*Bridging the Gap*

by Arthur M. Young (1990)

One night I saw a TV program, /Einstein's Universe./ I turned it on
because it was narrated by Peter Ustinov, whom I admire, even though I'm
tired of Einstein's universe. The program was well done. A great effort
was made to make a clear and convincing dramatization of the universe
according to Einstein; just enough mystique to sugar the dull sterility
of science. What bothered me most was the subservient role of Peter
Ustinov playing an average man who didn't know science, feeling
privileged to be let in on the secrets and instructed in the Sacred
Doctrine.
Now Peter Ustinov, who probably has higher brain radiation that
Einstein, at any rate a witty and delightful human, could only betray
himself by an occasional inflection or intonation; as a good actor he
could not depart from the script. So I got the message that the real
meaning of the program was the takeover of one culture by another --
like the Spanish missionaries building churches where an Inca temple had
been before, or the Christians building churches with columns taken from
a Greek temple. What remains of our human culture (represented by Peter)
cowed and put to rout by the Legions of Science.
This is Medusa in modern dress, and if we're going to deal with it we
must do so as did Perseus. We need the shield of Minerva. We must use
the mind to slay the mind.
The TV program discussed one of the major themes of the Einstein theory,
which is to replace the force of gravity by the curvature of space. The
program presented this visually with a table whose surface was shaped
like the mouth of a trumpet with a grid of white lines which made the
curvature visible. A ball was rolled by the obliging Peter to show how
the curvature of space caused the ball to roll around the central sun:
"The mass informs the space and the space informs the matter."
I could not help protesting at this point, why then do we need
"gravitons?" Why, in fact, is the curvature of space a better
explanation than a force? Here we must realize that both gravitons and
space curvature are inventions of science to avoid the "elusive" notion
of force (Eddington's phrase). Gravitons replace a force with a shower
of particles, a desperate expedient to concretize with particles what is
ontologically prior to particles. Curvature of space as the explanation
of force is another expedient to describe what is prior to objectivity
in objective terms. Of the two, space curvature is better because it is
equivalent. If we drive a car around a curve, or take a corner at high
speed, we are thrown violently to one side. The force and the curved
path are equivalent.
What should not be forgotten, however, is that it is not curved space
that is equivalent to force, but /motion in a curved path/. The effort
to conceptualize force deludes us by a trick. We still have to invest
this static picture with actual motion. Motion, of course, also cannot
be conceptualized. In fact, it is not a sense datum, as the so-called
paradox of Zeno disclosed, though even this point is overlooked by
philosophers.
In other words, motion in a curved path is two removes from sense data.
Sense data give us the position of an object in space. To know velocity
we have to have two observations of position together with the elapsed
time, and we can then /compute/ the velocity (feet per second). But to
know acceleration or to know that the body is moving in a curved path,
we need /three/ determinations. Three points determine a curve. As
before, we must also have the time elapsed in order to say how rapidly
the velocity has changed, or has changed direction, for a change in
velocity or in direction are both acceleration.
Thus with acceleration or curvature of the path traveled, we are two
removes from sense data. And if we recognize that velocity, because it
must be computed from sense data, is essentially mental, velocity is one
remove from position (the physical datum).
Now if we take seriously these removes and don't just blur them all
together as measures, we can recognize that each remove is a different
category of measure. Position is a sensory measure, velocity is a mental
one, and if we go a step further, acceleration is something we /feel/.
Now of course we can compute acceleration, but it is a computation of a
computation; it is one remove from mental, and this is the trick played
on us by the substitution of curvature for force.
Readers familiar with my books will recall how often I've stressed these
categories before, and that in the context of the ones just mentioned,
position, velocity, and acceleration, there is a fourth: control.
Control is not mentioned in the textbooks, but it is the basis of
cybernetics (from the Greek /cyberos/, steersman), a science in its own
right. And it is something we do all the time -- with force, when we
drive a car, when we make any physical movement; with speech, when we
choose the right words to convey our meaning.
Science is dedicated to the principles involved in the design of
machines (like Detroit) -- to building cars, not driving them. But its
neglect of control, the function that makes driving possible, shows that
science is dedicated only to secondary causes.
That science has elevated this dedication into a religion takes us back
to the division of functions which the ancients represented as different
gods. In Christianity this survives in the recognition that Satan, who
rebelled and was cast into hell, still has the status of a god. In Egypt
this was Set, who brought about the fall of Osiris. In Greece it was
Cronos who ate his own children. Prometheus brought fire to man, which
in one sense was a transgression for which he was punished, yet in
another sense it was fire that enabled man to evolve. Science has this
Promethian role -- but Prometheus brought fire, which is the spirit of
science. And this is not what we are presently concerned with. It is the
face or mask of science that is turning us to stone. It is science as a
Medusa that freezes us in the dogma of determinism. If we look behind
this mask of certainty, which science adopts, we find uncertainty; if we
question the frozen shape of space-time we find force, which we humans
know through feelings more directly than science can know it. But let us
spare the polemics lest we spoil the problem.
What are we to say to this beautiful but frozen concept of curved
space-time?
For answer, let us hold the mirror up to Einstein. Here I can draw on
Eddington, who carried the theory of relativity to its ultimate
conclusion. We can take advantage of Eddington's determination of the
number of particles in the universe, 10^79 , an obviously mad idea for
which he has been rebuked (as Eddington answered, he did not offer this
number on the supposition that someone was going to count them);
nevertheless, Eddington's figure has been generally adopted.
Let us set up a diagram in which the principal features of the universe
are set forth. Note first that the diagram has the four measures:
Position (on the right), Velocity (at the bottom), Acceleration (on the
left), and Control (at the top). For the maximum length or distance we
have 10^27 cm, the diameter of the universe. For the minimum distance we
have the diameter or radius of the proton, 10^-13 cm. The latter as a
radius of curvature represents a curvature of space-time and hence is
equivalent to a force -- in this case, probably the electromagnetic
force, 10^-39 times gravity.

