Gary Zukav The Dance of the Teachers

PUBLISHING ARGUS VERGARA, S.A. Barcelona Title of the original edition: THE DANCING WU LI MASTERS. AN OVERVIEW OF THE NEW PHYSICS Translation Joaquin Adsuar scientific Revision Dr Ignacio Serra Covered To Gescheidt/The Image Bank First edition: July of 1981 Copyright 1979 by Gary Publishing Zukav Vergara Argus, S.A. Aragn, 390, Barcelona-13 (Spain) ISBN: 84-7178-3304 Legal Deposit: B. 24,401-1981 Form in Spain-Printed in Spain Printed by Chmenos, S.A., Severe Dr Ochoa, s/n, Coll of the Manya, Granollers (Barcelona) Scanned by C. Alado [ Eleute ] November of 2002 the DANCE OF the TEACHERS has been awarded with the National Book Award 1980 for books on science. A humanist made lack as Gary Zukav to shape a work that explained, with rigor and originality at the same time, the most arduous concepts of the present physics without resorting to the mathematics. Connoisseur deep of mechanics quantum and of relativity einsteniana (theoretical constructions whose translation to the common sense seemed point than impossible less), Zukav found the key for its exciting exhibition in a concept of the traditional Chinese philosophy: the Wu-Li. Wu-Li is the word that it designates to the Physics. It means models of organic energy, but it can also mean as different things as my way, culture and illustration, silly thing, and a long list of others. This peculiar conceptualizacin, so distant of the western logic, is taught by the Chinese teachers by means of a dance ritual. Here the nexus, guessed by the author with admirable intuition arises: the quantum mechanics is also a dance, always etrea and always executed for the first time, knowledge in itself and pure expression of concrete it in its constant to happen. For centuries but, sealadamente, since Galileo maintained that the book of the Nature was written in mathematical language -, the evolution of exact sciences has been moved away of the common ways to think. He is not strange, therefore, that the most eminent physicists usually see themselves in the impossibility express their conceptions in an accessible language. Parallelly, I bequeath (even if it is equipped with a superior culture) experiences the frustration of not understanding the theories and developments that, nevertheless, is constantly modifying the life of the humanity. A so clear and guessed right expositiva synthesis as the DANCE OF the TEACHERS now comes to overwhelm that old lagoon with the general culture. ... this book is of easy and not only burnishes reading, but that, in addition, puts to the reader in contact with the diverse ways followed by the physicists to explain something who are very difficult to explain. In summary: Gary Zukav has written the best book for the legos in the matter. DAVID FINKELSTEIN, Director of the Superior School of Physics of the Institute of Technology of Georgia. the book of Zukav is an historical event within the most ingenious communication of the high knowledge of intelligence to put them within reach of all the human beings. The book develops the spirit gives to realism fantstic of the physics of quanto like which it is over the mesurables limits of the space-time. The philosophy of the quantos can facilitate the foundations for a coherent and effective vision of the relation between the man and the divine thing in a form that is not only acceptable but, in addition, convincing. JACK SARFATTI, Director of the Physics/ Consciousness Research Group. This book is dedicated to you, that you feel he desire to read it. CONTENT GRATEFULNESS 2 LIST OF 4 PERSONAGES PROLOGUE 6 INTRODUCTION 9 WU LI? 12 To EINSTEIN IT DOES NOT LIKE 24 MODELS OF ORGANIC ENERGY 43 WHAT MY FOOTPATH 79 PASSES 61 FOLLY 98 GRASPED To MY 155 IDEAS

DANCE 172 ILLUMINATION 203 The AIM OF SCIENCE 224 254 NOTES BIBLIOGRAPHY 259 GRATEFULNESS I cannot sufficiently express me gratitude towards the following people. While this book was writing, I discovered that the physicists, from the students just graduated to honored with the Nobel prize, compose a group as likeable, accessible people, ready to help and able to be interested in the other peoples work. This discovery affected my ideas, sustained during long time, stereotyped, on the cold and objective scientific personality. This one is the main reason for which I am thanked for the people who next mention themselves: Jack Sarfatti, Doctor in Physics, Director of the Physics/Consciousness Research Group, are the catalyst without which the following people and I had not been. To the Chung-lian Huang, the Teacher of Tai Chi, offered the perfect metaphor of Wu Li, inspiration and a beautiful handwriting to me. David Finkelstein, Doctor in Physics, Director of the Superior School of Physics of the Technological Institute of Georgia, were my first pro-fesor-tutor. These men are the padrinos of this book. Aside from Sarfatti and Finkelstein, the following physicists read and commented the complete manuscript, chapter after chapter: Henry Stapp, Doctor in Physics, of Lawrence Berkeley Laboratory, who repeated times took the annoyance and the time necessary to answer my numerous questions; Brian Josephson, University professor of Physics in the University of Cambridge, and Max Jammer, University professor of Physics in the University of Bar-ilan, Ramat-Gan, Israel. I am also in debt with Elizabeth Rauscher, Doctor in Physics, founder and patrocinadora of the Fundamental Physics Group in Lawrence Berkeley Laboratory, who allowed people who were not physicists who took part in the weekly conferences that, normally, had only attracted physicists. In addition to Stapp and east Sarfatti group includes Doctor in Physics John Clauser; to Philippe Eberhard; George Weissman; Fred Wolf and Fritjof Catra (all of them doctors in Physics) among others. I am been thankful to him to Carson Jefferies, University professor of Physics of the University of California, in Berkeley, by its support and its commentaries on some parts of the manuscript; to David Bohm, University professor of Physics in the Birkbeck College of the University of London, by to have read part of the manuscript; to Saul-Paul Sirag, by its frequent aid; to the physicists of the Particle Data Group, Lawrence Berkeley Laboratory, by its attendance and collaboration in the elaboration of the Particle Table that is included at the end of the book; to Eleanor Criswell, University professor of Psychology, State University of Sonoma (Californian), by its valuable support; to Gin McCollum, University professor of Mathematics in the State University of Kansas by its comprehensive and patient tutelaje; and to Nick Herbert, Director of the C-Life Institut, that facilitated excellent publications to me on the Theorem of Bell and to authorize to me to use his title It dwells than both (More than both), to title one of my chapters. All the illustrations of this book have been made by Thomas Are contiguous Robinson. Harvey White, University professor Emeritus, of the Department of Physics of the University of California, in Berkeley, and ex- director of Lawrence Hall of science, that personally facilitated photographies to me of its famous simulation of the possibility of distribution of forms. The photography of the diffraction of the electron was facilitated to me by Ronald Gronsky, Doctor in Physics, of Lawrence Berkeley Laboratory. I learned many things on espectroscopia of Summer Davis, University professor of Physics in the University of California in Berkeley. I repeat: deeply I am thanked for them those men which, like all the other physicists with whom I was in contact with

the enemy while this book wrote, offered their time gracefully and its knowledge to a stranger who needed aid. Also I am in debt with Maria Guarnaschelli, me publisher, by its sensitivity and erudition. Without the generosity of Michael Murphy and the picture of directors of the Esalen Institute, who sponsored in 1976 the Conference on Physics and Conscience, possibly nothing of this had been possible. LIST OF PERSONAGES THOMAS YOUNG 1803 (experiment of the double crack) ALBERT MICHELSON, EDWARD MORLEY 1887 (the experiment of Michelson Morley) GEORGE FRANCS FITZGERALD 1892 (contractions of Fitzgerald) 1893 HENDRIK ANTOON LORENTZ 1894 (the transformations of Lorentz) 1895 ELECTRON 1897 (discovered) MAX PLANCK 1900 (the hypothesis of the quantum) ALBERT EINSTEIN 1905 (theory of photons) 1905 (special theory of relativity) HERMANN MINKOWSKI 1908 (space-time) NUCLEUS 1911 (discovered) NIELS BOHR 1913 (model of the atom of specific orbits) ALBERT EINSTEIN 1915 (general theory of relativity) Louis OF BROGLIE 1924 (waves of the matter) NIELS BOHR, H. To KRAMERS, JOHN SLATER 1924 (first concept of the probability waves) 1925 WOLFGANG PAULI 1926 (the exclusion principle) 1927 WERNER HEISENBERG 1925 (mechanical matrix) ERWIN SCHRDINGER 1926 (the equation of wave of Schrdinger) 1926 (it compares the first mechanics with the mechanics of the waves) 1926 (it visits Bohr in Copenhagen to fight the idea of the jumps of the quantum... and patient of influenza) MAX BORN 1926 (interpretation of the probability in the wave function) 1927 NIELS BOHR 1928 (complementariness) 1929 CLINTON DAVISSON, LESTER GERMER 1927 (the Davisson-Germer experiment) WERNER HEISENBERG 1927 (uncertainty principle) the INTERPRETATION OF the QUANTUM MECHANICS OF COPENHAGEN 1927 PAUL DIRAC 1928 (antimatter) NEUTRON 1932 (discovered) POSITRON 1932 (discovered) JOHN VON NEUMAN 1932 (the logic of the quantum) ALBERT EINSTEIN, BORIS PODOLSKY, NATHAN ROSEN 1935 (publication of the EPR) HlDEKI YUKAWA 1935 (it predicts the inn) INN 1947 (discovered) RICHARD FEYNMAN 1949 (diagrams of Feyman) SIXTEEN NEW PARTICLES 1947-1954 (discovered) The MULTIPLE WORLDS, INTERPRETATION OF the QUANTUM MECHANICS 1957 DAVID FINKELSTEIN 1958 (hypothesis of the membrane of one way street) JAMES TERRELL 1959 (explanation of the rotation) QUSARES 1962 (discovered) QUARKS 1964 (hypothesis of its existence). DAVID BOHM 1970 (implied order) STUART FREEDMAN, JOHN CLAUSER 1972 (Freedman-Clauser experiment) TWELVE NEW PARTICLES 1974-1979 (discovered) JACK SARFATTI 1975 (theory of the transference of superluminance information) ALAIN ASPECT 1978 (the experiment of Aspect, in progressive accomplishment) PROLOGUE In 1976, when Gary Zukav announced its project to write this book and outlined its scheme with A the Huang and with me, seated around a table of the dining room of Esalen, I did not realize exact magnitude of the work that it loaded on his backs with as much joy. He was very beneficial for me to observe the development of the book, because Zukav had insisted on compiling thorough the total evolution of the present relativista physics of the quantum, treating his thematic one as if it was developing a literary story. As a result of it, this book not only is from pleasant reading, but that puts in contact to the reader with the diverse ways followed by the physicists to be able to explain something who are very difficult to explain. In summary: Gary Zukav has written the best book for the legos in this matter. The attitude of Zukav with respect to the physics is very similar to mine - so I also must be I bequeath and turns out more stimulating to speak with him from physics that with

most of the professionals. Which knows that the physics is - among other many things an attempt to establish a relation of harmony with an organization muy.superior.a we ourself, demands of us first to look for, to formulate and, later, to uproot, after others, ours more dear prejudices and old mental habits in an infinite search of the unattainable thing. Zukav has had the amiability to offer these pages to me so that year my own enthusiasm to much that it, personally, has put in his story. Since three years ago we knew ourselves I must try to activate my memories. First which it comes to my memory it is a group of migratory whales. Memory that we were of foot, in reefs of Esalen, observing as they jumped gladly while they swam course to the south. Later the memory of precious Monarch butterflies goes to my mind, that in that first day speckled the fields with their colors and covered a magical tree as if they were dense leaves, like for a great celebration. Between those two visions of whales and butterflies it was to us very difficult to feel to us important and much more simple to put to us to digress. The arduous difficulty to communicate with the physicists of Esalen I help myself to realize how so different from mine they thought most of the physicists on the quantum mechanics. Not because my point of view was new. One of both was indicated by John Von Neumann, in 1934, in its book The Mathematical Foundation of Quantum Mechanic: 1) the quantum mechanics takes care of the proposals defined by the processes of preparation and observation that involve to the subject and the object, and obeys to a new logic. One does not take care by itself of the objective properties of the object. 2) the quantum mechanics takes care of the objective properties of the object in himself, obeying to the old logic, but it observes that those properties happen to act of illogical way when they are put under observation. Most of the physicists in active-duty only seems to run by one of those ways (the second) and does not take in consideration the other. And perhaps the personality can determine the direction of science. I think that there are minds-cosa and minds-gente. The good parents, the siclogos and the writers must be people, whereas the mechanics, the engineers and the physicists tend to be minds-cosa. The physics has become too frightful for these physicists because, in fact, she is too desmaterializada for them. New as deep evolutionary changes as those of Einstein and Heisenberg are hoping at that a generation arrives from more bold and integrated thinkers. Whereas most of the physicists accepts like something current practical instruments that the quantum mechanics puts in its hands so that they use it in his daily work, a vanguard exists that already is experimenting with the physics of the future, and, also, a rear that, consciously, follows in the footpath that takes them physics of return to the old. The Theorem of Bell is important, of special way, for the seconds. The one that also in this book enough importance is granted to him, does not mean that it comes to clarify no of the new problems that in these days to us the quantum physics creates. Rather what it could say is that the Theorem of Bell leads to a point of view that does not have anything of singular and that already had been accepted by most of the physicists: that the quantum mechanics is, mainly, something new and different. The Theorem of Bell, in this respect, helps us to establish the existing difference between a complete theory that it wants to be able to predict it everything, like which look for Newtonian (it does not seem that Newton was personally authentic a Newtonian one, since she wished that God, once in a while, corrected the clock of the world to put it in a their exact hour) and maximal theory that it foretells what is possible,

something that already predicted the defenders of the quantum mechanics. In spite of the existence of that controversy, Einstein and Bohr were in agreement, although in different form, in that the quantum mechanics she is incomplete and, even, deny that he is maximal. What they really debated was if an incomplete theory could be maximal. During its famous controversy with Bohr, Einstein alleged: - Well, which happens is that our theory is too poor to be able to be experimented! And Bohr talked back: - No, not...! The experience is too rich for our theory. That is to say, they behaved exactly just as the existencialistas philosophers who while they are hopeless before indetermine of the life and the fact that there are different possibilities from election, others, however, feel that it exists lan vital. One of the qualities characteristic of the quantum mechanics, that leads to such controversy, is its preoccupation by the nonexisting thing, by the potential. There is something of this in all the languages then, if no, the words could only be used once, but the quantum mechanics much more is related that the classic mechanics with the probabilities. Some think that this relation with the possible thing in power, although not yet real, discredits to the theory of the quantum and makes inferior to the maximal theory. It is important to emphasize, in defense of the theory of the quantum that, in spite of its indetermination, the quantum mechanics can be expressed in terms of himself-or-not, when it talks about individualities exactly - since it makes the physics classic and that the probabilities can be derived from these experiments as a law of the great numbers and it does not need to be postulated. I prefer to proclaim the difference between the classic theories and the one of the quantum, not as the text books present/display us, but as it follows: once sufficient data are offered, the classic mechanics can give an affirmative or positive answer, whereas the quantum mechanics simply leaves without answer, in its theory, some questions so that they are answered by the experience. I want to indicate the lamentable tendency - also in same me - to think that the quantum mechanics must deny the physical existence of those answers. What does is to look for them in the experience and not in the theory, like, for example, the moment of a located electron. So it jeopardize we are with our systems of symbols! After one week of char it and conversations, the Conference continued working with the elements of the logic of the quantum and it never got to reach the new quantum concepts of the time that we tried to put on the rug. But it facilitated the one that we arrived until the new series of problems that occupies to me at the present time. The quantum mechanics is characterized by its problems without answer. Some logical ones, like Martin Davis, have suggested this could have relation with the proposals that dominate the logic from the times of Gdel and which they are based on the nondecision. In those days I believed to know it the all best one. At the moment I think that it is possible that they are those that are right and that the common element is the reflexibilidad and the impossibility of the finite systems to reach a total knowledge of themselves. Apparently, an appropriate study of the humanity is something infinite. I trust that those ideas are developed and that Gary Zukav writes a book on them. It can do it very well! DAVID FINKELSTEIN New York Julio, 1978 INTRODUCTION My first contact with the quantum physics, took place does few years, when a friend invited to me, late, to a conference that took place in the Laboratory Lawrence Berkeley, in Berkeley, California. In those days, I did not maintain relations with the scientific community, so I went to the meeting moved by the interest to see how they were the physicists. With great surprise as

for me I discovered two things: 1. That it understood everything what 2, said, and That its discussion was looked much like a theological discussion. Work cost to me to think what it had discovered. The physics was not the boring and sterile subjet that I always had supposed. She was one ventures deep, rich, that had become inseparable of the philosophy. It was incredible that nobody, with exception of the own physicists, had realized this remarkable evolution. As they increased to my interest and my knowledge of physics, I was decided to share my discovery with other people. This book is a gift product of that discovery. First of a series of them. Speaking in general terms, people can be divided in two categories in agreement with her intellectual preferences. The first group prefers a type of intellectual exploration that demands the rigor of the logical processes; this type of people is those that are interested in natural sciences and the mathematics. These people do not become scientists because of their education, but because it awards its scientific mentality. The second group prefers explorations that jeopardize to their intellect of less rigorous way. Their members have a liberal mentality artistic not because of their education, but that choose an education in the liberal arts because this awards its mental inclination by the liberal arts. Since both groups are intelligent difficulty does not exist so that anyone of the two can understand what they study the members of the other. Nevertheless, I have discovered a remarkable problem of communication between both groups. Often my physical friends have tried to explain some concept to me and, in his exasperacin, they happened from an explanation to another one and all of them sounded (at least for me) abstract, difficult to catch and abstrusas in general terms. When finally it managed to include/understand what they tried to communicate to me, felt to me surprised, inevitably, when discovering that the idea in himself was really simple. Reciprocally, frequently I have tried to explain to my physical friends a concept in terms that seemed (at least for me) praiseworthily lcidos but that, for my exasperacin, to them they sounded to them desperately vague, ambiguous and devoid of precision. I trust that this book will be a translation able to help those people who do not have a scientific mentality (as it happens to me to me) sufficient to understand the extraordinary process that she is taking place in the theoretical physics. Like any translation, never it can be as good as the original work, of course, and is subject to the limitations of the translator. For either or badly my the more important qualification like translator it is that, like you, reading, I am not a scientist either. In order to compensate my lack of preparation in physics (and my tending mentality to the liberal arts) I have solicitd, and received, the attendance of an extraordinary group of physicists (who are related in my note of gratefulness). Particularly there are five of them who read the whole manuscript. As it was completing each one of the chapters, it sent copies to him of them to each one of the physicists and it requested to them that they corrected any conceptual or factual error who found in him. (Several other physicists read some specially chosen chapters). My original intention was to use its commentaries to correct the text. Soon I discovered that my scientific friends had granted to the manuscript more consideration of the one than I had myself bold to hope. Their commentaries were not only deeply reflective and penetrating but that, taken altogether, could form an important volume of information by themselves. While more deeply it studied their observations more convinced to me that it was necessary that shared them with the reader. Consequently, besides to correct the

text of my manuscript with them, I included like notes of footer those commentaries that did not duplicate the corrected text. In individual I used in those notes the commentaries that were in discord with the text and, also, with the commentaries of other physicists. When publishing, thus, dissident opinions, I have been able to include numerous ideas that, within the text, had extended and complicated the book. From the beginning in the dance of the Teachers term has not finally been used some that has not been explained immediately before or after its use. This rule has not been followed in notes of footer, which, although gives a irrestringida freedom them of expression, means that the notes contain terms that have not been explained before, later or during their use. The text respects the statute of the reader, of just arrived at an ample and exciting field. The notes on footer, no. However, if the reading one at the same time reads those notes that the text, it will have the opportunity to find out of which they must say on him five of the most outstanding physicists of the world and is as if these were reading the book at the same time that the reader. Far better of which mine could explain itself with words, those notes reveal the aggressive precision whereupon the science men try to emphasize and to correct the errors contained in the work of a colleague, even when he is about one with so little preparation as I and a work nottechnique like this one. The new physics, so and as is used in this book, means quantum mechanics, that began with the theory of quanta in 1900, and relativity, that began with the theory of the relativity of Albert Einstein in 1905. The old physics is the physics of Isaac Newton, discovered by him does about three hundred years. Physical classic it means all type of physics that tries to explain the reality in such a way that for each element of the physical reality there is a corresponding element in the theory. Therefore, the classic physics includes the physics of Newton and relativity, since both are structured in this same proportional form of one by one. It does not include, on the contrary, to the quantum mechanics, which, as we see, is one of the things that make only to the quantum mechanics. The reader must be amiable with same himself while read. This book contains many polifacticos and very interesting stories, but all of them are of dense content. They are not possible to be learned of once, in the same way that cannot either be caught of a single time all the stories that tell in War and Peace, Crime and Punishment us or the Miserable ones. I suggest the reader who reads this book to please and he does not stop to learn what in him he is contained. At the end of the book there is a complete onomstico index and another one of matters. Used both it can become to any subject that has waked up special interest. And what is more: enjoying with the reading the book, the reader it will remember more than if it had read it with the intention to learn everything what in him it is said. A last observation: this one is not a book on physics and Eastern philosophy. Although the poetic frame of Wu Li could lead to that comparison, it is a book on the quantum physics and relativity. In the future I hope to write another book on physics and Buddhism. Taking in consideration the Eastern aroma from Wu Li I have including in the work those similarities between the Eastern philosophy and the physics that seemed so obvious and significant to me and that they made me think that would be in a timid service to him to the reader if it did not mention them of last. Happy reading! GARY ZUKAV San Francisco Julio, 1978 Most of the fundamental ideas of science is essentially simple and, as a rule, they can be expressed in a comprehensible language for all. ALBERT EINSTEIN1 Even for the physicist, the description in a normal and

simple language will serve as criterion to judge the understanding degree that has been reached. WERNER HEISENBERG2 If long term one cannot explain to everybody what is been doing, his work will lack value. ERWINGS CHRDINGER3 WU LI? A GREAT WEEK IN THE GREAT SOUTH When I say to them to my friends whom physical study, they move the head from a side to another one, shake its hands with excitation and they whistle: It goes...! Difficult what... This universal reaction before the physical word is like a wall that is raised between which the physicists do and what most of people thinks that the physicists do. And, generally, there is an enormous difference between both things. Partly, the own physicists are guilty of that sad situation. Their professional conversations sound like Greek advanced for all those that are not Greek or physical. When they do not speak with his colleagues, the physicists speak their native language. But if it is asked to them in what they work their words return to sound like those of the native ones of Corf. But, on the other hand, the fault also is ours. In general terms we have resigned to include/understand what the physicists really do (or the biologists, etc., etc.). Of this attitude we take control a skinny service, because those people are involved in extremely interesting adventures that are not so difficult to understand. It is how they do, that in many occasions implies a technical explanation, which can produce a deep involuntary dream if the one that hears it is not an expert. But what they do the physicists are really quite simple. They ask themselves of what the universe is done, how it works and to where goes, if it is that it goes to some part. In summary: they do just like we at night starred when we raised the eyes, extasiamos contemplating the immensity to us of the universe, felt surprised by their greatness and, at the same time, like part of him. This is what the physicists do, and the very picaros ones are made pay for that reason! Unfortunately, when most of people thinks about the physics, one imagines great slates covered with the indecipherable signs of unknown mathematics. The truth, nevertheless, is that the physics is not mathematical. In essence the physics is simple: the question, astonished, of how they are the things and divine (some call it inevitable) the interest in knowing why they are as they are. The mathematics are the tool of the physics. It undresses of the mathematics the physics becomes a pure art of encantamiento. I had spoken frequently with Jack Sarfatti, a physicist who is director of the Physics/Conscieusness Research Group, on the possibility of writing a book, free of tecnicismo and mathematics, to explain the exciting intentions that motivate the physics. Thus when he invited me to a Conference on physics, that Michael Murphy and he were organizing in the Institute of Esalen, I had a good reason to accept. The Institute of Esalen (that must its name to the one of a tribe India) is located in the north of California. The coast of the north of California is all she an amazing mixture of greatness and beauty, mainly throughout the freeway of the Coast of the Pacific between the localities of Big (Great) South and San Luis Bishop. The premises of the Institute of Esalen are to half an hour of distance to the south of South Big, between the freeway and mountains of the coast, on the one hand, and the steep reefs that are raised on the Pacific Ocean by the other. A brook juguetn separates one third part of lands of the Institute of the rest. In that side there is a great house (called the Great House) where are lodged the guests, next to a small house where it resides, with its family, Dick Price (cofounding of Esalen with Murphy). To the other side of the river there is the premises where the meals be served and the meetings are held, and where

are the lodgings of other guests and the personnel of the Institute, as well as hot sulfuric baths. The meals in Esalen constitute a multidimensional experience. The elements that compose it are: the light of the candles, organic foods and a contagious naturalness that the essence of the experience of Esalen forms. Sarfatti and I seated next to two young people who already had begun to eat. One of them was David Finkelstein, physicist of the University of Yeshiva (in New York) that attended the conference. The other was To the Chung-liang Huang, Teacher of Tai Chi, that directed a factory in Esalen. We could not have chosen better company. Soon the conversation turned on the physics. - When I studied physics in Taiwan - Huang said - we called Wu Li. That means Models of Organic Energy. All those that we seated to the table we were made an impression immediately by the image. Mental lights flashed, little by little, as the idea was entering us. Wu Li was something more than a poetic image. It was the best definition of the physics that would be obtained in that conference. It included that something, that alive quality that we were trying to express in a book: that without which the physics becomes something sterile. We write a book on Wu Li! - I heard myself say to same me. Immediately the ideas and the energy began to appear and, of a single blow, all the plans made until then were thrown overboard. From that to flow of energy arose the image of the dance of the teachers of Wu Li. The days that still it had to happen in Esalen, and those that followed to them, were dedicated to discover what was the Teachers of Wu Li and why they danced. All we felt, with excitation and certainty, that we had discovered the channel by that there would be to arrive, sliding on its waters, all the important things that we wished to say on the physics. The Chinese language does not use a similar alphabet to the one of the western languages. In Chinese, each word is represented by a character or ideograma that is a line drawing. Ideogramas is not simply abstract symbols, but that visually they reflect the meaning of the word that represent. (Sometimes two or ideogramas are combined more to express different meaning.) That one is the reason for which it is so difficult to translate the Chinese. A good translation requires a translator who is, at the same time, poet and linguist. For example: Wu means, indifferently, matter or energy. Li is a very rich word in poetic content. It means universal order or universal law. But also organic models. The veins in a wood panel are Li. The organic drawing of a leaf is Li, as it is it the texture of a rose petal. In summary, Wu Li, the Chinese word to say physics, means models of organic energy (matter-energy [ Wu ] organic + order universal/modelos [ Li ]). This is remarkable since it reflects a point of view on the world that, simply did not include the founders of western science (Galileo and Newton), but towards which it seems to indicate, really, anyone of the important physical theories of century XX. The question is not Know they something who we do not know, but How they know it In the western languages the words usually do not change to their meaning when varying the intonation whereupon it pronounces them. In Chinese language that does not happen thus. Many Chinese syllables can be pronounced of different way, with different intonations. Each different pronunciacin is a different word that it is written of different way and it has his own meaning. Consequently, the same syllable pronounced with different flexions, intonations that to western ears as soon as they are perceivable, constitute different words, each one of which his has ideograma and its meaning own for the Chinese listener. In most of the western languages, that are

atnicos, these ideogramas are written and pronounced in the same way. In Chinese, for example, there are five Wus different, all which are pronounced and written in the same way in a western language. When those five Wus are combined with Li, the result is five Wu Lis with the same pronunciacin and the same spelling in a western language, but that are different by complete in Chinese. The first Wu Li, can be translated by Models of organic energy, that is the form as the Chinese call to the physics. (In this Wu case it means matter or energy.) In the second of the cases Wu Li it means My footpath. (In this Wu case it means mine or i myself.) The third Wu Li would come to express folly. (Wu means here empty, vacancy or us.) The fourth Wu East Indian Li: it grasped Me to my ideas. (Wu in this case is to close the hands to form a fist or to tighten closing the hand.) The fifth Wu Li means illumination. (Wu means here illustration or my corazn/mi mind.) If we were placed behind a weaving teacher when it begins to work in its loom, we will not see any weave in the beginning, but a great colored thread diversity different, between which, with expert eye, it looks for and it selects those who must place in his movable shuttle. But if we continued watching we will see as the threads are combined with others, is appearing the weave and, with him, a drawing, a model previously established. Of similar way Al Huang has managed to create a beautiful and significant carpet, using its own epistemologic loom: PHYSICS = WU LI Wu Li = Models of Organic Energy Wu Li = My footpath Wu Li = Folly Wu Li = grasped to my ideas Wu Li = Illumination All the attending physicists to the conference, like a single person, appreciated the resonance of this rich and expressive metaphor. In her, finally, it was the vehicle with which we could present/display the germinal elements of the superior physics. When finalizing the week, all those that we were in Esalen we spoke of Wu Li. At the same time that happened this I tried to discover what is a Teacher. The dictionary did not help me absolutely. All their definitions contained a control element and that was not reconciled easily with our image of the dance of the Teachers of Wu Li. Since To the Huan was a Teacher of Tai Chi, I asked it him. - That one is the word that the others use to describe to me - it said to me. It stops To the Huang, To the Huang was not more than To the Huang. Shortly after, in that same week, I did the same question again to him, with the hope of which it gave one more a more tangible answer me. The answer which I obtained in that occasion was: - a teacher is somebody that began before one. My western education disabled to me to accept a not-definition for my wished definition of Teacher, so I began to read the book of A the Huang, Embrace Tiger, Return to Mountain. There, in the prologue written by Alan Watts, in the paragraph in which it described to A the Huang, I found what it was looking for. Alan Watts said, talking about to A the Huang: He begins by the center, never by the edges. He offers a definition of the basic principles of the Art before entering meticulous details. One refuses to degrade to the Tai movements chi, giving a style of instruction to the military man, to mark the time (un-dos, un-dos), as well as to turn to the student a robot. The traditional system... consists of teaching mechanically, of memory, and in giving the impression that long periods of boredom are the most important part of the instruction. With this system one obtains, solely, that the student spends years and years without getting to feel what is haciendo.1 This one was, exactly, the definition of the Teacher who I was looking for. A Masterful one teaches the essence of the things. After that essence is perceived, it happens to teach what creates necessary to extend the perception.

