Like most of you, I really want to know and understand the truth about the underlying essence of reality. But now I think I am in over my head.
I gave religions a fair try in my childhood because even then, I had a sense of spirituality, but that quickly created more questions than answers. Then after graduating from high school in 1978, I enrolled in a junior college and was required to take a course in physics. Until then I didn’t even know what physics was about. And being an average student in high school, I wasn’t prepared for the math required to “do” physics. After some effort, I suddenly discovered that physics was “the way” for me to get the kind of understanding that really satisfied me. It provided more than just knowledge, which I consider to be a collection of facts. That was my problem with religion. It was fed to me like a bunch of facts that I was supposed to believe even if the facts seemed to contradict my experience of reality. Physics gave me a way to build something in my mind that had real substance – it made sense and I could test it. And not only was I allowed to ask hard questions, I was encouraged to ask them and to find ways to answer them – to find the truth and then present what I find to other truth seekers. I was taught to appreciate others who criticized my answers because they are the ones who test the answers that I come up with.
In 1992, I had an insight that changed the course of my life. It was an epiphany – that “light” is the common thread between science and spirituality (as opposed to “religions”, which I consider to be organizations of people who either believe in the same view of spirituality or are forced to accept it). My insight was a vision… I envisioned a sphere of light. In my mind, it had great meaning, which I hope to explain in these pages. It was the answer I’d been looking for, but like all answers, it created a bunch of new questions. The light was only on the surface, so it was more like a spherically-shaped shell of light, and represented the surface of expanding awareness as well as the surface of matter. And if every surface is expanding, yet appearing constant in size when observed, then naturally they would appear to gravitate to each other. But how to prove it? At the time, I didn’t think in terms of a hologram, and it wasn’t until several years later, when a friend told me about Michael Talbot’s book, “The Holographic Universe,” first published in 1992 (the same year that I had the vision) that I realized that the spherically-shaped shell of light would be better described, not as a hologram, but as a holographic image. So it looks like others are going to prove it anyway. But I think they are caught in an intellectual trap that comes from the perspective of time as a single dimension. The solution, I propose, is to treat time exactly the same as space, as explained in my research paper.
Is the Universe really a holographic image?
As Talbot explained in his book, there are a lot of reasons to believe that it is true. If it is true, it answers some of the most profound questions in my mind, such as
- how to understand the idea that the speed of light is constant regardless of the speed of the light source,
- how to interpret a quantum particle-wave: not as a probability wave but as a unit of energy that can be perceived as either a particle or a wave, depending on how you look at it,
- how to unite quantum physics and relativistic physics,
- and how to bridge science and spirituality.
But despite the evidence, he said, the holographic model remains extremely controversial. (pg 30) And that seems to be the case today (see Why our universe is not a hologram and You aren’t living in a hologram even if you wish you were for example). So it is still not one of the authorized versions of reality according to mainstream physics.
David Bohm introduced what he called a “holomovement” in Wholeness and the Implicate Order published in 1980, to describe the universe as a unified field of motion and proposed that a holographic model would be a more accurate approach than the current model. And then Leonard Susskind developed the “holographic principle” as a thermodynamic principle related to String Theory. It was about information on the surface of a volume, so it really seemed to fit my vision, but the volume that Susskind described was a black hole or the entire universe. How would that information translate into the 3-D objects that we perceive as physical reality? There must be a process, as Bohm suggested, but what is that process?
That is the purpose of this blog. I’ve been working on a theory, or rather a space-time-motion (STM) model that reveals the important relationships in physics as a process, and I need help to validate it. Rather than focusing on the objects of physical reality, the STM model focuses on the process. I call it a “holomorphic process” because it combines the holographic process with the metamorphic process.
I am currently reading “Quantum Field Theory, A Modern Introduction” and watching David Tong’s online video lectures, but even with an MS in physics, they are still over my head so I have a lot of work to do before I can understand QFT. I have a terminal condition and don’t have long to live. (Actually my terminal condition is that I am alive, 58 years old, and there is good evidence that I will eventually die. 😅 ) And I desperately want to know and understand the truth about the underlying essence of reality before I die. I really think that this approach is valid and important so I don’t want it to die with me. I’ve been trying to find someone who specializes in this area who is willing to review my work, but professional physicists don’t have time to review just anyone’s theory. Apparently there are a lot of people sending ideas and asking professors to prove them right or wrong, so I decided to try blogging.