RESPONSE TO THE CRITIQUE OF "ORIGIN of MIND"

Ronald Pearson (April, 2004)

I happen to be a great admirer of Professor Brian Josephson. I remember seeing his original paper, in some journal, showing a photo of an oscilloscope trace with a kink labeled "negative resistance". It was his discovery of the Josephson Junction for which he was awarded a well deserved Nobel prize. Then again I admire his courage in going against orthodoxy in publishing newspaper articles in support of survival. The established view across all scientific disciplines is that mind = pure brain function and nothing else. I can just imagine the hell which this "heresy" has inflicted upon him. Please keep it up I say, we all support you. I have met many physicists on my lecture tours who agree with you, but most are too afraid for their career prospects to stick their heads above the parapet. No scientific discipline should act to stifle progress in this way.

SUMMARY OF THE PHILOSOPHY BEHIND SURVIVAL PHYSICS

Professor Josephson dismisses my work, however, on grounds that it is vague and that he can make no sense out of it. I will therefore first summarise its basic principles.

Its basis is Euclidean geometry with universal time but revises Newtonian mechanics to make it exact so that it is applicable up to the speed of light and in the most extreme gravity. Unlike relativity the observer is not regarded as the frame of reference. Frames of reference are based on the local background medium. This will be growing continually so that far distant points will be moving away from one another at vast speeds. These speeds of recession do not determine relative velocities. Instead the local medium where any object is positioned or moving is used as reference from which its speed and kinetic energy are evaluated. This is the most important reason for this "exact classical mechanics" which has to be compatible with the existence of a background medium.

The experiments used to support relativity support this alternative equally well, though when identical end equations appear, as they mostly do, they have quite different interpretations. For example, where Einstein's equation predicts gravitational time dilation the alternative makes clocks tick more slowly due to a gravitational mass increase. The reason for making this derivation was to find a mechanics of pure energy devoid of electromagnetics or nuclear forces in order to provide a theory for that background: a sub-quantum level of reality. It is argued that this is the only true reality in existence. This model was required to solve a major problem of Big Bang theory known as the "Cosmological Constant". More important, it was needed to generate the waves on which quantum theory depends. Clearly the quantum level of reality is ephemeral, highly complex and appears contrived. No explanation is ever given of what quantum waves are nor is anything available showing how they are made or what is their source. Something deeper, the only true reality, needed to exist having a very much simpler basis. Here the four forces of Nature we experience would not exist and had to be contrived by the clever use of organized quantum waves.

The philosophy adopted assumed that this deep creative level would make the macroscopic level have a mechanics mirroring that of itself. Hence the need to find a mechanics of pure energy at our level of reality that fitted all the facts. The validity of this philosophy would be justified if the final theory gave correct predictions. The quantum level, sandwiched between the two would be an interface for generating the desired ends. The most important factor then was that the ultimate level could not be based on wave mechanics like that of the quantum level. Its mechanics had to be like that of the macroscopic level as otherwise an infinite regression would have to be accepted with each level generating the waves to make the next.

From the resulting solution it could be inferred that space was structured like a vast neural network interconnecting everything and able to provide power in the form of waves. Every person on Earth had a background mind existing as part of this structure, the only true reality, and so had the potential of immortality. No absurdly great number of parallel universes, none of which could be accessed, would be needed just to explain wave-particle duality nor would waves have to collapse into real sub-atomic particles. However, a few interpenetrating parallel universes could be devised in the same way as our own, all built on the same reality, to provide alternative habitats for mind. No universe needed any other to explain wave-particle duality. Under special circumstances communication with some of these would be possible, so providing theoretical support for the experiments carried out on a daily basis by mostly non-scientific people of unusually strong sensitivity.

The background had to begin many hundreds of billions of years ago and its neural network-like structure had to evolve a conscious intelligence before matter-systems could be created. Then these were produced by the intelligent organization of the quantum waves it spontaneously generates. This could have happened some fifteen billion years ago and the subsequent galaxies condensing from the primordial cloud would then be carried along with the ever accelerating expansion the theory predicts. Does this defuse the objection of the theory being vague?

REBUTTAL OF THE CRITIQUE (Such as it is)

His dismissal of my work, however, tells me two more things.

First, he was too busy to read the booklet I sent him (This was sent due to pressure from a journalist, Emma Heathcote-James, and I am very disappointed that I received no acknowledgement. He should have sent his critiques to me first for comment). So he flipped through the booklet quickly to find a flaw. Luckily for him, he hit on one right away on page 54. I agree that this could be wrong, but it was not a prediction of the theory: it was a side issue. Therefore it formed no basis for rejection. I had been puzzling at the time about the way an oscillating current produced by a spark between two charged spheres would behave and will describe what was puzzling me at the time:

When the current maximizes the potential difference (PD) between the spheres is zero. The magnetic field goes with the current and represents kinetic energy whilst the electric potential difference between the spheres represents potential energy. Like any other oscillation potential and kinetic energy keep interchanging in a cyclic manner so that kinetic energy maximizes when the potential difference is zero and vice-versa in such manner that total energy, defined as the sum of potential and kinetic energies remains constant. On this basis the magnetic field of the propagated EM waves and the electric field ought to alternate instead of going up and down together as they do according to established theory. When mathematical prediction does not match the expectations of common sense I start to worry.