The Teacher of Wu Li will not speak of the gravity, for example, until not to have seen his students observe interested the fall of the petal of a rose. Nor one talks about the laws that govern this phenomenon until the student, after to have heard his explanation, is astonished by itself in it and comments: - How strange! I drop two stones, simultaneously, a heavy one and the other light and two arrive at the ground at the same moment... It will not speak to him of mathematics until the student, after to have listened to the explanation of the laws of the gravity, says to him: - But it must have a way to explain that of simpler way! That way the Teacher of Wu Li dances with his students. The Teacher of Wu Li does not teach, but their students learn. The Teacher of Wu Li begins, always, by the center, the marrow of the matter. This one will be the system that we will adopt in this book. It is written for intelligent people who want to know physical superior but that she ignores his terminology and, perhaps, also, its mathematics. The dance of the Teachers is a book that deals with the essential of the things. It deals with the essence of the quantum mechanics, of special relativity, general relativity and some other new ideas that seem to indicate the direction in which the physics tries to move. Of course, how we can know where takes to us the future? We cannot know it. The only thing surely is that that that we thought today, tomorrow will be, already, part of the past. Therefore, this book will not deal with the knowledge - that always will be a verb conjugated in past but of the imagination. Thus we will have a physics that acquires life, thus is Wu Li. One of the greatest physicists of all the times, Albert Einstein, that was perhaps a Teacher of Wu Li, wrote in 1938: the physical concepts are free creations of the human mind, and they are not, although it can seem, certain in unique form by the outer world. In our effort to include/understand the reality we are something as well as a man who tried to understand as a clock locked up in its box works. It sees the sphere, the needles that move and until it can be that it listens to its tic-tac, but does not have the average ones to open the box. If one is a talent man, it can form an idea of the mechanism responsible for all the things that are seeing, but never could be sure that the model, the image that formed in its mind, is only the able one to explain the things that it is observing. It will never be able to be able to compare the real mechanism with the image that it has formed and not even to imagine the consequences of so comparacin.2 Much people think that the physicists are explaining the world. Some physicists seem to also believe it; but the Teachers of Wu Li know that they do not make another thing but to dance with him. I asked to him Huang how he structured his classes. Its answer was: - Each lesson is first. Whenever we danced we do it for the first time. - But, certainly, you cannot return to begin again with each lesson - I argued to him -. the lesson second must be cradle in which you taught in first. And the same the lesson third to sustain itself in the lesson first and the lesson second, and so on. - When I say that each lesson is the first lesson - it talked back -, I do not mean that that means that we forget what already we know. What I mean is: what we are doing is new, because whenever we do something we do it for the first time. This one is another one of the characteristics of the Teacher. Any thing that does will always do it with the same enthusiasm whereupon the things are made for the first time. And this one is the source of its limitless energy. Any lesson that teaches (or that learns) will be a new lesson, one first lesson. All dance that dances, dances it for the first time: he is always something new, personal and alive. Isidor I. Rabi, Nobel prize de Fisica, ex- director of the Department of Physics of the

University of Colombia, wrote: we taught to our students sufficient on the intellectual content of the experiments... neither the its newness, nor its capacity to open new fields... My point of view is that we took these things from individualistic way, particular. An experiment is made because our personal philosophy makes wish us to know the result. Perhaps we forgot that everything is too hard and the too short life to pass the time doing something simply because somebody says to us that it is important. The important thing is to feel, intimately, which is becoming... Unfortunately, very few physicists are like Rabbi. The majority in fact goes the life doing what other people have said to them that is important and not what is important for them. This is what Rabbi wished to express. But this takes us to an error of quite current interpretation. When people, in general, say scientists which is saying are technicians. A technician is a person highly trained whose work consists of applying techniques and principles that already are known. A scientist, on the contrary, is a person whom he looks for to know the true nature the physical reality. He deals with with and the stranger. In summary, the scientist discovers and the technician applies already invented. Nevertheless, it is not absolutely clear if what does the scientist is to discover new things or he is creating them by itself. Much people think that the discovery is a true act of creation. If this is certain, the distinction between scientists, poets, painters and writers is not absolutely clear. In fact it is very possible that the scientists, the poets, the painters and the writers are all members of a same family of human beings whose natural gift is to take those things that we called places common and to represent them to us so that they obtain that the limits expand that we have prevailed. The people who specially have that developed gift are those to which we called geniuses. The truth is that most of the scientists is simply technicians. They are not interested in the essentially new thing. Its field of vision is relatively narrow; their energies are directed towards the application which already it is known. By the current they put his noses under the crust of a certain tree and, for that reason, it is difficult to speak to them, with sense, of the forest. The case of the mysterious phantom of hydrogen illustrates the difference between scientists and technicians. When a white light, like for example a sun ray, crosses a crystal prism, one of the most beautiful phenomena takes place. To the other side of the prism it does not leave white light but that appears all the colors of the rainbow, from red the dark to the sure violet with orange, yellow, green and blue among them. This must to that the white light is formed of all those different colors. It is a combination in which the red light contains only red light, solely green the green light, etc., etc. Isaac Newton wrote three hundred years ago its famous Optiks, that describes this phenomenon in detail. That exhibition of colors is called phantom of the white light. The spectroscopic analysis of the white light shows a complete phantom because the white light contains in himself all the colors that can be seen by our eyes (and some that cannot see, like the infrared and the ultraviolet ones). Nevertheless, no spectroscopic analysis produces a complete phantom. Yes we took one from the chemical elements, for example sodium, and we cause that it emits light and that that light crosses a crystal prism, we will only obtain a part of the complete phantom. If an object is visible inside a dark camera it is emitting light. If to our eyes it appears of red color, for example, it is emitting red light. The light is emitted by excited objects. To excite a sodium piece does not mean to give a tribune entrance to him so that it attends a end of the Glass. To excite a

sodium piece means to add some amount to him of energy. One of the forms to do is warming up it it. When we make cross through a prism of crystal, or a spectroscope, the light emitted by excited sodium (incandescent) we did not obtain a complete sample of the colors characteristic of the white light, but only one part of them. In the case of sodium we would obtain two thin yellow lines. We can be able a negative image of the phantom of sodium doing to pass a ray of white light through a steam cloud of sodium, to see what component of the white light is absorbed by the sodium steam. The white light that crosses the sodium steam and which later we make happen through the spectroscope, produces all the colors of the rainbow except the two yellow lines emitted by incandescent sodium. By means of anyone of those two processes we observed that the phantom of sodium always produces an exclusive image, distinguishing. It can be composed by black lines on a complete phantom of the component colors of the white light, or by two yellow lines without it appears no other color of the phantom. Anyway, in both cases, each one of the respective models, or images, will be always the same one. Those images, those models, are as the digital track of the element sodium. Each element emits (or it absorbs) solely specific colors. As a result of it, each element produces specific spectroscopic images that never vary absolutely. The hydrogen is the simplest element. It seems to only have two components: a proton, that has positive electrical charge and an electron that has a negative load. We must say that it seems to have, because nobody has never seen a hydrogen atom. to exist hydrogen atoms, million of them could have capacity in a head of pin, so small calculates that they are. The atoms are a speculation, like which it would do who wanted to guess what there is within the box of the clock. We can to say that the existence of those organizations explains, suitably, certain observations that would be very difficult to explain otherwise, if we did without explanations such as the devil did it, which also is possible. (It is the type of explanation that took to Galileo, to Newton and Discardings to create what now we know like modern science.) About a time the physicists thought that the atoms were constructed of the following way: in the center of the atom there is a nucleus, exactly just as the sun he is in the center of our Solar System. In the nucleus all the mass of the atom is located almost, in form of particles with positive charge (protons) and of other particles of an almost equal size to the one of protons but without no type of electrical charge (neutrons). (the hydrogen lacks neutrons in its nucleus Solely.) Orbiting around the nucleus, as the planets turn around the sun, they are the electrons, that almost do not have mass if it is compared to them with the nucleus. Each electron has a negative load. The number of electrons is always the same one that the number of protons, so that the respective, positive and negative loads, are annulled to an a others and thus it is that the atom, considered like a whole, lacks load. The difficulty, when comparing this atom model with our Solar System, is based in which the distance between the nucleus of an atom and its electrons is enormously greater of which we represented the distances between the sun and its planets. The space occupied by an atom so enormous, is compared with the mass of its particles (most of which it is in the nucleus) that the electrons that turn around the nucleus are like a few flies inside a cathedral, according to affirmed Ernest Rutherford, there that it created that model of the atom by year 1911. That one that we have described is the familiar image of the atom which we learned, most of us, in the school, at the cost of greater difficulty and I

disillusion generally that to please. Unfortunately, at the present time, that image has remained obsolete, happened, so the best thing than we can do is to forget to us her. We will already discuss, later, which the physicists think about the present time about the atom. In this exhibition, at the moment, the interesting point is that the planetary model of the atom served as base for the resolution of an intriguing problem. The phantom of the hydrogen, simplest of atoms, contains more than one hundred lines! The phantoms of other elements are still more complicated. When we make pass through a spectroscope the light coming from gaseous hydrogen submissive excitation, we obtain more than one hundred different lines of color, that they form a phantom unmistakable? The question is: How something as simple as is a hydrogen atom, just by two components, a proton and an electron, can be cause of a so complex phantom One of the forms to represent mentally the Iuz to us consists of attributing similar properties to him to which they have the waves. Thus we could say that to each one of their different colors different frequencies correspond, as it happens with the different sounds, that also are waves. Arnold Sommerfield, a German physicist who at the same time was completed pianista, made the observation of which the hydrogen atoms, which they emitted more than one hundred different frequencies, had to be more complicated than the tail pianos which they emitted eighty and eight different frequencies solely! He was a Danish physicist, Niels Bohr, that in 1913 offered an explanation to us that had as much logic as to make him gain the Nobel prize. Like most of the ideas in physics, the one of Bohr it was simple in the essential. The Danish physicist begins not with which already he was us wellknown theoretically on the structure of the atom, but with which he really knew on the structure of the atom thanks to the spectroscopic datas and nothing else. Bohr, from that, speculated with the idea that the electrons that turned around the nucleus not did it to distances determined by the chance, but in orbits or concentric layers located to specific distances of the nucleus. Each one of those orbits (theoretically an infinite number of them exists) contains until a certain number of electrons, but neither one the more. If the atom has more electrons of those than they can comply in the first orbit, these begin to fill second of the orbits. If the atom has a greater number of combined electrons than they can contain the first and second orbit, the third orbit begins to take care, and so on with this relation: Number of orbit 1 2 3 4 5... Number of electrons 2 8 18 32 50... The calculations of Bohr were based on the hydrogen atom, that has a single electron. In agreement with the theory of Bohr, in the hydrogen atom the electron is all near the nucleus that is possible to him. In other words: generally one is in first of the layers. This one is the state more under energy of a hydrogen atom (the physicists call to that state more under energy of any atom their fundamental state). If we excited to a hydrogen atom we make that its electron jumps to another orbit, more outer. The distance of this jump would depend on the amount of energy that we have added to him. If we warmed up strongly to the atom (thermal energy) we will cause that its electron gives a very long jump and gets to reach one of the outer layers. With smaller amounts of energy we will obtain shorter jumps. Consequently, the electron will try to return to one more a layer nearer the nucleus as soon as is possible to him (when we let warm up it). If the energy reduction is considerable the electron it will return to be placed in undercoat. Whenever an electron jumps of an external layer to located other more near the nucleus emits energy in light form. The

amount of energy emitted by the electron is exactly the same one that absorbed when it jumped previously towards the outer layer. Bohr discovered that the number of the combinations of possible jumps that the electron of hydrogen can do in its trip of return to the fundamental state (that is to say, to his undercoat) is equal to the line number in the phantom of hydrogen. This one is the famous solution that Bohr offered to the mystery of the tail piano. If the electron, in a hydrogen atom, makes the complete route from an external layer to most internal of them in a single jump it emits a certain amount of energy. This will produce another line in the phantom of hydrogen. If the electron gives a small jump (of an outer layer to the next interior) towards the center, loses one more a smaller part of energy. This will produce another line in the phantom. If the electron of a hydrogen atom jumps of layer five to the three, for example, that will give origin new line. A new jump of the the four layer six to and another one from the four to the one, will form two spectral lines more and so on. This way we could follow until explaining the complete phantom of hydrogen. If we excited a hydrogen atom with a white light, instead of with heat, we can produce the absorption phenomenon that already we have mentioned previously. Each electron will jump of an internal layer to other located more far from the nucleus, that is more external, and each one of those jumps will require an amount of determined energy, neither greater nor smaller. An electron that jumps of layer one to layer two requires a certain amount of energy and only that amount. The same it is certain for a jump of layer five to layer seven, etc. Each jump that makes the electron of an inner layer to another outside requires another specific amount of energy, and only that one. When illuminating a hydrogen atom with white light what we do is to offer everything to him a full supermarket with different amounts from energy. Nevertheless, it will not be able to use all the one that we can offer to him but, only, certain precise amount. If its electron jumps of layer one to layer four, for example, it will take a certain package from energy of which there is in those full shelves that we have made its available. The package that takes leaves an emptiness in the shelf, that is to say, it becomes a black line in the phantom (by other the complete thing) of the white light. A jump of layer three to layer four becomes another black line; of layer one to layer two and later to layer six (all type of combinations can be given) it will produce other two black lines more. In sum, if we emitted white light through a gaseous hydrogen cloud and later we make it pass through a prism of crystal the result is the familiar phantom of the white light but with something as well as a hundred of black lines in him. Each one of those black lines corresponds to a specific amount of energy that was necessary to cause that a hydrogen electron jumped more from a layer to moved away other of the nucleus. These black lines in the phantom of the white light form, exactly, the same phantom, the same image that we obtain when we make directly pass through a prism the light emitted by excited gaseous hydrogen, unless to the inverse one: in this case the lines are not black but colored and the rest of the phantom of the white light it disappears. Naturally those lines of color are caused by the electrons that return to the most internal layers and, in that process, emit equal amounts of energy to which they absorbed when they made his jump previous in opposite direction. The theory of Bohr allows the physicists to calculate the frequencies of the light emitted by simple atoms of hydrogen. Those calculations agree with the observations. The mystery of the tail piano was resolute! Shortly after which Bohr published its theory in 1913 an

army of physicists began the work to apply its theory to other elements. The procedure is really complicated when it is atoms with a greater number of electrons. Of course answer to all the questions could not be found that became the physicists on the nature of the atomic phenomena, and nevertheless this work helped to that a remarkable amount of new knowledge was obtained. Most of the physicists who dedicated themselves to apply the theory of Bohr, developing it still more actually, was technicians. But Bohr, one of the founders of the new physics, was a scientist. With this we do not mean that the technicians are not important. The technicians and the scientists compose a partnership. Bohr had not been able to express its theory without the aid of the spectroscopic datas that were made their available and which they were the result of innumerable working hours in the laboratory made by the technicians and who were left outside the possibilities and the personal ability to work of Bohr. The technicians obtained for him these data applying the theory to other elements. The technicians are important members of the scientific community. Nevertheless, since this book deals with the Teachers of Wu Li and not of the technicians, from now on we will use the physical word to designate to the scientific physicists, that is to say, those that are not confined in the well-known. By little which we know of the Teachers of Wu Li it is evident that they come from this group, of the one of the scientific physicists. There are certain limitations that cannot be surpassed by any book of physics. In the first place the things that there are to expose are so many that not even twenty volumes would be enough to contain it everything. Every year that amount of new material is published almost. The physicists more given to their profession even find almost impossible to stay to the day in all the fields. An amplest diet of reading is required already to be able to be to the current of the present time in an only and certain field. On each one of the subjects that we will treat in these pages he is greater the excess, the abundance, that the shortage. It does not matter how much it is learned on physics: there will always be something will be new for one. This one is a problem that not only affects to the legos in the matter, but also to the physicists. Second limitation: a direct appreciation is not possible and completes of the physics without the mathematics. In spite of it there are no mathematics in the Dance of the Teachers. The mathematics constitute a form to think highly structured. And he is as well as the physicists see the world. One of its points of view is that this structure is due to impose mainly what they see. Another point of view is that, by means of those structured forms, the world can imagine itself of more complete way. In any case there is no doubt that the mathematics are the most concise expression of the physics. The reason that took to me to write the Dance of the Teachers is in which most of the physicists is not enabled to explain the physics without using the mathematics well. This makes very concise, but, unfortunately, ininteligibles for which do not have a good volume of mathematical knowledge. And the truth continues being that most of us we used the words and not them numbers for our explanations. It is important to remember that the mathematics and the Castilian are not more than languages. The languages are very useful instruments to facilitate information. But if we try to transmit experiences being worth to us of them the thing is not. Everything what the languages can do is that we speak of a experience. The Teachers of Wu Li know that the description of a experience is not, of course, the experience in himself. She is only one to char it on her. This book deals with the physics. Nevertheless,

everything what contains is description. It does not include the experience in itself, which does not mean that the reader cannot obtain the experience of the physics with his reading. What means is that if the reader acquires some experience, this one will come from itself and not of the book. The quantum mechanics, for example, teaches to us that we are not separated of the rest of the world, since we had believed. The physics of particles teaches to us that the rest of the world is not something that remains idle there outside. On the contrary it is a shining field of continuous creation, transformation and, also, annihilation. The ideas of the new physics can give rise to that extraordinary experiences take place when they are caught in his totality. The study of relativity, we put for example, can produce the remarkable experience that space and time is only mental constructions. Each one of these obtained experiences is able to change to us in such a way that we will never return to be able to contemplate the world as we came it doing until that moment. There is no a experience of the physics. The experience always is changing. Relativity and the quantum mechanics, although are something unknown generally for which they are not physical, count already with more than half century of existence. At the present time, all the field in which acts the physics moves, it barks, beats ahead of time awaiting sensational events. The physicists share the sensation, feeling, of which he is on the verge of taking place a radical change in many aspects. He increases the consensus around the idea that in a very next future we will be witnesses of the explosive birth of new ideas that will be gotten up to the scene where now move the old theories and they will much more offer an ample perspective us of our universe, and therefore, of we ourself. The Teachers of Wu Li move in the middle of all that scene, trembling of moved anticipation, dancing of very diverse ways, sometimes with a rested, almost overwhelmed slow rate and more, and in other occasions with greater lightness and grace, as if they slid freely, floating on a harmonious current of peace. Sometimes the dancers become the own dance and others are the dance the one that is transformed into them. This one is the message of the Teachers of Wu Li: not to confuse the type of dance that is dancing, with the fact that they are dancing. To EINSTEIN IT DOES NOT LIKE The quantum mechanics is not the type of mechanics that is used in the garage of the gentleman Whatever to repair the automobiles. The quantum mechanics is a branch of the physics. The physics is divided in several branches. Most of the physicists thinks that soon the sufficiently ample thing like including them to all will be constructed to a compendium. In agreement with that point of view it is possible that we manage to develop, in principle, a theory able to explain it everything so perfectly that it will not be nothing else that to explain. That does not mean, of course, that our explanation reflects the things necessarily so and as they are at the present time. We will follow without being able to be able to open the clock, as Einstein expressed, but any event happened in the real world (within the clock) was considered like cause of its corresponding element in our final supertheory . This way we will obtain finally a theory that is consistent with same himself and that explain all the observable phenomena. Einstein calls to that state the ideal limit of conocimiento.1 This form to think takes us in the same way mechanics to the quantum that the car runs to crashing against the proverbial brick wall. Einstein passed a great part of its life discussing against the quantum mechanics, in spite of which one was he of whom it made important contributions to his development. Why it acted thus? To

present/display this question is as to locate abyss on the brink of madness, still stepping on the firm ground of the Newtonian physics, but already with the fixed glance in the emptiness. To respond it is to hurry heavy in the new physics. * * * The quantum mechanics laid way to the force to make its appearance in scene to beginning of this century. There was no Convention of physicists that voted the beginning of a new branch of the mechanical called physics quantum. No except had the smaller election in that matter, perhaps, like calling it. quanto is an amount of something, a specific amount. Mechanics is the study of the movement. mechanical consequently quantum it is the study of the movement of the amounts. The theory of quanto says that the nature appears in portions and pieces (the quantos) and the mechanics of quanto is the study of that phenomenon. The quantum mechanics does not replace to the physics of Newton, but who includes it in their theory. The physics of Newton continues being valid within its limits. To say that we have done a ampler discovery in relation to the nature is only one face of the currency. The other face of the same currency would be to say that we have found the limit of our previous theories. What we have really discovered is that the form in which we had come observing the nature is not the sufficiently ample thing and it does not include everything what it would be necessary to explain the phenomena that we can observe. Therefore, we are ourselves forced to develop a comprehensivo method. In words of Einstein: ... to create a new theory does not consist of destroying the old barn and raising a skyscraper in its place. It is rather like scaling a mountain, winning perspective new and ampler, discovering unexpected contacts between our departure point and the rich landscape that is revealed around to his. But the point of that we started off continues existing and can be seen, even though appears smaller and has passed to be a small part of ours ampler perspective than we have gained when surpassing the obstacles of our way, plenary session of adventures, towards cumbre.2 The physics of Newton continues being applicable to the world great scale, but it does not have validity in the subatomic world. The quantum mechanics is the result of the study of that subatomic world, that invisible universe that is underneath, including in, and forming the weave of everything what exists around us. In the era of Newton (at the end of century XVII) that world was entirely a speculation. The idea that the atom is the invisible brick with which the nature constructs everything to it, had been already propose four hundred years before Christ, but until century XIX continued being simply an idea. The physicists developed the technology necessary to observe the effects of the atomic phenomena, with as they proved that the atom existed. Of course, which really proved was that the theoretical existence of the atom was the best explanation than could be invented at those moments to justify the data obtained experimentally. Also it proved that the atoms were not indivisible but that also they were done of smaller particles, like electrons, protons and neutrons. Those new particles were denominated elementary particles because the physicists thought that, finally, they had managed to discover the last brick with which the universe has been constructed. The theory of elementary particles is a recent version of one old Greek idea. In order to include/understand the theory of imaginmonos elementary particles to a great city, constructed of bricks. The city is full of buildings in any case and sizes. All of them, as well as the streets, have been constructed just by few types different from bricks. If we replaced universal by city and particle by brick, we have the

theory of elementary particles. It has been the study of elementary particles what it has taken to the physicists, in a race elbow elbow, to the most devastating discovery (for a physicist): The physics of Newton is not valid in the universe of the infinitely small thing! The impact of this discovery, able to shake the Earth like an earthquake, is modifying, still, our points of view on the world. The experiments made by the quantum mechanics repeatedly produce results that the physics of Newton could not predict nor explain. Nevertheless, if the physics of Newton has validity neither can explain the phenomena that happen in the field of the microscopic thing, continues explaining or macrocospic phenomena very to us (although the macrocospic thing is done of the microscopic thing). This one was, probably, the deepest discovery of science. The laws of Newton, are based on observations of our daily world. They predict events. These events belong to real things like balls of soccer or bicycles. The quantum mechanics is based on carried out experiments in the world of the subatomic thing. They predict probabilities. Those probabilities are, related to the subatomic phenomena. And these cannot be observed directly. No of our senses can detectarlos.? Not only nobody has been able to see an atom (and much except an electron), but that nobody has savored it, touched, heard or smelled. The laws of Newton talk about events that are of easy understanding and simple to describe. The quantum mechanics talks about the probabilities of phenomena that defy their conceptualizacin and are impossible to visualize. Therefore, these phenomena must be included/understood of a way that is not more difficult that our usual form from understanding, but different from her. It does not have to be tried to form a complete mental picture of the events of the quantum mechanics. (the physicists construct partial representations gives the phenomena of quanto, but those representations even have a questionable value.) Instead of it the reader must try to open itself without delivering the smaller attack to visualize it everything. Werner Heisenberg, one of the founders of the quantum physics, wrote: the laws of the theory of quanto, formulated mathematically, show with clarity that our ordinary intuitive concepts cannot ambiguously be applied to the smallest particles. All the words or concepts that we used to describe ordinary physical objects like position, speed, color, size, etc., become indefinite and problematic if we tried to use applied them to particles elementales.3 The idea that we cannot understand nothing while we do not have a representation of it in our mind is a by-product del Newtonian concept that we used to observe the world. If we want to go beyond Newton we must surpass that idea. The first great contribution to science was the laws of the movement. If an object - Newton said - is moving in line straight she will continue moving straight in line until any other thing acts on him (a force). At those moments its direction and speed will be altered and this alteration will depend on the intensity and direction of the force that has acted on the object. And something more: all action is accompanied of an equal and opposed reaction. At the present time those concepts are familiar to all that that has studied physical or that is become fond of to the game of billiards. Nevertheless, if mentally autoproyectamos us three hundred years back, in the past, we will be able to realize how remarkable are really these ideas. In the first place we would see that the first Newtonian law of the movement defied to the recognized authority of those days, that was the one of Aristotle. In agreement with Aristotle, the natural inclination of a sprite was to return to the inmovilidad state. Second, the laws of movement of

