Editor's prefatory comment:

Einstein and Bohm, while in sync on most issues, disagreed on the nature of ultimate reality. As reported in the article featuring their discussion:

Einstein contended, regarding interpreting reality, “The Lord is subtle but not malicious, and ultimately the Lord will show us the ultimate level of reality.” But Bohm thought, no, below that there is another level of reality, and below that another. There are an infinite number of realities. On this Bohm and Einstein didn’t agree. For Bohm the universe was inexhaustible; for Einstein, there was an ultimate level, and that would be the end of physics.

Because the universe is inexhaustible in terms of its wonder and marvel, meaning, there is no end to knowledge acquisition, the label “theory of everything” is rather inappropriate. We will never know enough to be able to confidently say, I’ve got it now, I can speak to the whole. This will never happen.

“Theory of Everything,” at best, is a provisional marker, our current best estimate, on our way to the receipt of more light and understanding.

The Double-Slit experiment, "impossible … to explain in any classical [Newtonian] way, [embodies] the heart of quantum mechanics. In reality, it contains the only mystery [of science]."

Dr. Richard Feynman
1965 Nobel laureate in physics

Editor's note:

T.H. Huxley once said that "The great tragedy of science is the slaying of a beautiful hypothesis by an ugly fact."

No facts are ugly. Reality is what it is. Presuming otherwise, we ourselves supply the "ugly."

Facts which do not conform to pet-theories, an assault on cultish dogmatism, are called ugly, "wierd science," ridiculed, or more likely, are ignored, treated as pariah; and, like Lana, opponents try to act "as if it never happened."

This is what materialistic science -- science so-called; like censoring religionists -- has attempted to do with a burgeoning tidal wave of new information, new experiments, which signal the end of a materialistic world-paradigm.

This page has been created to offer a chronology of the new information which flows fast now. Consciousness, not matter, is the ground of all reality, the evidence for which is presently engulfing us -- unraveling the entire edifice of the materialistic empire.

Please check back regularly for postings below.

special note:

In order to more fully appreciate the technical aspects of the "Double-Slit" discussed below, you will want to spend some time viewing several youtube videos which offer basic information on the inner-workings of Nature.

I recommend that you view each of the following videos:

Physicist Tom Campbell explains Double-Slit (9 minutes)

Physicist Tom Campbell explains Double-Slit, Delayed-Choice & Eraser (7 minutes)

Physicist Tom Campbell explains Double-Slit, Delayed-Choice & Eraser, an excellent expanded discussion offering cogent overview (44 minutes)

Physicist Tom Campbell explains Double-Slit, Delayed-Choice & Eraser (1:42). Tom reports on ANU (Australian National University) physicists who carried out an experiment designed by the famous Princeton physicist John Archibald Wheeler (who coined the terms "black hole" and "it from bit"). The findings of the experiment answer, and negate, charges of materialist physicists who have resisted the implications of the Double-Slit Experiment.

Some physicists say that the Double Slit Experiment acts like a time-machine, that events of the past can be altered. But other physicists like Tom Campbell state that this is the wrong interpretation of the data. I side with Tom, and I’ll tell you why. 

Physicists of the materialist persuasion have resisted the implications of the consciousness-based Double-Slit experiment. Tom Campbell discusses the history of this denial and also what happened when a new experiment was performed which eviscerated the basis of the materialists’ refusal.  

Editor’s note: The reader is invited to also review two sister-articles, Quantum Mechanics and the Double-Slit Experiment.

Editor's note:

the ‘multiverse’ hypothesis is a fraud, part of a materialistic metaparadigm

Physicist Tom Campbell was interviewed on “Awaken Atlanta.” The 37-minute discussion offered an excellent summary of how consciousness, not matter, forms the basis of reality.

See the entire interview: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=hotxRAQQsxc

according to the errant theory of parallel universes, every time an electron wobbles, a new universe would have to be created 

Shannon McVey asked Tom how quantum physics relates to “parallel universes.” Not a scientist, she assumed that the “multiverse” was a legitimate fact-based theory. Tom politely began to dismantle her misconception, explaining, essentially, that “parallel universes” has no evidence to support it. It’s an idea that materialistic science puts forward to make sense – but only in a tortured way – of research data.

quadrillions of new universes per nano-second

According to the theory, every time an electron flips, changes the direction of its spin, Tom asserted, a new universe is created. Think of the quadrillions of new universes per nano-second! The complexity continues: In these brand new, resultant universes, every time an electron flips, still more universes are created.

salvaging one's metaparadigm

Essentially, Tom said, this is nonsense, and a gigantic violation of Occam's Razor, “the simplicity rule” [my term] which we see everywhere in the natural world. If we travel down the road of matter as the basis of reality, and as the research data comes in – all of it, at its core, denying the hegemony of matter – then, in order to “save face,” one must invent, on the spot, on an ad hoc basis, other theories to account for anomalies. It’s a dangerous game, called “the joker is wild” principle. It’s what you have to believe in order to salvage one’s metaparadigm.

Special note: I’ve learned much from Tom Campbell and would commend him for his great efforts in offering evidence that consciousness, not matter, creates the ground of all being.

I enjoy praising Tom, but I should point out that, according to my research, things that I’ve learned from other great scientists, there are a few subtleties which appear to be not quite correct. And since my purpose in the Word Gems writings is to strive for closer approximations of reality, allow me to list a few items which become a parting of philosophical ways with Tom.

