 in accordance with standard algebraic rules. w Imaginar!

Area real v

m
Figure 9 ) Cross product o$ imaginar' dimensions

Figure #" illustrates the algebraic rule0 the cross product of two orthogonal imaginary dimensions pro:ecting a mutually orthogonal real dimension0 the magnitude being defined by their product0 which is real. Accordingly0 it is proposed that the imaginary w and v dimensions together pro:ect a fourth -negative. real dimension into the 8/brane0 as schematically illustrated in Figure ##. Gote that the imaginary algebra forces upon us the notion that spatial dimensions are polari6ed ; what e(perts might understand as handedness. If we assume the dimensions w and v to be of the same polarity0 the algebra dictates that the fourth real dimension be negative. It follows that the 8/brane can be considered a 8/ space0 with two dimensions imaginary0 or it may be considered a real '/space0 the fourth spatial dimension being in some sense negative in relation to the first three dimensions. This demarcation will prove important to what follows. The cylinder condition imposed on the fourth spatial dimension has drawn criticism that 5alu6a7s theory is arbitrary and contrived0 there being no :ustification for preventing the fourth dimension from appearing directly in the physics of $E# spacetime. After all0 what ma4es one real dimension different from any otherN =ere we find an answer in the negative polarity of the fourth real dimension. The model suggests that positive real fields cannot spread into negative real dimensions0 nor into imaginary dimensions. They are each of a different spatial order. /alu0a 5.1rane '.1rane %.1rane

w +v ea l

Imaginar!

I I I

I I I

I I I

; ;

-insteinMMa+#ell
Figure ) A conte*t $or 7alu8a

17

1ince both dimensions w and v are in motion0 the fourth real dimension m must also be in motion ; the motion of real space in real time equates to real energy0 e(plaining the vast reservoir of energy constituting the electromagnetic field as derived by 5alu6a. =ere we find important insights into the mysterious relationship between energy and time.

. 9 &elati#it' and the Origin o$ !ass

Feneral 2elativity formulates gravity as curvature of $E# spacetime0 which is notoriously difficult to visuali6e. 9quivalently0 the reader may find it easier to visuali6e curvature of the '/brane0 all four dimensions at least being spatial. <hile equating the gravitational field with curvature of spacetime -hence of the '/brane.0 Feneral 2elativity offers no mechanism by which mass might generate that curvature. 1ince spatial curvature is necessarily relative to a higher dimension0 we can surmise that the '/brane is curved relative to the dimension v. =aving already concluded that only massive particle wavefunctions are oriented in the v direction0 we arrive at a geometrical mechanism lin4ing mass with curvature of the '/ brane while forming deep conceptual lin4s between quantum mechanics and Feneral 2elativity. Figure #2 attempts to illustrate the orientations of various wavefunctions in 3in4ows4i 8/space. The colored null cone corresponds of course to 3in4ows4i '/space0 the general perspective being similar to Figure 0 though here the 8! null surface is omitted for clarity. Q <avefunction A is a lightli4e -photon. wavefunction adhering to the null cone in 3in4ows4i '/space0 defined by x2 E y2 E 2 E w2 J " -v is constant.. Q <avefunction @ reflects a massive particle at rest0 adhering to the base of the null surface in 3in4ows4i 8/space0 defined by x2 E y2 E 2 E v2 J " -w is constant.. Q <avefunction + represents a massive particle in motion. <hile depicted here as straight0 the wavefunction curves along the hyperbolic null surface defined by x2 E y2 E 2 E w2 E v2 J ". Q <avefunction ! -in blac4. is the pro:ection of wavefunction + onto the v dimension. w/i

C *

v/i

Figure % ) The wa#e$unction in !in(ows(i 0/space

18

>n this basis we introduce the following proposal: Q 3ass is proportional to the frequency of the wavefunction relative to the v dimension. 2ecall that the v and w dimensions are in motion relative to each other and to the real dimensions. The wavefunction is a standing wave0 anchored in space from emission until absorption0 while time -the present moment. moves over it in the '/brane and 8/brane. According to this model0 the motion of time - v J ". relative to the wavefunction generates the phenomenon called mass. Gote that the pro:ection ! will have a higher frequency -shorter wavelength relative to the v dimension. than will the pro:ection of the stationary e(ample @0 implying that the mass of a particle increases with velocity. @eginning with the metric for 3in4ows4i 8/space -'. along with the wavefunction propagation formula -#.0 it is a trivial e(ercise to demonstrate that this model yields the correct Oorent6 transformation according to 1pecial 2elativity.

The :ra#itational "a#e$unction

An ob:ective wave implies an e(citation of some ob:ective field or medium. A radio wave is an e(citation of the electromagnetic fieldK sound waves are e(citations of the atmosphereK ocean waves emerge from the motion of water. <hat0 then0 is the wavefunction wavingN >r0 more precisely0 what sort of ob:ective field or medium could be e(tended in both real and imaginary dimensionsN It seems reasonable to assume that ob:ective fields or media can be either real or imaginaryK they cannot be both0 :ust as one cannot represent imaginary quantities in a real space or real quantities in an imaginary space. 2eal and imaginary dimensions are of a different order. 3oreover0 since the wavefunction is the primary entity underpinning all matter0 the wavefunction must precede matter ; that is0 it cannot be in any way CmaterialD. These arguments may seem redundant0 however0 in the face of the fact that the 8/dimensional wavefunction is required to appear also -in lower/dimensional form. in the '/brane and $/brane. 1ince matter fields are confined to branes0 only a gravitational wave can perform the magic of the wavefunction by passing freely through and between branes. That is0 for the current framewor4 to be consistent0 it is required that the wavefunction be a gravitational wave. It follows that the appearance of the holistic gravitational wavefunction on each dimension of each brane establishes e(plicit causal structures throughout ?uantum 1pacetime.

5.1rane

t5

'.1rane

t4 H v M t5

%.1rane

t3 H w M t4
Figure - ) The domain o$ the wa#e$unction

A consequence of weighty philosophical proportions drops out of this model0 as follows: #. According to quantum mechanics0 the wavefunction0 or quantum state0 is the fundamental entity underlying all physical matter throughout our universe. 2. The wavefunction appears simultaneously in the $/brane0 '/brane0 and 8/brane.

19

$. It follows that everything e(istent in our physical universe is also represented -in some sense. in the '/ brane and 8/brane. <e will follow up these ideas in ,art Two. 3eanwhile0 for most of us0 this will require some thought.

. % The Imaginar' Fallac'

Authorities have assured me that the imaginary numbers are :ust a mathematical convention0 having no ontological status in the universe. 1omewhat li4e negative numbers0 they simply e(tend the number system. 3athematically0 this analogy does not stand up to scrutiny. <hile negative numbers reflect the principle of handedness or polarity -one can move in either direction along a number line.0 nowhere on the real number line are imaginary numbers to be found. 2ather0 one has to move orthogonally off the real number line to find the imaginaries. 3oreover0 comple( numbers are regarded as more fundamental than real numbers ; the comple( number system is complete -any operation on comple( numbers will land you bac4 in the comple( numbers.0 while the reals are not. 1imilarly0 the imaginary numbers can be considered more fundamental than the real numbers ; the product or quotient of two imaginary numbers yields a real number0 for instance0 whereas going from the reals to the imaginaries requires ta4ing the root of a negative. If mathematics indeed reflects Gature0 and vice versa0 then it would appear that imaginary quantities -hence dimensions. play a fundamental role in the constitution of the universe A#8B. <e visuali6e comple( dimensions symbolically0 of course0 in the form of the complex plane or /rgand plane0 representing the imaginary dimension graphically as a real dimension 0 simply because an imaginary quantity cannot be represented in our real space. 1oon we forget that we are loo4ing at a symbolic representation0 transposed to two real dimensions0 not the actual comple( space. This is what I call the imaginary fallacy0 as follows: Q Go representation in real space can reveal imaginary space as it is. Inderstanding this principle is crucial to grasping the essential logic of the current framewor4. To understand the geometry of space including imaginary dimensions we have to trust the math and not believe our eyes. <hen we loo4 at a graphical representation of 3in4ows4i 8/space0 for instance0 our eyes see the null surface spread out in -real. space0 while the metric tells us that it occupies :ust one location in the 8/space. If we trust the metric0 we might imagine the wavefunction at :ust one point in 3in4ows4i 8/ space0 undulating hyperspherically in all five dimensions -two being imaginary.0 pro:ecting worldlines upon null geodesics where the resultant real and imaginary components always correspond. Approaching this picture requires a good measure of abstract thought. If we could actually perceive this0 what sort of beautiful thing would it beN It would appear that we are missing the perceptual or conceptual apparatus to experience imaginary space. >r are weN This question is further e(plored in ,art Two.

