by Robert Lanza
If we supplement the propositions of Euclidean geometry by the
single proposition that two points on a practically rigid body always
correspond to the same distance (line-interval), independently of
any changes in position to which we may subject the body, the prop-
ositions of Euclidean geometry then resolve themselves into proposi-
tions on the relative positions of practically rigid bodies. ( Relativity) One may find fault with this definition of space. From a practical standpoint, this founds the common conception of space on an
unphysical idealization: the perfectly rigid body. The fact that one
specifies practically rigid bodies does not protect one’s theory from 2 0 1
2 0 2
b i o C e N T r i s m
the consequences of this idealization. To Einstein, space is some-
thing you measure with physical objects, and his objective math-
ematical definition of space relies on perfectly rigid measuring rods.
One might claim that these rods can be made arbitrarily small
(the smaller, the more rigid), but we now know that sufficiently
microscopic measuring rods become less rigid, not more. The idea of
measuring space by lining up individual atoms or electrons is absurd.
The best distance measurement that Einstein’s construction of spe-
cial relativity can hope to achieve is a consistent statistical average.
Even this ideal is compromised by the theory itself, however, which
recognizes that these measurements depend on the relative state of
motion between the observer and the bodies being measured.
From a philosophical standpoint, Einstein follows a grand tra-
dition of physicists by assuming that his own sensory phenomena
correspond to an objective external reality. However, the concept of
objective mathematically idealized space has outlived its usefulness.
We propose that space is more appropriately described as an emer-
gent property of external reality, one that is fundamentally depen-
dent on consciousness.
As a first step to this goal, let us consider the theory of special
relativity in detail and ask whether it can be constructed sensibly
without relying on rigid measuring rods or even physical bodies.
Let’s look at Einstein’s two assumptions:
1. The speed of light in vacuum is the same for all observers.
2. The laws of physics are the same for all observers in inertial
motion.
The concept of speed, which implies objective space, is integral to
both assumptions. It is hard to get away from this idea because one of
the simplest and easiest things we can measure about the objects of
our experience is their spatial characteristics. If we abandon the a priori assumption of objective space, however, where does that leave us?
It leaves us with only two things: time and substance. If we turn inward to examine the content of our consciousness, we see that
a p p e N d i x 2 : e i N s T e i N ’ s r e L a T i v i T y a N d b i o C e N T r i s m 2 0 3
space is not a necessary part of the equation. It is meaningless to
claim that our consciousness has any physical extent of its own. We
know that our state of consciousness changes (otherwise, thought
would not be fleeting), so it makes sense to propose the appearance
of time, because change is what we normally construe as time.
From a physical standpoint, the substance of consciousness must
be the same as the substance of external reality, which is to say the
grand unified field and its various low-energy incarnations. One of
these incarnations is the vacuum field, because truly “empty space”
has now been relegated to the compost heap of science history.
In addition, we may propose the existence of light or, more gener-
ally speaking, a persistent, self-propagating change in the grand uni-
fied field. From this point forward, to simplify the language of this
discussion, we’ll simply refer to the grand unified field as field. The term light should be taken to include all massless, self-propagating disturbances of this field.
Einstein spoke of light and space. We may start with light and
time with equal validity; the first proposition, after all, is simply a
statement that space and time are related to each other through a
fundamental constant of nature, the speed of light. Thus, if we pro-
pose the existence of a field and light propagating through the field,
we can recover a definition of space that does not depend in any
way on physical, rigid rods. Einstein uses this definition himself fre-
quently in his work:
distance = ( cΔ t/2)
where t is the time required for a light pulse emitted by the observer to reflect off an object and return to the observer. In this case, c
is just a fundamental property of the field that must eventually be
measured; it need not be given any physical units as yet. Rather, we
rely on the idea that the field has a constant property related to the
propagation of light that introduces a delay in the propagation of
light from one part of the field to another. Distance is thus defined simply as a linear function of the delay.
2 0 4
b i o C e N T r i s m
This definition is only practical, of course, if the observer and
the object are not in relative motion. Fortunately, the state of rest
can be defined easily enough by insisting that a sequence of dis-
tance measurements by this method be statistically constant. If we
presume a configuration of the field with at least one observer and
several objects (which are also composed of field, naturally), then
the observer may define a spatial coordinate system as follows:
1. Using a long sequence of reflected light signals,
identify those objects whose distance is not chang-
ing over time.
2. If the same distance measurement is shared by
one or more distinct objects, then the concept of
direction may also be defined. Given a sufficient
number of objects, it can be determined that there
are three independent (macroscopic) directions.