The corresponding force on the right will be proportional, that is, will
be less as the radius is greater = 10^27+13 = 10^40 times weaker =
gravity. (We don't bother about one order of magnitude in this kind of
picture, so the fact that gravity is 1039 times the electromagnetic
force, rather than 10^40 , can be overlooked.)
We now invoke the speed of light (at the bottom). How long will it take
light to go round the proton? We divide the speed of light by the proton
circumference:

_3 x 10_^10 cm per sec = 10^22 times per sec.

6 x 10^-13
This is the frequency of the photon that would create a proton.
How long will it take light to go across the universe?

_2 x 10_^27 cm per sec = 2.10^17 seconds = 56 billion years

3 x 10^10

This is close to the computed age of the universe, 40 billion years, and
I will not try to improve it because the model does not purport to
establish what this will be. (It probably has to do with what it is now.)
The electromagnetic force is that which would keep the photon in an
orbit 10^-13 cm. What is gravity? It is the force which keeps light from
escaping from the universe! How great is it? Well it's 10^-40 times the
electromagnetic force. What is it due to? It's due to the /matter/ in
the universe. We can consider this matter to be concentrated at the
center of the universe. Now, if one proton can confine light to moving
in a circle of 10^-13 cm, how many protons would it take to confine
light to a radius of 10^27 ? A lot. (Because the pull of the force
varies inversely as the square of the distance.) So to exert the /same
force/ (as in the proton) at the much greater distance, i.e., 10^27 x
10^13 = 1040, it would take (10^40 )^2 2 = 10^80 protons.
But the force required is less because the radius of curvature is
greater. How much less? Less by the ratio of the radii, i.e. 10^27
/10^-13 = 10^40 . /Gravity/ is this weaker force.
So there must be 10^80 protons in the universe to cause light, under the
pull of gravity, to stay within the universe!
Recall that the ratio of the electromagnetic force to gravity is known
(actually 10^39 ), as are the speed of light, the diameter of the
proton, and the frequency and wave length of the photon which would
create the proton. The diameter and age of the universe are speculative,
but are thought to be approximately what I've given. The number of
protons is that computed by Eddington on the basis of other considerations.
But what should we put at the top of the figure? This is the position
for control, but there is no figure for control in science, so we must
find some other measure to put there.
It so happens that mass has the same ultimate dimensionality, L^4 , (see
/The Geometry of Meaning/ <gmexc.html>), so we can put mass here.
The obvious mass would be that of the proton, and when I first showed
the diagram I put the proton mass here. But someone said, why not the
mass of the universe? This troubled me; it was just as much an absolute
as the other "constants" such as the speed of light, and was of equal
status as the proton.
It then occurred to me that since the acceleration of a curve of the
radius of the proton is 10^40 times that of the radius of the universe,
and these two are one diameter apart, then 180 degrees involves
multiplication by 10^40 (this is also apparent in the ratio of the
universe -- 10^27 cm -- to the smallest particle in it -- 10^-13 ).
Well, if 180 degrees = 10^40 , then 360 degrees = 10^80 (the mass of the
universe)! Both the mass of the proton and the mass of the universe are
predicted by the point at M.
We are now ready to go further, and again I draw on Eddington. I quote
once more from a remarkable passage in Eddington's /Fundamental Theory/
(also see /The Reflexive Universe/ <ruexc.html>, Appendix III):