. - The !an' "orlds o$ Quantum Spacetime

It would seem that physics is at a loss when it comes to e(plaining our universe in the conte(t of $E# spacetime alone. The problem goes beyond the lac4 of a viable unifying theoryK our spacetime would appear to offer insufficient degrees of freedom to contain 4nown phenomena. Go wonder0 then0 that many theoretical physicists are invo4ing other universes to e(plain the mysteries of our own. 3any varieties of multiverse e(ist0 including those distributed in space and in time. Then there is 9verett7s "any #orlds hypothesis0 where e(ponentially increasing numbers of parallel universes are perpetually splintering off into being. In each case the universes are ClaterallyD distributed0 separated0 isolated islands in the vast e(panse of infinity and eternity. Ta4ing a leaf from !arwinian evolution0 our universe is considered a product of cosmic natural selection0 or perhaps :ust sheer good luc4 ; a statistical flu4e0 allowed by the laws of chance0 by which the free parameters of physics are laid down.

20

It is not hard to spot the fallacy in such a position. @roadly spea4ing0 two types of law are found in physics: structural laws0 embodying a coherent logical system or structureK and input parameters0 which are numbers. In principle0 one could e(plain all the free parameters of the standard model of particle physics0 and perhaps even of string theory0 and still 4now nothing about the mechanism behind quantum nonlocality. >ne would assume the mechanism of nonlocality to be highly speciali6ed and therefore similar -if not identical. to that found in other universes0 :ust as the principles of 9uclidean geometry should be no different in other $E# spacetimes. 2egardless of how many universes might e(ist0 nonlocality remains a property of our universe that demands an e(planation in terms of our universe. If we can7t solve nonlocality in our universe0 it is difficult to imagine how we could solve it in others. To use a crude analogy0 one could try to e(plain unli4ely occurrences on a chess board by speculating that the board is one of a vast ensemble. @y the laws of probability0 eventually you will find a board where these unli4ely things will occur. That is the multiverse position. The other approach0 of course0 is to stac4 more chess boards above the first and play $/dimensional chess ; then these unli4ely occurrences are revealed to be logical consequences of the $/dimensional game -structural law.. In ,art >ne I have attempted to s4etch out the essential logical structure of what could be called ,% physics0 e(tending quantum mechanics and relativity theory consistently into higher dimensions0 with our $/brane ta4ing its place as the lowest of three interpenetrating worlds. 1pecial 2elativity and the quantum wavefunction reach up into this space to their meeting place0 where they encounter mass and gravity0 woven into the higher/dimensional geometry of spacetime. According to this model0 there are indeed Cother worldsD0 but they are not far away in space or time. They are right here0 in and around us0 the three branes together forming a coherent0 holistic structure and system. To understand the physics of our physical world0 we must therefore understand the physics of the system. That is0 to solve physics we must include the '/brane and 8/brane. <hile the higher branes remain empirically unobservable0 we share their space. <hat does this mean0 scientifically0 philosophically and metaphysicallyN 3oreover0 beyond their crucial role in the structure of spacetime0 what e(actly are imaginary dimensionsN The answers to these questions lie in a remar4able convergence we are now set to e(plore in ,art Two0 as we proceed to demonstrate that ?uantum 1pacetime provides the milieu for a consistent science of consciousness and perception.

21

Part Two Consciousness and Perception

%. The 3*perience o$ Phenomenal Space
@efore approaching any theory0 it is essential that we clearly describe or define the phenomenon we are attempting to e(plain. <hat philosophers call phenomenal consciousness or phenomenal space is simply our experience of consciousness0 as we e(perience it. 9mpiricist philosophers including 5ant and !escartes have described phenomenal consciousness as the space0 time0 and content of our minds -where the content includes intuitions and feelings.. !escartes famously distinguished between two types of substance: res extensis0 so called ob:ective reality0 e(tended in physical spaceK and res cogitans0 phenomenal consciousness0 our conscious e(perience0 being somehow outside of physical space. Gevertheless0 our phenomenal consciousness is wrought through with the e(perience of space. <hile our perceived picture of the world is a construct of our consciousness0 located in phenomenal space0 to our mind7s eye it appears spread out before us as an ob:ective0 three/ dimensional continuum in which we ourselves appear as ob:ects. >ur picture of the world represents an angular distribution of vectors converging at a point0 intuitively understood as the viewpoint of the observer. =ere is the parado( of ob:ective e(perience: =ow can our perceived picture of the world0 e(tended in phenomenal space0 appear in every way as an ob:ective space around us0 filling the world through and through0 even so that we ta4e it to be the worldN <hat is the relationship between physical space and phenomenal spaceN The idea of space is implied by the notion of individuality or identity. 9ven such primitive entities as numbers can be reduced to elements of a space ; the number line0 upon which two numbers at the same location are the same number. It can similarly be argued that mathematical thought itself is built upon spatial precepts0 however abstract0 as are logic and reason generally. >perations cannot ta4e place without operands0 which require a sense of individuality0 which in turn requires the notion of space -individuation.. The problem is that0 while we may find neural correlates to consciousness in physical space0 conscious e(perience itself is nowhere to be found there. ,hilosophers of mind call this the space problem A# B.

%.% Ob;ecti#e and Sub;ecti#e Space

>ur phenomenal e(perience includes a variety of spatial types or qualities. 3ost obviously0 our picture of the world0 derived from sensory input0 appears in our consciousness e(tended in three dimensions. 1imilarly0 when we dream0 visuali6e a scene0 or recall an event0 our e(perience ta4es place in a three/ dimensional phenomenal space0 this time independently of the physical senses. The important point is that0 whether derived from the senses or not0 from the point of view of the observer this three/dimensional space is an objective space0 containing differentiated ob:ects. The terms objective and subjective are conventionally applied to our e(perience of the world through the senses -ob:ective. and of phenomenal consciousness -sub:ective.. As philosophers of every persuasion have noted0 however0 upon closer analysis this demarcation brea4s down: our e(perience of the Cob:ectiveD world is ultimately sub:ective ; we e(perience the world in our mind. <hether we loo4 upon a scene visually0 or close our eyes and visuali6e the scene internally0 the scene appears in the same space ; phenomenal space0 our conscious e(perience. From the point of view of the observer0 then0 the terms objective and subjective must be applied in a different sense: Q >b:ective consciousness is the e(perience of ob:ective space0 e(tended in three real dimensions0 containing differentiated ob:ects.

22

Q 1ub:ective consciousness is the e(perience of sub:ective space0 which is une(tended0 containing qualities -qualia.. +onsider living in a two/dimensional space. As you loo4 around with your two/dimensional eyes0 what do you seeN Gothing0 because there is nothing there. 1ince nothing has any height0 volume0 or substance in your two/dimensional world0 it could hardly be called ob:ective. 3oreover0 nobody 4nows how to visuali6e a four/dimensional space. =uman consciousness seems to pic4 out three real dimensions as special0 what we will call objective space0 whether e(perienced in the world0 in a dream0 or in a musing. @eneath the ob:ective modes of consciousness lies truly sub:ective e(perience0 qualia0 having no representation in ob:ective space at all. ?ualia have no shape0 si6e or measurable attributes. <hat is the shape of :oyN =ow much does sorrow weighN 9ven while they permeate our conscious e(perience0 nowhere do :oy or sorrow appear as ob:ects e(tended in space. Ret0 even emotions are differentiated by some abstract notion of space ; in the vernacular0 for instance0 we spea4 of being in a Cgood spaceD or a Cbad spaceD. 1o we are obliged to as4: <hat manner of space might include :oy and sorrowN >ur conscious e(perience consists of our ob:ective and sub:ective consciousness evolving in time. In ob:ective space we perceive or imagine ob:ective -spatially e(tended. worlds. In our thought/space -conceptual space. we perform logical operations ; we discriminate0 plan0 calculate0 analy6e0 critici6e0 reason0 theori6e0 verbali6e. In our feeling/space -subconscious mind. we e(perience emotions of all flavors ; loves0 hates0 :oys0 fears0 compulsions0 impressions from the past0 none of it rational. Iltimately0 each of these modes of conscious e(perience reduces to purely sub:ective e(perience ; qualia0 distributed in space and time. Our4ing beneath our conscious e(perience0 we must not forget that conscious experience implies an experiencer0 an observer. <hat is the nature of the observerN <here is the observer located in space and how does she access her consciousness spacesN A viable account of consciousness must address each of these questions.