3. A conscious observer can form a model of the field
by proposing a three-dimensional coordinate sys-
tem of distances.
So we see that Einstein’s first postulate may be sensibly replaced
by the following statements:
1. The fundamental field of nature has the property that light
requires a finite time to propagate between one part of the
field and another.
2. When this delay is constant over time, the two parts of the
field are said to be at rest with respect to each other and the
distance between them may be defined as ct/2, where c is a
fundamental property of the field that will eventually be mea-
sured by other means (such as its relationship to other funda-
mental constants of nature).
Note that this construction of distance does not require any a
priori assumption of space. We merely assume the existence of field
and that certain parts of it may be distinct from other parts. In other
a p p e N d i x 2 : e i N s T e i N ’ s r e L a T i v i T y a N d b i o C e N T r i s m 2 0 5
words, we assume the existence of multiple entities in (and of) the
field that may com
municate by means of light (which is also a prop-
erty of the field).
The second cornerstone of special relativity is the idea of iner-
tial motion. Now that the concepts of spatial coordinates and veloci-
ties have been deduced from the assumptions of field and light,
it is straightforward to define inertial motion as a property of the
relationship between two entities (the observer and some external
object). An object is in inertial motion with respect to an observer if
its time delay is a linear function of time, that is:
distance = ( cΔ t)/2 = vt
We are discussing two different measures of time here: the dis-
tance is defined by the time delay Δ t, while t is the total time elapsed since beginning the measurement process. It is interesting to note
that the distance d and speed v of an object can only be properly defined by a series of discrete measurements of time delay.
The demand that the laws of physics be identical for all inertial
observers is equivalent to the requirement that the field be Lorentz
invariant. There are a number of ways of expressing this, but the
simplest is to define the space-time interval Δs:
Δs2 = c2Δt2 – Δx2 – Δy2 – Δz2
The deltas are somewhat pedantic because every observer natu-
rally defines his or her own position as zero under this system.
The invariance of Δs may be thought of as the demand that
multiple observers agree on the properties of the field and external
reality. To complete special relativity, it suffices to show that two
observers can agree on Δs regardless of their relationship, provided
that each is in inertial motion with respect to the other.
From this point, all the well-known results of special relativity
follow. The end result is that we have shown that special relativity
2 0 6
b i o C e N T r i s m
does not require the concept of rigid, objective space to function; if
we start with the presumption of a unified field, then it is enough to
propose that disturbances in the field provide a self-consistent rela-
tionship between its various parts.
It may seem a pointless exercise to take space out of the pos-
tulates in this manner; after all, distance is a very intuitive concept
while quantum fields are not. Consciousness clearly has a natural
tendency to interpret the relationships between itself and other enti-
ties in terms of space, and no one can argue against the practical
advantages of this construction. However, as indicated in the intro-
duction, the mathematical abstraction of space has been falling short
in modern theories. In the effort to force general relativity and quan-
tum field theory together, space has been multiplying and compact-
ing, quantizing and even disintegrating altogether. Empty space,
once considered a triumph of experimental science (and ironically,
one of the great results supporting special relativity), now looks like
a misconception unique to twentieth-century science.
appendix 1 footnote:
The question may arise as to the dynamic mechanism of compensatory phe-
nomena. Looking at the structure of matter, we know that electrons orbit
atomic nuclei thousands of trillions of times per second, and that nuclear particles spin about billions of trillions of times per second within the nucleus.
We also now know that the nuclear particles themselves are made up of
smaller particles called quarks. To date, physicists have peeled through five levels of matter—the molecular, atomic, nuclear, hadronic, and quark level.
And although there are some scientists who think that the series may stop
here, it is just conceivable that as the particles get smaller and smaller, and spin more rapidly, matter dissolves away into the motion of energy. In fact, evidence suggests that there may be structure within quarks themselves—
structure that had, until now, been presumed not to exist.
Poincaré hinted that the explanation may be contained in the dynamics
of this structure. The odd effects of motion on measuring rods and clocks follows logically from the fact that matter consists of energy moving about in a multiplicity of configurations, particles orbiting within particles; and because energy is invariable in its velocity (that is, light velocity), such composite
a p p e N d i x 2 : e i N s T e i N ’ s r e L a T i v i T y a N d b i o C e N T r i s m 2 0 7
structures cannot change their speed without changes first occurring in the
object’s internal configuration. Poincaré and Lorentz were right: measuring
bodies and clocks are not rigid. They really do contract, and the amount of
this contraction must increase with the rate of motion.