The usual equations of wave mechanics postulate flat space. I do not

think there is anything to be gained by trying to extend wave
mechanics to curved space. Curvature and wave functions are
alternative ways of representing distributions of energy and
momentum; and it is probably bad policy to mix them.
We have introduced the curved space of molar relativity theory as a
mode of representation of the extraordinary fluctuation, and have
obtained the fundamental relation between the microscopic constant s
and the cosmological constants R_o ,N. Having got what we want out
of it, space curvature no longer interests us; and we return to flat
space to pursue the specialized development of microscopic theory.
That does not mean that henceforth we neglect curvature; we merely
refrain from using the dodge that introduces it. The scale
uncertainty, instead of being disguised as curvature, will be taken
into account openly; so that there is no loss of rigour.

Realize that Eddington wrote two books on the theory of relativity, /The
Mathematical Theory of Relativity/ and /Relative Theory of Protons and
Electrons/. But now he says, "Having got what we want out of it, space
curvature no longer interests us." What a line! But he goes on to say,
"The scale uncertainty, instead of being disguised as curvature, will be
taken into account openly, so that there is no loss of rigour."
I have already commented on this remarkable passage in /The Reflexive
Universe/, where I quoted it at even greater length, because it was in
this passage I found sanction for two important ideas of /The Reflexive
Universe/:
1. That complete uncertainty is a circle.
2. That the 3/4 which Eddington calls stabilization of scale I call control.
While my interpretation of Eddington in point #2 has not been challenged
in the years since /The Reflexive Universe/ was published, I will still
take the responsibility for a possible misinterpretation -- which does
not mean that what would in that case be my idea, is invalid. The
validity of interpretations is impossible to prove.
In any case, for the present I can leave out #2 and consider only #1:
uncertainty is a circle.^*1*
Eddington, as I understand him, equates the curvature of space to the
curvature or circle of the quantum of action. As I said in /The
Reflexive Universe/, this recognition reconciles quantum theory and
relativity, a goal still not acknowledged by science as having been
achieved, because the goal was misnamed "a unified field theory" and
Eddington's solution does not involve a field but circularity.
Relativity and quantum theory are regarded as two mutually incompatible
theories, which deal with different areas. Relativity deals with
large-scale phenomena and quantum theory with small-scale, or
microphenomena. Paradoxically, quantum theory deals with wholes and
relativity deals with parts. Actually it could not be otherwise, because
the micro-world of quantum physics is the level at which only wholes
exist. While the atom, once thought to be indivisible, has been divided,
the quantum of action cannot be divided. It is the true atom -- an atom
not of matter, but of activity. To deal with the universe in these terms
is not humanly possible, because to do so we would have to have a life
cycle billions of years in duration in order to encompass the "life"
cycle of the universe.
Relativity deals with pieces of curvature, and it fails to emphasize the
cycle of time where all this curvature is put together into one great
cycle of action. Let me point this out another way. What is called the
"volume" of the Einstein-Eddington hypersphere -- which is to say, the
volume of the universe in the sense both of the space it encloses and
the time which is in process of being enclosed -- this "volume" has the
formula:

2/pi/^2 R^3
An ordinary physical sphere has the volume:

4/3pR^3
Without any special knowledge one can see that:
1. There is no "t" (for time) in the hyperspere.
2. There is, however, an extra /pi/.
Could it be the case that /pi/ takes the place of time? Suppose for
simplicity we represent the ordinary (physical) universe, or the
instantaneous universe, as a circle. The area of this circle has the
equation pR2. Suppose now we multiply this by time:

/pi/R^2 x time = /pi/R^2 T, a cylinder

Now suppose we bend this cylinder around to meet itself, that is, into a
circle like a doughnut.