%.- !ind and !atter

In a penetrating series of essays titled "ind and "atter0 9rwin 1chrLdinger addresses the inability of science to include or account for the phenomenon of consciousness0 arguing that science has seen success only at the cost of removing the observer. The following e(cerpts summari6e his core insights into the process of objectivation A#HB: Without 1eing a#are of it and #ithout 1eing rigorousl! s!stematic a1out it: #e e+clude the Su15ect of Cogni0ance from the domain of 7ature that #e endeavor to understand. We step #ith our o#n person 1ac" into the part of an onloo"er #ho does not 1elong to the #orld: #hich 1! this ver! procedure 1ecomes an o15ective #orld... So #e are faced #ith the follo#ing remar"a1le situation. While the stuff from #hich our #orld picture is 1uilt is !ielded e+clusivel! from the sense organs as organs of the mind: so that ever! manAs #orld picture is and al#a!s remains a construct of his mind and cannot 1e proved to have an! other e+istence: !et the conscious mind itself remains a stranger #ithin that construct: it has no living space in it: !ou can spot it no#here in space. 1chrLdinger points out the parado(ical consequences of this split: The material #orld has onl! 1een constructed at the price of ta"ing the self: that is: mind: out of it: removing itN mind is not part of itN o1viousl!: therefore: it can neither act on it nor 1e acted on 1! an! of its parts. <e all e(perience the effects of mind on matter0 and of matter on mind. 9very act of volition is mind influencing matter. 9very physical sensation is matter influencing mind. If consciousness resides outside of $E# spacetime0 then how can it interact with the physics of our worldN The problem of causal interaction

23

is characteristic of dualistic theories of consciousness: if consciousness is something other than a physical phenomenon0 how can CimmaterialD consciousness influence physical matter -the brain.0 or vice versaN 3ore specifically0 how can our conscious e(perience0 ta4ing place in phenomenal space0 be causally related to events ta4ing place in physical spaceN <hat is the relationship between the ob:ective and sub:ective layers of realityN =ow can they be related at allN

%.. Quantum Spacetime and the 3soteric !odel

=aving laid out the problem0 we approach these questions from the perspective of ?uantum 1pacetime. 3ight the branes and imaginary dimensions of ?uantum 1pacetime provide a conte(t for our conscious e(perienceN To address this question we draw the readers7s attention to a fascinating convergence of previously disparate fields of inquiry. In its true form0 esoteric philosophy represents a synthesis of consciousness e(ploration since antiquity0 wherein clear universal threads emerge from the consistent e(perience of the adepts -scientists of the invisible. down through the ages. 1tructural correlations between esoteric cosmology and ?uantum 1pacetime suggest that we consider what insights the adepts might bring. The idea of three interpenetrating worlds0 realms0 or CplanesD forming the lower strata of +reation is standard in the esoteric literature. The adepts of ancient India 4new these realms as tripura -1ans4rit: Cthe three worldsD.0 while in modern times they can be found consistently delineated in Theosophy and in the wor4s of A.A. @ailey0 among many lesser 4nown authors. The three worlds constitute what is 4nown as the lower triad of a sevenfold system0 the four higher planes being considered abstract and formless. 2egarded as a coherent unit0 the lower triad remains divided -in a certain sense. from the higher planes while encompassing the totality of the ob:ective universe and the human personal nature. 9ach of the three worlds is considered an objective world0 materially isolated from the others while remaining accessible to consciousness. Figure #' presents some essential properties of the three worlds according to the esoteric model0 correlated with the three branes of ?uantum 1pacetime A#)B.

Mental (lane

*1stract mind Insight ational mind Mentality, logic, intention Su1conscious mind "esire, feeling, emotion #ong term memory "ream s$ace -theric.ph!sical matter 6ense ph!sical matter

I eas !orms 5.1rane

*stral (lane

;
'.1rane !iel s %articles %.1rane

(h!sical (lane

Figure . ) Quantum Spacetime and the Three "orlds

Q The physical plane corresponds to our $/brane and is divided into two realms0 which may be understood as fields and particles. The etheric/physical realm is central to the process of state reduction0 or collapse of the wavefunction0 which is not of primary interest here A#PB.

24

Q The astral -emotional. plane corresponds to the '/brane and is home to the subconscious mind. According to the esoteric adepts0 we e(perience the '/brane in our dreams. Q The mental plane corresponds to the 8/brane0 and li4e the 8/brane is divided into higher and lower regions: the abstract mind and the rational -ob:ective. mind0 characteri6ed by ,lato7s 1deas and 2orms. The higher -imaginary. realm is considered formless0 while the lower -real. realm contains -thought. forms. <e will e(plore these correlations in more detail in what follows. @ut first we must ta4e an important diversion0 for we are now in a position to determine a fundamental principle regarding the ontology of space and consciousness.

%.0 &elati#istic !otion in <reams

Oucid dreaming -being aware that one is dreaming while within a dream. has been practiced down through the ages and has recently become a legitimate field of research within the science of psychology. A remar4able feature of the dream state0 coming into clear view from reports of lucid dreamers0 is its universality. Oi4e our physical e(perience0 dreams possess certain characteristics that don7t vary between times0 traditions or individuals ; that is0 the Cphysics of the dream spaceD does not change. >ne such property is the e(perience of motion in the dream space0 described here by dream researcher 2obert <aggoner A2"B. *lmost all movement or fl!ing in the dream 1egins: proceeds: and ends in the same #a! ; #ith the manipulation of the mind. *n! #a! is the right #a!: 1ecause there is 1asicall! one #a!: and that #a! is through manipulating a#areness. In lucid dream space: !ou are as close to an! place as !ou e+pect to 1e. The apparent fift!.foot flight is onl! a mental act a#a!. So: too: the long.distance flight to that hill over there ; !ou and the hill are onl! separated 1! an act of focus and intent. The beauty of such testimony is that it can be corroborated directly from the reader7s personal e(perience of dreams. >ne does not need to be a lucid dreamer ; even our recollection of ordinary dreams might convince us of these basic principles. First0 we can agree that dream space appears to us as an objective space0 a three/dimensional space somewhat resembling our physical world0 but e(hibiting very different physicsM Oet us consider the physics of the '/brane -astral plane. in the conte(t of our dreams. 2ecall that the '/brane includes an ob:ective space of three real dimensions plus a fourth dimension which is imaginary. The imaginary dimension doesn7t appear directly in our ob:ective dream environment0 but manifests in the properties of motion relative to the real dimensions. 2ecall the metric for 3in4ows4i '/ space:

s2 J x2 E y2 E

E w2

-$.

Accordingly0 the distance between any two points in the '/brane can be shortened by increasing the imaginary coordinate w. 5eeping this in mind0 let us consider some further advice from <aggoner regarding our moving about in dreams A2#B. -motions energi0e the area of focus. If !ou #ant to get some#here in a hurr!: 5ust add some emotional energ! to it. -motion shortens the distance 1et#een the e+perience and the e+periencer: 1et#een the dreamer and the desired. 3ost dreamers will recogni6e the truth of these statementsK in the dream space we don7t move about by e(erting bodily force0 but by a movement of consciousness0 and emotion has powerful spatial effects. The alert reader will already have connected the dots. 1ince emotion shortens distances in the dream space0

25

and w reduces distances in 3in4ows4i '/space0 we are brought to the following proposal0 representing an e(plicit convergence of physics and consciousness: Q The imaginary dimension w in the '/brane can be identified with the emotional consciousness0 the sub:ective or subconscious mind. Through the recollection of dreams -or better yet0 lucid dreaming.0 the reader might gather personal insights into the mysterious dual nature of the imaginary dimensions: Q Imaginary dimensions are dimensions of space0 woven into the geometry of space. Q Imaginary dimensions are dimensions -qualities. of consciousness.