Newton describe events that were inobservables in century XVII. In the daily world, that was everything what Newton had to observe, the sprites always returned to a state of rest because of the friction. If we put in movement a car, finds friction in the air which one faces, in the ground on which their wheels move, in the axes around which they turn these more soon and, unless hill rolls down, or later it will finish stopping itself. We can give to the car an aerodynamic line, lubricate the axes and use a smooth and smooth cart, but all this will not do more than to reduce the effects of the friction. Finally the car will let move, apparently by itself. Newton never had the occasion to see a film of the astronauts in the space, but she knew to predict what would happen. When an astronaut loosen a pencil in front of him does not happen anything. It is limited to remain there. If it pushes it, the pencil continues ahead in the direction of the push until it encounters over the wall. If the pencil were not that obstacle there would uniformly continue moving, in principle for always (the astronaut that gave the push him would also move in opposed direction, but much more slowly due to his greater mass). Third, the departure point of Newton was: I do not make hypothesis (Hypotheses non fingo), which came to mean that it nothing else based his laws on the tests that the experience contributed to him and. Its criterion on the validity of everything what it had written was that anyone could be able to reproduce its experiments and would obtain results such. If something could be verified experimentally, that was certain, true. If it were not thus, were suspicious. The Church took a dark point of view (that is less than it can be said of his position). Almost fifteen centuries ago came affirming things that hardly could be proven experimentally; the physics of Newton was, at least, a direct challenge to the power of the Church. And this one was considerable? Shortly before the birth of Newton, Galileo was accused by the Inquisicin to affirm that the Earth moved around the Sun and to outline with it unacceptable theological implications for the Faith Galileo it was forced to still face perhaps worse pains of imprisonment and. This caused a considerable impression in many, among them in another founder of modern science: the French Rene Descartes. In the decade of 16301640, Discardings visited the real gardens of Versailles, that were famous by their complicated robots. When it was made run the water, it sounded music, the nymphs began to act and a gigantic Neptune, with tridente and everything, advanced with threatening air. It was or not the idea in his mind before making that visit, the case is that the philosophy of Discardings, that this one based on its mathematics, was the one of which the universe and all the things in him, were robots. From the time of Discardings to the beginning of the present century, and possibly because of this thinker, our ancestors began to contemplate to the universe like a Great Machine. In the course of the three hundred following years sciences directed specifically were developed to discover as that Great Machine worked. The second great contribution of Newton to science was its law of the gravity. The gravity is a remarkable phenomenon, although we consider it like that it occurs us in addition, normal and omnipresent. For example, if we maintain a ball raised, on the ground and we loosen it, the ball falls directly to the ground. But, how it happens this? The ground is not raised to take the ball and nevertheless the ball feels pushed, taken root, and falls to earth. The old physicists called to this inexplicable phenomenon action-to-distance. How all the other men of their time, Newton felt intrigued by that mystery. In his Philosophiae Naturalis Principia Mathematica he wrote: I have not been able to

discover, causes of these properties of the gravity basing to me on its phenomena and I have not removed any hypothesis... is enough to me with saying that the gravity really exists and acts agreed with the laws that already we have explained. And in addition celestes.4 serves to explain all the movements of the bodies Newton felt with clarity that the authentic understanding of the nature of the gravity was over all understanding. In a letter directed to Richard Bentley, a clasicista college student, wrote: ... which a body can act on other at a distance, through the emptiness and without no other mediation, and that its action and forces can happen from one to the other, is for absurd me a so great one that I believe that never will be in agreement with it no man who is intellectually competent in matter filosfica.5 In summary: the action-to-distance could... be described, but not be explained. The thesis of Newton was that the same force that made fall apples, maintained to the Moon in orbit around the Earth and to planets turning around the Sun. In order to put under his idea on approval, it calculated diverse movements of the Moon and planets, using his own mathematics. Later it compared his findings with the observations of the astronomers. Their calculations and the observations of the astronomers agreed! From a single blow Newton it separated the hypothesis that it existed an essential difference between the terrestrial objects and the celestial ones and demonstrated that and others were put under the same laws. That way it established a rational celestial mechanics. What until then they had been the powers of the Gods, or God, happened to enter completely the field of the comprehensible knowledge to the mortals. The law of the gravitation of Newton did not explain the gravity (that would make Einstein in its general theory of relativity), but it put under the effects of the gravity a rigorous mathematical formalism. Newton was the first person in discovering principles in the nature that unified ample areas of experience. He managed to abstract certain unifying concepts in the infinite diversity of the nature and he gave to those concepts a mathematical expression them. For that reason, more than by any other thing, the work of Newton has influenced to us of so inevitable way. Newton showed to us that the phenomena of the universe are structured of rational and comprehensible form. He made our available the most powerful instrument of all the times. In the West we have used that tool, if not wisely yes at least with our better ability. The results, as much the negatives as the positives, have been spectacular. The history of the enormous impact of the man in our medio.ambiente begins with the work of Newton. It was Galileo Galilei that, leaving the Average Age, quantified the physical world for the first time. It measured the movement, the frequency, the speed and the duration of everything, from the stones that fell to the ground to the movements of the pendulum (like the candelabrum of its cathedral). It was Discardings that developed many of the fundamental techniques of the modern mathematics and it offered the image to us of the universe like a Great Machine. But it would be Isaac Newton who formulated the laws that caused that that Great Machine moved. Those men hit deeply against the wall of the scholastic, the system of effective medieval thought from century XII to the XV. Those were they that tried to place to the man in the center of the scene or, at least, to make it return to the scene, to prove that it did not need to be a simple spectator in a world governed by insondables forces. Perhaps the greater irony of history is that they obtained all the opposite exactly. Joseph Weizenbaum, a scientist of the Institute of Technology of Massachussetts, wrote

talking about to the computers: science promises the power to him to the man... But, as usually it happens with as much frequency when people let themselves seduce by promises to be able, the price is servitude and impotence. The power, as it is not the power to choose, is not nada.6 How it happens that? The Newtonian laws describe what it happens to him to a sprite. Once we know the laws the movement, we can predict the future of an object that moves, assuming that we know, initially, some things on him. While greater it is the initial information that we have, more guessed right they will be our predictions. Also we can retrodecir (to predict backwards in the time) the history passed of a determined object. For example, if we know the present position and the present speed the Earth and the moon, we will be able to predict where it will be the Earth in relation to the at any time particular moon, in the time, in the future, which offers a previous knowledge of the eclipses, stations to us, and so on. Of equal way we will be able to calculate where it was the Earth in relation to the moon and when similar events happened (eclipses, etc.) in the past. Without the Newtonian physics, the space program had not been possible. The lunar soundings are sent at the precise moment in that the launching place, in the Earth (that simultaneously is turning around its axis and advancing in the space), is in a relative position with the alighting area in the moon (that also tour around its axis and moves in the space) so that the course followed by the space rocket is shortest possible. The calculations on the Earth movements, the moon and the spaceship are made by computers, but the used mechanics is the same one that was described by Newton in Philosophiae Naturalis Principia Mathematica. Actually it is very difficult to know all the circumstances initial relative to an event. Even the action, apparently so simple, to send a ball against a wall is surprising complex. The form, size, elasticity and moment of the ball, the angle whereupon is sent, the density, pressure, humidity and temperature of the air, the form, the hardness and the position of the wall... in order to name only some of the essential elements that are required to know where and when the ball will give in the ground! It is more difficult to collect all the necessary data for a guessed right prediction when one is more complicated or complex actions. Nevertheless, in agreement with the old physics it is possible, in principle, to predict exactly how an event is going to be developed if we have the sufficient information on him. Actually it is only the enormidad of the task which prevents us to do it. The ability, to predict, the future one being based on a knowledge of the present and the laws of the movement gave to our ancestors a power them who never before had known. Nevertheless, those concepts took with himself a depressing logic. If the laws of the nature determine the future of an event, then, with the sufficient information we could have predicted our present at some previous time. In summary, if we were decided to accept the mechanist determination of the physics of Newton - if the universe is a great machine - from the same moment in which it was created and put in movement the universe, everything what there would be to happen would be already certain. In agreement with that philosophy, we apparently would have our own will and the ability to alter to the course of the events in our lives but this would not be thus in fact. Everything would be predestined from the beginning of the times, the illusion to even have one free will. The universe would be an recorded magnetic tape that reproduces of the only possible way. The human condition was thus much more gloomy and shady that outside before the appearance of science. The Great Machine

worked completely without information and everything what there was in her was not more than gears, parts of a mechanism. In agreement with the quantum mechanics, nevertheless, it is not possible not even in principle to get to know the sufficient thing the present one to be able to make a prediction complete of the future. If we even had the time and he determinism to want to carry out it this would not be possible, even having the best measuring instruments. Question is not as large as the task nor of the inefficiency of the detectors. The true nature of the things is so that we must choose which of its aspects is the one that we wished to know better, since we will only be able to accurately know one them. It was as well as Niels Bohr was expressed, another one of the founders of the quantum mechanics: ... In the quantum mechanics, we were not more before the arbitrary resignation to a detailed analysis of the atomic phenomena, but before the recognition of which such analysis is in principle excluido.7 (the cursiva in the original one.) Let us imagine, for example, an object that moves in the space. It has a position a little while and that we can measure. This one is an example of the old physics (Newtonian). (the moment a combination is as large as an object, the speed to that it moves and the direction of that movement.) Since we can to determine both things, the position and the moment of the object in a particular time, it is not too complicated subject to calculate where it will be at some moment of the future. If we see an airplane that flies in North direction of four hundred kilometers per hour, we know that after half an hour it will be more to two hundred kilometers of distance to the north, if it does not change to its course nor its speed. The discovery mentally more subjugator of the quantum mechanics is that the Newtonian theories do not have application to the subatomic phenomena. In the field of the subatomic thing we cannot at the same time know with absolute precision the moment and the position a particle. We can know both things approximately, but while we know more of one less we will know of the other. This it is the principle of uncertainty of Werner Heisenberg. By incredible that this seems it has been verified repeated times by the experimentation. Naturally, if we imagined a particle in movement is difficult to imagine that one cannot to measure its position and its moment. Not to be able to do it he is something that it defies to our common sense. But this one is not the only phenomenon of the quantum mechanics that is contradicted with the common sense. In fact the contradictions to the common sense form the heart of the new physics. They say time and time again perhaps to us that, the world is not what we thought. It is possible that it is more, much more. Since we cannot determine, at the same time, the position and the moment of subatomic particles, we cannot to predict much on them. Therefore, the quantum mechanics does not predict nor can predict specifically certain events. What if does it is to predict probabilities. The probability is the percentage of possibilities that a thing happens or no. The theory of quanto can predict it probability of a microscopic event with the same precision that the physics of Newton predicts the real appearance gives a macrocospic event. The Newtonian physics says: If these and these are the circumstances now, this and this other is going to happen at a next moment. The quantum mechanics says: If these and these are the circumstances now, then the probability that so and such thing it is going to happen are... We will never be able to know with certainty which is going to him to happen to the particle which we are observing Todo what we know surely are the probabilities that it has to behave of certain way. This is the maximum which we can

know because both factors that they would have to include itself in a Newtonian equation (position and moment), cannot be, known accurately simultaneously. We must choose, by means of the selection of our experiment, which of them we want to measure with greater exactitude. The lesson that gives the physics us of Newton is that the universe is governed by laws that are susceptible to be included/understood rationally. Applying those laws we can extend our knowledge and, in conference, our influence on the medio.ambiente. Newton was a religious man. He saw his laws like a manifestation of the perfection of God. What it was not obstacle so that they served the cause well as the man. They respected its dignity and they vindicated its importance in the universe. After the Medievo, a new eagerness of science (Natural Philosophy) arrived like a fresh and pleasant breeze to revitalize the spirit. It is ironic which, in the end, the Natural Philosophy reduced to the condition of the man to of a gear more, incapable to decide nothing by itself, inside a machine whose operation already had been preordered from the first day of the Creation. Contrary to the physics of Newton, the quantum mechanics says to us that our knowledge of which it governs the events at subatomic level is not nor approximately what we were conceited would be. It says to us that we cannot predict subatomic phenomena with any certainty. The only thing that we can do is to predict its probabilities. From a philosophical point of view, the implications of the quantum mechanics are sicodlicas. We not only influenced in our reality but that, in certain degree, we created it. Since the one comprises of the nature of the things that we did not prune to know at the same time the moment a particle and its position, but only one of the two things, we must choose which of those properties we want to determine. Metaphysical that is closely together of the affirmation of which we created certain properties because we chose to measure those properties. Said of another form, it is possible that we create something that has position, for example a particle, because we tried to determine a position. And it is impossible to determine a position without there is some thing that occupies the position that we want to determine. The quantum physicists present/display questions like these: a particle with moment Existed before we made the experiment to measure its moment; a particle with position Existed before we made an experiment to measure its position, and the particles Existed before we thought about them and we measured them we Created them particles with which we experimented Although this sounds incredible is a possibility admitted by many physicists. John Wheeler, a famous physicist of Princeton, wrote: To the universe he brings it, somehow, to the existence the participation of the participants... The vital act is the participation act. Participador is the new incontrovertible concept offered by the quantum mechanics. It overthrows the observant term, of the classic theory, that it designates to the man who is safe behind a heavy protective crystal and observes what it happens around to his without participating in it. This is something that cannot become in the mechanics cuntica.8 The languages of the Eastern mystics and the one of the western physicists are becoming very similar. The Newtonian physicists and the physicists who use the quantum mechanics are partners in a double ironic sense. The Newtonian physics is based on the idea that there are laws that govern certain phenomena and have the inherent power that gives its understanding; but it leads in front of to the impotence the Great Machine that is the Universe. The quantum mechanics is based on the idea of the minimum knowledge of the future phenomena (we

are limited the knowledge of the probabilities), but leads to the possibility that our reality is the one that we decide to be created. There is another fundamental difference between old and the new physics. The old physics presumes the existence of an external world, aside from us. It supposes, in addition, that we can observe, measure and speculate with that outer world without changing it. In agreement with the old physics that external world feels the greater indifference towards us and our necessities. The historical dimension of Galileo comes from its untiring efforts (successfully) to quantify (to measure) the phenomena of the outer world. There is a great inherent power in the quantification process. For example, once a relation has been discovered, like for example the rate of acceleration of an object that falls, no longer it matters who throws the object, what object is the thrown one or why it is thrown. The results always are such. An Italian experimenter such obtains results that a Russian experimenter who repeats the experiment one hundred years later. The results are identical, are made by a skeptic, a believer or an indifferent spectator. Facts as that one convinced the philosophers that the physical universe continues always its way, doing what must do, without absolutely taking into account its inhabitants. For example, if simultaneously we threw to two people from the same height is a verifiable fact (repetible) that both will hit at the same time against the ground, does not matter which is their weight. We can measure the fall, the acceleration and the impact of way exactly just as we would do it if one were two stones. And, in fact, the results will be such that if stones were. - But a difference between men and stones exists - it could be objected -. the stones do not have opinions nor emotions. The people yes. One of those two thrown people, for example, could be scared by the experience and the other, perhaps, only furious. It is that their feelings do not have any place in that scheme? No. The feelings of our subjects do not matter absolutely. If we returned them to make raise the tower (now surely they would try to defend itself or they would fight not to raise) and returned them again to throw again, they would fall with the same acceleration that before and its fall would last exactly the same time, although now both would be fighting like crazy people to escape. The Great Machine is impersonal. In fact it was indeed this impersonalidad the one that inspired to the scientists to look for the absolute objectivity. The concept of scientific objectivity rests in the presumption of an external world that is there outside, in opposition to I who am in here. That form of perception that puts there to the others outside, causes that it feels very solitary who located itself in here. According to this point of view, the Nature, with all its diversity, is there outside. There the task of the scientist consists of observing that outside of the possible most objective way. To observe something of objective way means to see it as it would appear before an observer who did not have prejudice some towards which he is observing. The problem that happened unnoticed during three centuries is that the person that give samples of an attitude like that one, certainly, has prejudices. Its prejudice is its feeling of which it is forced to be objective, that is to say, not to have a preformed opinion. In fact it is impossible to lack opinion. To think that it is lacked opinion is also an opinion. The decision to study a segment of the reality instead of another one, is a subjective decision of the investigator who the taking. It affects his perception of reality, although it only is to that. And since what here we are studying is indeed the reality, the complica problem. The new physics, the quantum mechanics, says to us that it is not possible to observe the reality without changing it. If we observed

an experiment related to the collision of a certain particle, we cannot not only prove that the experiment would give the same result us if we were not observing it, but that, to the inverse one, everything what we know seems to indicate the opposite: the result would not be the same one since the obtained result is affected by the fact that we are observing it. Some experiments prove that the light is a similar phenomenon to the undulatory one; other experiments prove, also, that the light is a phenomenon of particulate emission. If we want to demonstrate that the light is an undulatory phenomenon or on the contrary of particulate emission, the only thing that we must do is to choose the experiment adapted to the result that we try to obtain. In agreement with the quantum mechanics, the objectivity does not exist. We cannot be eliminated of the set of the general picture. We are part of the nature and when we studied the nature, the fact that cannot be eluded it is the nature the one that is studying to itself. The physics becomes, thus, in a branch of the sicologa. Or perhaps to the inverse one: the sicologa becomes a part of the physics. Since there is this Carl Jung, the Swiss siclogo: the psychological norm says that when an internal situation does not become conscious it happens inside us like a real fact. That comes to mean that when the individual thing remains intact, individido, and does not acquire conscience of his internal contradiction, the world must eliminate the conflict unavoidably that withdraws in two halves opuestas.9 The physicist Wolfgang Pauli, winner of the Nobel prize and friend of Carl Jung, expressed it this way: From an internal center, psique seems to move towards outside, in the sense of a extraversion, towards the physical world...10 If both are in the certain thing, then the physics is the study of the structure of the conscience. * * * The reduction from the level of the macrocospic thing at the microscopic level, which we have come calling the field from the very small thing, is a process that there is to make in two times. The first step downwards takes us level to the atomic. The second makes us descend to the subatomic level. The object smaller than we can see, even under the lens of a microscope, contains million atoms. In order to see atoms in a tennis ball we would have to give to the ball the size of the whole Earth. If the ball had the size of our globe, their atoms would be, approximately like grapes. The second step downwards takes us level to the subatomic, where we were with the particles that compose atoms. The difference between the atomic level and the subatomic level is greater than the difference between the atomic level and the level of the tennis balls and the rackets. A grape would be impossible to see the nucleus of an atom as large as. It would be impossible, in fact, to see the nucleus of an atom as large as a room. In order to be able to see the nucleus of an atom, this one would as large as have to be a building of fourteen floors. The nucleus of an atom that had the height of a house of fourteen floors, would have the size of a salt grain. Since a nuclear particle has two thousand times the mass of an electron, the electron that turned around its nucleus would be like a dust particle. The cupola of the Basilica of San Pedro, in the Vatican, has the diameter of a building of fourteen floors. Imagnese the reader a grain of salt in the middle of the cupola of San Pedro with a few dust particles turning to his around in the limits of the cupola. This gives an example us on scale of subatomic particles. It is in this land, the land of the subatomic thing, where the physics of Newton is inadequate and the quantum mechanics is necessary to explain the conduct of particles. An subatomic particle is not a similar particle to a dust particle. He is something more than a size difference which

establishes the difference between a dust particle and an subatomic particle. A dust particle is a thing, an object. An subatomic particle cannot be represented like a thing. Therefore, we have to leave the idea to consider to subatomic particles like objects. The quantum mechanics sees subatomic particles like a tendency exist or a tendency to happen. The force of those tendencies is expressed in term of probabilities. An subatomic particle is quanto (quantum), which means an amount of something. What is that something is speculation matter. Many physicists think that the simple exposition of that question is devoid from meaning even. He could be that the search of the last constituent matter of the universe was one crossed in search of the illusion. At subatomic level the mass and the energy change incessantly to each other. The physicists specialized in the study of particles already are so familiarized with the phenomena of the mass that are transformed into energy and of the energy that is transformed into mass, which routinely they measure the mass of particles in power units? Since the tendency of the subatomic phenomena to put itself gives manifesto under certain conditions are probabilities, this takes us to the land of the statistic. Since million million subatomic particles in the space smaller exist than we pruned to see, it turns out advisable to take care of them in the land of the statistic. The statistical descriptions are representative images of the collective conduct of the masses. The statistic cannot say to us how an individual within a multitude will behave, but a description can make us quite exact, cradle in repeated observations, of how a group will behave as a whole. For example, the statistical study of the growth of a population can say to us how many young they have been born every year and how many it calculates that they are going to be born in the next years. But the statistic cannot say them which are the families who are going to have the new children and which no. If we want to know how the traffic in a crossing is developed, we can install apparatuses that will provide data to us. The statistical data that will provide the apparatuses to us can say to us, for example, how many cars turn to the left and how many to the right, during certain hours, but it cannot say to us what cars are going to be those that make one or another movement. The statistic is also used in the physics of Newton. For example it is used to know the existing relation between the volume a gas and the pressure. This relation is called Law of Boyle in honor of its discoverer, Robert Boyle, who was contemporary of Newton. With greater simplicity it could call it Law to it of the Pump of Bicycle, as we can see. The Law of Boyle says that if, to a constant temperature, the volume of a container that locks up a certain amount of gas is reduced to half, the pressure of the contained gas will increase to the double. Imaginmonos to a person with a bicycle pump. It has raised the piston until his maximum limit and is on the verge of making descend it. The tube of the pump is connected with a pressure measurer (instead of with the camera of the bicycle) so that we can see which is the pressure inside the pump. Since any pressure is not exerted on the outlet pipe, there is no pressure in the cylinder of the pump and, therefore, the pressure measurer will indicate zero. The pressure inside the pump is not really zero. We lived at heart on the air ocean (our atmosphere). The weight of many kilometers of air on us exerts a pressure of a kilogram by square centimeter. If our body does not collapse squashed it is because it, as well, exerts an identical pressure of a kilogram by square centimeter towards outside. This one is the situation in which zero in the pressure gauge would be ***reflxed mng. To be more exact, we suppose that we cause that

the pressure gauge marks a kilogram by square centimeter before we tighten the piston. Let us cause that the piston of the piston descends half from the route. The inner volume of the cylinder of the pump is now half of the original one and the exit of the smaller amount of air has not been allowed. The pressure gauge will mark two kilograms by square centimeter, that is to say, the double of the original pressure. Let us continue pushing the piston until both third of its way. The volume of the interior of the pump is now a third of the original one and the pressure gauge will mark the triple of the original pressure (three kilograms by square centimeter). This one is the Law of Boyle: to constant temperature the pressure of an amount of gas is inversely proportional to its volume. If the volume is reduced to half, the pressure increases to the double; if the volume is reduced to a third the pressure is tripled, etc. In order to explain porqu it is thus, we have to resort to the classic statistic. The air (a gas) in the pump of our example, is compound of molecules (the molecules are compound of atoms). These molecules are in constant movement and in a while determined million of them they strike the interior of the walls of the pump. Although we cannot detect each one of the microscopic collisions, the macrocospic effect of the million impacts on a square centimeter produces the phenomenon of the pressure. If we reduce the volume of the pump to half we tightened to molecules in a space twice smaller than original with which we cause that it takes place a number of impacts doubles in the same square centimeter of the wall of the pump. Therefore, the macrocospic effect, of set, causes that the pressure is duplicated. If we contract molecules in the third part of the original space, do that they strike three times more in the same square centimeter of the wall of the pump and the pressure is tripled. This one is the kinetic theory of gases. In other words: the pressure is the resultant of the conduct of group of a great number of molecules in movement. Each one of the individual events can be analyzed, because, in agreement with the physics of Newton, each individual event is, theoretically, subject to the determinist laws. In principle we can calculate the way followed by each particle in the camera of the pump. That way it is as the statistic in the old physics were used. The quantum mechanics also uses the statistic, but there is a great difference, between the quantum mechanics and the physics of Newton. In the quantum mechanics there is way no to predict individual conducts. This one is the departure lesson that the experiments made in the land of the subatomic thing teach to us. The quantum mechanics takes care of the behavior of the group. Deliberately it leaves with certain vaguedad the relation between the behavior of the groups and the individual events, because at subatomic level the individual behaviors cannot be determined with certainty (the uncertainty principle) and, as we see when studying to particles of high energy, are however continuous. The quantum mechanics leaves the laws that govern to the individual behaviors and proclaims the statistical laws directly that they govern the sums of behavior. The quantum mechanics says to us how a particle group is going to behave, but the only thing that can say to us on the individual behavior of a particle is how probably it is going to behave. The probability is the most important characteristic of the quantum mechanics. This causes that it is an ideal instrument to take care of the subatomic phenomena. Let us take, for example, the phenomenon of the gradual reduction of the natural radioactivity (for example in the luminous spheres of the clocks). The gradual diminution of the radioactive emission is a predictable phenomenon of behavior of group as a result of unpredictable

individual behaviors. Let us suppose that we placed a gram of radio in a strong box with time there opening and we left it during thousand six hundred years. When that time has passed and the safe-deposit box returns to open itself, we will find in its interior a gram of radio? No! We will only find means gram, exactly half of the amount that we put in her. This must to that the radio atoms are disintegrated of natural way to a rate that causes that to every thousand six hundred years half of him is lost. As consequence the physicists say that an atom has a average life of thousand six hundred years. If we left the half gram of radio in the box, when returning to open it after other thousand six hundred years, only it will be left a quarter of gram. Every thousand six hundred years half of existing atoms of radio in the world disappears. How we can know which are the atoms that are going to disintegrate themselves and which no? We cannot. We can predict the amount of atoms that are going to disintegrate themselves in the next hour, but do not have way to know which are those that are going to do it. A physical law does not exist that can let know us which is this selection. Or we do not know it at least. Que atoms or others are disintegrated is purely a chance question. Nevertheless, the radius as planned continues being reduced, with a well-known average life, makes specific and invariable of thousand six hundred years. The theory of quanto does not take care of the laws that govern the disintegration of radio atoms, considered individually, and happens, directly, to act in agreement with the statistical laws that govern the disintegration of atoms of radio in group. That way it is how the statistics in the new physics are used. Another good example of predictable global behavior (statistically) consisting of unpredictable individual events is the constant variations of intensity between the spectral lines. The reader remembers who, according to the theory of Bohr, the electrons of an atom are located only in located layers to a specific distance of the nucleus (p 34). Normally the unique electron of the hydrogen atom remains in the layer next to the nucleus (been fundamental). If we excited it (we added energy to him) we will cause that it jumps to one more a more external layer. While greater amount we add to him ampler will be its jump. If we stopped to excite it, the electron jumps of return to the most internal layer, next to the nucleus. With each one of its jumps from an outer layer to another interior, the electron emits an amount of equal energy to the amount of energy that absorbed when we made him jump towards the outer layers. Those emitted packages of energy (photons) constitute the light that, to the being dispersed by a prism, forms the phantom of one hundred colored lines that compose the phantom of hydrogen. Each line colored in the phantom of hydrogen is formed by the light emitted by electrons of hydrogen when they jump of a certain external layer to another determined internal layer. What we did not mention before is that some of those lines of the phantom of hydrogen are more pronouncing than others. The lines more pronouncing continue being more always pronouncing and weakest they are always weaker. The intensity of the lines of the phantom of hydrogen varies because the electrons of hydrogen that not always return to their fundamental state take the same way. It is possible that, for example, layer five can be a point of shutdown more current than the layer number 3. In that case, the phantom produced by million excited hydrogen atoms will mark to a spectral line more pronouncing corresponding to the electrons that jump of layer five to layer one, and the less pronounced line corresponding to the jumps of electrons from layer three to layer one. That happens, in

this example, because the number of electrons that stop in layer five before jumping to layer one, is greater than the one of which they stop in layer three before jumping to layer one. In other words the probability is very high, in this example, of which the electrons of hydrogen, excited, stop in layer five in their return to layer one, and except the one of which they stop in layer three. In other words, we know that a certain number of electrons probably will stop in the layer five and that a smaller number of electrons will stop in layer three. But we do not have way of knowing which are the electrons that are going away to stop in one or another layer. As in the previous case we can need a collective behavior without being able to predict nor one single one of the individual behaviors that compose the collective phenomenon. This leads us to the central philosophical question of the quantum mechanics, very textually: What is what describes the quantum mechanics Or said otherwise: the quantum mechanics describes the collective behavior to us and/or it predicts the probabilities to us of individual behavior, but of what. In autumn of 1927 a group of physicists met in Brussels to investigate the thematic one of the new physics and they became among them this same question. What they decided there happened to be known like the Interpretation of Copenhagen of the quantum Mechanics. * Later other interpretations were developed, but the interpretation of Copenhagen indicated the urgency of the new physics like consistent means of a new vision of the world. This one is still the prevalente interpretation of the mathematical formalism of the quantum mechanics. The shock that produced in the physics the discovery of the inadecuaciones of the physics of Newton was enormous. The question which the physicists reunited in Brussels considered was not if the mechanics of Newton could be adapted to the subatomic phenomena (was clear that it is impossible), but rather how it could be replaced. The Interpretation of Copenhagen was the first consistent formulation of the quantum mechanics. Einstein was against to her in 1927 and continued criticizing it until its death, although it also, like all the physicists, was itself forced to recognize his advantages in the explanation of the subatomic phenomena. The interpretation of Copenhagen says, in effect that it does not matter to what the quantum mechanics talks about * * The important thing is that it works. This one is one of the most important declarations in the history of science. The Interpretation of Copenhagen of the quantum Mechanics began to a monumental meeting that would not happen unnoticed in its time. The rational part of ours psique, tipificada by science, began to be combined again with another part of our being that we came ignoring from beginnings of century XVIII: our irrational component. The scientific idea of the truth was anchored traditionally, during long time, in the belief of an absolute truth, that was there in some place outside - that is to say, of an absolute truth with existence outside us. While more close we pruned to arrive from that absolute truth, certain - one said - they will be our theories. But anyway never we will be able to perceive the absolute truth directly - that is to say, to open the clock, in the example offered by Einstein -, although we will continue trying to elaborate new theories such that each really absolute facet corresponds to an element of our theories. The Interpretation of Copenhagen one by one eliminates the idea of a correspondence of between reality and theory. This one is another form to express something to which already we have alluded previously: the quantum mechanics separates from the laws that govern the individual components and directly establishes the laws that govern to the sums or groupings. She is very pragmatic.