Radius = R'

The circumference of this new circle will be 2/pi/R and the volume of
the cylinder bent into a circle will be:

2/pi/R' x /pi/R^2 = 2/pi/^2 R'R^2

Now let R' be the same as R, and we have:

2/pi/^2 R^3

In other words, instead of "t" we have 2/pi/R. Time is replaced by a

cycle of action. The measure of this cycle of action in terms of time
varies with the entity. If the photon, it is 1/10^22 seconds (the photon
that can create a proton). If a bacterium like /E. coli/, then about 20
minutes (the time required for it to reproduce, or create two cells from
one). If a person, it has its life cycle in a physical body, perhaps 80
years, but if we include reincarnation, a much greater figure, which may
be the age of the universe or may be greater.
While we may not care to extend this cycle for the monad to the figure
I've given, which takes us into unknown territory, we can at least
appreciate the point implied by Eddington, the equivalence of curvature
with the cycle of action (or uncertainty).
Before leaving this subject, which I confess has been speculative, let
me not neglect a comment on the question of the "unified field theory"
which I hope can stand independently of my vagaries on human evolution,
and which can apply to Eddington's "Space curvature no longer interests
us." The issue is the reconciliation of relativity and quantum physics.
Eddington saw the key to be curvature, which was present in both
theories but in different forms, or rather, on very different /scales/.
Quantum theory dealt with the micro world, relativity with the whole
universe.
But now note what made it impossible for Einstein to reconcile the two
theories. He called the theory he hoped to find the "Unified /Field/
Theory." We have already pointed out that the notion of a field is a
concession to conceptual thinking. We can form the concept of a field,
but we cannot form a "concept" of force. Force is a different category.
The quantum of action is also in a different category. Under its other
name, quantum of uncertainty, it is, by definition, impossible to
conceptualize.
If the reader finds this difficult, I have two alternatives, either to
accept as a fact of life that quantum physics has stumbled upon
something that cannot be conceptualized -- that is, take it as would a
child, that Daddy said so -- or take the route that I'm trying to open
through the jungle, that there are different categories, aspects, or
causes of things.
Since this is a venerable tradition, echoed, for example, in Aristotle's
four causes, I hesitate to repeat it again, but here in the failure to
obtain a unified theory we have a lesson. Not only did Einstein doom his
search to failure by calling his goal a field theory, thereby excluding
what was not a field, but he insisted that quantum theory was invalid.
(Why then did he seek to unify it with relativity?)
We need to uncover what it is that gives science the authority it has
come to have in order to go beyond the blind spots in the current world
view.
We have already mentioned that the "god" of science is physical law --
determinism and reductionism -- which we can classify as secondary
causes. This is inverse hierarchy, the "worship" of Set, of what pulls
down into manifestation.
There is also the accord given to physics because it is an exact
science. This exactness is quantitative. When the scientist says the
speed of light is 299,792,456.4 meters per second, Peter Ustinov says,
"Zero point four?" and the other replies, "Well, the English would say 0.5."
It is impressive that it is possible to test Einstein's theory of the
advance of the perihelion (which, for Mercury, is only a few seconds per
century) on a quasar some hundreds of millions of light years distant.
In fact even to be able to see such an object is profoundly impressive.
Or again, to photograph the rings of Saturn.
Now, the pursuit of exact measures is an important aspect of physics,
but it is to be credited not so much to science as to technology, and we
have to ask whether the technical achievement represented by gene
splicing is not equally impressive. There must be something more than
just the accuracy that gives physics its prestige.
I have the feeling it is irrelevant, and possibly irreverent, to say
such information (perihelion advance of distant quasars, etc.) has
little to do with important problems. Man is the only creature to pursue
goals beyond his immediate necessities, and to demand "practical"
results would eliminate his most creative efforts. The astronomer, when
asked, "What is the use of astronomy?" said, "Of what use is a baby?" It
is because astronomers and the other branches of science are dedicated
to "unworldly" goals that they command our respect.