%.1 The Identit' o$ Space and Consciousness

The identity of space and consciousness is a central tenet of the esoteric tradition. +onsider the following declarations0 each from an esoteric author of the modern era: Space is Consciousness. <22= Space is included in the idea of consciousness: and its utili0ation of matter. <2%= There is 1ut one indivisi1le and a1solute 2mniscience and Intelligence in the Oniverse: and this thrills throughout ever! atom and infinitesimal point of the #hole finite /osmos #hich hath no 1ounds: and #hich people call Space: considered independentl! of an!thing contained in it. <2'= Consciousness is the Continuum.4a1ric of Space: #hich is all.pervading: ever!#here. <25= @eginning with our model of ?uantum 1pacetime0 in con:unction with our direct e(perience of the dream space0 we have arrived at a startling convergence of space and consciousness in the '/brane. +ould this be true also of the $/braneN !oes not our Cob:ectiveD e(perience of the world all ta4e place within our phenomenal consciousnessN Therefore0 would it be true to say that our picture of the world0 laid out before our mind7s eye in three real dimensions0 and our ob:ective consciousness itself0 are identicalN The following identities are fundamental: Q 1pace J consciousness. Q 2eal space J ob:ective consciousness -e(tended0 with ob:ects.. Q Imaginary space J sub:ective consciousness -une(tended0 qualia.. The same principles apply to the idea of motion or change: Q 2eal motion J the motion of matter or form in ob:ective space. Q Imaginary motion J the movement of consciousness in sub:ective space. 1pace can thus be understood as dual in nature0 e(hibiting both a consciousness e(pression and a geometrical e(pression. <hen ga6ing upon the world0 we e(perience an ob:ective space in our consciousness and we infer that the world is this ob:ective space. <hile the space we e(perience is actually phenomenal space0 within the mind0 we seem to share a consistent e(perience of this ob:ective space0 suggesting that it e(ists independently of any one of us. That is0 our conscious e(perience in phenomenal space itself appears to be ta4ing place within a space0 what we call the world. <hat are we to ma4e of thisN The adepts address this question directly with what they call the law of analogy or the law of correspondences0 succinctly e(pressed by the =ebrew 5abbalists as CAs above0 so belowD. 1imilarly0 in the Free4 mystery schools it was taught that CAs is the macrocosm0 so is the microcosmD. That is0 a human being is constituted li4e the universe. >ur consciousness includes the same spatial dimensions as does the universe0 and only thus do we e(perience the universe and participate in its life. The logic is watertight0 of

26

course0 so we infer that the three dimensions of the world are the same three dimensions constituting our ob:ective consciousness0 as they manifest in each of the three worlds -branes.. It would thus appear that we are living within a consciousness0 and each of us are li4e Ideas within it.

%.4 The Ph'sics o$ Perception

At school we learned that we see not the world itself0 but photons reflected or emitted by the world0 which impinge upon the retina of the eye and CsomehowD produce a picture in the mind. As 5ant observed0 the world itself remains inaccessible to us. 1imilarly0 each of the physical senses can be reduced to an action of the electromagnetic force. <hen you caress the chee4 of your beloved0 in fact no contact occurs ; what you e(perience -according to physics. is electrons in your hand repelling the electrons of your beloved0 again by the e(change of photons. In ?uantum 1pacetime the picture is very different. Oet us e(amine visual perception from our understanding of the wavefunction and the transactional interpretation of quantum mechanics. +onsider one photon0 previously emitted from some ob:ect0 being absorbed by the retina. According to TI0 since the photon is absorbed by a photoreceptor cell in the retina0 it is the retina that returns a confirmation wave bac4 in space and time0 completing the Chandsha4eD with the emitter. This implies0 of course0 that visual perception is a bidirectional process. <hile we generally consider the eye a passive0 receptive instrument0 the theory of extramission -emanations coming from the eyes. has been espoused by many philosophers0 including 9uclid0 ,tolemy0 and ,lato. =ere again is the ever/insightful 9rwin 1chrLdinger A2 B. 6ear reader: or 1etter still: dear lad! reader: recall the 1right: 5o!ful e!es #ith #hich !our child 1eams upon !ou #hen !ou 1ring him a ne# to!: and then let the ph!sicist tell !ou than in realit! nothing emerges from these e!esN in realit! their onl! o15ectivel! detecta1le function is continuall! to 1e hit 1! and to receive light >uanta. In realit!P * strange realit!P Something seems to 1e missing in it. Aristotle0 characteristically contradicting his teacher0 espoused the theory of intromission whereby vision results solely from light entering the eyes0 the view held by canonical physics today. <hile many of us sense truth in the theory of e(tramission0 science can7t begin to account for it0 so we turn a Cblind eyeD. @ut let us loo4 more closely at a photon being absorbed at the retina in ?uantum 1pacetime: Q From the time the photon was emitted until the moment it is absorbed0 there was no photon0 but a wavefunction spanning space and time in the '/brane and 8/brane. Q The wavefunction adheres to a null cone defined by the emitter in 3in4ows4i '/space0 technically placing the emitter and absorber at one location in 3in4ows4i '/space -sJ".. Q <hile oriented in four dimensions -x+ y+ + w.0 the photon wavefunction is a standing wave e(tended on -and presumably oscillating on. all five dimensions: x+ y+ + w+ v. Q The wavefunction is composed of both retarded and advanced waves0 propagating forward and bac4wards in time respectively. Ta4en together0 these properties reveal the wavefunction to be a nonlocal -both spaceli4e and timeli4e.0 bidirectional0 multidimensional information conduit. The wavefunction contains and propagates information on real -ob:ective. levels0 such as its frequency and e(tension in $E# spacetime0 as well as on imaginary -sub:ective. levels0 the dimensions w and v. The process of visual perception is illustrated schematically in Figure #8. For present purposes the physical visual mechanism and associated neurobiology are considered a coherent quantum system having the capacity to process information from the wavefunction and present it to our corresponding consciousness spaces0 and vice versa. <hile our physical brain is e(tended in three real dimensions0 4eep in mind that

27

the brain is fundamentally wavefunctions0 all of which are e(tended in five dimensions0 allowing the brain to interact with corresponding structures in the '/brane and 8/brane. <hen the photon is absorbed by the retina0 the photon wavefunction becomes entangled with our visual mechanism0 allowing information to flow in either direction between the emitter and the sub:ective dimensions of the perceiver. Thus0 this entire picture is e(tant in the corresponding branes at the moment the photon is absorbed. Figure #8 depicts the causal structure connecting the world -on the left. with our sub:ective e(perience of the world -on the right.. <hile we might presume that the real dimensions of the wavefunction provide us with a picture of the real dimensions of our world0 this is not the case0 since the real dimensions of the wavefunction cannot be directly apprehended by our sub:ective -imaginary. dimensions of consciousness. 2ather0 a more subtle process is involved0 encoded into the spatial metrics of the '/brane and 8/brane. =ere we approach the boundary between the ob:ective and sub:ective layers of reality0 the interface between mind and matter. wMi &emitter' wMi &eye' '.1rane x &eye' Ceft Lrain ight Lrain w 5.1rane w m v Bisual perception

Su1liminal 8ps!chic9 perception

%.1rane

x &emitter'

Figure 0 ) The process o$ #isual perception

<hen the transaction is completed0 the wavefunction collapses to some eigenstate on a null cone defined by the absorption event7s coordinates in spacetime -in the eye.0 which we 4now is on the null cone of the emission event0 defined by

x2 E y2 E

E w2 J "
2

- . -H.

If we ta4e w J iw0 it follows that

w2 3 x2 E y2 E

implying that w gives the real distance between the two events. In the $/brane0 this is equivalent to saying that if we 4now the time ta4en by a photon to reach us at light speed0 we can deduce the distance traveled0 being the distance to the source. In the '/brane0 however0 the interval Sw between the two events provides a subjective measure of the real distance between them0 representing an e(plicit relationship between ob:ective and sub:ective principles. It is proposed that the interval Sw is indeed registered by one7s personal w dimension ; the subconscious mind ; as a subliminal sense of distance or depth in the visual field. The reader is invited to e(amine her own conscious e(perience for evidence of this phenomenon. <ith one eye or two0 our visual depth of field

28

appears to e(tend beyond mere optics0 being more a sense or feeling than a visual perception. This becomes most apparent when we are startled by some une(pected event ; a sudden happening in our midst provo4es a very different emotional response than would the same event at a distance. <e now e(tend our reasoning to multiple photoreceptor cells and the dimension v. &ust four null cones are depicted in Figure # 0 each representing the location of a receptor cell in 3in4ows4i 8/space0 distributed along the real dimension x at the same moment -w and v are constant. . To ma4e sense of this requires that we introduce two important ideas: Q The observer may be identified with the origin of a null surface in 3in4ows4i 8/space. Q The observer can perceive only what is located on his null surface. In practical terms0 this means that0 at any given moment0 everything you perceive is at one location in 3in4ows4i 8/space0 with you0 the observer0 at the center. It follows that0 in order to enter the perception of the observer0 the photoreceptor null cones must be displaced -@ell 1tate pro:ected. on the v dimension to intersect the observer7s null surface in the 8/brane. Thus0 in 3in4ows4i 8/space0 technically there is no distance between the observer and his perceived e(perience. As illustrated in Figure # 0 the displacement Sv will be directly related to the spacing between receptor cells Sx0 representing once again an e(plicit relation between a sub:ective principle v and a real principle x0 this time equating to real spatial extension. w/i

v/i

Qx

x Qv

Figure 1 ) Sub;ecti#e perception o$ spatial e*tension in 0/space

If we assume that the biological mechanism0 which provides the three/dimensional design for the eye0 also provides corresponding neurobiology e(tending this principle to an angular distribution over two linear dimensions0 it follows that for every location in real space0 relative to an observer7s null surface -viewpoint.0 there e(ists a corresponding w and v coordinate which together encode the perceived geometry of ob:ective space as a subjective experience. Figure #H is meant to provide an intuitive sense for the relationship between the observer and the real and imaginary dimensions. 2elative to the observer7s null surface0 the resultant real contribution to the metric and the resultant imaginary contribution always correspond0 implying that our visual perception is a balance0 in some sense0 of ob:ective and sub:ective elements. 9(pressed differently0 our sub:ective