The philosophy of the pragmatismo is developed more or less thus: the mind, by its intrinsic character, only can deal with ideas. It is not possible to him to enter in relation to another thing. Consequently, the presumption is not correct from which the mind can take in consideration, directly, the reality. Everything what the mind can do is to consider its ideas on the reality. (The one that the reality is thus or no, really, is not but a consideration of Metaphysical type). Therefore, the one that something is certain or no, will depend not on closely that corresponds with the absolute truth, but on its agreement with our experience? The extraordinary importance of the Interpretation of Copenhagen is in the fact that a group of scientists, who tried to formulate a consistent physics, was for the first time forced by their own discoveries to recognize that a complete knowledge of the reality was something that was over the capacity of all rational thought. This was something that Einstein could not accept. most incomprehensible on the world it is that he is comprensible, 11 wrote. But the feat was made. The new physics was not based on the knowledge of the absolute truth, but on we ourself. Henry Pierce Stapp, a physicist of the Laboratory Lawrence Berkeley, expressed it eloquently: (the Interpretation of Copenhagen of the quantum mechanics)it was essentially a rejection of the presumption of which the nature could be included/understood in terms of the elementary realities space-time. In agreement with the new ideas, the complete description of the nature at atomic level is given by probability functions that talked about not underlying microscopic realities of space-time but, rather, to the macrocospic objects of the sensorial experience. The theoretical structure does not extend downwards nor holds fast in microscopic the fundamental realities of space-time. Instead of it it backs down and one holds fast in the concrete realities that form the base of the social life... This pragmatic description must be resisted with descriptions that try to watch between frames and that say to us what is occurring realmente.12 Another form to understand the Interpretation of Copenhagen (of retrospective way) is in terms of the analysis of the cerebral division. The human brain is divided in two halves, connected in the center of the cerebral cavity, by means of a weave. In order to treat certain diseases, for example the epilepsy, sometimes two halves of the brain are separated surgically. Of the obtained experiences and the observations done with people who have been put under that surgical operation, we have discovered a remarkable fact: speaking in general terms the left part of our brain it works of way different from the right. Each one of two halves sees the world of a different way. The left part of our brain perceives to the world of linear form. It tends to organize the information that receives the senses in the form as the points compose a line, is to say that points precede to others. For example language, which he is linear (the words that is being ***reflxed mng slide throughout a line that goes of left to right), is one of the functions of the left cerebral hemisphere. This hemisphere works of logical and rational way; the left part of the brain is the one that creates the causality concept, the image of which a thing causes another one because always it precedes it. The right hemisphere of the brain, on the contrary, receives complete models, established patterns. The people who have been put under the surgical separation of two cerebral halves have, really, two brains. When each one of those two brains is examined separately, it is discovered that the left brain remembers how it is spoken and the words are used whereas, generally, the right cannot do it. Nevertheless the right brain remembers the complete letter of a

song! The left part of our brain tends to doubt certain impressions of its sensorial information. The right part of our brain tends to accept of way freer everything what it is offered to him. Simplifying: the left cerebral hemisphere is rational; the straight irrational hemisphere. Physiologically, the left part of the brain controls the right part of the body and the right hemisphere the left part. Having this in account, a coincidence cannot be considered that Literature and mythology associate the right hand (the left cerebral hemisphere) with the characteristics of rationality, masculinidad and energy; and the left hand (the right hemisphere) with the mystical, feminine and receptive characteristics. The Chinese already wrote on that same phenomenon does thousands of years (yin and yang), even though did not arrive at that knowledge thanks to the cerebral surgery. Our whole society represents the position of the left hemisphere (she is rational, masculine and emitting of energy) straight does not offer much support to the representative characteristics of the cerebral hemisphere (intuition, feminidad and receptivity). The arrival of science marked the beginning of the ascent of the agreed thought with the tendencies of the left hemisphere, imposing the fashion of cognitio western, and the reduction of the thought of the right hemisphere towards the subterranean (psique commits) of where would not emerge (with re-cognitio scientist) until Freud discovered unconscious, which, like it was logical, it labeled it of dark, mysterious and the irrational one (because it is as well as the left hemisphere sees the right). The Interpretation of Copenhagen was, in effect, a recognition of the limitations of the thought of the left cerebral hemisphere, although the physicists reunited in Brussels did not have to think about those terms. It was also a recognition of those psychic aspects that had been long time being ignored by a rationalist society. After all, the physicists are people who feel curiosity by the universe. To feel curiosity and distresses is to understand of very concrete way, even when that understanding cannot be described. The subjective experience of the curiosity is a message to the rational mind that expresses that the examined object is being perceived and being included/understood of ways different from the rational. The next time that something makes an impression to us, that causes anxiety to us, we leave sensation freely runs it by our interior without trying to include/understand it. We will realize that we include/understand it but of a way which we will not be able to translate in words. We will be perceiving very intuitively by means of the right hemisphere. It has not been atrophied by lack of use, but our capacity, our ability to catch its message has been debilitated by three centuries of negligence. The Teachers of Wu Li perceive in both, of rational way and irrational way, the affirmation and the receptive one, masculine and the feminine one. They neglect neither one nor another one. They do not make but dance. LESSONS OF DANCE FOR THE NEWTONIAN PHYSICS It can imagine. It is based on the Ordinary perceptions of the senses. It describes things; individual objects in the space and its changes in the time. It predicts events. It accepts an objective reality outside here. We can observe something without mo to dificar it. Proclamation to be cradle in the absolute truth, in which the nature is really, between frames. LESSONS OF DANCE FOR THE QUANTUM MECHANICS It cannot imagine. It is based on the behavior of subatomic particles and systems that cannot be observed of direct way. It describes statistical conducts of systems. It predicts probabilities It does not accept an objective reality, aside from our experience. We cannot observe something without modifying it. It proclaims only his capacity to order the

experience correctly. This is the quantum mechanics. The following question is: How it works. MODELS OF ORGANIC ENERGY ALIVE BEINGS? When we spoke of the physics as models or forms of behavior of the organic energy, the word that catches mainly our attention is organic. Organic it means alive. Much people think that the physics takes care of things that are not alive, like a pendulum or a billiard ball. This one is a current point of view even between the physicists, but it is not as evident as at first sight it could seem. Permtasenos to explore this point of view with aid of a hypothetical person, a boy to whom we will call Jim de Wit, perpetual champion of the search of the not-obvious thing. - it is not absolutely certain that the physics - it says Jim de Wit - one takes care of nonalive things. This is evident from our previous exhibition of the bodies that fall. Although some of them are even human beings, all will experience the same acceleration if they fall in the emptiness. Therefore the physics is also applied to the alive beings. - But that example is a trap - we respond -. the rocks cannot choose with respect to the fall. If we dropped them, fall. If we did not drop them, they do not fall. The human beings, on the other hand, can to choose. With the exception of the accidental cases, them one is not making the act to fall. Why? Because they know that the fall can hurt to them and they do not have desires to become damage. In other words, human beings process information (they know that if falls they can make damage) and respond it (not falling). The rocks cannot do none of those two things. - That is pretends it - it alleges of Wit -, but it could not outside be that really thus. For example, we know, thanks to the observation of photographies taken at certain time intervals, that the plants frequently respond to the stimuli with similar reactions the human ones. They are dissuaded before the pain, advance towards which it produces to them to please e, even, get to marchitar itself by lack of affection. The only difference is that they do it to a much more slow rate that we. So slow, really, that before the ordinary forms of perception they seem not to react absolutely. If that is thus, how we can say with certainty that the rocks and the mountains do not even react like alive organisms, but with a so slow reaction of time that to catch it, even with photography of takings at intervals, thousands of years between each taking would be required? Naturally there is no form to prove a thing thus, but either there is no form to prove that it is not certain. The distinction between life and not-life is not so simple to establish. - That is intelligent - we thought -, but from a practical point of view it cannot be observed that the inert matter responds to the stimuli. And it cannot refuse that the human beings do it thus. - Another error - it contradicts of Wit reading our thoughts -. All chemistry can verify that most of the chemical agents (that generally come from earth and rocks) reacts to the stimuli. Under the appropriate conditions, for example, sodium reacts before chlorine (forming the sodium chloride), the iron reacts before oxygen forming iron oxide, and thus we could continue mentioning examples. They react exactly just as the hungry human being before foods, or the affection when one is single. - Well, thus it is - we admitted -, but it does not seem to us to play fair to compare a chemical reaction with a human reaction. A chemical reaction happens or it does not happen. There are no intermediate terms. When two chemical agents of a certain type are combined appropriately, they react; if they are not combined suitably, they do not react. The human beings and their reactions are much more complex. If we offer food to a hungry person, can eat or not eat, according to the circumstances; if he eats, he can eat until being satiated, or perhaps

not as much. Let us consider a person who is hungry, but knows that if is entertained eating it arrives late at an appointment. If the appointment is the sufficiently important thing, it will go away without eating, in spite of being hungry. If a person knows that the food is poisoned not it will prove it. One is to process the information and to respond appropriately. That is what distinguishes to the human reaction of the chemical reaction. The chemical agents do not have election: they always must act in a sense or another one. Of course - Jim de Wit is excited -, but we do not know if our answers to the stimuli are not so rigidly preprogrammed as those of chemical agents, with the only difference of which our programs are much more complex. It is very possible that we do not have more freedom of action, absolutely, that the stones. What it happens is that, contrary stones, we were deceived believing to have it! There is no form to discuss that argument. Of Witt it has shown the arbitrary quality of our prejudices. We like to think that we are different from stones because we are things alive and they no, but do not have form to prove our position nor to deny hers. We cannot establish with clarity that we are different from the inorganic thing. This means, logically, that there are to admit the possibility that we are not alive. Since this is absurd, the only alternative that we have left is to admit that the inanimate objects can be alive beings. The organic and inorganic difference between is a conceptual prejudice. Hill more and more work to maintain it, as we entered ourselves in the quantum physics. In agreement with our definition, a thing is organic if it responds to the processed information. The most surprising discovery than hopes to the neophytes in the physics is that the accumulated tests in the development of the quantum mechanics indicate that the subatomic particles seem to be making decisions from constant way! And still more: the decisions that apparently take are based on other decisions programmed in any other part. The subatomic particles seem instantaneously to know the decisions that are taken in other parts. The key word is instantaneously. How can know to an subatomic particle here the decision that has taken another particle there, in any other part, at the same moment in which the particle in that other any place has taken it? All the tests seem to deny the fact that the elementary particles are really particles. A particle, as us we represented it mentally (in agreement with the classic definition) is a thing that is limited in the space. One does not extend outside that region. It is here or it is there, but it cannot be here and there at the same time. A particle that is here, can communicate with a particle that is there (shouting to him, emitting a TV signal to him, being shaken, etc.), but that communication needs time (although only is millionth of second). If two particles were in different galaxies the communication it would take forever. So that a particle that is here knows what it happens there while it is happening, it must be there. But if it is there it cannot be here. And if it is in both places at the same time no longer are a particle. This means that it is possible that the particles not even are particles absolutely (p 51). Also it means that those particles I pretend are in relation to other particles of a dynamic and intimate way that agrees with our definition of the organic thing. Some biologists think that a simple vegetal cell takes in himself the capacity to reproduce the whole plant. Also, the philosophical implication of the quantum mechanics is that all the things in our universe (even we), that seems to exist independently, are in fact parts of an organic model that includes everything. And that is no part of that model, of that whole, that is truely aside from him or of the other parts. In order to

understand these conclusions and their meaning, permtasenos to begin with a discovery done in 1900 by Max Planck. That year is considered generally like the one of the birth of the quantum mechanics. In December of 1900, like a misfortune, Planck it presented/displayed to the scientific community a writing that would be to make it famous. He himself was annoying with the implications of his thesis and trusted that their colleagues could to do what he had not obtained: to explain its content in terms of the physics of Newton. But at heart of his heart he knew that that was not possible, that neither they nor nobody could do it. Also he had a feeling, and with all reason, that its official notice was going to affect the authentic foundations of science. What was what it had discovered Planck that caused so deep restlessness to him? That the basic structure of the nature is to granulate or, as they like to say to the physicists, discontinuous. What is wanted to express with discontinuous? If we took the population from a city it is evident that it only can fluctuate in a complete number of people. The maximum that the population of a city can increase or diminish is in a person. It cannot increase in 0,7 people. It can increase or diminish in 15 people, but not in 15,7 people. In dialecto of the physics, a population can change discontinuously only in discreet increases or. We only can cause that she is greater or smaller by jumps and smallest of the jumps must be a complete person. In general, this is what discovered Planck on the behavior of the nature. Planck did not try to mine the foundations of the physics of Newton. He was a German, preservative physicist. Rather it happened that, inadvertently, it sponsored the revolution of the quantum mechanics when trying to solve a concrete problem related to the radiations of the energy. Planck was trying to discover why the things behave since they do it when they are warmed up. Concretely, it wanted to know why the objects become more brilliants when they are warmed up and they changed of color when the temperature increases or diminishes. The classic physics that had been successful in unifying as diverse fields as the acoustics, the optics or astronomy, that seemed to have satisfied the scientific appetite with which they believed to have kept awake the mysteries of the universe and them they had returned to regroup in comfortable packages, did not have an explanation with sense for this so current phenomenon. It was, to use the fraseologa of the time, one of few clouds in the horizon of the classic physics. In 1900 the physicists imagined to the atom like a nucleus that had an aspect similar to a plum to which small protuberantes wharves had been united. (This was before the planetary model of the atom was created.) At the end of each one of those wharves it was the electron. If that occurred him to a shock to the atom it caused that their electrons oscillated at the end of their wharves. One thought that those supple electrons (oscillating) emitted radiating energy and that one was the cause of which the hot objects shone. (an accelerated electrical charge creates electromagnetic radiations. An electron takes an electrical charge - negative and if it is put under oscillations is accelerated, first in a direction and later in the other.) The physicists thought that when warming up the atoms of a metal were made him enter state of agitation and that, as well, made oscillate to their electrons and emit light in the process. The energy absorbed by the atom when it was shaken to him (warmed up) - it continued the theory - was radiated by jumping electrons. (it is possible to be replaced jumping electrons by atomic oscillating, if there is somebody to that first does not seem to him the sufficiently serious thing.) The same theory proclaimed that the

energy absorbed by an atom was distributed the same to its oscillating (electrons) and that these jumped (they oscillated) to more high frequency (with greater rapidity), with which broadcast its energy of more efficient way. Unfortunately this theory is not valid. Test some things mistaken enough. First, test that all the warmed up objects emit greater amount of light of high frequency (blue, violet) that of LF light (red). In other words, even the objects moderately warmed up, in agreement with this classic theory, had to emit a light of an intense color blue-target, like the objects that are to the red target, but in smaller amount. This is incorrect: objects moderately warmed up emit, mainly, red light. The objects intensely warmed up emit a finite amount of light of high frequency. The reader does not have to worry with discharges and LF. Those terms will be explained soon. Now the question is that Planck was exploring one of the last great problems of the classic physics: his mistaken prediction referring to the power radiation. The physicists have nicknamed to that problem the Ultraviolet Catastrophe. Even though the name sounds like the one of a rock orchestra, the Ultraviolet Catastrophe reflects one makes specific preoccupation by the fact that the warmed up objects so do not emit great amounts of energy in form of ultraviolet light (the light of greater well-known frequency in 1900) and as had foretold the classic theory. The name of the phenomenon that Planck was studying is radiation of the black bodies. The radiation of the black bodies is the radiation coming from black, nonreflecting, flat and perfectly absorbent bodies. Since the black is the color absence (it is not reflected nor emitted no type of light), the black bodies do not have color, except for when they are warmed up. If a black body is emitting some color, we know that it must to the energy that we added to him and not because it reflects or it emits that color of spontaneous way. A black body, not always must be a solid body of black color. Let us suppose that we have a metal box that completely is closed hermetically, with the exception of a small hole. What is what we will see if we watched in its interior? Nothing, because there is no light in his interior. (a small light can penetrate by the hole, but not sufficient it like making see the interior us.) Well, we suppose that we warmed up the metallic box until it acquires a red color. What we will see then? Red (Who says that the physics is difficult) That one was the type of phenomenon that Planck was studying. All the physicists, in 1900, were conceited that after the electrons of an excited atom began to oscillate, they broadcast his energy smoothly and of continued way until they descended running and its energy dissipated. Planck discovered that the excited atomic oscillating did not act thus. They emitted and they absorbed energy only in concrete amounts! Instead of broadcasting smooth energy and continuadamente, since it makes the means of a clock, they broadcast its energy in short spurts, descending to a lower power level after each emission or spurt, until it stopped to oscillate completely. In summary, Planck discovered that the changes of nature were explosive and not continued and smooth? Planck was the first physicist who spoke of packages of energy and of quantificados oscillating. It had a feeling that it had made a most important discovery, one that faced the discoveries of Newton. And with reason. The philosophy and the paradigms of the physics never would return to be such, although other twenty-five years would be needed so that the quantum mechanics acquired form. It is difficult at the present time to include/understand the audacious thing that was at its time the theory of the quantos of Planck. Vctor Guillemin, professor of

physics in Harvard, expressed it this way: (Planck)it had to make a supposition radical and apparently absurd, because in agreement with the classic laws, and also from the common sense, one came being conceited that an electronic oscillator once position in movement by a push, it broadcast his smooth energy gradually and while its oscillating movement was descending until stopping. Planck had to suppose that the oscillator emitted its radiation in sudden spurts, descending to smaller amplitude of oscillation after each one from these emissions. It had to give by seated that the energy of movement of each oscillator cannot increase nor diminish gradually smooth and, but solely by jumps sudden. In a situation in which the energy was being transferred of and to the oscillating and the luminance waves, the oscillating not only had to emit but also to absorb energy radiating in discreet packages... It devised the name of quantos for the packages of energy and said of the oscillating that were quantificados. It was that way as the incisive concept of the quantum entered science fsica.1 Planck is not only the father of the quantum mechanics, but also the discoverer of the constant that takes its name. The constant of Planck is a number that never it changes? It is used to calculate the size of the packages of energy (quantos) of each frequency of light (color). (the energy in each quanto of light of a color in individual is the frequency of the light multiplied by the constant of Planck.) Each one of the packages of energy of each color has the same amount of energy. All the packages of energy of red light, for example, are of the same size. All the packages of energy of violet light are of the same size. All the packages of energy of green light are of the same size. Nevertheless, the packages of energy of violet light are greater than the packages of energy of green light and the packages of energy of green light are greater than those of red light. In other words, Planck discovered that the energy is absorbed and emitted to small pieces and the size of the pieces of a LF light, like the red light, is smaller than the size of the pieces of a light of high frequency like the violet light. That explains porqu the warmed up objects broadcast the energy of the way since they do it. When a black body is put under low heating, the first color in which shines is red, because the packages of energy of the red light are the smaller packages of energy in the phantom of visible light. As the heat increases, it is had more energy and greater packages of her can be used. The greater packages of energy form the colors of more high frequency, like for example blue and the violet. Why the brilliance of a hot metal seems to increase continuously as the temperature grows? Because the tiny steps, above and down, in the brilliance are so incredibly small that our eyes cannot distinguish them. Therefore in the scale to great size, or macrocospic level, this aspect of the nature is not evident. In the world of the subatomic thing, nevertheless, this one is the dominant characteristic of the nature. If this exhibition of the emission and absorption of the packages of energy remembers Niels to them Bohr (p 34) they will be right. Nevertheless, Bohr would not have to arrive later at its theory of the specific orbits of electrons up to thirteen years. For those days the physicists had already misestimated the model of the atom of the plum with their jumping electrons in favor of the planetary model of the atom, in which the electrons turn around a nucleus? Between the discovery of quanto by Planck (1900) and the analysis of phantom of hydrogen made by Bohr (1913), a shining physicist burst in into the scene with a force rarely exerted by an isolated individual. Its name: Albert Einstein. In only a year (1905) that in which it fulfilled the twenty-six, Einstein published five very

significant scientific works. Three of them were fundamental for the development of the physics and, in the course of time, for the unfolding of the western world. First of those three publications it described the quantum nature of the light. This was worth the Nobel prize to him who was granted to him in 1921. The second writing described the molecular movement? His third writing developed the special theory of relativity that we will study later? The theory of the light of Einstein established that the light was composed by smallest particles. A light ray, came to say Einstein, is analogous to a burst of bullets. Each one of the projectiles is called a photon. That was similar to which Planck proposed, but Einstein went a little more far. Planck discovered that the energy was absorbed and emitted in packages. It described to the processes of absorption and emission of the energy. Einstein seated the theory that the energy in himself is quantified. In order to prove its theory the photoelectric effect resorted to a called phenomenon. When the light strikes (it affects) in the surface of a metal makes jump released electrons of atoms of the metal and it sends them to stroll. On the suitable equipment these electrons can be counted and to measure the speed whereupon they move. The theory of Einstein of the photoelectric effect was that whenever one of the projectiles or photons hit an electron it made back down, turned aside it, exactly just as a billiard ball it separates that which it hits. Einstein based its revolutionary theory on the experimental work of Philippe Lenard (that gained the Nobel prize in 1905). Lenard demonstrated that the electron flow in the photoelectric effect began the incident light as soon as struck the metal that constituted its objective. At the same moment at which it ignited the light began to jump electrons. In agreement with the undulatory theory of the light the electrons of a metal only begin to oscillate when they are reached about the luminance waves. The electrons did not have to loosen of atoms of the metal until they began to oscillate with the sufficient rapidity. That demanded you vary successive oscillations, like when an infantile swing is pushed, every time to greater height, until the acquired impulse makes give the return him around the subjection bar. In summary: the undulatory theory of the light predicts an electron emission delayed. The experiments of Lenard, on the contrary, demonstrated that the electron emission took place of immediate way. Another one of the discoveries of Lenard was the one of which reducing the intensity of the ray of incident light (that is to say, darkening it something more) the speed of bounced electrons was not reduced, although yes the number of these. It discovered, also, that the speed by ricochet of electrons could be altered changing the color of the incident light. That was also explained with the new theory of Einstein. In agreement with this one, each photon of a certain color, like the green one, for example, has a certain amount of energy. When reducing the intensity of a ray of green light is only reduced the number of photons in the ray. Nevertheless, each one of the photons that are in the luminance ray continues conserving the same amount of energy that any other photon of green light. Consequently, when any photon of green light strikes to an electron, it moves it with a certain amount of energy characteristic of photons of green light. Max Planck describes this way the theory of Einstein: ... Fotones;(las drops of energy) do not become smaller when the energy of the ray diminishes; its intensity remains inalterable, but the photons at intervals follow one another one mayores.2 The theory of Einstein supported, then, the revolutionary discovery of Planck. The light of high frequency, like the violet light, is formed by photons of more high energy than the LF light, like the red light.

Consequently a ray of violet light, that is compound of photons of high energy, if it strikes to an electron does that the electron bounces with great speed. When it is the red light, that is compound of photons of low energy, the one that strikes to an electron this one jumps at smaller speed. In any case, when increasing or diminishing the intensity of the light it increases or it diminishes the number of electrons that bounce, but changing the color of the incident light its speed can only be changed. In summary, Einstein demonstrated, using the photoelectric effect, that the light is formed of particles, or photons, and that the photons of the light of high frequency have greater energy than photons of the LF light. That meant a transcendental profit. The only problem was in which one hundred two years before Thomas Young had demonstrated that the light was formed by waves. And nobody, not even Einstein, got to be able to prove that it was in an error. Thus we arrived at the subject of the waves. A particle is a thing that is contained in a place. A wave is something that expands. Let us see a graphical representation of the wave: The wavelength is the distance between the crest of a wave and the following one. The longer radio waveses have a length of ten kilometers. However those of x-rayses only part of a centimeter measures one milmillonsima. The visible light has seven wavelengths that go from four to cienmilsimas of centimeter. The amplitude of a wave is the height of the crest of the wave on the longitudinal line of its displacement. In the following drawing we offer three waves with different amplitude. The one of the center it has the greater amplitude. The frequency of the wave says to us how many wave crests happen through a certain point (like the point To in the drawing of the superior part of page 70) in a second. If the wave moves in the direction indicated by the arrow and a crest happens through the point To every second, the frequency of the wave is of a cycle per second. If they are ten and average the crests that happen through the point To every second, the frequency of the wave is of 10.5 cycles per second. If ten thousand crests spend the same point every second, the frequency of the wave is of 10,000 cycles per second. The speed of the wave can be calculated multiplying the wavelength by the frequency. For example, if the length of a wave is of sixty centimeters and the frequency of the wave is of a cycle per second, the wave will move sixty centimeters every second. Consequently, its speed is of sixty centimeters per second. If the length of the wave is of sixty centimeters and its frequency is of three cycles per second, the speed of the wave will be of one hundred eighty centimeters per second, because the wave moves at the rate of three wavelengths (sixty centimeters) in every second. In all this there is nothing no complicated. We can determine the express that runs a man if we know the length each one of its steps and the steps that it gives in a second. Multiplying these two numbers we will obtain the speed per second of the runner. If their steps have a length of 90 centimeters and takes two steps per second, the man will run to 180 centimeters per second (about six kilometers and means per hour). The same we do with the wave, unless we used wavelengths instead of steps. Although we can calculate the speed of a light wave, multiplying its wavelength by its frequency, this is not necessary. The physicists have discovered that the speed of the light in the emptiness is always of about three hundred thousand kilometers per second (299,792.5 km/seg). This is also applied to all the electromagnetic waves. Therefore, all the light waves (the blue ones, green or the red ones, etc.) they have the same speed that the radio waveses, xrayses and all the other forms of electromagnetic radiation. The

speed of the light is constant. One appears with letter c. Constant c, since already there are saying, is (approximately) 300,000 kilometers per second and it never varies (that is what it turns it a constant). It does not matter if the light raises or low, if it has discharge frequency, great or a small wavelength, that comes towards us or who leave from us: its speed always is of 300,000 km/seg. This characteristic took to Albert Einstein to the theory of special relativity, as we see later. And to us the frequency allows us to calculate so much as the wavelength of the light if we know one them. That must to that the product of both is always 300,000 kilometers per second in the emptiness. While greater she is one of them, smaller it will have to be the other. For example, if we know that multiplying two numbers the result is 12 and if we know that one of the numbers is 6, in that case the other must be 2. If one of the 3 numbers is the other it must be 4. , while more discharge is the frequency of the light, equally smaller it will be his wavelength; while greater the wavelength, smaller the frequency. In other words, the light of high frequency has small wavelength and the LF light has great wavelength. Now we return to the discovery of Planck that the energy of quanto of light grows with the frequency. While more discharge is the frequency, greater it is its energy. The energy is proportional to the frequency and the constant of Planck is the constant of proportionality among them, between frequency and energy. This simple relation is very important. It is the central point of the quantum physics: to greater frequency, greater energy; to smaller frequency, minor energy. When we joined the mechanics of the waves and the discovery of Planck we have the following thing: the light of high frequency, like for example the violet light, has wavelength small and high energy; the LF light, like for example the red light, has great wavelength and low energy. This explains the photoelectric effect. The photons of violet light strike to separated electrons of the atom of the metal and they send them far from him to a greater speed than they make photons of red light, because the photons of the violet light, that is light of high frequency, have greater energy than photons of red light, that is LF light. All this seems to have sense if it is done without the fact that we are speaking of particles (photons) in term of waves (frequency), and of waves (frequency) in particle term (photons), which, of course, makes no sense absolutely. If it has the reader the sensation of which has included/understood the last pages we congratulated to him! It has managed to dominate the contained most difficult mathematics in this book. If no, it returns to page 70 and it returns to reread them. It is easy to dance with the wavelengths and the frequencies, if the form is known as they are connected to each other. The waves are glad creatures that they please to dance by his account. For example, in certain circumstances the songs or acute profiles bend around. When this happens says that there is diffraction. Let us suppose that we were on board of a helicopter that flies on an artificial harbor. The mouth or entrance of the two port is the sufficiently wide thing to allow that aircraft carrier can be crossed when happening through her. The sea is anxious and the wind and the waves (waves) go in perpendicular direction of the entrance of the port. If from the helicopter we watched this one ago down will be the form as we will see that the waves (waves) to penetrate in the interior of the port: One sees that the waves are stopped cleanly by the walls of the port, except in their entrance, by where they continue straight in line towards the interior of the port until they dissipate. Now we imagine that the mouth of the port is so small that as soon as allows the entrance of a boat. If we watched