Nor can science be faulted on the grounds that it is always cold and
sterile. It has its own mystique, quite as compelling as that of
religion. Black holes, for example, are now credited to Einstein,
although LaPlace predicted them 150 years ago; yet no black hole has
ever been discovered. One might ask, if there were black holes, defined
as matter so dense that light cannot radiate from them, how is it that
they can exert a gravitational influence (since gravity is assumed to be
radiated at the speed of light)? The answer I got from a physicist was
that the gravitons, like light, are slowed down, they exert an influence
before the black hole becomes invisible. This answer conflicts with the
thesis that black holes account for the missing mass of the universe.
Such inconsistencies of science are paraded as paradoxes which only
experts can understand, and these paradoxes contribute to the mystique
of science. It might be worthwhile to attempt an enumeration. It would
include:
*Gravitons:* If gravity is explained by the bending of space-time, why
is it necessary to have gravitons at all? Actually, the whole question
needs an airing. Gravitons are postulated (they have not been observed)
because, since the photon can be interpreted as an exchange particle
which explains the electromagnetic force, there should be another
exchange particle that explains the gravitational force.
But is it correct to interpret the photon as responsible for force? What
actually occurs is that when a charge (i.e., an electron) is accelerated
a photon is radiated. But this would not account for the force between
two particles that are not accelerated (at rest).
Again, the electron orbits the nucleus. It is certainly being
accelerated. But it does not radiate a photon unless it changes to a
different orbit. This is the prequantum problem, which was solved by
saying the electron is accelerated without radiating a photon, provided
it does not change orbit.
Furthermore the force in question is between the electron and the
nucleus. There is no radiation to or from the nucleus when the electron
does change orbit and radiates or absorbs a photon.
*Neutrinos:* There are endless criticisms of this slippery bit of
juggling introduced to balance the books in what is known as beta decay,
when a neutron releases an electron and becomes a proton. (Not all the
energy is accounted for.)
The latest absurdity is to explain the "mass deficiency" (not enough
mass in a galaxy to account for its rate of rotation) by the mass of the
neutrino. But it is easy to show that to explain the missing mass would
require there to be millions of times more neutrinos than there are
particles. This, it should be evident, is absurd. But if the absurdity
is not evident, why does the existence of so many neutrinos, which
cannot be at rest and must therefore by flying about in all directions,
not show up in the experiments to detect neutrinos from the sun? In
fact, why does it not cause there to be so many neutrino events that
those caused by neutrinos from the sun would be lost in the shuffle?
*The unification of the four forces:* One of the projects that
physicists are given to praise with hallelujahs that fall on my ear like
musical instruments out of tune is the proposal to unify the four forces
-- the electromagnetic, the gravitational, the strong and the weak forces.
The idea got its initial impetus from the prediction by Yukawa of the
meson, which did indeed turn up. This was a short-life "particle" or
bundle of energy of such amount as would account for the binding of
nuclear particles. Such binding is, of course, energy, because it takes
energy to break the particles apart.
Then it became the vogue to explain electromagnetic force as due to
photons, as I mentioned above. Thence to the postulations of gravitons
for gravity and a W particle for the weak force. These particles had in
common that they were bosons, which are defined as having integral spin
(not 1/2 spin), but gravitons have spin 2, photons spin 1, W particles
s/pi/n 0. Meanwhile mesons, which started the club, have been dropped
from membership, for what reason I cannot make out. So their definition
as bosons does not mean bosons have much in common. And of course there
could hardly be a greater disparity than there is between
electromagnetic force (emf) and gravity!
1. The emf is 10^40 times gravity, a number which is so large that
it would require the smallest dimension possible in matter, the
diameter of the proton, versus the diameter of the universe to
represent it. 2. The emf comes as repulsion and attraction, whereas
gravity and the other forces are attractive. 3. The strong and weak
force are short-range, extending only 10^-12 cm from the nucleus,
whereas the emf and gravity extend to infinity.