29

e(perience reflects the ob:ective0 and vice versa. A consequence of profound philosophical relevance emerges from this model. 1ince the observer7s null surface is defined by five coordinates in 3in4ows4i 8/space0 it follows that the observer himself must be located in 3in4ows4i 8/space ; in the 8/brane0 the mental plane. As we shall see0 the esoteric adepts say e(actly that. 215ective Space
eal displacements

Su15ective Space v The 21server x2 I y2 I z2 I w2 I v2 H ,

6irection 6epth

x y z

Figure 4 ) The obser#er and his null sur$ace

The process of perception0 e(plicitly relating ob:ective and sub:ective space0 is reversible according to a process 4nown esoterically as Cthe form/producing faculty of the mindD. Q &ust as the perception of real -ob:ective. space can be encoded sub:ectively in imaginary dimensions0 sub:ective consciousness can pro:ect corresponding three/dimensional forms into ob:ective space. 3ental activity pro:ects forms into ob:ective space in the 8/brane0 4nown as thoughtforms+ while emotional activity pro:ects forms into ob:ective space in the '/brane0 as we 4now from our dreams. All this is made possible by the mediation of the 8/dimensional wavefunction0 being ripples in the fabric of spacetime0 adhering to the observer7s null surface and set in motion by the movement of consciousness0 which is itself a spatial motion0 hence energetic.

%.5 Ph'sics in the ./brane

9vidence for the form/producing faculty of the mind is no further away than our dreams. >ur ability to con:ure up anything in our dream space0 or to change our environment through an action of the mind0 is a universal characteristic of dreams. To understand how this wor4s we begin by revisiting spacetime in the '/brane0 as depicted in Figure #). +learly0 the '/brane is a very different world from our $/brane. <hile the '/brane includes an ob:ective space of three real dimensions0 coincident with our $/brane0 it includes also a fourth -imaginary. dimension which is in motion relative to the real dimensions0 along with a time dimension which is also imaginary. 3any mysteries are unfolded by this understanding of spacetime in the '/brane. '.1rane x y z w t4 8imaginar!9

Figure 5 ) Spacetime in the ./brane

@ecause the imaginary dimension w is moving in imaginary time0 the resulting motion is real. <hat does this meanN 1ince motion reduces to energy0 the motion of the dimension w relative to the real dimensions manifests as real energy distributed universally throughout every point of real space in the '/brane0 filling

30

ob:ective space with energetic potential. The esoteric adepts call this the astral light due to its translucent0 shimmering0 CstarryD -astral. appearance when in its primordial state ; before being modified by minds. It has been described as an aethereal0 energetic0 CplasticD material that can form itself into any shape or appearance imaginable. @y the process described in the previous section0 the mind pro:ects thoughtforms into ob:ective space in the 8/brane. These same wavefunctions appear also in the '/brane0 where directed mental and emotional attention will energi6e them sufficiently to e(cite the astral light into action0 manifesting ob:ective three/ dimensional forms representing the mental thoughtform embellished by the subconscious mind -w in the '/brane.. From an e(periential perspective0 2obert <aggoner describes the process as follows A2HB: The dream.space largel! mirrors !our ideas: e+pectations: and 1eliefs a1out it. L! changing !our e+pectations and 1eliefs: !ou change the dream space. eali0ing mental space responds 1est to mental manipulations: !ou let go of ph!sical manipulations and use the #ings of !our mind? The mind: emotions: and mental action precede the effect. A 4ey characteristic of the dream state is its instability. +onsider that the dimension w is in motion not :ust as it manifests in the '/brane itself0 but as it manifests in your subconscious mind -your personal '/ brane.0 e(plaining the endless activity of feelings and emotions along with the incessant change and instability of the dream environment. Following from our previous conclusion that distances in dreams can be shortened by invo4ing the dimension w through directed emotion0 in accordance with the spatial metric for 3in4ows4i '/space0 we can now ma4e a more general observation concerning motion in dreams. 1ince time in the '/brane is imaginary0 motion through ob:ective -real. space in the '/brane equates to real displacements over imaginary time ; that is0 motion is imaginary0 meaning subjective. It is no wonder0 then0 that one moves about in the '/brane by a movement of the mind. @ecause time in the '/brane is imaginary -sub:ective.0 your e(perience of motion -change.0 and hence your sense of time0 depends on your state of mind. 3any of us have e(perienced being fro6en to the spot in dreams0 corresponding to the mind being fro6en -as when terrified.0 analogous to being fro6en in time. >n the other hand0 dream researchers have reported evidence that the sense of time in the lucid state is similar to that in the wa4ing state0 which is consistent with the thesis that lucid dreaming entails the ob:ective -rational. mind in the 8/brane -which lives in real time. in some sense ta4ing control of the sub:ective -subconscious. mind in the '/brane0 and therefore ta4ing control of the dream A2)B. Oucid dreamers report the e(perience of having a dream body in the dream space0 somewhat resembling the physical body. The adepts call this the astral body0 being a locali6ed embodiment of the subconscious mind0 generally coincident with the physical body in real $/space. Oi4e all things astral0 the astral body is proteanK when our consciousness is focused in the '/brane0 as in dreams0 the astral body adopts an appearance corresponding to our view of ourselves ; e(plaining why we generally appear younger or better loo4ing in the '/brane. >ur perception of ob:ective forms in the '/brane mirrors the corresponding process in the $/brane0 as described above0 implying that the observer has access to sensory apparatus in the astral body as he does in the physical.

%.6 Ph'sics in the 0/brane

The esoteric adepts regard the 8/brane -the mental plane. as the most comple( and intricate of all the planes of being0 which is appropriate for a world that stands between +reation and the Increated0 between form and formlessness0 between time and eternity. @eing the first of the three worlds constituting ?uantum 1pacetime0 the 8/brane is the cornerstone of ob:ective reality.

31

First of all0 note that the 8/brane includes an ob:ective space0 coincident with those in the $/brane and '/ brane0 and thus must be considered an ob:ective world. As e(plained in the conte(t of 5alu6a7s 9instein/ 3a(well theory0 the 8/brane may be considered a 8/space0 two dimensions being imaginary0 or as a real '/ space0 the fourth real dimension being in some sense negative. Thus0 the 8/brane is effectively two worlds0 bordering the divide between the sub:ective and ob:ective realms of reality. The sub:ective realm is characteri6ed by the native -sub:ective. consciousness implicit in the w and v dimensions0 while consciousness in the ob:ective realm is characteri6ed by the fourth real dimension m0 constituting the real cross product of w and v. w m v