Consider an object accelerated to the speed of light. We see at once that
it can only reach this speed if its internal energy travels along a straight line.
Mechanically this is achieved by foreshortening, for the more an object shortens, the lesser the fraction of motion “tied up” in internal movements along the axis of the object’s motion. Hence, at the speed of light, the components of a clock cannot be viewed as moving with respect to one another. A clock
cannot engage in the dance of timekeeping. Timekeeping must stop. The
construction of a simple right-angled triangle, plus an equally simple use of Pythagoras bears this out: if there were any movements within the clock, its components will have traveled through space faster than the speed of light.
It also follows that mass varies in proportion to the foreshortening fraction, for as Lorentz has shown, the mass of such a particle such as an electron is inversely proportional to its radius (or volume variation). Indeed, all of these changes can with but little difficulty—using high-school level mathematics—
be shown to vary in accordance with the equations of Lorentz and Poincaré,
the equations that embodied in the whole theory of special relativity.
Thus, space and time can be easily restored to their place as forms of
animal-sense perception. They belong to us, not to the physical world. “If,”
wrote Emerson, “we measure our individual forces against hers [Nature’s], we may easily feel as if we were the sport of an insuperable destiny. But if, instead of identifying ourselves with the work, we feel that the soul of the workman streams through us, we shall find the peace of the morning dwelling first in our hearts, and the fathomless powers of gravity and chemistry, and, over
them, of life, pre-existing within us in their highest form.”
Inde x
A
And eastern religions, 161
Advaita Veda¯nta, 34, 158
And fundamental questions,
Alpha, as constant, 87
160
Anthropic principle, 84, 89–90
And space, 117–118
Aristotle, 169
Future tests of, 195–197
Logical limits of, 140–141
B
Biswas, Tarun, 15
Bacon, Francis, 14
Born, Max, 55
Baryon, 4
Bell, John, 50, 53, 54, 57, 183
c
Bell’s theorem, 53
Cambrian sea, 12
Berkeley, George, 14, 34
Carbon, 87–88
Big Bang, 1, 5–7, 84, 112, 125, 155,
Casimir effect, 118
158, 160, 163, 178
Chalmers, David, 169, 170, 171,
Biocentrism
173
1st principle of, 23
Complement
arity, 53, 70, 72
2nd principle of, 39
Consciousness, 9, 16, 20, 23, 35,
3rd principle of, 59
36, 39, 81, 124, 155, 156, 169–
4th principle of, 81
183, 189
5th principle of, 93
Constants, table of, 85–86
6th principle of, 110
Copenhagen interpretation (of
7th principle of, 127
quantum theory), 54, 57–58,
And the cosmos, 159
177–78
2 0 9
2 1 0
b i o C e N T r i s m
d
God, 8, 29, 50, 84, 89, 157–158,
Dark energy, 1
164
Dark matter, 1, 6
Goldilocks principle, 83, 91
Darwin, Charles, 4, 84, 105
Grand Unified Theory (also Theory
Decartes, René, 34
of Everything), 4, 13, 119, 161,
Dennett, Daniel, 170
162, 174, 197
Dicke, Robert, 89
Gravitational force, 7
Dimensions, 7, 14, 97
Gravity, 49, 88, 191
DNA, 26
Double-slit experiment: see two-slit
h
experiment
Haldane, John, 3
Harvard University, 25–28, 129–
e
132, 172
Einstein, Albert, 50, 52, 58,
Hawking, Stephen, 8, 58, 99
80–81, 116–117, 123
Heisenberg, Werner, 54, 57, 100,
And EPR correlations, 50
101
And free will, 38
Heisenberg’s uncertainty principle,
And locality, 52, 123–124
100
And quantum theory, 80
Heraclitus, 11
And relativity, 7, 49, 120–121,
Herschel, William, 164
201–206
Hoffman, Paul, 174
And space-time, 7, 14, 48–49,
Hoyle, Fred, 88
104–106, 115–116, 125
Hubble, Edwin, 163
Eiseley, Loren, 135, 150–151
Hume, David, 118
Electricity, 21, 22
Electromagnetic energy, 21
I
Emerson, Ralph Waldo, 13, 28, 83,
Inflation, 1, 5
174, 175, 176, 182, 186, 193,
Intelligent design, 83, 84
207
Interference pattern, 56–57, 67, 69,
Entropy, 97, 98
72, 78
EPR correlations, 50–52, 161
Extra dimensions, 7
k
KHCO , 59