I would appreciate some help to show why this reasoning of mine is flawed. It is something I have intended to look into in detail but, since I had no intention of modifying electromagnetic theory I have never given this problem any priority. Except for gravity I had no intention of making any attempt to modify quantum theory either. My study was a supplement to these existing disciplines.

The statement to which Professor Josephson objects, however, was only an answer to a question posed by somebody during discussion after one of my lectures. It concerned electromagnetism but this is not a prediction of the theory and so I hope BDJ will accept that he was in error in using this as a main reason for rejecting the entire theory. Electromagnetism is not a major issue in the theory since it is not considered to exist at the ultimate level of reality I now call "i-ther". The only way electromagnetism and nuclear forces are considered in the theory is in connection with the new interpretation of wave-particle duality that appears naturally in the derivation. It is now incorporated in the interpretation of wave-particle duality described in my paper, Consciousness as a Sub-Quantum Phenomenon published in the scientific Journal "Frontier Perspectives" Spring/Summer 1997.

Will Professor Josephson please say how he rates the resolution of the enigma of wave-particle duality explained in that paper? Second, it is clear that BDJ has some theory of his own to explain how mind can exist separately from brain and so does not wish to be bothered with any other idea. Could Professor Josephson therefore please let us have some description of what this is?

ALTERNATIVE THEORIES SHOULD BE ENCOURAGED - NOT STIFLED

As I see it all theories on this subject ought to be encouraged and published for others to criticize in a constructive manner. Competitors should even help competing theories where possible: not try to trash them as if they were enemies! For example, a mathematician and dedicated relativist, the late John Day M.Sc., made no secret of his opposition to my "Alternative to Relativity". Yet he helped by starting with my equations and derived, in a few lines, the equation for the precession of planets that was identical with that given by GR. It had taken me weeks and many sheets of algebra to obtain the same result, as published in the book Intelligence Behind the Universe! of 1990. He also derived expressions showing how the non-uniform density of i-ther, deduced there, gave similar mathematical basic equations to Einstein's "curved spacetime". In the end he came round to thinking the alternative had considerable merit.

AN ENTIRE THEORY SHOULD NOT BE DISMISSED TOO SOON

Professor Josephson, however, thinking he had found the flaw he wanted, dismissed the rest, presumably and wrongly assuming it to be full of flaws, and so clearly failed to consider the important part given in the appendix to which I had expressly drawn his attention. If I am wrong here and he did look at it, then he would very likely find it in conflict with the way physicists now interpret relativity theory. Did this put him off? Special relativity effectively makes the observer stationary so no two observers in motion relative to one another can both be at rest in any kind of background medium. Relativity is therefore inconsistent with the existence of any background: not just the old discredited ether. As a further consequence kinetic energy and kinetic mass can only exist as illusions in either SR or GR and so relativists say photons, moving at the speed of light, have no mass. In the alternative photons have kinetic mass corresponding with the kinetic energy they are made from. Now my original aim was to find a solution to the problem of the Big Bang known as the "Cosmological Constant" and this required a real background to exist. This was why an alternative to relativity had to be sought. I defy anyone to say that this theory is flawed or not properly based on well defined assumptions. It was impossible to obtain a solution with assumptions dominated by relativity since the whole solution depends upon kinetic energy and kinetic mass being real without values differing as measured by different observers: the Achilles heel of relativity.

When the background is considered as a mix of primaries of both positive and negative energy opposed energy dynamics predicts a breeding effect when opposites collide in twos. This produces a violent growth similar to Guth's inflation (that cannot be shut off: the cause of the problem). However, opposed energy dynamics also predicts that at some critical density this creation is almost completely cancelled by the formation of a filamentous net. This is the crux of the solution of the Cosmological Constant: a natural means had appeared by which the initial inflation shuts off: something totally lacking in established thinking. With the new approach not only did a satisfactory solution arise, showing how the initial Big Bang would spontaneously shut off: it also predicted that the expansion of the universe must be accelerating. Indeed, to be precise, this acceleration is equal to the square of the Hubble constant times distance. It predicted this in 1992, long before its discovery in 1998. Cosmologists can still offer no solution to the problem of the cosmological constant and try to model the acceleration by recourse to "quintessence" or "dark energy" having mysterious repulsive properties and treat it as a separate issue from the cosmological constant. I saw quintessence hyped up on TV as a breakthrough. In my book it fails utterly to provide a solution at all!

