The Solid World

The Solid World

One of the paradigms we’re really stuck on is this idea of a solid world. Even though physicists tell us otherwise, they too are stuck in a particle model, inventing particles even to move forces. Now some of that is motivated by an avoidance of concepts like “ether”. The idea of Ether (or Aether) is that it’s an invisible substance that fills all space and is the medium through which things like light travels. Just like waves travel through water. Modern science posits space is mostly empty. Light travels through space in a vacuum. And thus, there has to be a particle if there is no medium.

I’d say the truth is somewhere between these 2 positions. And subtler than one might think.

Einstein’s classic equation E=mc2 tells us that matter is more or less the same thing as energy. Energy is neither created nor destroyed, it simply changes state. So we might think of matter as a state of energy.

Physics tells us atoms are not solid. In fact they are mostly empty space. Particles are really fields of probability. Where the nucleus the size of a basketball, the first electron orbit is about 10 miles out. And particles like electrons and protons and such, are blinking in and out of existence at every moment.

What is it they come and go from?

Back to Einsteins equation, we know that energy is related to the speed of light (c). We could say energy is movement. But movement of what?

Curiously enough, the answer is fundamentally consciousness. Something science tends to think of as an effect of brain function is actually the substratum of all experience. Of our sense of self, and of the world.

We might want to separate the experience of the world from the world itself in a discussion like this. But in fact, there is no difference, aside from point of view. Different people will experience the same thing in different ways. But it is within that process of experience that objects of perception become and are sustained.

This may not be entirely apparent as many of us are identified with being this local person. A me. But in the same way each of us experience the same thing a little differently, each of ARE the same thing, experiencing it a little differently. When we are caught by the experience of it we have the false sense of being different.

If attention fully stopped from all sources, that apparent object would vanish.

What is attention? It is the directed flow of consciousness, flowing within itself.

It is that recognition of self-awareness that brings forth all experiences. What we experience as objects are field effects of the flow and vibration, held within awareness.

Some people talk about consciousness as having states – sleeping, dreaming, cosmic, etc. But it does not really have states. As one dreams even in cosmic consciousness, we know these “states” are not really equivalent. They are limited by the mechanism – by the body/emotions/mind of the perceiver. Even that is not a real limitation.

Average rating 0 / 5. Vote count: 0

No votes so far! Be the first to rate this post.


  1. Science is about busting assumptions–and yet it has trouble getting away from the assumption of an objective universe. Quantum physics and experiments such as the double-slit and particle entanglement is starting to crack this assumption, but there isn’t anything else that science is comfortable with right now.

    You’re right, particles are hazy and probably not solid in the way we think of solids. Further, there is so much space within atoms and molecules, that most objects would go through each other without any of the atoms every touching–the reason objects feel solid is not because of solidity but because of electric repulsion.

    Thanks, very thought provoking…

  2. Davidya

    Thanks for the feedback, Kaushik
    Yes, I was going to touch on entanglement and the particle/wave experiments. But didn’t want to go on too much about physics. They’ve also now had experiments where the same particle was in over 30 places at the same time.

    I’ve also noted this whole thing about dark matter/energy is to try to balance equations that are coming up with figures that are way off. Why not go back and reexamine assumptions, even if the math works in other ways? For example, theres the issue of spin being left out of equations. They did this to simplify the equations but then forgot they’d done this and are surprised at the results.

    Newton and Maxwell are both heralded as vanguards of modern science, but both included something ether-ish in their original equations. What we know today is not actually theirs but the revised version.

    It all points back to assumptions and expectations. We carefully build a story of the world, then look for things that correspond. If we fail to see this process, we can get lost in the story, forgetting it is we who created it. If science does not recognize the role of the subject, it will never actually be objective.

  3. Yeah, Einstein included a cosmological constant in his general relativity equation, because his equation did not fit his story. He called this the biggest blunder of his life. At another time, he said God does not play dice with the universe, when he was unable to accept Heisenberg’s uncertainty principle. Later in his life, some of the things Einstein said indicates that he had had some insight into consciousness and awakening. For example, he said that humanity suffers from a kind of optical illusion of consciousness (paraphrasing).

    Still, there is hope in science. Perhaps the breakthroughs will come as research in consciousness and cosmology converges.

  4. Davidya

    I’ve heard a couple of talks by a scientist who’s worked out how to put spin back in Einsteins field equations. It eliminates the need for separate strong and weak forces and sees gravity and electromagnetic as the same force, one pulling in, the other expressing out.

    What Einstein didn’t recognize is that the surface values have uncertainty as they’re the consequence of innumerable interactions. But more subtly, there is great certainty.

    I agree – there is great value in science. I look forward to that coming together. Thanks for your thoughts, Kaushik.

Leave a Reply to Kaushik Cancel reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

Pin It on Pinterest