from above, from the helicopter, the model that we will see will be of all different point. Instead of moving directly it made the interior, the waves that already are inside are extended from the entrance of the port almost in the same way as if they were the waves of a pool that move away of the point of the water in which we had dropped a stone. This is the diffraction. Why it happens thus? Why the reduction of the width of the mouth of entrance of the port does that the waves, within the port, extend in semicircle form? The answer we will find it comparing the size of the entrance of the port with the wavelength - that is to say, of the distance between the crests of the waves that arrive -. In the case firstly mentioned, the mouth of the port is considerably wider than the distance between the crests of the waves (wavelength) that penetrate by her, so the waves follow directly, in line straight, following the guideline normal of conduct of the waves, and they are entered in the port. In the second of the cases the width of the mouth of the port is, approximately, the same one or a little less, than the wave, wavelength that arrives and, thus, causes the characteristic form (diffraction), that offers the second drawing to us. Whatever it is the type of waves that happen through an opening that is so small, or more, than the wavelength of that they happen through her, the waves are difractan when happening. Since the light is an undulatory phenomenon (in agreement with the theory that defends the undulatory nature of the light) this one will have to behave of similar way that the waves of the sea, in the mentioned examples previously. And thus it does. If we placed a light source behind a screen with a square orifice, like which we represented in the drawing that follows, its projection in the wall will be so and as we see it in: This is analogous to which it happens to the waves that penetrate in the port of wide mouth of entrance. The square cut in the panel is million times greater than the wavelength of the light. Like result of it, the waves of the light happen directly through him, following the air lines and projecting in the wall an image with the same form that the square. Let us observe, specially, that this projection has edges very noticeable and defined between the illuminated zone and the dark zone. If we opened a crack not wider than the cut of a leaf to shave, so that their width is almost as narrow as the wavelength of the incident light, the light difracta. The noticeable edge between the zone of light disappears strongly and the dark zone and, in its place, we see an illuminated zone that it is diminishing in its intensity, gradually, until arriving at the dark in its edges. Instead of arriving in line straight at the wall of the bottom, the light rays have been opened like a fan. This is difractada light. Now that the reader knows the grace already, we are going to tell the joke him. Year 1803, Thomas Young settled down of once for always, or thus he believed it, the question of the nature of the light. It used for it an experiment that was at the same time simple and spectacular: In front of a light source (Young used solar light that penetrated by a agjero in a screen) he placed a screen with two vertical sections in her. Each one of the holes could be covered with a fabric piece. To the other side of the screen with the double cut there was a wall which the light could affect that penetrated by the two cracks. When it was let affect the light source and one of the cracks was covered, the wall was illuminated as it can be seen in the first drawing of this page. But when opening Young the two cracks made history; the projection in the wall had to be the sum of the light of both courteous, but it was not thus. Instead of it the wall illuminated with alternative bands of light and the dark! The band of the center was the plus luminous. both sides of the central luminous band were dark

bands; later new bands of light, but less intense than the band of the center, later new bands of the dark, etc., as it is seen in the following drawing. Why it happened a thing thus? The simplicity of the answer is what makes so important to this experiment. The alternative bands of light and the dark were an affluent phenomenon known the undulatory mechanics called interference. The interference is when the light waves difractada coming from both courteous interfere to each other. In some places the two waves are superposed and they reinforce one to another one. In other places they are cancelled. In the zones where a wave crest was superposed to another crest of wave the result was a light intensification (the luminous bands). In zones where the crest found a sine, they were cancelled mutually and the light did not arrive at the wall. It is just like if we simultaneously sent two stones in a pool and observed how the waves extend starting off of their central points (those of shock of the stone). The waves caused by stones interfere to each other. In the places where the crests of the waves caused by a stone are with the crests of the waves caused by the other stone, the result is greater waves. In places where the sines of the waves caused by one of stones agree with the crests of the waves originated by the fall of the other stone, the water calms. In summary: the experiment of the two cracks of Young demonstrated that the light had to be of similar nature to the waves, because only the waves can cause interference models. The situation, then, was as it follows: Einstein, using the photoelectric effect, proved that the light is of similar nature to particles. And Young, using the interference phenomenon, proved that the light era of similar nature to the waves. But a wave cannot be a particle and a particle cannot be a wave. This is only the principle! Since Einstein proved that the light was compound of photons, we return to the experiment of Young and make it with photons: thing that has been made already. Let us suppose that we have a light pistol that can shoot a single photon separately, is to say as a pistol shoots the bullets, one after another one. The experiment prepared like the previous time just by an open crack. We shot the photon, happens through the crack and we marked the place where it took the wall (using a photographic plate). Since we did another experiment previously we appreciated that the photon has given in a zone that would be dark if the second crack also had been open. That is to say, that if the second crack had been open, had not touched any photon there. In order to be safer we repeated the experiment, leaving open the two cracks. So and as we had thought, no photon was registered in the zone where it gave the photon when only one crack was open. When both cracks are open appears an interference and that zone is in the middle of one of the dark bands. The question is: How knew the photon in the first experiment that the second crack was not open? It is worth the trouble to think about it. If both cracks are without the lid, alternative bands of light and the dark always exist. This means that there are zones in which never touches a photon (otherwise there would not be any zone of the dark). If one of the cracks is closed not they produce interferences and the bands disappear: all the zones are illuminated, even those that were in the dark when both cracks were open. When we shot our photon and this one happens through the first crack, it knows that it can go to a zone that it would have to be in the dark if both cracks were open? Or, in other words, how knows the photon that the other crack is closed? the central mystery of the theory of quanto - Henry Stapp- wrote is how the information is transmitted so quickly. How knows the particle that are two open cracks? How is

collected that of which it happens elsewhere to determine what is probable that aqu?3 happens There is no definitive answer to this question. Some physicists as And H. Walker speculates with the possibility that the photons are conscious! the conscience could be associate in all the processes of the quantum mechanics... since everything what happens, really, is the result of one or several events of the quantum mechanics, the universe is inhabited by an almost limitless number of discreet and conscious organizations, nonthinking, that they are responsible for the work detailed of universo.4 Be or not it is Walker in certain, which yes appears clear is that if in fact there are photons (and the photoelectric effect test that are them), the photons in the experiment with the double crack knows of some way if the two cracks are or nonopen and they act in agreement with it? This takes to us of return towards the place where we declared: something is organic if it has the ability to process information and acts in agreement with her. We do not have left more remedy than to recognize than the photons, that are energy, seem to process information and act in agreement with it. Therefore, the photons seem to be organic. Since the human being is also organic exists the possibility that the study of photons (and other quantos of energy) could take to us to learn something on we ourself. The dualidad wave-particle meant the end of the line that took to the classic causality. In agreement with this form to think, if we know certain conditions initial, we can the future predict of the events because we know the laws that govern them. In the experiment of the double crack we know everything what we can know on the initial conditions and, nevertheless, we cannot predict correctly what it will happen to them to individualized photons. In the experiment first (only one open crack), we know the origin of the photon (the lamp), its speed (300,000 kilometers per second) and its immediate address before happening through the crack. Using the laws of the movement of Newton we can predict in what place of the photographic plate will hit the photon. Let us suppose that we make those calculations. Let us happen to consider the second experiment (with the two open cracks). Also in this case we know the origin the photon, its speed and its direction before happening through the open crack. The initial conditions of the photon in the first experiment are the same ones that those of the photon in the second experiment. Both they leave from the same place, they travel at the same speed, they go to the same place and, consequently, they move in the same direction, exactly, at the moment for passing through the crack number one. The only difference is that in the second experiment the second crack is also open. Using the laws of the movement of Newton we also calculate here the place where it will hit the photon in the photographic plate. Since we used the same numbers and the same formulas in both cases, we will have identical results that they will indicate that the photon in the first experiment will hit target in the photographic plate, exactly in the same place that the photon in the experiment number two. And this one is the problem! The photon in the experiment number two will not hit target in the same zone in which it made the photon in the first experiment, since in this one it is going to give in a zone that is a black band in experiment two. In other words, the two photons do not go al same place, even when the initial conditions referred both identical and are known by us. We cannot determine the way to follow individually by photons. We can know which will be the undulatory form in the wall, but in this case we are interested in a single photon, not in its waves. In other words, we know the model that will establish great photon groups

and their distribution in the model, but do not have way of knowing what photons are those that will stop there. Everything what we can say of a photon, isolated, is the probability that we find it in a certain place. The dualidad wave-particle was (it is) one of the thorniest problems in the quantum mechanics. To the physicists they like to have clean and clear theories that they explain everything, and in opposite case they like to have equally clear theories on the reasons that they prevent them to have them. The dualidad waveparticle is not a clear situation. In fact she is rather quite cloudy, disordered and it has forced the physicists to accept new ways to perceive the physical reality. These new conceptual marks are considerably more compatible with the nature of the personal experience that was it the old ones. For most of us the life rarely is white or black. The dualidad wave-particle indicated the aim of the extreme dilemma of himself or not at the time of talking about to the concept of the world. The physicists no longer can accept the proposal of which the light has to be or a particle or a wave, because they have proven themselves to themselves that it is both things, depending on how the phenomenon is contemplated. Of course which Einstein realized fact that its theory of the photon contradicted the theory of the undulatory nature of Young, but he could not prove his falsification. It speculated that the photons are guided by ghost waves. The ghost waves are mathematical organizations without real existence. The photons seem to follow ways that have all the mathematical characteristics of the waves, but that in fact do not exist. Some physicists continue considering this way the paradoxical wave-particle, but for most of its colleagues this explanation is too artificial. One is an answer that seems to have sense but that, really, it does not explain anything. The dualidad wave-particle caused, without a doubt, the first real step for the understanding of the theory of quanto that he was still something new and without developing. In 1924, Bohr with other two of their colleagues, H. To Kramers and John Slater, agreed in suggesting them waves at issue were probability waves. The probability waves would be mathematical beings by means of which the physicists could predict the probability that certain events happen or they do not happen. His mathematics not demonstrated to be correct, but his idea, that it was different from everything what had been proposed previously, had sense. Later, with a different formalism (mathematical structure), the idea of the probability waves was developed until becoming one of the most outstanding characteristics of the quantum mechanics. The probability waves, so and how Bohr, Kramers and Slater thought of them, were a entirely new idea. The probability in himself was not new, but it was it that type of probability. One talked about to that, of a way either another one, was or happening but that still it had not been updated. One talked about a tendency to happen, a tendency that of an indefinite way existed in itself, even though never got to become event. The probability waves were a mathematical catalogue of those tendencies. That is, as it can be seen, something quite different from the probability taken in the classic sense. If we threw a dice in a game casino, know, thanks to the classic law of probabilities, that the possibility of obtaining a certain number beforehand is of one against six. But the wave of probability of Bohr, Kramers and Slater means more enough than that. In agreement with Heisenberg: It means a tendency towards something. It was a quantitative version of the old concept of power in the aristoteliana philosophy. It introduced something that were present, raised in the center, between the idea of an event and the real event, a strange form of

physical reality exactly in the center, between possibility and realidad.5 Towards 1924 the discovery of quanto due to Planck was causing really seismic effects in the field of the physics. I take to Einstein to discover the photon, which was cause of the dualidad as well wave-particle that took to the probability waves. The physics of Newton was thing of the past. The physicists were to themselves taking care of energy that of a way or another one processed information (what made something organic) and that of nonpredictable way appeared in models (waves). In summary: the physicists were to themselves dealing with Wu Li: models of organic energy. WHAT HAPPENS The quantum mechanics is a procedure. A specific way to consider a part specific of the reality. The advantage to use the procedure of the quantum mechanics is that it allows to predict the probabilities us of certain results as long as our experiments are made of a certain way. The object of the mechanics is not to predict what it is really going to happen. It only predicts the probabilities of several possible results. To the physicists they would like to be able to predict the subatomic events of more concrete way but, at the present moment, the quantum mechanics is the only theory that until now has been able to develop that it works at level of the subatomic phenomena. The probabilities obey to the determinist laws. These same determinist laws govern the events in the world of the macrocospic thing. A direct parallelism exists among them. Using the rigid laws of the development of the processes we can calculate, exactly, which is the probability that it happens a certain event, if we know sufficient way the conditions in which the experiment began. For example, there is no way of which we pruned to calculate in what place of a photographic plate is going to affect a determined photon the experiment of the double crack (p 76). Nevertheless we can predict the probability that accurately it is going to give in certain place, assuming that the experiment has been prepared suitably and that the results are measured of appropriate way. Let us suppose that we have calculated that a sixty percent of probabilities that exists the photon is going to give in zone A. It means that that can affect any other part? Yes. In fact a forty percent of possibilities that exists it is thus. In that case (permtaseme that it makes the question in name of Jim de Wit), what is what determines in what place will affect the photon? The answer given by the theory of quanto is: pure chance. That aspect of the pure chance was another one of the repairs of Einstein to the quantum physics. One of the reasons for which never it wanted to accept it like a fundamental physical theory. the quantum mechanics is impressive - it wrote in a letter directed to Max Born -... but I am convinced that God does not play dados.1 Two generations later, J. S. Bell, a Swiss physicist, proved that possibly it was in the certain thing, but that one is another history to which we will talk about later. The first passage in the process of the quantum mechanics is to prepare a physical system (the experimental apparatus), in agreement with certain specifications, in a called zone preparation region. The second passage in the procedure of the quantum mechanics is to prepare another physical system to measure the results of the experiment. This system of measurement is located in a called zone measurement region. Ideally the measurement region must be very remote of the preparation region. Of course, it is necessary to consider that stops an subatomic particle a small macrocospic distance, even small, is a very long way. Permtasenos, now, to make the experiment of double crack using this procedure. First we placed the light source on a vertical table and, later, to short distance, screen with two

close cuts or openings. The zone where all that instrument is placed is the preparation region. Later we happen to other side of screen to the opposed one to that in which it is the light - and we place a virgin photographic plate there. This one is the measurement region. The third step to give, following the procedure of the quantum mechanics, is to translate to mathematical terms that everything represents what we know on the instrumental apparatus in the preparation region (light and screen), and, later, to do the same with the instruments located in the measurement region (the photographic plate). In order to be able to do all that, we needed to know the data specific instruments. Actually this means that there is to give the technician who places the equipment very precise instructions. We say to him, by example, the exact distance of the light source to which it must place the screen, the frequency and the intensity of the light that we are going to use, the relative dimensions of the two orifices of the screen and their positions between himself and with respect to the light. Also we give explicit instructions him with respect to instruments in the measurement region, how and where it must place it, the type of photographic plate that we are going to use, how to come to revealed his, etc. After to have translated these instructions on the experimental preparation to the mathematical language of the theory of quanto, we placed these mathematical amounts in an equation that expresses the form of a causal natural development. Tngase in account that this last phrase does not say anything on which is developing. The reason of it is that nobody knows it. The Interpretation of Copenhagen of the Quantum Mechanics (p 56), says that the theory of quanto is a complete theory because it works (it correlates experiences), because does not explain in detail which is happening. (the complaint of Einstein was based on which the theory of quanto does not explain the things, because it takes care of the group conduct, and not of isolated events, individual completely.) Nevertheless, when it is to predict the group conduct, the theory of quanto acts as it announces. In the experiment of the double crack, for example, it can predict with exactitude the probabilities of a photon of being detected in the region To, in region B, region C, and so on. Of course, the last passage in the process of the quantum mechanics is, really, to carry out the experiment and to obtain a result. In order to apply to the theory of quanto the physical world this one must be divided in two parts. These two parts are the observed system and the observant system. The observed system and the observant system are not just like the region of preparation and the region of measurement. Region of preparation and region of measurement are terms that describe the physical organization of the experimental apparatus. observed System and observant system, are terms that talk about the way as the physicists analyze the experiment (observed system cannot be observed until it enters interaction with the observant system and, even then, everything what we can observe is their effects on the measuring instrument.) The system observed in the experiment of the double crack is a photon. It is described as if it was traveling between the region of preparation and the region of the measurement. The observant system in all the experiments of the quantum mechanics is the atmosphere that surrounds to the observed system - including the physicist who is studying the experiment -. While the observed system travels without being disturbed (propagating in isolation) is developed in agreement with a causal natural law. This law of causal development is called the Equation of wave of Schrdinger. The information which we

placed in the equation of Schrdinger consists of the data on the experimental apparatuses that we have transcribed in the mathematical language of the theory of quanto. Each series of those experimental instructions that we transcribed to the mathematical language of the theory of quanto corresponds to that the physicists call a observable one. Observable they are the characteristics of the experiment and the nature that is considered fixed or certain when and if the experimental datas that we have transcribed really find reflected. We can transcribe to the mathematical language diverse experimental datas relative to the measurement region, each one of them corresponding to a different possible result (the possibility that the photon affects the region To, the possibility that the photon affects region B, the possibility that the photon affects region C, etc.). In the world of the mathematics, the experimental datas of each one of those possible situations in the region of measurement and the region of preparation correspond to an observable one? In the world of the observable experience it is the possible occurrence (the entrance in our experience) of one of that series of specifications. In other words: what it happens to the observable system in his way between the preparation region and the measurement region is expressed, mathematically, like a correlation between two observable ones (production and detection). We know that the observed system (in this experiment) is a photon. Therefore, the photon is a relation between two observable ones. There is a colossal difference between this idea and the classic concept of the physics that considered to elementary particles like the bricks that were used for the construction of all the matter. During centuries, the scientists came trying to reduce the reality to indivisible organizations. He is not difficult to imagine the discouraging thing that he must turn out for them to have arrived at an approach so near the world from the microscopic thing (the photon is a very elementary particle), to discover that the elementary particles are not not only a brick but that not even they have own existence. As Stapp for the Commission of of Atomic Energy wrote: ... an elementary particle is not a being that exists independently and escapes to the analysis. In essence it is a set of relations directed towards others cosas.2 Still more: the mathematical representation that the physicists have constructed of this series of relations is very similar to the mathematical image of a real particle (physical) in movement? The movement of this series of relations is governed exactly by the same equation that prevails to a real particle in movement. Stapp Said: a long-range correlation between observable, has the interesting property of which the equation of motion that prevails the propagation of this effect is, indeed, the equation of motion of a free particle in movimiento.3 In the nature the things are not correlated. In the nature the things are as they are. Correlation is a concept that we used to describe connections that we perceived. The word correlation does not exist outside the human being. This is because only the human beings we used words and concepts. Correlation is a concept. The subatomic particles are correlations. If the human beings we were not here for creating them would not exist concepts of any type, including the concept of correlation. In summary, if we did not exist the men to do them, would not exist the particles? The quantum mechanics is based on the isolated development of a observed system. isolated Development makes reference to the isolation that we to size created when separating the region of preparation of the region. We called isolation to this situation, but in fact nothing is completely isolated, except perhaps

the universe seen in its set (What he will be isolated of what) The isolation that we created is a idealizacin and one of its points of view is that the quantum mechanics allows us to idealizar a photon of the complete fundamental unit, so that we pruned to study it. In fact a photon gives the impression to separate of the complete fundamental unit, not broken, because we are studying it. The photons do not exist by themselves. Everything what exists by itself is an inseparable totality that appears before us like a weave (more modlicas guidelines) of relations. The individual beings are idealizaciones that correspond to correlations conducted by us. In summary: in agreement with the quantum mechanics the physical world is: one does not structure constructed with independent and nonanalyzable beings, but, rather, a network of relations between elements whose meaning arises from total way of its correlations with the totality (Stapp).4 The new physics sounds with much of way similar to the old Eastern misticismo. What it happens between the region of preparation and the region of measurement is to unfold dynamic of the possibilities that something happens in agreement with the equation of wave of Schrdinger. We can determine, at any time, in the development of each one of the possibilities the probability that has each one of them to get to happen. One of those possibilities can be the one that the photon reaches the zone To Another possibility is that the photon arrives at zone B. Nevertheless, it is impossible that the same photon arrives at the zones To and B at the same time. When anyone of the two possibilities is made, the probability that the other happens reduces simultaneously to zero How we will obtain that a possibility becomes a reality? Making a measurement. When taking that measurement we interfered in the development of the possibilities. In other words: when making a measurement we interfered in the development of the observed system that was in isolation. When doing we updated it one of the several potentialities that comprised of the observed system while he was isolated (and prevailed by the equation of wave of Schrdinger). For example, as soon as we perceived a photon in the region To, the possibility that it is in zone B, or any other, is zero. The development of the possibilities that takes place between the region of preparation and the region of measurement is represented by a special type of mathematical being, to which the physicists call a function of wave. This name is justified because, from a mathematical point of view, he is similar when developing of the waves, with constant changes and proliferation. Briefly: the equation of wave of Schrdinger governs the development of the observed system (in this case a photon) while it is in isolation (between the region of observation and the region of measurement), reason why consequently, can be presented/displayed like a wave function. A wave function is a mathematical fiction that represents all the possibilities what can suceder him to a observed system when it enters interaction with an observation system (a measurement instrument). The form of the function of wave of a observed system can be calculated by means of the equation of Schrdinger for any moment between the time in which the observed system leaves the preparation region and the time which it enters interaction with the observation system. Once it is calculated the wave function we can conduct with her a simple mathematical operation (to elevate to the square its amplitude) to create a second mathematical being called a probability function (or, technically, a probability density function). The probability function says the probabilities to us, in a certain time, of each one of the possibilities represented in the wave function. The wave function

calculates with the equation of Schrdinger. It deals with possibilities. The probability function is based on the wave function. One takes care of the probabilities. There is one differentiates between possible and the probable thing. Many things that are not probable can be possible, like for example that snow in summer (unless we are in the Pole, where that phenomenon is at the same time possible and probable). The function of wave of a observed system is a mathematical..catlogo that offers a description to us of the things that can happen to him to the observed system when we made a measurement on him. The probability function offers the probabilities to us that those events get to really happen. It says to us: These are the probabilities that esto or that gets to happen. Before the interference in the development in isolation of a observed system takes place, this one continues developing, without ties, its possibilities in agreement with the equation of wave of Schrdinger. Nevertheless, as soon as we made the measurement - that is to say, we tried to see what it happens - the probability of all the possibilities except one. one becomes zero and the probability of that only possibility becomes one, which means that it is happening. The development of the wave function (possibilities) follows a determinism invariable. We calculated its development using the equation of wave of Schrdinger. Since the probability function is based on the wave function, the probabilities of possible events are developed, also, of determinist way and according to the equation of wave of Schrdinger. This one is the reason for which we can predict with certainty the probability of an event but not the event in himself. We calculated the probability of a wished result, but when we made the measurement can that is that one the obtained result or can that no. The photon can affect region B, but also it is possible that it affects the region To Which of these two possibilities it becomes in fact is, according to the theory of quanto, chance question. Let us return to the experiment with the screen of double crack. In this experiment we cannot predict where a photon will affect. Nevertheless we can calculate where is greater possibility of than it affects now, where will affect later and thus successively? Thus it is how the things happen. Let us suppose that we placed a photon detector in one of the cracks and another photon detector in the other. We began emitting photons from the light source. More soon or later one either another one will happen through one or another one of the orifices. For that photon two possibilities exist. It will pass through the orifice number one and the detector number one will go off marking its time; or it will happen through orifice two and the one that will go off will be the detector number two. Each one of those two possibilities is included in the undulatory function of that photon. Let us suppose that when we contemplated both triggers we see that the one that has been driven has been number two. As soon as we have verified that it is thus we will have the security of which that photon has not happened through number one. That possibility does not exist, the function of wave of the photon has changed. The graphical representation (graphical) of the function of wave of the photon, before we make the measurement, has two curves, each one of which represents the possibility that the photon happens through orifice one and shoots to the detector number one or of which happens through orifice two and shoots to the detector number two. Once detected the passage of the photon by orifice two, the possibility that one passes through the orifice number lets exist. When this happens the curve in the graph of the wave function, that indicated that possibility, it is transformed into an air line. This phenomenon is called the collapse of the wave

function. The physicists say that the wave function presents/displays two different ways from evolution. First it is a smooth and dynamic development, that can be anticipated in agreement with the equation of wave of Schrdinger. The second is steep and discontinuous (again this word). The characteristic of that last way of development is the collapse of the wave function. Which of the two parts of the undulatory function enters collapse is pure chance. The transition of the first way to the second is what a quantum jump is called. Salto of the Quanto is not a dance. It is the steep collapse of all the aspects developed in the wave function, except of which it is made. The mathematical representation of the observed system happens, literally, from a situation to another one, without no transition between the two. In an experiment with the quantum mechanics, the system observed when being transferred without being bothered between the region of preparation and the region of measurement is developed in agreement with the equation of wave of Schrdinger. During that time all the things that could happen develop in agreement with the own development of the wave function. Nevertheless, as soon as it interferes with the instrument of measurement (the observation system) one of those possibilities is made and the rest lets exist. The jump of quanto is transformed a multifactica potentiality that into an only accomplishment. In general terms, the jump of quanto is also a jump of a reality that has in theory an infinite number of dimensions, to a reality that only has three? This happens because the function of wave of the system observed, before being put under observation proliferates in multiple mathematical dimensions. For example, we considered the function of wave of our photon in the experiment of the double crack. It contains in himself two possibilities. The first possibility is that the photon happens through orifice one and their step is indicated by the detector number one; the second possibility is that the photon passes through the orifice number two and is the detector two number the one that acts. Each one of those possibilities, by itself, will be represented by a function of wave that has three dimensions, length, width and depth, in addition to time. If we want to describe a physical event with exactitude, must say where it happens and when. In order to describe where it happens something three coordinates need. Let us suppose that I want to give instructions to locate to an invisible globe that floats in an empty room. I can say, for example: From a determined corner, meter deslcese and means throughout a certain wall (a dimension), seprese a meter in vertical of the wall (second dimension) and elvese seventy centimeters of the ground (third dimension). The globe will be certain in its position. All possibility exists in three dimensions and has a time. If in an undulatory function there are two possibilities, then the undulatory function has six dimensions, three for each possibility. If there are twelve possibilities in a wave function, in that case the wave function it exists in thirty and six dimensions! It is impossible to visualize a thing thus since our experience is limited three dimensions. But this one is the mathematical definition of the situation. We must reflect on the fact that, when we took a measurement in an experiment related to the quantum physics - when the observed system undergoes the interaction with the observation system -, which we do is to reduce a multidimensional reality to a compatible threedimensional reality with our experience. If we calculated a function of wave for a possible photon in four different points, in that case the wave function exists simultaneously in twelve dimensions. In principle we can calculate a function of representative wave of an

infinite number of events that happen at the same time in an infinite number of dimensions. But, independently of the complex thing which it is the wave function, as soon as we make the measurement is reduced to an event in three dimensions that is the only form in which the reality, moment to moment, can be observed normally by us. Now we arrived at the question from: When, exactly, the collapse of the function takes place When vanish all those possibilities, except one, that they have been developed in the observed system? Until this moment we have said that the collapse takes place when somebody sight to the observed system. This one is only a point of view. Another opinion (all discussion on this subject is always pure opinion) is that the wave function falls in collapse when I watch the observed system. Also there is another opinion, according to which a wave function collapses when any measurement is carried out, even by means of an instrument. According to this point of view the one does not have importance that we are there for contemplating it or no. Let us suppose for a moment that there is not any human experimenter taking part in the experiment. It is made completely of automatic way. A light source emits a photon. The function of wave of the photon contains the possibility that the photon passes through the opening number one and the detector number one goes off, and also the possibility that it passes through the orifice number two and, therefore, is the detector two number the one that marks its time. Now we suppose that the detector number two registers a photon. In agreement with the classic physics, the light source emits an authentic, real particle, a photon, that is transferred from the light source to the crack where it is the detector number two that registers it. Even though we do not know its position while it is being transferred, we could it have determined to know how the way to do it. In agreement with the quantum mechanics it is not thus. There is no authentic particle called photon that is transferred from the light source to the screen. The photon did not exist until the crack was not updated number two. Until that moment a wave function only existed. In other words, until that moment everything what existed was tendencies so that a photon was made or in the crack number one or crack two. From the classic point of view a real photon travels between the light source and the screen. The probability that it passes through the crack number two is of the 50 percent. From the point of view of the quantum physics the photon does not exist, to the moment at which the detector goes off. The only thing that exists is a development potentiality in which a photon goes to crack one and crack two. That one is a strange form of physical reality that exactly is in the center between the possibility and realidad, 5 according to Heisenberg. It is very difficult to cause that this sounds of less vague way. The translation of the mathematics to the Castilian, like a any other language, implies a lack of precision, but this one is not the problem. We can experience one more an image clearly defined of this phenomenon learning the mathematics sufficient to follow the development of the equation of wave of Schrdinger. Unfortunately to clarify that image would only mean to confuse the mind still more. The authentic problem is based in which we are customary to watch the world of simple way. We accepted, current, the idea that something exists or does not exist, is here or it is not. As much if we watched that object as if no, it is or it is not. Our experience says to us that our physical world is solid, authentic and independent. The quantum mechanics says to us, simply, that that is not thus. Let us suppose that technician, that does not know that we are making the experiment of automatic