Recently Professor Wheeler (I think it was him) stated that the Cosmological Constant posed the most serious problem in physics. Brian Greene says what a boost it would give to string theory if it could solve this problem as yet it has not (and never will). In view of this and taking into account the fact that nobody else has come up with a solution, does Professor Josephson consider my achievement to be significant? It is the same theory that gives rise to the i-ther (intelligent-ether) that suggests each mind is a separated fragment of the universal mind distributed across all space.

Opinion should never be accepted in a mathematically based scientific discipline. Any theory should be assessed by pointing out internal contradiction or contradiction with other theories: its ability to match existing observation and the way it provides ideas for new experiments. Professor Josephson, however, merely offers unsubstantiated negative opinion and this is unacceptable. (Except for the EM difficulty already covered). He also says the theory is not beautiful. Beauty lies only in the beholder and is not a scientific criterion. One eminent physicist said recently their theories must be right because they were so beautiful. This to me is an absurd claim: using a criterion suitable for judging artwork but totally irrelevant in science.

We all know that a major paradigm shift in physics is long overdue and should have happened over a century ago. This means a change from the use of public funds to discredit all aspects of the so-called "paranormal", inclusive of survival, to one that accepts such phenomena as an integral part of every scientific discipline. We all need to collaborate to achieve this end instead of fighting one another.

This reply to a challenge is a one off as I am unable to find the time for a prolonged debate. I am engaged on some research and development (with a different group) that I consider to be of great importance. I have to make all my own apparatus and only have one pair of hands. Any further debate will have to be left to others. I now deal with a query posed by the physicist Dr. Alex Katsman.

THE SURFACE TENSION OF PRIMARIES

Dr. Alex Katsman has very reasonably pointed out that primaries need some form of surface tension if they are to grow to some critical size before breaking up. According to what I now call, "Opposed Energy Dynamics", when objects of opposite energy (positive and negative) collide each gains kinetic energy of its own kind, on average, in equal and opposite amounts. The law of conservation of energy has to be revised to read, "Energy can only be created or destroyed in equal and opposite amounts" and it is the need to simultaneously conserve momentum that forces the energy gains. The "primaries" in collision have to be considered as made from the sum of rest and kinetic energy. That they grow in energy is predicted mathematically as a statistically derived average effect. The original derivation is given in the appendix to Origin of Mind although it has been subsequently revised to deal with primaries moving at any speed: not just close to the speed of light. However, subsequent break-up is required to produce a breeding result and this was not considered in 1992. The surface tension problem is one to which I have given much thought since then and I will describe what I consider to be the best solution. Primaries need to consist of a collection of sub-primaries in two sizes: large and small. Positives need to have large sub-primaries of positive energy with the small ones negative and vice versa for negative primaries. In each case the small ones, moving fast, keep penetrating and being deflected by the large ones. Then, just like the mediators of quantum theory, they produce forces of attraction holding the primaries together and creating their surface tension. Actually this works better than the virtual mediators of quantum theory that are assumed to be of positive mass but to be "negatively coupled". This concept of negative coupling is absurd because it involves a massive dis-conservation of momentum. This is readily corrected, however, by simply regarding the mediators as made of negative energy! The momentum arrow of negative mass points opposite motion and so puts this matter to rights.

A problem arises in that the collisions within primaries will also produce energy gain so sub-primaries will grow and, at first sight, also seem to need surface tension if their small size is to be maintained. The danger arises of an infinite regression with each level providing the next and this is disallowed. However, energy gains only occur during one to one collisions. With multiple collisions it is readily shown that conditions can arise favoring mutual annihilation. As densities increase multiple collisions start to dominate and at some point mutual annihilation will exceed creation. Some equilibrium density will therefore arise and I call this the i-theric liquidus state. Then only when complete primaries make one to one collisions will each gain energy on average.

Primaries will all exist at the liquidus condition but the mean density of i-ther will be much lower unless it becomes so dense that the primaries all merge into a uniform liquidus state. Lower densities have to prevail in order to generate the filamentous net predicted by opposed energy dynamics. Therefore, in this state, a minute net creation remains and this determines the ever accelerating rate at which the universe is expanding.

SURVIVAL PHYSICS: A Brief Summary by Ronald Pearson

"Consciousness as a Sub-quantum Phenomenon" - Ronald Pearson's paper

Published in the journal Frontier Perspectives, Temple University, Philadelphia, USA. Volume 6. No. 2, Spring/Summer 1997 (pp70-78). ISSN: 1062-4767

An Exact Classical Mechanics leads toward Quantum Gravitation - Ronald Pearson

This pamphlet suggests that misconceptions in classical mechanics are responsible for blocking progress in physics. Refinements are described which spill over into quantum theory and appear to provide answers to vexed questions. For example, it leads to alternatives to both special and general relativity which match the achievements of both. Unlike relativity, however, the new solution is fully quantum-compatible, being consistent with the concept of the quantum vacuum.

"Paranormal" - An article by Michael Hanlon about Prof. B D Josephson, published in The Daily Mail, (October 1, 2001)