5.1rane

t5

Figure 6 ) Spacetime in the 0/brane

The 8/brane is animated by the spatial motions of the imaginary dimensions w and v relative to each other and to the three real dimensions. It follows that the composite real dimension m is also in motion ; real motion -real space over real time.0 which equates to the primordial appearance of real energy. 1imilarly0 5alu6a7s theory derives the electromagnetic field e(tending throughout the first three dimensions of a '/space. Analogous to the astral light in the '/brane0 this real energy manifests spontaneously throughout ob:ective space in the 8/brane0 constituting a subtle universal field supporting the creation of ob:ective thoughtforms. The fourth real dimension m is 4nown as the objective mind0 the rational0 logical mind dominating our normal wa4ing state. @eing real0 it is characteri6ed by a sense of e(tension0 as when performing logical operations in consciousness0 for instance. -Gote that two bits are required to do logic0 :ust as two sub:ective principles constitute our logical mind.. @y the form/producing faculty of the mind0 the ob:ective mind endlessly pro:ects thoughtforms into ob:ective space in the 8/brane ; a process 4nown as thinking. It can indeed be said that Cthoughts are thingsD in the 8/brane0 and you see them with your mind7s eye0 quite literally -being the senses of the mental body0 which locali6es the ob:ective mind in the 8/brane.. <hile the imaginary dimensions w and v present themselves as a cross product to manifest the lower mental world and ob:ective mind0 they also present themselves in their native imaginary states0 yielding a second0 entirely different 4ind of world in the 8/brane. 1ince the imaginary dimensions are moving in real time0 the resulting motions are imaginary0 meaning subjective 0 the movement of consciousness. The resulting imaginary -sub:ective. energy cannot support the manifestation of real forms in ob:ective space. +onsequently0 ob:ective forms do not manifest in this realmK rather0 what could be considered subjective forms are pro:ected into objective space ; ghostly0 immaterial0 pristine0 transcendental0 pure potentiality ; the contemplation of which is 4nown as abstract mind or causal mind. The causal mind is considered the root of the mind. @uddhists 4now it as the substrate consciousness. The higher0 imaginary levels of the 8/brane are 4nown in modern esoteric cosmology as the causal world due to the fact that everything in our ob:ective universe can trace its origin bac4 to some primordial cause issuing from these realms. This is ,lato7s transcendental realm of Ideas and Archetypes0 as described here by philosopher 2ichard Tarnas A2PB (latonic Ideas are o15ective. The! do not depend on human thought: 1ut e+ist entirel! in their o#n right. The! are perfect patterns em1edded in the ver! nature of things. The (latonic Idea is: as it #ere: not merel! a human idea 1ut the universeAs idea: an ideal entit! that can e+press itself e+ternall! in concrete tangi1le form or internall! as a concept in the human mind. It is a primordial image or formal essence that can manifest in various #a!s and on various levels: and is the foundation of realit! itself...

32

The human mind and the universe are ordered according to the same archet!pal structures or essences: 1ecause of #hich: and onl! 1ecause of #hich: true understanding of things is possi1le for the human intelligence. 3athematical readers may have noted that the spatial structure of the causal world0 ,lato7s transcendental realm of Ideas and Archetypes0 provides a conte(t for fractal geometry invo4ing comple( functions0 such as the 3andelbrot and &ulia sets.

%. 9 3soteric !odel o$ the 0/brane

=aving reduced physics to a series of three interpenetrating branes brought to life by the motion of two imaginary dimensions0 we are left to consider the origin of these mysterious CmotionsD powering all manifestation in the three worlds of ?uantum 1pacetime. The answer comes from esoteric philosophy and is offered as a consistent hypothesis. =aving ventured beyond time and form0 we find ourselves hopelessly outside the domain of empirical guidance0 so we are left to consider some insights of those who have e(plored the higher branes ; in their consciousness ; down through the ages. First0 as noted above0 the motions of the w and v dimensions in the 8/brane are imaginary -imaginary space over real time.0 meaning subjective. They therefore represent the movement of consciousness0 implying some sort of sub:ective conscious process 0 but what consciousness0 or whose consciousnessN According to the esoteric tradition0 cosmogenesis rests upon a principle of great logical elegance and simplicity0 sometimes called the law of generation0 as follows: Q The interaction of two polari6ed principles manifests a third principle of a different order. 1uch processes can be observed throughout Gature. The chemical atom0 for instance0 could be considered a different order of matter compared to the isolated nucleus and electrons that compose it. An electric cell or battery provides another simple e(ampleK the potential is not reali6ed until the electrodes are allowed to interact0 closing the circuit while manifesting currents and associated fields0 processes of a different order. 1uch a threefold system is 4nown esoterically as a triad and is considered fundamental to all manifestation. According to the esoteric tradition0 all things reduce to one thing ; bare sub:ectivity0 imaginary space ; 4nown in the Free4 mystery schools as the 4ogos. This one thing presents itself as two polari6ed principles which in turn yield a third0 completing what is 4nown as the primary triad consisting of three 4ogoi or conscious creative principles. The 5hird 4ogos is described as active intelligence and is considered the fountainhead of the lower triad0 the three worlds. The esoteric doctrine of the three Oogoi ; the primary triad ; is reflected of course in the theological 5rinity0 though in a heavily veiled and anthropomorphi6ed form0 missing the cosmological perspective and logical precision of the esoteric model. >ur purpose here is not to unveil the mysteries of the primary triad itself0 but to e(tend our understanding of the Third Oogos0 as reported by the adepts0 in the conte(t of ?uantum 1pacetime. @eing a sub:ective principle0 the Third Oogos itself manifests in the 8/brane as a triad0 in accordance with the law of generation. The transcendental consciousness of the Third Oogos presents itself as two principles0 manifesting as the sub:ective w and v dimensions of the 8/brane0 which in turn yield a third principle of a different order ; the real dimension m -interpreted mathematically as a cross product.. To emphasi6e the universality of this esoteric teaching0 we include here both 9astern and <estern terms for these three principles underpinning ob:ective reality0 as understood by the adepts A$"B: Q Kundalini -1ans4rit.0 "agnes -Free4.: Ccosmic magnetismD -negative0 feminine.. Q 2ohat -Tibetan.0 %ynamis -Free4.: Ccosmic electricityD -positive0 masculine..

33

Q 6rana -1ans4rit.0 7nergia -Free4.: Cuniversal life/forceD -neutral.. 5undalini -3agnes. and Fohat -!ynamis. are regarded as sub:ective0 within Gature everywhere. ,rana -9nergia. is differentK it is an ob:ective energy which interacts directly with physical matter0 including the physical body. At a more fundamental level0 ,rana becomes physical matter. Gote that while 5undalini -dimension w. and Fohat -dimension v. are polari6ed relative to each other0 both dimensions -and hence the Third Oogos herself. are considered spatially negative -feminine.. The esoteric model divides the mental plane into seven subplanes0 dimly recalled by the +hristian tradition as Cthe seven heavensD together constituting Cthe realm of the =oly 1piritD. The observer is 4nown in 1ans4rit as /hamkara0 CI am the doerD0 or Jivatman0 Cliving selfD0 or in modern esoterics as the 8eincarnating 7go0 and is placed at the lowest abstract level of the 8/brane0 in precise agreement with our model of ?uantum 1pacetime. This is where CyouD ; the observer0 the watcher0 the thin4er ; e(ist in cosmic space0 suspended by your null surface between sub:ective and ob:ective layers of reality0 between consciousness and matter. According to the adepts0 the observer is locali6ed in the causal world by the causal body0 which is not a body at all -there being no ob:ective forms in this realm.0 but a highly structured Idea or Archetype which persists life after life A$#B.
1

The Mental (lane

The Seven Reavens

2 3 4 5 6 7

Causal mind *1stract mind

Ideas *rchet!pes

(un alini, Magnes

!ohat, "ynamis Third Cogos

215ective mind ational mind Intention: reason

Aham*ara The 21server Thoughtforms

%rana, )nergia

Figure %9 ) 3soteric model o$ the 0/brane

The 1ans4rit word prana refers to the energetic -spatial. aspect of the fourth real dimension m0 while the consciousness aspect is 4nown to the adepts as manas0 meaning Cmind0 mentality0 discrimination0 intentionD. The Tibetan adept !:wal 5hul defines manas as follows A$2B: Manas is electricit!. Manas is that #hich produces cohesion. Manas is the intelligent #ill or ordered purpose of an e+istence. Gote that0 according to !:wal 5hul0 manas is both an ob:ective energy -electricity. and a principle of consciousness -intelligent will.. According to 5alu6a0 the geometry of spacetime in the 8/brane manifests electromagnetism obeying 3a(well7s laws0 while physicists will recogni6e Cthat which produces cohesionD as the electromagnetic force -cohering atoms and molecules0 hence matter.. 1o the scientist and the esotericist agree that electromagnetism manifests in the 8/brane A$$B. <hat the scientist never imagined0 however0 is that 5alu6a7s electricity is the electricity of the mind0 cohering thoughtforms in the 8/brane0 as made clear by !:wal 5hul -the emphasis is his. A$'B: The fire of Mind is fundamentall! electricity: sho#n in its higher #or"ings: and not considered so much as force in matter. The e(perience of the Third Oogos as it manifests on the abstract levels of the 8/brane has been described with remar4able consistency down through history by the genuine mystics and adepts of our race. It has