way, enters the room to see which has been the detector that registered the passage of a photon. When it watches the observant system (the detectors) can see two things. The first possibility is that it is the detector number one the one that registered the photon; second, that is it the detector number two. The function of wave of the observation system (now this system is the technician) has two maximums, one for each possibility. Until the technician verified both detectors - speaking from the point of view of the quantum mechanics - in certain way occurred both situations. As soon as it sees that the detector number two has gone off, that is to say, registered the passage of the photon, disappears the possibility that the detector number one has conducted battle. That component of the function of wave of the measurement system disappears and the reality for the technician is that the detector number two has registered a photon. Other words, the system of observation in the experiment - the detectors - has become the observed system in relation with the technician. Let us continue supposing that the physical supervisor enters the room to verify the activity of the technician. It wants to find out of which the technician has discovered in the detectors. In this respect there are two possibilities: one is that the technician has seen that the detector number one registered the photon and the other than the technician has seen that the detector number two registered the photon, and thus successively? The division of the function of wave in two curves, each one of them representative of a possibility, has been progressing when happening of the photon to the detectors, these to the technician and the technician to the supervisor. This proliferation of possibilities is the type of development governed by the equation of wave of Schrdinger. Without perception, in agreement with the equation of wave of Schrdinger, the universe continues generating an infinite profusion of possibilities. The effect of the perception is, nevertheless, immediate and dramatic. All the components of the wave function that represents the observed system disappear, except that it becomes in fact. Nobody knows the reasons so that one of the possibilities is made and the rest vanishes. The only law that governs to that phenomenon is statistical. In other words, the election depends of the luck, the chance. The division in two parts of the function of wave of the photon, the one of the detectors, the technician, the supervisor, etc., knows like the Problem the Measurement (or in other occasions Theory the Measurement.??? If there were twenty-five possibilities in the function of wave of the photon, in the function of wave of the system of measurement, the technician or the supervisor twenty-five separated inequalities or curves would exist until the moment at which the undulatory function was colapsase. From the photon to the detectors, to the technician, to the supervisor, we could continue to including the universe. But once including all the universe, who would watch the universe? Said otherwise: How acquires reality the universe? The answer arrives closing the circle: We ourself we give reality, we cause that the universe is made. Since we comprised of the Universe this turns to us, to us and the universe, in car-realizantes. This form of thought is similar, in several aspects, to the Buddhist sicologa. In addition, it could become one of the many contributions of importance of the physics to the creation of future models of conscience. The Interpretation of Copenhagen of the quantum Mechanics says to us that it turns out unnecessary to watch between frames to see what it is happening really, whereas the quantum mechanics is acting (correlating the experience correctly). It is not necessary to know

how it is possible that the light pronounces in corpuscles and waves. It is enough with knowledge that do and being able to use the phenomenon to predict probabilities. In other words, the characteristics undulatory and corpuscular of the light are unified by means of the quantum mechanics. But to a price: the lack of description of the reality. All the attempts to describe the reality are relegated to the category of Metaphysical speculation? Nevertheless, this does not mean that the physicists do not speculate. Many of among them are used to doing it, in individual Henry Stapp, and its reasoning is more or less this one: In the quantum mechanics, the fundamental theoretical amount is the wave function. The wave function is (it changes as the time progresses) a dynamic description of possible facts susceptible to happen. But, what really describes the wave function? In agreement with the western thought, the world has only two essential aspects, one of which is materialistic and another idealist. The materialistic aspect is associate with the external world, most of which it is conceived like constituted by inanimate matter that is hard and it does not respond to the impulses, like rocks, the ground, the metal, etc. The idealistic aspect is the one of our subjective experience. Reconciling those two aspects has come being a central subject from the religion, along and the wide thing of history. The philosophies that represent mainly those aspects are the Materialism (the world is equal to the matter, independently of our impressions), and the Idealismo (the reality is like the ideas, independently of the appearances). The question is, which of these two aspects represents the wave function? The answer, in agreement with the pragmatic point of view of the quantum mechanics developed by Stapp, is that the wave function represents something that participates in both characteristics, the idealist and the materialist? For example, I spread the observed system such and as it is represented in the wave function propagates in isolation between the preparation region and the measurement region, is developed in agreement with a strictly determinist law (the equation of wave of Schrdinger). The temporary development in agreement with a causal law is a characteristic of the matter. Therefore, which the wave function represents, be that as it may, it seems matter. Nevertheless, when the observed system, so and as is represented by the wave function, undergoes interaction with the observant system (when we took a measurement), it jumps suddenly to a new state. This type of transitions of the Jump of the Quanto has own characteristics of the idealismo. The ideas (as for example our knowledge on something) can change of discontinuous way (and they do it). Therefore, be that as it may what the wave function represents, that something has an idealistic aspect. The wave function, speaking in a strict sense, represents a system observed in a quantum mechanical experiment. In general terms it describes a physical reality to the most fundamental level (the subatomic one) that the physicists have been able to be able to prove. Really, in agreement with the quantum mechanics, the wave function is a complete description of the physical reality at that level. Most of the specialists in physics thinks that a description of the substructure is not possible that emphasizes the experience of way more complete than it makes the function of wave. - Delay a little while! - Jim de Wit says (from where it will have left) -. the description contained in the wave function is compound of coordinates (three, six, nine, etc.) and of time (it see pg. 90). How it could be a complete description of the reality? Imagnate how she would feel to me if my fiance escaped itself to me with another one. How can be explained that in

a wave function? It cannot become. The complete description that proclaims the theory of quanto for the wave function is a description of the physical reality. It does not matter what we think or we feel on her or what we see in her, the wave function describes of the possible way most complete where and when we are doing something. Since the wave function is thought like a complete description of the physical reality and since, with it, the wave function at the same time describes the physical reality like materialist and idealist, this one must be both things. In other words, the world cannot be as it appears. By incredible that this seems this one it is the conclusion at that it is arrived from the pragmatic point of view from the quantum mechanics. The physical world appears as if completely substantivo outside (done of matter). But like, on the other hand, it seems to have an idealistic aspect, the physical world is not substantivo in the usual sense that it occurs to that word (that is to say, one hundred percent matter and zero percent devises). Thus Stapp explains: If the position of the quantum mechanics is correct, in the ample sense that a description of the substructure cannot exist that emphasizes the experience of better way than the offered one by her, then a substantivo physical world in the usual sense that does not exist it occurs to that term. The conclusion that is obtained here is not the weak conclusion that it is possible that is not a substantivo physical world, but rather the one of which, definitively, sustantivo.6 does not exist a physical world That does not mean that the world is completely idealistic. The Interpretation of Copenhagen of the quantum Mechanics does not go as far as to say what is the reality really just as after frames, but says that it is not as it appears. It says that what we perceived as a physical reality I have made our construction cognoscitiva of him. This cognoscitiva construction can seem as if outside substantive, but the Interpretation of Copenhagen of the quantum Mechanics leads directly to the conclusion that the physical world is not in itself. This declaration seems, in principle, so absurd and moved away of the experience that our inclination is to reject it like the crazy product of enclaustrados intellectuals. Nevertheless, there are several good reasons so not to be hurried in our judgment. First of those reasons it is that the quantum physics is a logically consistent system. He is autoconsistente, that is to say, consistent with same, and, at the same time consistent himself with all the well-known experiments. Second, the experimental test in itself is incompatible with our ordinary ideas with respect to the reality. Third, the physicists are not the only people who see the world thus. They are only the newest members of a quite numerous group. Most of Hindu and the Buddhists maintain points of view similar. It is evident, then, that the physicists who reject metaphysics even have difficulties to avoid it. Now we arrived at those physicists who have sent themselves with the feet ahead in the description of the reality. Until now our speech one has been based on the Interpretation of Copenhagen of the quantum Mechanics. The inevitable disadvantage in this interpretation is the Problem of the Measurement. All type of perception, by means of an observation system, causes the collapse of the function of wave of the system observed and its passage a physical reality; otherwise the observed system physically does not exist but like a number of possibilities, generated in agreement with the equation of wave of Schrdinger, what proliferates without limits. The propose theory by Hugh Everett, John Wheeler and Neill Graham solves the problem of the simplest way posible.7 Proclama than the wave function is a real thing, all the possibilities that represent are real and all of them

happen. The orthodox interpretation of the quantum mechanics is that only one of the possibilities contained in the equation of wave of a observed system gets to be made and that the rest of them vanishes. The theory of Everett-Wheeler-Graham says that all of them are made, but in different worlds that coexist with ours. Who is in those worlds? We are it. Let us return once again to the experiment of the two cracks. A light source emits a photon. The photon can happen through crack one or crack two. Now we add a new experimental procedure. If the photon passes through the crack number one I I run stairs above. If the photon happens through crack two, I run downstairs. Therefore, a possible occurrence is that that photon happens through crack one, goes off detector one and I raise the stairs. The second possible occurrence is that the photon happens through crack two, goes off to the detector number two and I run downstairs. In agreement with the Interpretation of Copenhagen those two possibilities are excluded mutually because it is not possible that I raise and lower the stairs at the same time. This leads to us, without a doubt, to most fantastic of the implications of the quantum physics: the final form of our experimental reality is affected by the interference of possibilities that are excluded mutually. When the wave function that represents those possibilities develops in agreement with the equation of Schrdinger, those mutually excluding possibilities interfere to each other. In the same way which the crests and the sines of the waves of the light of each one of the cracks, in the experiment of the double crack, reinforce an a others in certain places and are annulled in others, the mutually excluding possibilities interfere with others at level of the reality of quanto to determine the form and the contour of the reality that we experimented. In agreement with the theory of Everett-Wheeler-Graham, at the moment at which the wave equation colapsa, the universe is divided in two worlds. In one of them I above raise to stairs and in the other group of people downstairs. Two different editions exist from me. Each one of them makes things different and each one of them ignores to the other. His (ours) individual never they will be crossed since doq worlds in which the original one was divided are, for always, separated branches of the reality. In each measurement (whenever a thing happens instead of another one) the universe is divided in a number of different worlds, one for each possibility. Each one of those worlds has assigned a different weight, that corresponds to the probability calculated for him by the wave function. All those worlds are identical, except in the event that caused to the division and its consequences. To the theory of Everett-Wheeler-Graham the flame, appropriately, the Interpretation of Multiple Worlds of the quantum Mechanics. The mathematical formula of the Interpretation of Multiple Worlds of the quantum Mechanics is extraordinarily aesthetic. Its interpretation in Castilian sounds as if outside mystical poetry. The observer is defined as a way to divide to the universe, that in its totality is one, in an observer and observing. (the observer does not have why to be a conscious being. All perception, one even made by a mechanical instrument, divides to the world in different branches).? For each observer there is a relative state that is observed. In other words I come from the universe and when I watch the world which I see is the rest of the universe so and as she regrouped to itself to appear before Me. I am particular a relative state for this individual. That particular state corresponds to My branch of the universe. Whenever an observation is made, the universe is broken in different branches. This one is another way to say that whenever an

observation becomes the universe is contemplated to itself through one of the Yos of recent formation. Naturally, that I is the unique one who see the universe of that particular way. the Observer is a special form to disturb the wave function. That way the Problem of the Measurement stops being a problem. The problem of the measurement was last Who is contemplating the universe The Theory of Multiple Worlds says that it is not necessary that the collapse of a wave function takes place so that the universe is made. All the mutually excluding possibilities that they were contained in the function of wave of a observed system that (in agreement with the Interpretation of Copenhagen)was not made when the collapse of the wave function took place, were made really, but not in this branch of the universe. For example, one of the possibilities contained in the wave function was made in this branch of the universe (I raise the stairs). The other possibility, contained equally in the wave function (under the stairs), is also made, but in a branch different from the reality. In this branch of the present time I raise the stairs. In another branch of the reality I lower the stairs. Neither I he has knowledge of the other I. Both I think that its branch of the universe is the complete reality. The theory of Multiple Worlds says that a universe exists and its function of wave represents all the forms in how can be autodescomponer in a observer and observed. Here we were all locked up in a great drawer and it is not precise to watch at the drawer from the outside to make it reality. In this aspect the theory of Multiple Worlds is specially interesting because the theory of the general relativity of Einstein demonstrates to us that our universe could be a great closed drawer and, if it is thus, is from all impossible point leaving him? the Cat of Schrdinger summarizes the differences between the classic physics, the Interpretation of Copenhagen of the quantum Mechanics and the Interpretation of Multiple Worlds of the quantum Mechanics. The Cat of Schrdinger is a dilemma presented/displayed by the famous discoverer of the wave equation that takes its name: One puts to a cat within a drawer. Inside the box there is an apparatus that can let save a gas that the cat kills instantaneously. An accidental event (k radioactive disintegration of an atom) determines if the gas is emitted or no. There is no another form to know if the gas has been emitted or no, except for watching within the drawer. The box is sealed and the experiment gives beginning. A little while later, the gas has been emitted or no. The question does not have answer without watching what it has happened inside the box. (This remembers the clock to us impossible to open of Einstein.) In agreement with the classic physics, the cat is dead or it is not it. Everything what we must do is to open the drawer and to see which is the case. In agreement with the quantum mechanics the solution is not so simple. The Interpretation of Copenhagen of the quantum Mechanics says that the cat is in a species of limb represented by a wave function that contains the possibility that the cat is dead and, also, the possibility that the cat follows I live? When we opened the drawer not before and, one of the two possibilities is made and the other disappears. This is what it is known like the collapse of the wave function because the maximum in the wave function that represents the possibility that this does not happen vanishes. It is necessary to watch inside the box before one of those possibilities can happen. Until then it is not more than a wave function. Of course that does not have sense. The experience says to us that what we put in the drawer is a cat and a cat is what continues being within the drawer and not a wave function. The only question is if the cat is an alive

cat or a dead cat. But the certain thing is that within the drawer there is a cat, as much if we watched inside or no. This does not entail difference some in which to the cat it talks about. Its destiny was determined in the beginning of the experiment. The point of view of the common sense is the point of view of the classic physics. In agreement with the classic physics we will be able to get to know something by means of the observation. In agreement with the quantum mechanics the event does not take place until we observed it. Therefore, the destiny of the cat is not certain until we watched inside the box. The Interpretation of Multiple Worlds of the quantum Mechanics and the Interpretation of Copenhagen of the quantum Mechanics agree in which the destiny of the cat is not certain until we watched in the interior of the drawer. What it happens after we have watched in the interior of the drawer it will depend on the interpretation that we decide to follow. In agreement with the Interpretation of Copenhagen at the moment in which we watched in the interior of drawer one of the possibilities contained in the wave function is made and the other one vanishes. The cat will be, then, alive or died. In agreement with the Interpretation of Multiple Worlds, at the moment in which we watched in the interior of the drawer, the world is divided, broken, in two branches, each one of which with a different edition from the cat. The wave function that represents the cat not collapses. The cat is at the same time alive and dead. In a branch of the world the cat is dead and that is what we see. In another branch of the world the cat is alive and that is what we see. In both branches of the world are different editions from us those that they make the contemplation? In summary, the classic physics says so that here there is a world, and as it appears, and it is thus. The quantum physics offers the possibility that this is not thus. The Interpretation of Copenhagen of the quantum Mechanics eludes a description of which it is the world really, but reaches the conclusion that it is as is is not noun (substance compound) in the usual sense of the expression. The Interpretation of Multiple Worlds of the quantum Mechanics says to us that we lived simultaneously in several worlds, a countless number of them and all of them are real. It has, even, other interpretations of the quantum mechanics, but all of them are fantastic in some sense. The quantum physics is more mysterious than the science-fiction. The quantum mechanics is a theory and a procedure that takes care of subatomic phenomena. In general, these subatomic phenomena are inaccessible for all, with exception of which they have access to very complicated instruments (and very expensive). But with that more expensive and perfect instruments only we even can see the effects of the subatomic phenomena. The world of the subatomic thing is beyond the limits of the sensorial perception? It is beyond the limits of the rational understanding. Naturally we have theories, rationals on him, but the rational has been extended until including something that previously was folly or, at least, paradoxical. The world in which we lived, the world of the freeways and the bathtubs and the other people, it seems remote to the maximum of the functions of wave and the interferences. On summary, the metaphysics of the quantum mechanics is based on a lacking jump of substance from the microscopic thing to the macrocospic thing. We can apply those implications of the subatomic investigation to the world in its totality? No. No, if we must facilitate a mathematical test in each instance. But, what is a test? A test, only test that we are playing with the rules. (and we are, in addition, those that we make the rules.) The rules, in this case are those that we propose on the

nature of the physical reality: (1) to be logically consistent and, (2) that they correspond with the experience. There is nothing in the rule that that says what we propose must be something similar to the reality. The physics is a autoconsistente explanation of the experience. Indeed in order to the satisfaction of the requirements of autoconsistencia of the physics these tests are made important. The New Testament presents/displays a different point of view. Christ after his resurrection proved to Toms (that became proverbial by its doubts) that He was really He, revived of between deads, showing to him its wounds. At the same time Christ granted his special favor to which they believed in Him without tests. The acceptance without tests is the fundamental characteristic of the western religion. The rejection when there are no tests is the fundamental characteristic of western science. Other words, the religion has become heart subject and science in subject of the mind. This lamentable state of things does not reflect the fact that, physiologically, a thing cannot exist without the other. Everybody needs both. The mind and the heart are, solely, different aspects from us. Who is right? The disciples, must believe with no need of tests? Must insist the scientists on their necessity? Lacks the world substance? He is real but it is divided and dividing in innumerable branches? The Teachers of Wu Li know that science and religion are solely dances and that those that follows them are dancers. The dancers can proclaim that they follow the truth or to proclaim that they look for the reality, but the Teachers of Wu Li are better found out. They know that the authentic love of all the dancers is the dance. MY FOOTPATH THE PAPER OF I Before Coprnico discovered that the Earth turned around the Sun, the general belief was of which the Sun the universe turned yet around the Earth, that was the fixed center of everything. At a still previous time, in India, this geocentric position was yielded to the man. With this, speaking psychological, each person was recognized like center of the universe. Although this seems an egoistic position is not it since all person was recognized like a manifestation of the divinity. There is a beautiful Hindu painting that us masterful to Krishna dancing to the light of the moon in the borders of the Yamuna. One moves in the center of a circle of blond Vrayas women. They are enamored with Krishna and they dance with him. Krishna is dancing with all the souls of the world... the man dances with same himself. To dance with God, the creator of all the things, is to dance with we ourself. This one is a subject that is repeated in Eastern Literature. This one is also the direction of which the new physics seems to go, the quantum mechanics and relativity. Starting off of the revolutionary concepts of the relativity and the paradoxes (that they defy to the logic) of the quantum mechanics, an old paradigm arises. In a new vague form we began to descry a conceptual frame within as each one of us shares the paternity in the creation of the physical reality. One is dissolving, stumping, our old image of impotent spectator, whom that sees but it does not act. We are contemplating, perhaps, the greater commitment of our history. Between the powerful snore of the particle accelerating, the jack of the impressions of the computers and the dance of the most falsified instruments of the civilization, the old science that as much it has given us, even our sense of impotence before the forces without face of the huge thing, is mining its own foundations. With the dreadful authority that we ourself we have given him, science says to us that we put our faith in something erroneous. The impression that is had all we have tried the impossible thing: to apostatize of our participation in the universe. And we have wanted to do transferring it our authority to

the Scientists. To the Scientists we gave the responsibility to demonstrate the mysteries them of the creation, the changes and the death. For us we reserved the daily routine of a life without brain. The Scientists accepted their task. We it ours that consisted of representing a paper of impotence as opposed to the always increasing complexity of modern science and the every time greater extension of the modern technology. Now, after three centuries, the Scientists return with their discoveries. And they feel so astonished and perplex (those of among them that worries about which are happening) like we ourself. - we are not safe - they say to us -, but we have reunited tests that they indicate that the key for the understanding of the universe you are. This form to contemplate the world is not only different from that we have come using three hundred years in the last, but opposed. The distinction between in here and there outside, on which science was based, is being made more and more confused. We have arrived at a state of things in which we do not know how to solve the puzzle. The Scientists who used the distinction between inside and outside have discovered that it is possible that this distinction does not exist! What is outside depends there, apparently, in a rigorous mathematical and philosophical sense of which we decide in here. The new physics says to us that an observer cannot observe without altering what sees. Observed observer and is interrelated in a real and fundamental sense. The exact nature of this interrelation is not clear, but an increasing set of tests that exists the distinction between in here and outside is illusion there. The conceptual frame of the quantum mechanics, supported by a great amount of experimental datas, forces the contemporary physicists to express itself of a way that sounds, for not even initiated, like the language of the mystic. The access to the physical world is obtained by means of the experience. The common denominator of all the experiences is I who do. In summary, which we experimented is not the external reality but our interaction with her. This one is a fundamental hypothesis of complementariness. Complementariness is the concept developed by Niels Bohr to explain the dualidad wave-particle of the light. Until now anybody it has thought an explanation better. The corpuscular characteristics ondulatorias and characteristics, says the theory, are excluding or mutually complementary aspects of the light. One of them always excludes the other because the light (as any other thing) cannot participate in the characteristics of the waves and particles of simultaneous way? How can these types of undulatory and corpuscular behavior, reciprocally excluding, to be properties of a same light? The answer is: Because they are not properties of the light. They are properties of our interaction with the light. The one that the light pronounces in waves or particles will depend on the experiment form that we choose. If we want to demonstrate to the characteristics ondulatorias of the light we can make the experiment of the double crack, that produces interference. If we chose to demonstrate the corpuscular characteristics of the light we can make the experiment that illustrates the photoelectric effect. And we can cause that the light shows characteristics ondulatorias and corpuscular making the famous experiment of Arthur Compton. In 1923 Compton the first game of billiards with subatomic particles played and in the course of its experiments it confirmed the theory of the luminous photon of Einstein that counted seventeen years already. As it devises its experiment was not difficult. Simply it shot x-rayses - that everybody knows are waves - on electrons. Before the surprise of the majority x-rayses moved to electrons as if (x-

rayses) they were corpuscles! For example, the x-rayses that hit electrons oblique weakly were turned aside of their way. In the collision they did not lose much energy. Nevertheless, the x-rayses that hit electrons more front were turned aside strongly and these rays lost a great amount of their kinetic energy (movement energy) in the collision. Compton could to say how much energy lost displaced x-rayses before measuring their frequencies and after the collision. The frequencies of the x-rayses that hit front were remarkably more losses after before the shock. This means that they had less energy after the shock before this one. X-rayses in the experiment of Compton hit the electrons exactly in the same way that a billiard ball hits other billiard balls. The discovery of Compton intimately was related to the theory of quanto. Compton had not discovered the corpuscular behavior of x-rayses if Planck had not discovered its fundamental rule that one more a higher frequency means greater energy. This rule allowed Compton to prove that xrayses in their experiment lost energy in a corpuscular collision (because its frequency was lower after the shock before the shock). The conceptual paradox in the experiment of Compton shows deeply that the dualidad wave-particle is integrated in the quantum mechanics. Compton proved that the electromagnetic radiations, like x-rayses, had corpuscular characteristics measuring their frequencies! Naturally the particles do not have frequencies. The frequency is a property of the waves and only they have it. The phenomenon discovered by Compton was baptized with the name of dispersion of Compton? in honor of which it happens to them to xrayses. In summary, we can demonstrate the corpuscular nature of the light by means of the photoelectric effect; that it is of undulatory nature with the experiment of the double crack, and that is of corpuscular nature and undulatory nature with the dispersion of Compton. These two complementary aspects of the light (wave and particle) are necessary to understand the nature of the light. It lacks meaning considering which of them, single, is the true form to be of the light. The light behaves like formed by particles or waves, according to the experiment that we make with her. That we whom the experimentation carries out it is the common bow that it defines to the light like corpuscular phenomenon and the light like undulatory phenomenon. The undulatory behavior, which we observed when making the experiment of the double crack, is not a property of the light but a property of our interaction with the light. Also, the corpuscular properties that we did not observe either with the photoelectric effect are characteristic of the light. Also they are a property of our interaction with the light. Both forms of behavior are properties of interactions. Since the corpuscular behavior and the undulatory one are only properties that we attributed to the light and since now they are recognized not like pertaining to the light (if the complementariness is correct) but to our interaction with the light, it would be possible to be deduced that the light does not have properties of us independently. To say that something lacks properties is like saying that something does not exist. The following step in this reasoning, following with that logic, is inevitable: without us the light does not exist. The transference of the properties that by the current before we attributed to the light and now to our interaction with the light, prevails to this last one of an independent existence. Without us (or any other thing that interacts on her) the light does not exist. This remarkable conclusion, nevertheless, is not more than half of history. Other half is that, of similar way, without the light (or any other thing with that to interact) we did not exist! In order to say it with the words of Bohr: ... an independent reality, in

the ordinary physical sense, can be attributed neither to the phenomena nor to the agencies of observacin.1 Under the name of observation agencies it is very possible that Bohr has talked about to instruments and not human beings, but, philosophically, the complementariness takes to the conclusion that the world does not consist of things but of interactions. The properties belong to interactions and not to things with independent existence, like the light. That one is the way in which Bohr solves the corpuscularundulatory dualidad of the light. The philosophical implications of the complementariness take control deeper of the discovery that the dualidad wave-particle is a characteristic of everything what exists. When relating the history of the quantum mechanics we see that it has progressed of the following form: In 1900, studying the radiation of the black bodies, Max Planck it discovered that the energy is emitted and absorbed in pieces, to which called quantos (quanta). Until those days the broadcast energy was thought that like the light era of undulatory type, because Thomas Young demonstrated in 1803 that the light produces interferences (the experiment of the double crack) and only the waves can produce them. Einstein, animated by the discovery of the quantos made by Planck, used the photoelectric effect to illustrate its theory that the process of absorption and emission of energy is not only quantified, but that the own energy appears in packages of certain sizes. Thanks to this the physicists had to face two types of experiments (repetibles experiences), each one of which seemed to deny to the other. This one is the famous dualidad wave-particle that is fundamental for the physics from quanto. While the physicists continued trying to explain how the waves can be particles, a young French prince, Louis de Broglie, loosen a pump that demolished everything what still it was of the classic point of view. Not only the waves are particles, proposed, but that the particles are also waves! The idea of Broglie, that it was contained in his doctoral thesis, was that the matter had waves that corresponded with her. That thought was something more than a philosophical speculation. It was, also a mathematical speculation. Using the simple equations of Planck and Einstein, of Broglie it formulated on the other hand another simple equation? By means of her the wavelength of the waves of matter is determined that correspond to the matter. The equation says, simply, that while greater is the moment of a particle, smaller it is the associate wavelength. This explains why the matter waves are not evident in the macrocospic world. The equation of of Broglie says that the matter waves to us that correspond to an object, by small which this one is, are so incredibly small in relation to the own object that its effect is despicable. , when we descend to the world from the small thing, nevertheless as small as an subatomic particle, for example, an electron, the size of the electron is minor who the length of its associate wave! In those circumstances the undulatory conduct of the matter had to be evidently clear and the matter had to behave of way different from since it makes the matter so and as we thought of her. And that is exactly what happens. Only two years after of Broglie it presented/displayed this hypothesis, called technician Clinton Davisson, who worked with his assistant Lester Germer, in the laboratories of Bell Telephone, verified his theory experimentally. Both, Davisson and of Broglie gained the Nobel prize and to the physicists they had left the task not only of explaining why the waves can be particles, but also why the particles can be waves. The famous experiment of Davisson-Germer was made of accidental way and showed electrons that were reflected in a crystal surface of

a way that only could be explained if the electrons were waves. But, naturally, the electrons are particles. At the present time the diffraction of the electron, one pretends contradiction in its terms, is a normal and common phenomenon. When an electron ray is sent through a tiny orifice, like the spaces between the atoms of a metal leaf, that are so small or smaller than the wavelengths of the electrons (what ridiculous...! The particles do not have wavelength) the ray difracta exactly in the same way that makes a ray of light. Although in agreement with the classic physics this is something that cannot happen, the engraving shows an image of it. It turned out amazing to see that the light, that it is formed of waves, began to behave as if it was formed of particles, but in case that was not enough, now the electrons are particles, began to behave like waves, of which the plot took control really complicated. The revelation of the quantum mechanics era (and it continues it being) a drama of great condition. Werner Heisenberg wrote: Memory changes of impressions with Bohr (in 1927) that lasted many hours, until very entered the night, and ended desperation almost; when, finished our discussions, it left single to give a stroll by a neighboring park was to me repeating to same me, time and time again, the question: It is possible that the nature is as absurd as us it seems it in these experiments atmicos?2 Subsequent experiments would reveal that not only the subatomic particles, but also the atoms and the molecules, have associate waves of matter. The title of the pioneering book of Donald Hughes, Neutron Or because it offers an eloquent testimony of the combination between waves and corpuscles to that it gave to birth the doctoral thesis of the prince of Broglie. Theoretically all the things have a wavelength - a ball of soccer, an automobile and, even, a person -, although their wavelengths are so small that they are not appreciable. The own one of Broglie was not a great aid when explaining its theory. It predicted what later it proved the experiment of Davisson-Germer: that the matter, just as electrons, had an undulatory aspect. Its equation even praised the wavelength of those waves. Whatsoever, nobody knew what they were really those waves (nobody does not know it now either). Of Broglie it called waves that correspond to the matter, but did not explain what meant with that correspond. It is possible that a physicist can predict something, to calculate equations that describes it and, nevertheless, not to know of what is speaking? Yes. Bertrand Russell explains it thus: the mathematics can be defined as the subject in which never we know of what we are speaking, not even if what we are saying he is cierto.3 This one is the reason for which the physicists in Copenhagen decided to accept the quantum mechanics like a complete theory, although he does not offer an explanation of how it is the world in fact and although he predicts probabilities and real nonevents. The quantum mechanics and, in agreement with the pragmatic ones, all science are a study of correlations between experiences. The equation of of Broglie correlates experiences of correct way. Of Broglie it founds the paradoxical wave-particle that came to the light (if it is that it is possible to be called to that to come to the light) thanks to the genius of Thomas Young (experiment of the double crack) and of Albert Einstein (the theory of the photon). In other words, it to each other connected two of the most revolutionary phenomena of the physics: the quantum nature of the energy and the dualidad waveparticle. Of Broglie it presented/displayed his undulatory theory of the matter in 1924. In the three following years, the quantum mechanics crystallized in which it is essentially today. The world of the physics of Newton, simple mental images and common sense,