Tom believes in reincarnation. I suggest that the evidence strongly indicates that, while we continue to learn after our passing, we do so in other worlds and dimensions, and not on planet Earth.

It seems that Tom views our primary purpose in this world as that of learning more about love. It's hard to argue against; however, my research and experience would say that love is step two in the process, with the first order of business that of coming alive to the true self. I discuss this here, and in many articles.

God, it would appear, is a “collective” in Tom’s view, with each of us as component part. I would agree with this, but, even so, it also seems to me that there is some grander, primal, central, unifying aspect to be called God. I like the metaphor of Parent. It’s interesting that the channeled testimonies secured by Randall and French reveal that this very question is also debated on the other side.

Tom speaks of “virtual reality” to describe our mortal existence, closely akin to a computer game, he says. I think there’s much merit to Tom’s analogy, but I would emphasize a little more Sheldrake’s theory of “morphic fields.” See much discussion on this in the “Evolution” article.

the most profound concept in all of science

This is the view of physics Professor Jim Al-Khalili, as offered in the documentary “Atom.”

Superlatives concerning scientific marvel are often associated with Einstein, and rightly so, given his discoveries that time and space are not absolute but vary with the speed of light. But Professor Khalili reserves highest laudation for something and someone else – an insight of Werner Heisenberg concerning the hidden workings of the atom.

In 1926 Heisenberg was working as an assistant to Niels Bohr at his mentor’s institute in Copenhagen.

Professor Khalili takes us to one of the attic rooms where Heisenberg spent his evenings studying.

Bohr would come, night after night, to debate the nature of the atom with Heisenberg; the level of argumentation so severe at times, says Khalili, that at one point Heisenberg was brought to tears. The intensity of the dialogue was fueled by fierce, and even hostile, rivalry within the physics community. There were two main camps: (1) the quantum radicals led by Bohr and Heisenberg, and (2) those of a more Newtonian view, the classicalists, managed by Einstein and Shroedinger. Einstein seemed to be winning, although Bohr and company knew the classical view could not support all of the data.

One evening, Heisenberg peered from this attic window on the park below.

a sudden flash inspiration; arguably, the most profound insight in the entire history of science

Heisenberg’s spirits were at low ebb. Recently he’d attended a physics conference where, from the audience, he’d confronted Schrodinger, but was booed by other attendees and was told to sit down, and leave. Yet, doggedly, Heisenberg maintained that the more-Newtonian view was incorrect.

Both sides had been searching for a model, a metaphor, some visual aid to explain the very unusual characteristics of the atom. More than 15 years earlier, Rutherford suggested the “miniature solar-system” idea, but this proved wanting. Schrodinger and his famous “wave equation” put forward that the orbit of the electron vibrated so much that it was more like a cloud. Bohr added the “quantum leap” concept, that the atom was like a tall building with many stories; when an electron dropped down a story – but without traveling through intervening space – energy was released, colored light as “spectra.” All of these pictures of the atom, to one degree or another, had some merit, some were closer to the truth than others, but none of them satisfied Heisenberg.

However, that evening, as he gazed at the park below from his attic window…

... in a burst of hot creative moment, he understood what no human being had ever perceived. The implications were utterly radical, more than radical, profoundly upsetting to traditional Newtonian physics; nevertheless, his insight has been verified countless times in the intervening 90 years.

what Heisenberg saw

There is no model, no familiar picture, no visual aid for the atom. It cannot be tethered and corralled, in terms of arriving at final understanding. The atom, in its core essence, essentially, is unknowable.

Professor Al-Khalili comments that not even mathematics can fully help us here; in every other aspect of science the maths often provide a near-absolute quantification of unseen realities – but not this time. It’s called Heisenberg’s “Uncertainty Principle.”

What does this mean?

Let’s take a step back and view the research-data Heisenberg was receiving. He'd discovered that it is possible to know or predict the speed of an electron – but if you do this, then it will not be possible to know its position, where it is. Conversely, if you assess the position, then you cannot know how fast it’s going. He determined that it’s one or the other, we can’t have both.

Early on it was thought, “When we get better measuring devices, when our instrumentation is more precise, we’ll be able to know both position and momentum.” But Heisenberg finally realized that this lack of information is not due to faulty scientific hardware, nor is this elusiveness the result of the atom being quirky or tricky or, like the Road Runner, just hard to pin down and catch. It’s not that.

Then what?

Heisenberg was the first to understand that reality – at its deepest level – is fundamentally built upon principles of chance and probability. It is not Newtonian. It is not strictly “cause and effect,” not at the core of what’s real. The best we can do regarding determining position and speed of an atomic particle is to speak in terms of probabilities: "There is a 30% chance of it being in this location" or "a 70% chance it will be traveling at such-and-such speed"; that sort of thing.

Reality, in its most basic essence, is probabilistic in nature. We will never know the exact “latitude and longitude” of an atom – because it doesn’t exist, not in any ordinary sense. And that little which we think we know about it changes when an observer, a supervising consciousness, interacts with it.

These issues are so profound, speak so mystically to the undergirdings of truth, life, the nature of being, and what’s real, that we shall be pondering it all for the next million years and beyond.

READ MORE, quotations from the fathers of quantum mechanics on the primacy of consciousness, not matter, as building material of the universe.

Editor’s note: Heisenberg’s assessment concerning the atom, by his own admission, was but smaller subset of Bohr’s “complementarity principle.” Read more on the “quantum mechanics” page.