This gross disparity is not reconciled by any account I've seen. While
I'm given to mixing categories in the sense that I can find a method by
which four categories can be shown to be interrelated, this method
depends on the recognition that the categories can be defined as the
permutation of two dichotomies, a and non-a, b and non-b, a and b being
independent.

The method also requires something in common between opposite ends of

the diameters. This is not evident in the case of the forces. There
should be something in common at upper right and at lower left.

Elegance has always been what fascinated me about physics, especially

the elegance of explaining atoms as multiples of protons, the line
spectrum of hydrogen, the Mendeleef table, etc.; but I've not heard any
such harmony since the neutrino. Physics has become a patchwork of ad
hoc assumptions, and quarks are more like Ptolemaic circles than good
explanation.
The comments above demonstrate some of the inconsistencies and
absurdities in science, all of which make it difficult for
non-scientists to venture into such areas and form their own judgments
or viable questions.
I am often criticized for "answering questions that haven't been asked."
But the problem is that people have become too intimidated by science to
ask questions. This doesn't mean they don't sense the error of science,
but this awareness drives them away from science -- into the
consciousness movement, into Eastern philosophy, into protest marches
and other tactics that are essentially regressive in that they fail to
meet science on its own grounds, correct its errors and make it a
servant in the general human quest for understanding and wisdom rather
than a god.
It takes both courage and wit to ask questions of science -- courage
because for a long time now we have had "this nonsense knocked out of
us." I've seen many biology books which start out by a statement that
science doesn't deal with questions like, "What is the purpose of life?"
The unmistakable message this carries is that such questions are naive,
beneath contempt, not only not worth asking but definitely in bad taste.
As for the wit needed to question science, this requires the perception
that science is not the immaculate perfection of knowledge that its
press gives out. Even technical questions from within the establishment
are difficult to ask because much of scientific training consists of
learning to swallow pills that are distasteful to chew. It takes about
three years to get the nuclear physicist to go through the ritual
movements that are recognized by other scientists, and to depart from
this would result in being thrown out of the club. Yet it is difficult
not to depart from the ritual because it is the ritual that is inadequate.
In fact, both my handicap and my advantage in dealing with physicists is
that I've not swallowed the requisite pills. I can't remember the
simplest formulas; I have to figure them out each time. In aerodynamics
I avoided the complex German formulas, but could approach the problem
from the more basic level of laws of similitude. This was of importance
for helicopters, which required a more basic investigation than that
which had sufficed for airplanes.
A critique of science takes a combination of understanding science plus
the ability to see through the smokescreen of gobbledegook which
obscures its errors from scientists themselves.
I think a thorough reappraisal of science must be done if we are to
reach the next stage. It may not be done; we may regress to the
prescientific, or our culture may split up with scientists becoming more
zombie-like and the protestors more cut off from the rest. In my work I
have tried to bridge the gap, by which I mean account for the disparity
between the scientific picture of life, and life from the standpoint of
the meaning universe. I've found there is one key link in the bridge. It
was introduced earlier in this essay, when I showed that the
reconciliation of quantum mechanics with relativity can be achieved by
the recognition that the curvature of space-time and the uncertainty of
quantum physics are both cycles of action, the one on the micro and the
other on the macro scale. Generally speaking, the measures of science
deal only with whole cycles -- a 60-cycle current; a 20-megacycle radio
signal; middle C is 256 cycles, and so on -- though in some applications
science does have to deal with phase, but this usage is rare.
However, human life is mostly concerned with phase relationship -- it's
time for lunch; it's bedtime; the timing of a stock purchase; the
player's timing is off (which could apply to sports or to music);
dancing, etc. Again, a person's age can be counted in years, but the
differences which develop -- childhood, puberty, youth, maturity, etc.
-- are positions in the cycle from birth to death.
We may refer to this cycle by different names -- quantum of action,
quantum of uncertainty, free will, life cycle, learning cycle, etc. --
realizing of course that it has many octaves; it can be the
instantaneous act of decision, a moment of realization, a day, a year,
or a life, or even a day in the life of Brahma (4 billion years).
Perhaps the most suitable term is the learning cycle, not only for its
implication of phases within the cycle, but for its suggestion of
something achieved. Unlike the measures of science, this cycling does
not get back to the starting point and repeat. Rather, it provides for
the progress of evlution and the cumulative, generative nature of life.
The evolution of life as viewed by science has nothing to do with life!
What is missing in science is the recognition of the concept of /phase/
(in the cycle of action) which the quantitative or reductionist approach
cannot accommodate. This phase is the completely unpredictable, freedom
of choice, option, also known to us as meaning -- in contrast to
measure. It is the link between human spiritual awareness and knowledge
of the physical world.
_______________________________
^*1* Our certainty can be described as it is with a lens, as the angle
between two distinguishable points; the greater the angle, the greater
the uncertainty, hence maximum, i.e. complete, uncertainty is the
maximum angle, 360 degrees, or a full circle. This is the phase dimension.
©1998 Anodos Foundation

HOME <index.html> | ABOUT AMY <about.html> | BOOKS

<aybooks.html> | THEORY <theory.html> | ESSAYS
<essays.html> | VIDEO <video.html> | ORGANIZATIONS
<organizations.html> | POSTER <poster.html> | LINKS <links.html>
Website design by HYPERSPHERE <http://www.hypersphere.com>.
©2006 Anodos Foundation. All rights reserved.