disappeared. And a new physics took form from an originality and force that causes that to one it gives to returns the head him. After the undulatory theory of the matter of Broglie the equation from wave of Schrdinger arrives. To Erwin Schrdinger, the physicist you come, the undulatory theory of the matter of of Broglie much more seemed to him a natural way to contemplate the atomic phenomena that the planetary model of the atom created by Bohr. The model of Bohr, that represents hard electrons, spherical, that turn around a nucleus at specific levels and that emit photons when jumping from a level to another one, explains the phantom of color of simple atoms, but it does not say to us why each layer contains only a defined number of electrons, neither one the more nor one the less. It does not explain either how the electrons make their jump, that is to say, what it happens to them between one and another layer. Animated by the discovery of of Broglie, Schrdinger presented/displayed its hypothesis that the electrons were not spherical objects, but models of standing waves. The standing waves are a familiar phenomenon for all that that has played with a cord to tend clothes. Let us suppose that we tied to a post an end of the cord and later we threw of her. In the cord there are waves of no type, neither no immovable nor moving. Now we suppose that we quickly move the hand with that we maintain the cord, fort and of down to above. In the cord a curve, a bulk arises, that travels until the post and later it returns at our hand. That travelling curve (figure A) is a wave that moves. Sending a series of curves by the cord we can give form and to create the examples of standing waves that are the present in drawing (and other that we do not offer). Simplest of those models he is the one that is in figure B. That model forms by means of the superposition of two travelling waves, direct and a reflected other and that travels in opposite direction. It is the model, not prudent it, which does not move. It wider point of the standing wave remains immovable and the same they make the points in the ends of the wave. These points are called nodes. In the simplest model there is two nodes in our hand and another one in the post to which the cord is tied. Those stationary models, superposition of travelling waves, are called standing waves. It does not concern the chord lenght, that is longer or shorter, will only be able to have in her a number of complete standing waves. That is to say, we will be able to have a model of a standing wave or a model of two, three, four, five, etc., etc., but never will be able to have a model formed by an average wave and or of two and fourth standing waves. These waves must divide the cord in complete sections. Said otherwise: we can make always grow or decrease the number of standing waves that there are in the cord, but in a whole number. This means that the number of standing waves in the cord can grow or diminish only of discontinuous way (again this word) There is something more: the standing waves in a cord cannot be of an arbitrary size, but that these sizes will be limited sizes that divide the cord in equal parts. The size of the waves depends on the chord lenght, but, independently of which it is this length, there will only be waves of a size that divides to the cord in equal parts. All this already was more than known in 1925. To toll a guitar cord establishes in her models of standing waves. The same it happens if air in the pipe of an organ is blown. What was new was the discovery of Schrdinger that the standing waves are cuantizadas in the same way that are it the atomic phenomena *. In fact, Schrdinger deduced of it that the electrons were standing waves. Perhaps retrospective sight in this does not sound as fantastic as it sounded then. At his time,

nevertheless, it was a brilliant blow. It represented an electron in orbit around a nucleus graphically. Whenever the electron completes an orbit has traveled a certain distance. That distance has a certain length, like the cord in the previous example. Also, then, only a complete number of standing waves, never a fraction of one of them, could form in that length (Length of what, it is a question that was without answer.) Schrdinger supposed that each one of those waves was an electron! In other words, Schrdinger proposed that the electrons were segments of vibrations limited by the nodes. Until now we have talked about to the standing waves in a line, like a cord to hang clothes or a cord of guitar, but these waves can also occur in other means, like the water. Let us suppose that we threw a stone in a round pool. The waves will propagate from the point of shock of the stone with the water. The waves are reflected, sometimes more of once, by the different walls from the swimming pool. When the travelling waves interfere with one with another one they create a complex model of standing waves in which we return to find our old friend, the interference. When the crest of a wave finds the sine of another wave, both are annulled mutually and the surface of the water, in that line of interaction, is in calm. Those zones of calm are the nodes that to each other separate the standing waves. In the experiment of the double crack, the nodes are the alternating zones of light and the dark. The zones of light are the crests of the standing waves. Schrdinger chose like theater of its experiment a small bathtub, with its complex model of intrincate interferences, to explain the nature of the atom. According to it was expressed, that model as large as established a analogy of electron waves in a palangana an atom. the ingenious one, but in certain artificial way (model of the atom of Bohr)... it is replaced by a much more natural presumption, the undulatory phenomenon of of Broglie. That undulatory phenomenon forms the authentic body of the atom. It replaces to the individual electrons that in the model of Bohr float around ncleo.4 Modern College Physics, Harvey White, N.Y., Go Nostrand, 1972 These photographies are of mechanical simulations of distributions of density of probability of different states from the electron in the hydrogen atom. In other words, they represent where it will be more probable that we find to the precise electron, if we looked for it, when the atom takes one from those particular states (more states of those exist than we offer here), initially, Schrdinger represented electrons graphically as if they were tenuous clouds that really took those forms. A quantum Jump can be imagined like a transition from one to another one of the images represented here, without nothing in the middle. The standing waves in a cord to tend clothes have two dimensions: wide length and. And the standing waves in average as the water or in those of a drum has three dimensions: length, width and depth. Schrdinger analyzed the model of standing wave of simplest of atoms, the one of the hydrogen, that has only an electron. In hydrogen it calculated, using his new equation of wave, a multitude of possible stationary waveform. All the standing waves in a cord are identical, but it does not happen thus in an atom. All of them are three-dimensional and all of them are different. Some have the aspect of concentric circles. Others seem butterflies. And others like certain amulets, I send them it. Shortly after the discovery of Schrdinger, another Austrian physicist, Wolfgang Pauli, discovered that in an atom he could not have two of these waves that had the same form. When a wave takes a determined form, it excludes other to be able to take that same one. Through that reason the discovery happened to be known like the exclusion principle of Pauli. The

equation of Schrdinger, modified by the discovery of Pauli, sample that only can have two possible models of wave in the level more under energy of Bohr. Therefore, in that layer nearer the nucleus it cannot more have two electrons. There are eight different possible models of wave in the next level from energy, thus, then, it only can have eight electrons in him, and so on. Those are the numbers of the number of electrons that the model of Bohr assigns to those respective levels of energy. In that aspect both models are equal. In another important land, nevertheless, they are different. The theory of Bohr was totally empirical. That is to say, it constructed it around the observed facts to explain them. On the contrary, Schrdinger constructed its theory being based on the hypothesis of the undulatory matter of Broglie. It not only uses mathematical values, but that also a consistent explanation of them offers. For example: there is only a certain number of electrons in each level of energy, because there is only a certain number of possible models of standing waves in each level of energy. The level of energy of an atom jumps only from certain specific values to other certain specific values, because only models of the standing waves of certain dimensions can form with the atom, and not others. Although Schrdinger was sure that the electrons were standing waves, was not it of what was what undulated? However, it was convinced that something formed the waves and baptized with the name of the Greek letter psi (). (a function of wave and a function psi are the same thing.) In order to use the equation of wave of Schrdinger it is necessary to incorporate to her certain characteristics of the atom at issue. That offers the evolution to us in the time of the models of the standing waves that takes place in the atom. If we prepared to an atom in its initial state and left propagates in isolation, that initial state, while it propagates in isolation, is developed in different models from standing waves. The order of those models is calculable. The equation of wave of Schrdinger is the mathematical instrument that uses the physicists to calculate that order. Said of another way: the development of the models of standing waves in an atom is determinist. Given to initial conditions a model always it follows another one, in agreement with the equation of wave of Schrdinger.? The equation of wave of Schrdinger also offers a autoconsistente explanation on the size of the hydrogen atom. In agreement with her, the model of waves of a system with an electron and a proton - the one that we called a hydrogen atom - in its lower power state only inside have an appreciable magnitude of a sphere that exactly has the diameter of smallest of the orbits of Bohr. In other words, that model of wave turns out to have the same size that a hydrogen atom in its fundamental state! Although the undulatory mechanics of Schrdinger has become one of the foundations of the present quantum mechanics, the most useful aspects of the model of Bohr of the subatomic phenomena are still used, when the undulatory theory does not produce appropriate results. In such cases, the physicists limit themselves to let think about terms of standing waves and begin to think, again, in particle terms. Nobody can say that they are not adaptable in this land. Schrdinger was convinced that their equations described to real things and mathematical nonabstractions. They represented the electron as a real being expanding on its undulatory models in form of a tenuous cloud. When the representation is limited the atom of hydrogen, just by an electron, whose standing waves have only three dimensions (long, wide and depth), to imagine it is possible. Nevertheless, the standing waves of an atom with two electrons exist in six

mathematical dimensions; the waves in an atom of four electrons exist in twelve dimensions, etc. To imagine visually all that it is an exercise rather hard. In this point, a German physicist called Max Born put the final touch to the new undulatory interpretation of the subatomic phenomena. In agreement with his ideas it is not necessary nor possible to visualize those waves because they are not real things, are probability waves. ... the total course of the events is determined by the probability laws; to a state in the space a defined probability, that corresponds to him it will come given by the wave from Broglie associated with said estado.5 In order to obtain the probability of a given state, we elevated to the square (we multiplied by itself) the amplitude of the wave of matter associated with this state. The question if the equations of Broglie and Schrdinger they represent real things or abstractions was clear for Bohr. In his opinion it made no sense to think about a real thing that it existed in more than three dimensions. We have two possibilities. Or we used waves in spaces of more than three dimensions... or we remained in the three-dimensional space and we rejected the simple image of the wave amplitude concuna ordinary physical magnitude and we replaced it by a purely abstract mathematical concept... in which we cannot penetrar.6 And this is exactly what did. the physics - it wrote - is in the nature of the indetermine thing and, consequently, it is thing of estadstica.7 This is the same idea (probability waves) in which Bohr, Kramers and Slater had thought previously. But now, using the mathematics of Broglie and Schrdinger, the numbers had agreed perfectly. The contribution of Born to the theory of Schrdinger is what allows the quantum mechanics to predict probabilities. Since the probability of a determined state is elevating to the square the amplitude of the wave of associated matter him and that given determined initial conditions the equation of Schrdinger predicts the evolution of those undulatory models, both things altogether offer a determineable evolution of the probabilities. From an initial state, the physicists can predict the probability that a observed system can be observed in a different state at any time determined. As much if the observed system is observed or it is not it in a determined state, if that state is even most probable of the states for that given moment, everything is question of pure luck. In other words, the probability of the quantum mechanics is the probability of observing a system observed in a determined state in a given time if it were prepared in a given initial state? This is what develops the undulatory aspect of the quantum mechanics. Like the waves have corpuscular characteristics (of particle) (Planck, Einstein), the particles or corpuscles have characteristics ondulatorias (of Broglie). In fact, the particles can be understood in terms of standing waves (Schrdinger). Given initial conditions, a precise evolution of the models of standing waves can be calculated, calculated as well by means of the equation of wave of Schrdinger. Elevating to the square the amplitude of a matter wave (wave function) the probability of estad is obtained that it corresponds to that wave (Born). And thus a sequence of probabilities could be calculated from determined initial conditions, using the equation of wave of Schrdinger and the simple formula of Born. We have crossed a very long way from the experiments of Galileo with the bodies in fall. Each passage in that way has taken to a higher level of abstraction: first a the creation of things that nobody has never seen (like electrons) and later to leave all the attempts to represent our abstractions to us. The problem is that by our own human nature we did not move backwards in our attempts to represent those

abstractions to us. We continued asking to us Of what those abstractions are done and, next, we tried to visualize what wants that is. Before we left the planetary model of the atom, work of Bohr, with the promise of which later we would return to see how the physicists think at the moment on the atom. Well, already that moment has arrived, but the task is quite difficult. We rejected the old representation of the atom of so easy way because we supposed that it would be replaced by more significant other, but equally lcida. Now it is that our substitute image is not a representation, but an abstraction that cannot be visualized. This is disagreeable because it remembers to us that the atoms, anyway, never were real things. The atoms are hypothetical beings constructed to make the experimental observations intelligible. Nobody, nor a single person, has never seen an atom. Nevertheless, we are customary of such way to the idea that an atom is a thing that we forgot that it is an idea. Now one says to us not only that the atom is an idea but that it is an idea that never we will be able to represent. In addition, when the physicists talk about to the mathematical beings in Castilian (or English, or German or Danish), the words that use are destined to create images for the legos that hear them, but that is not familiarized with the mathematics to which those words talk about. After to have offered this long explanation of why reasons an atom cannot imagine, we will see how they represent the physicists at the present time. An atom consists of a nucleus and electrons. The nucleus is located in the center of the atom. It occupies only one small part of the volume of the atom, but it has almost all his mass. That is to say, that the nucleus is just as in the planetary model. Also, like in planetary model, the electrons move within the general zone of the nucleus. In this new model, nevertheless, the electrons can be anywhere within a electronic cloud. The electronic cloud is compound of you vary standing waves that surround the nucleus. The standing waves are not material. They are potential model. The form of the diverse standing waves that include/understand the electron cloud says to the physicists the probability to him of finding the electron in a certain place of the cloud. In summary, the physicists continue still imagining an atom like a nucleus surrounded by electrons that move around to his, but the image is not as simple as the one of a Solar System in miniature. The electron cloud is a mathematical concept that the physicists have constructed to correlate their experiences. The electron clouds can really exist or not exist in the interior of the atom. Nobody knows it with certainty. Nevertheless, we know that the concept of the electron cloud offers the probabilities of locating the electron in different places around the nucleus from an atom and that those probabilities have determined empirically so that they are very precise. In this sense, the electron clouds are similar to wave functions. A wave function is also a mathematical concept that has constructed the physicists so that it is correlated with his experiences. The wave functions can be that they exist or that they do not exist in fact. (This type of declaration estimates a qualitative difference between thought and matter that is possible is not a good supposition.) Nevertheless, the concept of a wave function offers, undeniably, the probabilities of observing a system that is in a certain state in a while dice if it is prepared of suitable way. Like the wave functions, the electron clouds cannot be visualized. An electron cloud that contains only an electron (as the one of a hydrogen atom) it exists in three dimensions. All the other electron clouds, nevertheless, contain more of an electron and, therefore, they exist in more than three dimensions. The nucleus of the simple

carbon atom, for example, with its six electrons is surrounded by an electron cloud of eighteen dimensions. The uranium, with its ninety and two electrons, has an electron cloud of 276 dimensions. (Of similar way, a wave function contains three dimensions for each possibility that represents.) It is very clear that the situation, in terms of mental representation, is clear little. This ambiguity turns out from the attempt to describe with limited concepts (language), situations that are not subject to those same limitations. It masks the reality of which we do not know what really it happens in the subatomic world. The models that we used are free creations of the human mind to use the words of Einstein (p 29), that satisfy our innate necessity to correlate experiences of rational way. They are suppositions of which really it happens within the clock impossible to open. Is extremely deceptive thinking that they describe really some thing. In fact, a young German physicist, Werner Heisenberg, decided that we never will be able to get to know what really it happens in the invisible subatomic land and, therefore, we must leave all the attempts to construct percibibles models of the atomic processes. Legitimately, everything what we can use to work with it, according to this theory, is the direct observation. Everything what we know is what we have at the beginning of the experiment and what we found at the end of him. All explanation of which really it happens between those two states - that are the observable ones (p 86) - is pure speculation. Almost at the same time (1925), but of independent way of of Broglie and Schrdinger, Heisenberg, that had only twenty-five years of age, was sent to the task of developing an average one to organize the experimental datas in tabular form. It had the luck of which sixty and six years before a Scottish mathematician called W. R. Hamilton had developed a method to organize data in first series or called mathematical tables. At that time the matrices of Hamilton were considered like a mathematical accessory more of the pure one. Who could suppose that a day was going to be incorporated, like a piece done to the measurement, in the structure of a revolutionary physics? In order to use the tables of Heisenberg, it is enough with reading in them, or calculating starting off of them, the probabilities that go associate to the initial conditions. Using this method, that Heisenberg called matrix mechanics, we only used observable physicists, which means those things that we knew at the beginning of the experiment and those others that we know of him to its aim. We do not make speculations on the happened thing between these two points. After twenty-five years of efforts to obtain a theory that he replaced to the physics of Newton, the physicists were suddenly with two different ones, each one of which he meant a unique method of approach to the same thing: the undulatory mechanics of Schrdinger, cradle in the waves of the matter of Broglie; and the matrix mechanics of Heisenberg, cradle in the impossibility of analysis of the subatomic phenomena. A year after Heisenberg developed its matrix mechanics, Schrdinger discovered that it was mathematically equivalent to his own undulatory mechanics. Since both theories were valuable instruments for the subatomic investigation, the two theories were gotten up to the new branch of the physics that happened to be well-known like the quantum mechanics. Much more late, Heisenberg applied mathematical the matrix one to the experiments on the collision of corpuscles of high energy. Since such experiments always have like result the particle dispersion, the matrix of dispersion or Matrix S is called to him (of English scattering). At the present time the physicists have two

ways to calculate the transition probability between which they observe at the beginning of an experiment of quantum mechanics and what they observe his term. The first method is the equation of wave of Schrdinger and the second the first S. The equation of wave of Schrdinger describes a temporary development of possibilities, one of which it is made suddenly when we made a measurement in the course of a quantum mechanical experiment; the first S directly offers the probabilities of transition between the observable ones without offering no indication of a development in the time, or of the lack of him, or any other thing. Both work? If the introduction of the mathematics of the matrix in the new physics were from great importance, the following discovery of Heisenberg affected the foundations of exact sciences. It proved with him who did not exist, at subatomic level, nothing that could be called exact sciences. The remarkable discovery of Heisenberg was that there are limits below which we cannot measure with exactitude, at the same time, the processes of the nature. Those limits are not marked by the defective nature of our measuring instruments or by the extremely small thing of the organizations that we tried to measure, but rather by the form as the own nature appears to us. In other words, a barrier of ambiguity to the other side exists of which we cannot never happen without venturing to us in the land of the uncertainty. Therefore the discovery of Heisenberg was called Principle of Uncertainty. The uncertainty principle reveals that as we are penetrating more and more deeply in the land of the subatomic thing we arrived at a point in which one divides or another one of our image of the nature becomes blurred and is no form to clarify it without making another part blurred of the image. It is like when we tried to fit an image in movement that is slightly outside center. Once finished the necessary adjustments we see with surprise that when the right side of the image is clarified the left side is defocused and nothing can be recognized. If we tried to focus the left side, the right side begins to become blurred and soon the situation is inverted. If we tried to obtain a balance between both extreme situations, both sides of the image return to conditions that allow to recognize their content, but in no case the original turbiedad of the image can be eliminated. The right part of the image, in the original formulation of the uncertainty principle, corresponds to the position in the space of a particle in movement. The left part corresponds at its moment. In agreement with the uncertainty principle we cannot at the same time measure with exactitude the position and the moment of a particle in movement. While more indeed we determine one of those properties, less we will know the other. If we determined with exactitude the position of the particle, by stranger who seems, we cannot let nothing to know its moment. If we determined its moment accurately there is no form to locate its position. In order to illustrate this strange declaration, Heisenberg it proposed that we imagined a supermicroscope of high power of resolution - the sufficiently powerful thing to be able to see an electron moving around the nucleus, in its orbit -. Since the electrons are so small, we could not use ordinary light in our microscope because the wavelength of the ordinary light is too great for seeing electrons, in the same way the great waves to open sea hardly if a small buoy or a post is affected by whatever it emerges from the surface of the sea. If we took a tuft from hair and we placed between a shining light and a wall, the hair do not project a precise shade. The hair are so thin, in comparison with the wavelength of the light, that the luminance waves bend in winch of them instead of being obstructed by them.

In order to see something we must obstruct the luminance waves with which we are seeing. In other words, to see something we must illuminate it with wavelengths smaller than that something. Therefore Heisenberg replaced in its theoretician and imaginary microscope the rays of visible light by gamma rays. The gamma rays have the well-known wavelength shorter than she is exactly the one that we needed to be able to see an electron. An electron is the sufficiently great thing, in comparison with the wavelength of the gamma rays, reason why these last ones could be obstructed by the electron and would leave their shade in the wall. That would allow to locate electrons us. The only problem, and is here where the quantum physics takes part, it is that in agreement with the discovery of Planck, the gamma rays, that have a much more small wavelength that visible the ordinary light, contains very many more energy. When a gamma ray affected the imaginary electron would illuminate it, but, unfortunately, also it would expel it from his orbit and it would change to his speed and direction (its moment) of unpredictable and uncontrollable way. (we cannot by ricochet calculate accurately the angle between a particle, like an electron, and a wave, like a gamma ray.) In summary, if we used light with a wavelength the sufficiently short thing to locate the electron, we caused a change impossible to determine at the moment of the electron. The only alternative is to use a less power light. But the original cause of our problem is indeed that less power light: the light with an energy the sufficiently low thing not to alter to the trajectory of the electron nor its moment, would have a so long wavelength that he would not be able to show to us where is the electron. That is to say, that is way no to know at the same time the position and the moment a particle in movement. All the attempts to observe an electron alter to the electron. This one is the primary meaning of the uncertainty principle. Subatomic level we cannot observe something without affecting it. The independent observer does not exist who can stay to the margin observing as the nature follows its course without affecting the observed object. In certain way this declaration does not have to be too surprising. A good way to cause that a strange person turns itself to watch it to one is to intensely watch it to her from back. All we know that, but in many occasions we do not give credit which we know when it is contradicted with what it was taught to us that was possible. The classic physics part of the acceptance of which our reality, independently of us, follows its course in the space and the time in agreement with rigid causal laws. We not only can observe it without being perceived, but to even predict its future, applying the laws of the causality to the initial conditions. In this sense the principle of uncertainty of Heisenberg is a very surprising declaration. We cannot apply the laws of movement of Newton to a considered corpuscle of individual way that a little while does not have an initial location and, that is exactly what the uncertainty principle says to us that we cannot determine. In other words: it is impossible, even in principle, to get to know the sufficient thing a particle, in the land of the subatomic thing, to apply the laws to him of movement of the Newtons who, during three centuries were the foundations of the physics. The laws of Newton do not prevail in the land of the subatomic thing? (Not even the concepts of Newton have application in the land of the subatomic thing.) Given an electron beam, the theory of quanto can predict the probable distribution of electrons in a given space and a given time, but the theory of quanto cannot predict, not even in principle, the course of a simple electron. All the idea of a causal universe is mined by the

uncertainty principle. In relation to this context, Niels Bohr wrote that the quantum mechanics, by its own essence, establishes: ... the necessity of a definitive resignation of the classic ideal of the causality and of a radical revision of our attitude with respect to the problems of the reality fsica.9 This one is another one of the surprising implications of the uncertainty principle. The concepts of position and moment intimately are bound to our idea of which particle in movement is a called thing. But according to it is we cannot determine simultaneously the position and the moment of a particle in movement, contrary to our presumption of always of which we could do it. Therefore, we are ourselves forced to admit that that thing which we came calling a particle in movement, be that as it may, is not the particle in movement that we thought that he was, since the particles in movement always have position and moment. As Max Born expressed: ... if we never can determine really more than one of the two properties (possession of a defined position and a little while defined), and if when one of them is determined we cannot make no affirmation on the other property at the same moment, in as much our experiment continues, then we do not have justification some to affirm that the thing who we are examinee can be described like a particle, in the usual sense that we give trmino.10 Anyway, be that as it may what we are observing, it can have determineable and a determineable position a little while, but of both properties at the time of making the observation we must choose one for every determined moment, to which to place under the center of our observation if we want to see it with clarity, without turbiedad. With respect to the particles in movement that means, in any circumstance, that we cannot see them of the way that are really but solely of the way which we have decided to choose to see them! Heisenberg wrote on the matter: What we observed is not the nature in himself, but the nature exposed to our method of interrogacin.11 From a rigorous point of view it is possible to affirm that the uncertainty principle takes to give us account to us of which a footpath does not exist mine, an individual way, that is separated of the world that surrounds it. It puts in judgment fabric the own existence of an objective reality, so and as they make the complementariness and the concept of particles in mutual correlation. They have changed you return them. exact sciences no longer study an objective reality that follows its course without considering if we were interested in them or no. They have left us single so that us we understand the best thing to them than we pruned, while they continue their predetermined footpath. Science at level of the subatomic events no longer is exact science and the distinction between the objective and the subjective thing vanished long time ago already. The large windows by which the universe pronounces to us are, as already we knew long time back, those impotent and passive direct witnesses of their development: the Yos, of which we, in our insignificancia, are example. If the new physics has lead to us to some part, has been to the encounter of we ourself. To the only place, of course, to which we can go. FOLLY MIND OF NASCENT The importance of the folly is so that hardly it can be superexpressed. While with greater clarity we experience something like a folly, we are more clearly experiencing the limits of our own self-imposed cognoscitivas structures. Folly is what it does not fit within the models previously established that we have prevailed to the reality. There is nothing can be described as folly aside from the intellectual judgment that calls it thus. The authentic artists and the authentic physicists know that folly is only what,

contemplated from our present point of view, it is ininteligible. Folly is folly only when still we have not found the point of view on her who makes it have sense. In general, the physicists do not take care of the foolish thing. Most of them their professional lives go thinking in agreement with norms of pre-established thought to long time. The scientists who settle down the not settled down lines of thought, nevertheless, are those that they are not scared to venture itself audaciously in the folly, in what any stupid one had affirmed that is not clearly thus. That one is the sign of the creative mind; in fact that one is the creative process. It is characterized by one signs confidence, that resists everything, in which exists a point of view from which the foolish thing is not foolish absolutely, but that is evident. In the physics, like in any other matter, those that have experienced the enthusiasm of the creative process they are those that more audaciously they have crossed the limits of the knowledge, to venture itself in unexplored territories that are beyond the barrier of the obvious thing. That type of people has two characteristics: first of them it is an infantile ability to see the world as it is and not as one appears to us in agreement with which we know of him. This one is the moral of the story (infantile) the new clothes of the emperor. When the emperor walked naked by the streets, only a boy dared to say that he went without clothes, whereas the rest of their subjects made an effort in believing because therefore they had said it - that wore its new and finer clothes. The boy whom there is in us is always innocent, naf in the simplista sense. A Zen legend speaks us of Nan-in, a Japanese teacher of the Era Meiji, that received a university professor. The professor went to him to inquire on Zen. Nan-in served the tea. He filled the cup of his visitor and when she was full he continued spilling tea. The professor observed in silence overflowing with the cup until he arrived a little while in which he could not be contained. - the cup is full. No longer it fits more in her. - Like this cup, you are full of your own opinions and speculations - she responded to him Nan-in -. How could I show to him what is Zen while its cup has not drained you? Our cup generally is full until the edge with the obvious thing, the common sense and the autoevidente. Suzuki Roshi, that established the first center of Zen in the United States (without trying it, of course, as he is very own of the Zen) said to them to its students that was not difficult to obtain the illumination, but to conserve a mind of nascent, In the mind of the nascent one - it said to them exist multiple possibilities, but in the one of the expert very few. When their students published char them of Suzuki, after their death, titled to the book, very appropriately, Mind of Zen, Mind of Nascent. In the introduction Baker Roshi, North American the Zen Teacher wrote: the mind of the nascent one is empty, frees of the habits of the expert, ready to accept, to doubt, and open to all the possibilities...1 The mind of the nascent one, with respect to science, magnificently is described by the history of Albert Einstein and its theory of relativity. That one is the subject of this chapter. The second characteristic of the true artist and the true scientist is the firm confidence that both have in themselves. That confidence is the expression of an internal force that allows them to express itself safe with the knowledge that, when the appearances are in his against, it is the world the one that is confused and not they. The first man in seeing the illusion of something in which the men were believing during centuries, is in solitaire. Perhaps at those moments of internal premonition, it and only he sees what, as is obvious, for initiated (the rest of the world) is not folly or, still worse, madness or heresy. That confidence in