34

been variously described as a breath or a wind -6neuma: Free40 8uach: =ebrew.0 or as a fire or light -Shekinah: =ebrew0 Shakti: 1ans4rit.0 all invo4ing the image of sub:ective consciousness moving in abstract space. The adepts of the 2oman mystery schools simply called it "otion. In 9enesis .:; it is written: *nd the earth #as #ithout form: and voidN and dar"ness #as upon the face of the deep. *nd the Spirit of 3od moved upon the face of the #aters. 3otion is a universal characteristic of the Third Oogos0 as described in the esoteric literature and in scripture across traditions0 while water is an esoteric symbol for subjectivity. =ence do esoteric philosophy and ?uantum 1pacetime converge upon a seminal conclusion0 scientifically0 philosophically and theologically: Q >ur ob:ective universe issues from a sub:ective principle -consciousness.0 manifesting as space0 in motion -time.. ,lato writes in his dialogue 5imaeus: Time and the heaven came into 1eing at the same instant... Wherefore he resolved to have a moving image of eternit!: and #hen he set in order the heaven: he made this image eternal 1ut moving according to num1er: #hile eternit! itself rests in unit!N and this image #e call time. +orrectly understood0 esoteric cosmology is imbued with a logical elegance and sophistication far surpassing that of contemporary physical cosmology0 or anything concocted by modern minds. Intil a more consistent e(planation for the origin of time is at hand ; or for the origin of the ob:ective universe ; I thin4 it fair to let this hypothesis stand.

%.

The Astonishing !ind

The observer0 the thin4er0 the e(periencer0 the 1elf that stays with us throughout our earthly life0 never descends from its lofty perch on the abstract levels of the 8/brane0 from where it pro:ects its null surface ; its conscious perception ; into the three worlds. From this observer/centric perspective0 let us revisit our perception of the physical world0 the $/brane0 in the conte(t of ?uantum 1pacetime. =ow e(actly do we erect our picture of the world in our mindN An important insight comes from psychophysics e(periments showing that our consciousness embellishes our perceptions0 that Cin vision0 we do not perceive the world as it actually is0 but as the brain computes it most probably to beD A$8B. <hile generally it is assumed that the brain is responsible for CcomputingD our perceptions0 such effects can be more readily accounted for by considering the nature of our sub:ective layers of consciousness0 which possess memory -the records remain etched in space in the higher branes. and therefore e(pectations -habits.. Figure #8 -section 2.H. depicts the perception of a single photon0 representing a snapshot of the process in the corresponding branes at the moment the photon is absorbed by the retina. Gotice that a bidirectional causal connection is established between the emitter -which could be far away in physical space and time. and the sub:ective dimensions -consciousness. of the observer. Among the many possible types or qualities of information passed0 the photon7s location in the visual field is presented to the sub:ective consciousness as displacements on the w -depth. and v -direction. dimensions0 as previously described0 while the photon7s frequency -which is imaginary as well as real. invo4es the sub:ective quality -quale. of color in the imaginary dimensions. -It follows that color is a universal property of sub:ective space0 independent of any one of us0 which implies that our e(perience of color is universal0 assuming our biological equipment is in order..

35

Gow we e(tend this picture to millions of photons0 corresponding to the millions of photoreceptor cells in the retina. The spatial location -relative to the observer7s viewpoint. and the frequency -color. of each photon are encoded in the w and v dimensions of the observer7s null surface0 which are themselves imaginary and therefore unable to directly represent e(tension in ob:ective space. >ur direct perception0 therefore0 is purely abstract and sub:ective -qualia.0 and certainly not a Cpicture of the worldD e(tended in three real dimensions. For that picture to come about0 one final vital step must be ta4en ; a process which0 in a sense0 defines us as human. The qualia must be distributed in real space and time. The perception encoded in the imaginary dimensions of the observer7s null surface is presented -as a cross product. to the observer7s ob:ective mind0 the real dimension m0 which applies its powers of memory and discrimination to recogni e and understand what is perceived0 to place the perception in conte(t. This conceptual activity of the ob:ective mind -manas. manifests as a thought0 a mental conception0 which includes both spatial and noumenal components. Gature ta4es over from here ; the thought seed is pro:ected into ob:ective space by the form/producing faculty of the mind0 generating a thoughtform spatially coincident with the physical scene in three real dimensions0 but entirely in the (&brane0 where it is perceived by the senses of the mental body ; that is0 with the mind7s eye. This mental perception we call Cthe worldD. 1everal important ideas are included in the above: Q <hen we loo4 upon the world0 what we perceive is not in fact the world0 but our particular conception of the world0 derived from sub:ective impressions of past and present stimuli. Q <hen we loo4 upon the world0 what we in fact perceive is our own thoughtform pro:ected into the ob:ective dimensions of the 8/brane0 being coincident with the same dimensions of the supposedly perceived physical world. Thus0 our perception of the world is in fact a perception of our own mental creation in the 8/brane0 appearing before us in response to sensory stimuli in the $/brane. @ehold the astonishing power of your mind. Q Gotice0 this does not mean that only our perception of the world e(ists. According to the adept ,atan:ali0 the world exists for the sake of the Self. The world exists0 but our perception of the world is our own0 and ours alone. Figure 2# attempts to provide a symbiotic picture of human consciousness in ?uantum 1pacetime. @y its appearance in all three branes0 the holistic gravitational wavefunction establishes a coherent causal structure throughout the three worlds. Oet us conclude this section with some words from the wise0 representing those who have come to this understanding through the direct observation of consciousness0 without the aid of physics: The o1server is the o1served. ; +. (rishnamurti Mind is a mirrorN it reflects #hatever is placed 1efore it. ; )soteric axiom The Self has pure vision: 1ut he loo"s upon the #orld through the #indo# of the mind. ; %atan,ali Samsara: the transmigration of life: ta"es place in oneAs mind. Cet one therefore "eep the mind pure: for #hat a man thin"s: he 1ecomes. ; Maitri -$anisha

36

eal Causal 1od! I eas, Archety$es

Imaginar! *1stract mind: Causal mind 0igher intellect, Insight w v The 21server

5.1rane Mental %lane

Mental 1od! Thoughtforms

4orm.producing facult! of the mind

215ective mind Mentality, logic, intention m Su15ective mind "esire, feeling, emotion w

4ormless 4orms

'.1rane Astral %lane

-motional 1od! "esire.forms

(h!sical 1od! %.1rane %hysical %lane #eft /rain

x y z

Right /rain

Figure % ) Consciousness in Quantum Spacetime

Conclusion
!uring a public lecture introducing his boo4 5ime 8eborn0 the thoughtful physicist Oee 1molin made a pertinent comment. Ipon mentioning the parallels between his own wor4 and that of theologian colleagues0 he e(pressed his concern about Cunconscious lea4ageD between the two disciplines A$ B: I #orr! a1out unconscious lea"age from theological issues to scientific issues: 1rought a1out 1ecause the people #ho invented this #a! of doing ph!sics #ere >uite religious ; people li"e Isaac 7e#ton: he #as deepl! religious. So if there is a parallel to religious dilemmas and theological dilemmas: itAs not an accident. I wish to argue that science0 and in particular physics0 have indeed been hindered by deeply entrenched philosophical and theological predispositions0 tracing their roots bac4 to the early centuries of +hristianity and before. ,hilosophical thought since antiquity can be demarcated into two lines0 as demonstrated by the contrasting philosophies of Aristotle and his teacher ,lato. <hile ,lato upheld the transcendental realm of Ideas and Form as CrealD0 our material world being but a shadow of reality0 Aristotle would have none of it ; for Aristotle0 physical matter was real0 the Cinner worldsD being but ghostly reflections. Their philosophical divide boils down to this: !oes matter come from consciousness or does consciousness come from matterN <hich comes first0 consciousness or matterN The early centuries of +hristianity were broadly characteri6ed by two theological schools reflecting these contrasting positions ; the orthodox0 who too4 the Aristotelian line0 and the gnostics0 whom scholars have described as C,latonists gone wildD. The gnostics were the esoteric +hristians0 those who understood the +hristian 2evelation in terms of consciousness while claiming direct 4nowledge of the ,latonic realms.

37

6esire.Mind

Foing beyond even the idealism of ,lato0 the gnostics considered physical reality :ust one of many realms0 and a CcorruptD shadow of the real. The orthodo( too4 the opposing view: this is Fod7s 5ingdom0 and +hrist will return physically with his angels to redeem the faithful. The relationship between the orthodo( and the gnostics was not a happy one. =istory records a fierce theological battle between these two schools of thought0 culminating in the destruction of the gnostics and their writings. 3y point is this: these events still live on in our racial memory0 and following two millennia dominated by orthodo(y we unwittingly adopt the orthodo( view0 while considering the gnostic -,latonic. position CabsurdD or CirrationalD0 or :ust downright Cspoo4yD. <e might even :oin the orthodo( theologian Tertullian in ridiculing such ideas -circa 2"" +9.0 as reported here by the scholar of +hristian history0 9laine ,agels A$HB: Tertullian ridiculed the gnostics for creating ela1orate cosmologies: #ith multi.storied heavens li"e apartment houses: E#ith room piled upon room: and assigned to each god 1! 5ust as man! stair#a!s as there are heresiesS The universe has 1een turned into rooms for rentPF Gow0 I fully e(pect that0 upon first hearing of Cinner worldsD0 ob:ective worlds sharing our physical space0 most theoretical physicists would respond very much li4e Tertullian. 1o we are faced with a remar4able situation in science: while it is legitimate to speculate about an infinite number of universes arranged ClaterallyD in space or time -the multiverse.0 or an infinite number of universes splintering off into un4nown abstract dimensions -many worlds.0 it is not considered legitimate to speculate about other worlds arranged CverticallyD in space0 worlds in which we actually participate0 worlds that are causally related to our physical dimension by precise laws0 worlds that render physics in this world comprehensible. Fiordano @runo was burned at the sta4e by the 2oman Inquisition in the year # ""0 :ust four centuries ago0 damned by his heresy that the stars are distant suns. It was already enough to endure the +opernican 2evolution and learn that not 9arth0 but the 1un0 was the center of the universe. @runo was going too far ; even our 1un had lost its privileged place. @ut @runo proved to be correct0 of course0 and we have learned to accept that even our solar system constitutes a miniscule cell in an incomprehensibly vast universe. 3oreover0 many physicists and cosmologists have e(panded their thin4ing to include an infinity of -apparently physical. universes. 9ven the e(tra dimensions of string theory are considered physical -in some obscure sense.0 so at least Cphysical realityD retains its privileged place in the universe. Gow we are being as4ed to ta4e the ne(t step in opening our minds to deeper levels of abstraction0 where even our physical dimension loses its privileged position in the +osmos. The central message of this paper is that0 in order to solve physics0 we must learn to thin4 li4e gnostics0 to thin4 in terms of inner space and not :ust outer space0 to thin4 vertically as well as hori6ontally. If we wish to understand our universe0 it is reasonable that we should loo4 inside the universe rather than outside of it. To discover the mysteries of space we must loo4 inside space. >nly when our philosophical predispositions give way to direct e(perience and reason can the mysteries of physics and consciousness be unfolded.

38

2otes
#. 2. $. '. 8. . H. ). P. #". ##. #2. #$. #'. #8. # . #H. #). #P. 2". 2#. 22. 2$. 2'. 28. 2 . 2H. 2). 2P. $". $#. $2. $$. $'. $8. $ . $H. Tee -2""H.0 p. 2HP. @ell7s theorem itself is not discussed hereK readers will find a clear description in 3audlin -2"##. 3audlin -2"##.0 p. 2#/2$. 3egidish et al. -2"##.. +ramer -#P) .0 p. 8$. ,enrose -2""'.0 p. 8"P. ,usey et al. -2"##0 2"#2.. +ramer -#P) .. de 3atos -2"#"..7 For clear descriptions of @ell7s theorem and the Aspect e(periment0 see 3audlin -2"##.. 1tate reduction is treated in the conte(t of this framewor4 in +arter -2"#2.. 3egidish et al. -2"##.. >verduin et al. -#PP).. 2eaders as4ing if our positive real dimensions might also be pro:ected from imaginary dimensions will find speculations along these lines in +arter -2"#2. Gahin -#PP).0 p. K ,enrose -2""'.0 pp. #"$';$8. 3cFinn -#PP8.0 1mythies -2""$.. 1chrLdinger -#P8).. @ailey -#P28.0 %allyon -2""H.. 1ee +arter -2"#2.. <aggoner -2""P.0 p. $#. <aggoner -2""P .0 p. $ . !a Free &ohn -general teaching.. @ailey -#P28.0 p. 2)#. @lavats4y -#))).0 p. 2$. %allyon -2""H.0 p. #$H". 1chrLdinger -#P8).. p.#2$. <aggoner -2""P.0 p. $#/$2. Oa@erge -#PP".. Tarnas -#PP$.0 p. #". %allyon -2""H.0 pp. #$'/#$H. %allyon -2""H0 @ailey -#P28.. @ailey -#P28.0 p. $"). 2eaders as4ing how electromagnetism manifests in the $/brane are directed to +arter -2"#2.. @ailey -#P28.0 p. $#". 1mythies -2""$.. 1molin -2"#2.. ,agels -#P)P.0 p. ((i(.

39

&e$erences
@ailey AA. A Treatise on +osmic Fire. Oucis ,ublishing +ompany0 Gew Ror40 #P28. @lavats4y =,. The 1ecret !octrine0 %olumes # U 2. Theosophical Iniversity ,ress0 ,asadena +A0 #))). +arter ,&. Imaginary ,hysics. 2"#2. http://vi(ra.org/abs/#2#"."#2' +ramer &F. The transactional interpretation of quantum mechanics. 2eviews of 3odern ,hysics0 %ol. 8)0 Go. $0 &uly #P) . The American ,hysical 1ociety0 #P) . http://mist.npl.washington.edu/npl/intVrep/tiqm/TIVtoc.html de 3atos +&. <ea4 9quivalence ,rinciple and ,ropagation of the <ave Function in ?uantum 3echanics. 2"#". http://ar(iv.org/abs/#"" .2 8H Oa@erge 1. Oucid !reaming: ,sychophysiological 1tudies of +onsciousness during 293 1leep. In @oot6en 2 20 5ihlstrom &F0 1chacter !O0 -9ds.. 1leep and +ognition. <ashington0 !.+.: American ,sychological Association0 #PP" -pp. #"P/#2 .. http://www.lucidity.com/1leepAnd+ognition.html 3cFinn +. +onsciousness and 1pace. In: +onscious 9(perience0 Thomas 3et6inger -9d.. Imprint Academic0 #PP8. http://www.nyu.edu/gsas/dept/philo/courses/consciousnessPH/papers/+onsciousness1pace.html 3audlin T. ?uantum Gon/Oocality and 2elativity: metaphysical intimations of modern physics. <iley/@lac4well0 <est 1usse(0 I50 2"##. 3egidish 90 =alevy A0 1hacham T0 !vir T0 !ovrat O0 9isenberg =1. 9ntanglement @etween ,hotons that have Gever +oe(isted. 2"##. http://ar(iv.org/abs/#2"P.'#P# Gahin ,&. An Imaginary Tale: the story of the square root of minus one. ,rinceton Iniversity ,ress0 ,rinceton0 #PP). >verduin &30 <esson ,. 5alu6a/5lein Fravity. #PP). http://ar(iv.org/abs/gr/qc/P)"8"#) ,agels 9. The Fnostic Fospels. %intage @oo4s0 Gew Ror40 #P)P ,enrose 2. The 2oad to 2eality: a complete guide to the laws of the universe. &onathan +ape0 Oondon0 2""'. ,usey 3 F0 @arret &0 2udolph T. The quantum state cannot be interpreted statistically. 2"##. http://ar(iv.org/abs/####.$$2)v# ,usey 3 F0 @arret &0 2udolph T. >n the reality of the quantum state. 2"#2. http://ar(iv.org/abs/####.$$2) 1chrLdinger 9. 3ind and 3atter. +ambridge Iniversity ,ress0 #P8). 1molin O. Time 2eborn. ,erimeter Institute ,ublic Oecture 1eries. 2"#$. http://www.perimeterinstitute.ca/videos/time/reborn -W 'E minutes.. 1mythies &. 1pace0 Time and +onsciousness. &ournal of +onsciousness 1tudies0 #"0 Go. $0 2""$0 pp. 'H;8 . http://www.imprint.co.u4/pdf/smythies.pdf Tarnas 2. The ,assion of the <estern 3ind: understanding the ideas that have shaped our world view. @allantine @oo4s0 Gew Ror40 #PP$. %allyon I. =eavens and =ells of the 3ind -%olumes #/'.. 1ounding/Oight ,ublishing0 =amilton GT0 2""H. <aggoner 2. Oucid !reaming: gateway to the inner self. 3oment ,oint ,ress0 3assachusetts0 2""P. Tee A. Fearful 1ymmetry: the search for beauty in modern physics. ,rinceton Iniversity ,ress0 ,rinceton0 2""H.

40