itself is not the tozudez of the fool, but the security of that knows what knows and, knows in addition, that it can make it arrive at the others of total way of sense. Henry Miller has said: I obey solely to my instinct and my intuition. I do not know anything in advance. Sometimes express things that I do not include/understand, with the safe knowledge that later its meaning me will be made comprehensive clear and. I have faith in the man who is writing, that I am i myself, escritor.2 The cantautor Bob Dylan, affirmed in a press conference: I write a song and I know that it is going to come out well. Not even I know beforehand what I am going to say in ella.3 An example of that type of faith, in the land of the physics, was the theory of the quantos of light. In 1905, the verified and accepted theory was that the light was an undulatory phenomenon. Whatsoever, Einstein published its famous writing with the theory that the light was a corpuscular phenomenon (page 68). Heisenberg describes this fascinating situation this way: (In 1905) the light could be interpreted like consisting of electromagnetic waves, in agreement with the theory of Maxwell, or like consisting of quantos of light, packages of energy that travel by the space at great speed (in agreement with Einstein). But, it could be the two things? Einstein knew, of course, that the good well-known phenomena of the diffraction and the interference only could be explained starting off of the base of their undulatory nature. It could not to deny the complete contradiction between that undulatory image and the idea of the quantos of light; not even it tried to separate the inconsistency from this interpretation. It took the contradiction, simply, like which, probably, tarde.4 would be included/understood much more This is exactly what it happened. The thesis of Einstein lead to the dualidad wave-particle from which the quantum mechanics arose and, with her, as now we know, a new way to contemplate to the enormously different reality and to we ourself of whom we are customary. Although Einstein is known popularly by its theories of relativity, its writing on the quantum nature of the light was the one that was worth the Nobel prize to him. And it is, also, a delicate example of confidence in the folly. The one that something is a folly or no; it is possible that it is only perspective question. Delay a little while! - Jim de Wit interrupts -. My uncle, Rare George, creates to be a soccer ball. Of course, all we know that that is a folly, but the uncle George thinks that we are crazy. He is convinced of being a soccer ball. The day speaking of it goes. In other words, it has an absolute confidence in his folly. One therefore becomes a great scientist? No. In fact what it happens is that the rare one of George has a problem. Only person is not only he it who has this so particular perspective, but that that particular perspective is not related in way some to the one of other observers, which leads us to the heart of the special theory of the relativity of Einstein. (Einstein created two theories of relativity. First special theory of relativity is called. Second, that arrived rather later and that is much more general, general theory of relativity is called. This chapter and the following one deals with the special theory of relativity, first of the two theories of Einstein.) The special theory of relativity, more than to take care of which he is relative, takes care of which it is not it. It describes how they seem to change the relative aspects of the physical reality as dependency of the points of view of the different observers (in fact depends on the state of relative movement of one towards the others), but in the process it also defines the aspects nonmoney changers, the absolute aspects, of the physical reality. The special theory of relativity is not a theory that expresses the idea that everything is relative. It is a theory that expresses that the

appearances are relative. What can appear before us as a rule (the physicists would say a rod) of thirty centimeters in length, can seem to him that it only has twenty-five centimeters to an observer who happened to great speed. What can appear before us as one hour of time can seem two hours for a traveller who happened next to us to great speed. Nevertheless, the travelling observer (in movement) can use the special theory of relativity to determine as our rule and our clock appear before us (if it knows his relative movement towards us) and in the same way we can use the special theory of relativity to determine how they appear our rod and our clock before the observer in movement (if we know our movement in relation to him). If we had to make an experiment in the same moment at which the observer in movement happens next to us, we and the observer in movement would see the same experiment, but each one of us we with our rule and our clock and he with their rule and its clock would gather different times and distances. Using the special theory of relativity, nevertheless, each one can transfer its data to the other frame of reference. The final numbers would be the same ones for both. In essence, the special theory of relativity does not deal with which is relative but of which is absolute. The special theory of relativity sample that the appearances depend on the movement state of the observers. For example, it says to us: (1) a movable object diminishes its measures in the direction of its movement as its will increases and, when it reaches the speed of the light, disappears; (2) the mass of an object measures more as its speed increases and it becomes infinite when it reaches the speed of the light, and (3) the clocks in movement walk more slowly as the speed increases until when arriving at the speed of the light they are stopped completely. All this from the point of view of the observer with respect to as the object is in movement. For an observer who travels jointly with the sprite, the clock would maintain its rate with exactitude, marking sixty seconds every minute that passes and nothing will have appearances of being shorter or to have greater mass. The special theory of relativity also says to us that the space and the time are not separated things but that jointly they form the space-time and that energy and mass are really two forms different from a same thing, mass-energy. - That is not possible! - we shouted -. It is a folly to think that when increasing the speed of an object is increased its mass, diminishes its size and delays its time. Our cup overflows. Those phenomena are not observable in the daily life because the required speeds to make the changes appreciable come near at the speed of the light (300,000 kilometers - approximately - per second). In the slow speeds whereupon we were in the world of the macrocospic thing, the effects are really indetectables. If they were not it we could appreciate that a car that marches at great speed by the freeway is shorter than when it is stopped, that weighs more and than his clock it goes more slowly. In fact we would be that a hot plate more weight than when she is cold (because the energy has mass and the heat is energy). How Einstein managed to discover this, it is another version of the story of the emperor with his new clothes. Albert Einstein was the unique one that contemplated two of the most important puzzles of its time and it faced them a mind of nascent. The result was the special theory of relativity. The first mystery of the time of Einstein was the certainty of the speed of the light. The second the question of the uncertainty, physical as as much philosophical, on which it means to be in movement or not to be in movement? - Delay a little while - we asked -. What is of uncertainty in it? If I am seated in a chair and another person happens walking

to my side, in that case the person who happens to my side is moving and I, who I am seated in my chair, do not move. Completely certain! - Jim de Wit takes part -, but the thing is not so simple. Let us suppose that the chair in that you are seated finds in an airplane and the person who happens to your side she is the stewardess. Suponte that I, from the ground, am observing them both. From your point of view you are quiet, and the stewardess moves; but from my point of view I am immovable and you two move. Everything depends on our frame of reference. Your frame of reference is the airplane, but my frame of reference is the Earth. Of Wit, as it is normal, it has discovered the problem of exact way. But unfortunately it does not solve it. The Earth cannot be considered immovable. Not only tour on their axis, as I spin a top, but that it and the moon turn around a common center of gravity, whereas both turn around of the sun at a speed of about thirty kilometers per second. - That is not to play fair - we say -. Of course it is certain, but the Earth does not seem to move for us, those that we lived in her. It will only be in movement if we changed our frame of reference of her to the sun. If we continued with that game, will be impossible, of all point, to find in all the universe something that is really quiet. From the point of view of the galaxy, the sun moves; from the point of view of another galaxy, our galaxy moves; from the point of view of one third galaxy, the two previous galaxies move. In fact, from the point of view of any galaxy the others move. - explained Very well - Jim de Wit is ed ***reflx mng - and that one is exactly the question. There is nothing can be considered in absolute rest, in unequivocal inmovilidad. The movement, or the lack of this one, is something always relative with any other thing. The one that we are moving or does not depend on the reference frame that we are using. This speech is not the special theory of relativity. In fact it is part of the principle of relativity of Galileo, that counts already on three hundred years of antiquity. All physical theory is a relativity theory if, like Jim de Wit, it recognizes that the difficulty exists to detect the absolute movement or the absolute inmovilidad. A relativity theory supposes that the only type of movement that we can determine is movement - or lacks of him - in relation to any other thing. The principle of relativity of Galileo says, in addition, that the laws of the mechanics are equally valid within all the marks of reference (the physicists would say system of coordinates) that move of uniform way in relation to the others. The principle of relativity of Galileo supposes that in some place of the universe a reference frame exists in which the laws of the mechanics are completely valid, that is to say, a reference frame in which the experiment and the theory agree perfectly. This frame of reference is called a frame of inertial reference, which means simply a reference frame in which the laws of the mechanics are completely valid. All the other marks of reference that move uniformly in relation to the frame of inertial reference, are also inertial marks of reference. Since the laws of the mechanics are equally valid in all frame of reference, this means that there is form of which we pruned to distinguish between a frame of inertial reference and no another one making mechanical experiments in them. Marks of reference that move uniformly in relation to others, are systems of coordinates that move with a constant speed and a direction. In other words, reference marks exist that move with a constant speed. For example, if by accident we dropped a book from a bookcase, the book falls directly to the ground in agreement with the law of the gravity of Newton and strikes the ground in the vertical underneath the place in which it was before falling. Our

frame of reference is the Earth. The Earth moves at a fantastic speed in its trip around the sun and this speed is constant? If we dropped the book while we are traveling in a smooth ideal train that moves at a constant speed, it happens the same. The book falls directly downwards, following the law of the gravity of Newton and will exactly strike the ground of the train underneath the place in which it was. In this occasion our frame of reference is the train. Since the train moves of uniform way, without increase or diminution of its speed in relation to the Earth, and because the Earth is moving of similar way in relation to the train, both reference marks move uniformly in relation one with another one. Therefore, the laws of the mechanics are valid in both. It does not have the smaller importance which of both reference systems is moving. A person in anyone of the two marks of reference can consider that he is moving and who the other frame of reference is immovable (the Earth is immovable and is the train the one that moves or to the reciprocal one). From the point of view of the physics difference does not exist some. What happens if the machinist accelerates the train of sudden way while we are making our experiment? Immediately everything is altered. The book that falls will more back do against the ground of the train but a little, since the ground of the train has moved towards ahead while the book was falling. In that case the train is not moving uniformly in relation to the Earth and the principle of the relativity of Galileo cannot be applied. Assuming that all the participant movement is relatively uniform we can transfer the movement perceived in our frame of reference to another frame of reference. For example, we suppose that we are in the beach observing a ship that moves to thirty miles per hour. The ship is a frame of reference moving of uniform way with respect to us. Let us suppose to a passenger who is standing in the cover of the boat, supported in the hut. Since he is quiet its speed is the same one that the one of the ship, thirty miles per hour. (From their point of view we will be those that we are moving in relation to him to thirty miles per hour.) Let us suppose, now, that the man begins to walk and he goes towards the prow of the ship to three miles per hour. Now its relative speed for us is of thirty and three miles per hour. The ship takes to thirty miles per hour and its march to it of three miles, that are added to the initial speed. (it is arrived before at the end of automatic stairs in movement when instead of hoping quiet one rises by her.) Let us suppose, again, that the man occurs the return and goes towards the stern, that is to say, the part of back of the boat. Its relative speed towards the boat will be also three miles hour, but its relative speed with the border from where we observed will be of twenty-seven miles per hour. In other words, to find out to what speed moves the passenger in relation to us, we must add its speed to the speed of its system of coordinates (the ship) if it walks in the same direction that this one, and to subtract its speed of the one of its system of coordinates if it walks in opposite direction. This calculation is called a classic transformation (Galilean). Knowing the movement relative uniform two marks of reference we can transform the speed of the passenger in relation to its own system of coordinates (three miles per hour) into its speed in relation to our system of coordinates (thirty and three miles per hour). The highway offers abundant examples of classic transformations of a frame from reference to another one. Let us suppose that we lead to one hundred twenty kilometers per hour. We see a truck that comes near us. His velocimetro marks the same speed that ours. Making a classic transformation we can see that in relation to us the truck comes near to 240 kilometers per hour,

which explains the reason for which the shocks front usually are fatal with as much frequency. Let us suppose now that a car goes in the same direction that we. Its speed is of two hundred kilometers to the hour (it is a Ferrari). Again, by means of the classic transformation we can calculate that its speed in relation to us is of eighty kilometers per hour. The laws of transformation of the classic mechanics are of common sense. They say us that although we did not prune to know if a reference frame is absolutely immovable or it is not it, we can transfer speeds - and positions of a frame from reference to another one, assuming that the reference marks are moving of uniform way among them. Still more, the transformations of Galileo come to say that the laws of the mechanics in relation to a reference frame are valid in another frame of reference that moves of uniform way in relation to him. Unfortunately there is one beats in all this. Nobody has still found a system of coordinates in which the laws of the mechanics are valid! - What...? Impossible! - we protested -. What it happens with the Earth? , it is certain well that Galileo, that was first in applying the laws of the mechanics, used the Earth as reference frame, even though not outside conscious way. (the idea of a system of coordinates did not prevail until Discardings.) Nevertheless, our present systems of measurement are more exact than those of the time of Galileo that, sometimes, even got to use its pulse (what it means that while greater excitation produced a more inexact experiment to him it would be his measurement) When we reconstructed the experiments of Galileo with the fall of the bodies, we always found discrepancies between the theoretical results that we had to obtain and the experimental results that actually we obtained. These discrepancies must to the tumbling of the Earth. The bitter truth is that the laws of the mechanics are not valid for a system of coordinates rigidly together with the Earth. The Earth is not a frame of inertial reference. From their same principle the poor laws of the classic mechanics remained, so to speak, without home. Nobody has discovered a system of coordinates in which these laws are pronounced perfectly. From the point of view of the physicist, this us leaves put in a great one I tangle. By a side we counted on the laws of the classic mechanics that are indispensable for the physics; but of the other those laws they are in favor destined to act in a system of coordinates that not even exists. This problem is related to relativity: the problem to determine the absolute not-movement of near, direct way. If it were managed to detect that that is called absolute not-movement, in that case an inertial system related to him could be so looked for - and, long ago, lost - system of coordinates in which the classic laws of the mechanics would be perfectly valid. Everything would return to have sense again because given a frame of reference in which the laws of the mechanics are valid, any frame of reference, the classic laws of the mechanics would have, so to speak, a permanent direction of which to direct the correspondence to them. The physicists do not please of the theories with loose ends. Before Einstein, the problem to detect the absolute movement (or the absolute rest: if we found one we will find to the other also) and the problem to find a system of coordinates inertial were loose ends, at least. The complete structure of the classic mechanics was based on the fact that in some place and of some way, it must have a reference frame in which the classic laws of the mechanics were valid. The lack of ability of the physicists to give with him caused that the classic mechanics acquired the aspect of an enormous castle... of sand! Nobody, not even Einstein, could discover the absolute rest, and this

incapacity of the physicists was the greater preoccupation in the days of Einstein. The second important controversy, in those same days (without counting the discovery of quanto of Planck), was a characteristic of the incomprehensible light and that it defied to the logic. In the course of their experiments with the speed of the light, the physicists discovered something very strange. The speed of the light does not take in consideration the laws from transformation from the classic mechanics. Of course, this is impossible, but, experiment after experiment proved that it was thus, that the impossible one was made. The speed of the light turns out to be the most lacking thing of sense, more foolish, of all the discovered one. And that is because it never changes. - Well, the light always travels at the same speed - we asked -, what is of stranger in it? - It goes, goes! - a distracted physicist said, there for 1887 -, simply they do not understand the problem. The problem is in which, independently of the movement of the observer, the speed of the light is always of 300,000 kilometers per second (approximately).? - and that is something bad? - we asked feeling the suspicion that in this it can have something strange. - Worse - the physicist responds -. He is something impossible. Watch - it tells us while it tries to calm -, we suppose that we are quiet and that in some place, in front of us, there is a light bulb that also is immovable. The lamp ignites and it is extinguished intermittently and we measured the speed of the light that arrives at us. Which thinks that it is that speed? - Three hundred thousand kilometers per second - we respond -, that is the speed of the light. - Very well! - the physicist with a brightness in his glance says to us that causes that we feel like discomforts -. Now we suppose that the light bulb follows fixes but we moved towards her at a speed of one hundred thousand kilometers per second. Which will be the number that we will obtain when measuring the speed whereupon the light approaches us? -400,000 kilometers per second. The speed of the light (300,000 kilometers per second), plus our speed of displacement towards the light (100,000 kilometers per second). (one is a typical example of the classic transformation.) False! - the physicist exclaims -. That one is exactly the question. The speed whereupon the light approach us continues being of 300,000 kilometers per second. - jEspere a little while! - we say -. That cannot be. Say you to us who if the light bulb, the light source, is quiet and we also, the speed of photons emitted by the light source will measure the same, in relation to us, who the speed of photons emitted by the light when we run to approach us the light source? That does not have sense. When the photons are emitted they travel to 300,000 kilometers per second. If we quickly approached them their speed he must give a greater measurement. In fact it must appear as traveling at the speed whereupon they are emitted plus our speed. In our example its speed had to be of 300,000 kilometers per second, more 100,000 kilometers per second, that is the speed with which we came near to photons. Certainly! - the physicist responds to our friend -. But he is not thus. It continues being of 300,000 kilometers per second, just as if we were immovable. After a pause of meditation, like so that the idea it penetrates in us, it continues: - Now we consider the situation opposite. Let us suppose that the emitting light bulb of the Iuz follows quiets and that at the moment for sending its ray we are moving away of her at a speed of 100,000 kilometers per second. Which must be the measurement of the speed of photons? -200,000 kilometers per second - we say confidence plenty -, the speed of the light except the speed whereupon we are moving away of the photons that come near us. - Again false! - our friend exclaims again

-. He had thus to be, but he is not it. The speed of photons will continue measuring 300,000 kilometers per second. - Hill work to believe it much. It means that if a light center is immovable and we measured the speed of photons emitted by him while we are stopped, later we measured the speed of photons when we move in the direction of them and, finally, its speed when we move in opposed direction of them, we will always obtain the same result, in the three cases? - Exactly! - the physicist says -. 300,000 kilometers per second. - There are proofs of it? - we asked. - Unfortunately there are them. Two North American physicists, Albert Michelson and Edward Morley, finish completing, recently, an experiment that seems to prove independently that the speed of the light is constant, of the state of movement of the observer. He is something that cannot happen, but that happens. Something devoid of sense. A folly. The problem of the rest (nonmovement) absolute and the problem of the certainty of the speed of the light, converged in the experiment of Michelson-Morley (1887) that was a really crucial experiment. A crucial experiment is that that determines the life or the death of a scientific theory. The theory that was being investigated by Michelson-Morley was the theory of the ether. The theory of the ether was that the universal whole number was surrounded and totally permeado by an invisible substance, odorless, insabora that absolutely did not have any property and that existed, simply, because it had to exist so that the light waves had means in which to propagate. So that the light traveled as waves must have something was waved. That something was the ether. The theory of the ether was the last attempt to explain the universe explaining some thing. The explanation of the universe in term of things (like the idea of the Great Machine) was the distinguishing characteristic of that mechanical point of view that meant everything for the physics, from Newton to half-full of century XIX. The ether, in agreement with that theory, was everywhere and in all the things. We lived and we made our experiments in the ether ocean. For the ether, hardest and solid of the substances she was as porous as a sponge for the water. There are no doors for the ether. Although we move and lived in an ether sea, this ether sea does not move. He is, absolutely, unequivocally, in rest. Therefore, although the primary reason for the existence of the ether was to offer to the light something with which to propagate, its existence solved, also, the old problem to locate the original system of coordinates inertial, the reference frame in which the laws of the mechanics were completely valid. If the ether existed (and it had to exist), the system of coordinates together with him was the system of coordinates with respect to as all the others could be compared, as much if they were in movement or no. The findings of Michelson and Morley gave a mortal verdict against the theory of the ether? Another equally important thing is that they put the foundations mathematical of the new revolutionary theory of Einstein. The idea of Michelson-Morley was the one to determine the Earth movement through the ether sea. The problem was in how doing it. Two boats on the high seas can determine their relative position to each other, but if one of them moves single by a sea in absolute calm it does not have a datum point with which to measure its displacement. In the last days, the sailors threw a heavy log to the sea and measured their advance in relation to him. Michelson and Morley did the same, but the log that used was a light ray. Its experiment was, conceptually, simple and ingenious. If the Earth moves, they reasoned, and the ether sea the Earth movement is immovable in that case by the ether ocean would cause a slight ether breeze.

Therefore, a light ray traveling in against the ether breeze must have a speed smaller than a ray of light sent in favor of the ether breeze. This one, in essence, was the experiment of Michelson and Morley. Each pilot knows that more time is needed to make a flight of certain distance if it travels itself against the wind in one of the passages (even though in the return trip the tailwind is had) that when the slant trip is made, of flank, with a similar wind. The same Michelson and Morley thought. If the theory of the ether sea were correct, a ray of sent light current arrives against the ether breeze and current down later, would take more time in returning to its departure point that a ray of light sent forwards and backwards perpendicular to the ether breeze. In order to establish and to determine this difference of speed, Michelson and Morley created a called instrument interferometer (of the word interference). He was destined to detect the patterns of interference both created by light rays when they returned to begin with to the common point. A light source emits a light ray towards a semisilvered mirror (similar to those sun glasses that seems a mirror on the one hand, but they are transparent by the other). The ray of original light is divided in two segments, each one of which will cross equal distance, but in right angle to each other, and they will return again after being reflected in two mirrors. Both rays meet to their return when happening through the same semisilvered mirror and follow towards a measurement instrument. Observing the interference created by those two convergent rays in the measurement instrument, any difference of speed among them could be determined with exactitude. When it was made the experiment was not both appraised the smaller difference of speed between light rays. The interferometer was turned ninety degrees, so that the ray that went before against the ether wind, in the new position was of traverse and the ray that before went of traverse now was in against. Again the smaller difference of speed between both rays was not appraised. In other words, the experiment of Michelson and Morley did not manage to demonstrate the existence of the ether. Whereas were not an explanation for it, the physicists were themselves forced to face the election between two uncomfortable alternatives (1) the Earth does not move (and Coprnico was mistaken) or (2) the ether does not exist. No of those two possibilities was truely acceptable. Michelson and Morley thought that it was possible that the Earth dragged an ether layer with himself when moving through the ether sea, in the same way that drag with himself to the atmosphere when it travels through the space and, therefore, in the neighborhoods of the terrestrial surface the breeze could not be detected. Nobody had one better hypothesis. Until an Irish call George Francis Fitzgerald, proposed (in 1892) a scandalous explanation. Fitzgerald reasoned that it was possible that the pressure of the ether compressed to the matter of the same form that an elastic object that moves through the water shortens in the direction of its displacement. In that case, the arm of the interferometer aiming in the direction of the wind of the ether would be something shorter than the arm in right angle with him. Therefore, a reduction of the speed of the light that traveled front to the ether wind, in that arm, could not be appreciated because the distance that it had to run the light was also smaller. In fact, if the amount in which was shortened the arm of the interferometer located facing the ether wind corresponded with the amount in which the speed of the light was diminished, traveling (roundtrip) by that arm, both rays of light in the experiment would reach the measuring instrument exactly at the same time. (the ray with

greater speed crossed a greater distance in the same time that the ray with smaller speed crossed a smaller distance.) The hypothesis of Fitzgerald had an important advantage on the others: it was impossible to prove that not outside certain. It came to say, simply, that there was a unidimensional contraction (in the direction of movement) that grew as the speed decreased. The key is in which everything is contracted. If we want to measure length of object that moves to very great speeds, comparable to the one of light, first that we must do is to put it to our reach and, when does it - in agreement with the theory - instrument which we used for the measurement, which we took with us, also would have been contracted. If the object measured means meter of rest On guard also it would measure means meter at those high speeds. Nothing will seem contracted because the lenses of our eyes also will have been contracted the sufficient thing to cause that all it completely seems normal to us. A year later, a Dutch physicist, Hendrik Antoon Lorentz, while it analyzed another independent problem arrived at the same hypothesis. Nevertheless, Lorentz expressed its discovery in rigorous mathematical terms. This, of course, elevated the hypothesis of Fitzgerald until a respetabilidad position and began to gain a surprising degree of acceptance, if it considers much of fantastic that there is in her. The mathematical formulations of the contraction of Fitzgerald-Lorentz happened to be known like the transformations of Lorentz. The scene was established. All the staging in its place. The failure in detecting the existence of the ether. The experiment of Michelson-Morley.? The certainty of the speed of the light. The contractions of Fitzgerald-Lorentz. The transformations of Lorentz. Those were the facts that continued confusing the physicists to century beginning. To all of them less to Albert Einstein. When it observed all the components of the staging, which its mind of nascent saw was the special theory of relativity.

SPECIAL FOLLY The first act of Einstein, after reviewing the facts, was the equivalent one to say: But if the emperor does not take to clothes some, unless what he really said he were: the ether existe.1 the first message of the special theory of relativity was not that, since the ether cannot be detected and is, in effect, devoid of all utility, some was no reason to continue looking for it. It was impossible to detect because all the attempts to measure it or to determine his quality, that they culminated with the experiment of MichelsonMorley, failed resoundingly in his intentions to indicate his presence. It lacks utility because the propagation of the light can be explained like propagation of energy through the empty space (in empty), in agreement with the equation of the fields of Maxwell, in as much can be considered as a disturbance of the average ether. Einstein

declared clearly what already he was implicit in the equations of Maxwell (Maxwell was the discoverer of the electromagnetic field). the electromagnetic fields - it wrote - are not states of means (the ether) nor depend on any other agent, but that is independent realities that cannot be reduced to any other thing...2 This affirmation was supported by the incapacity of the physicists to detect the ether. With its declaration, Einstein put aim, in the illustrious history of the mechanics, to the idea that the physical events are explicable in terms of things. The classic mechanics is the history of the objects and the forces that act among them. It meant a remarkable rupture with a tradition of three hundred years affirming so clearly, at the beginning of the century XX, that the electromagnetic fields did not imply any type of objects, that were not states of means, of the ether, but last realities and irreducibles3 in themselves. Therefore, like in the quantum mechanics, in this land it could not either have concrete representations associated to his physical theory. The relativity and the theory of quanto proclaimed a distance without precedents of the experience, that was what until then it had characterized to the physical theory. In fact that tendency still continues in vigor. Like governing thought by an inexorable law, the physics is becoming more and more abstract and it moves away more and more of the experience. Only the future it can say if this tendency is reversible. The second victim of the incapacity of Einstein to see the clothes del emperor, that did not exist, was the absolute rest. Why we must grant privileges * to a particular frame of reference, with respect to others, saying that this one is absolutely rest? It could be desirable theoretically, but as that frame of reference did not constitute a part of our experience had to be done without him. Intolerable5 turned out to locate in a theoretical structure a characteristic that does not have corresponding characteristic in our system of experience. Of a blow, Einstein it eliminated two of the most important physical and philosophical obstacles that they were against in the radically new way to perceive the reality. Without the ether and the concept of the absolute movement to confuse the situation, this one was made simple much more. The following passage of Einstein went to face the puzzle that had appeared, with respect to the light, in the experiment of Michelson-Morley, that is to say, the certainty of the speed of the light. How it could be that the speed of the light was always of 300,000 kilometers per second independently of the state of movement of the observer? With an ingenious change of direction, Einstein transformed east puzzle into a postulate! At the moment, instead of worrying about how he was possible something thus, it accepted the fact, experimentally irrefutable, of which it happened thus. This evident recognition (for us) of the obvious thing, was the first passage in a logical process that, once put in movement, it was going to explain not only the mystery of the constant speed of the light but many things more. The mystery of the certainty of the speed of the light became, thanks to Einstein, in the principle of the certainty of the speed of the light. And this principle, as well, is the first stone in the foundations of the theory of special relativity. The principle of the certainty of the speed of the light is that, independently from where and how we make the measurement of the speed of the light, if we are in movement or rest in relation to the light source, we will always obtain the same result. The speed of the light is, invariably, of 300,000 kilometers per second. This is what Michelson and Morley discovered in their famous experiment. From the point of view of the classic mechanics, the principle of the certainty of the speed of the light does not have

sense absolutely. In fact, it enters conflict with the common sense violently. Before Einstein, the totalitarian control of the common sense elevated the certainty of the speed of the light to the category of paradox. (Wherever it is tried to jump on the limits of our self-imposed cognoscitiva reality, the result is always paradoxical.) A nascent mind is needed pure, like the one of Albert Einstein, accepting that what is, is (the certainty of the speed of the light), and, in that case, the common sense must be mistaken. The most important victim of the mind of nascent of Einstein was the total structure of the classic transformations (of Galileo), that candy but false fruit of a common sense anchored in macrocospic dimensions and speeds. To resign to the common sense is not a easy task. Einstein was first in doing it of a so complete way that its perception of the true nature of space and time changed of radical way. But what is more, when all that was this and done, was that the vision of Einstein on space and time was much more useful that the one of the common sense. The second angular stone of the special theory of relativity, is the principle of relativity. When Einstein separated from himself the idea of the existence of the rest, or notmovement, absolute, its theory became ipso facto a theory of relativity. Since it were not had a better principle of relativity than to take in loan that the one from Galileo, Einstein, simply, resorted to him. But before it updated accommodating it it to the new times. The principle of the relativity of Galileo says that the laws of dynamics (like for example the laws that govern the fall of the bodies) that are valid in a reference frame are valid in all the marks of reference which they move uniformly (without acceleration) in relation to him. Another form to the same say is that it is impossible to determine, making experiments related to the laws of the mechanics, if our frame of reference is moving or is in rest in relation to another frame of reference in which the laws of the mechanics also are valid. Einstein extended the principle of the relativity of Galileo to include in him all the laws of the physics and not only the laws of the classic mechanics. In individual it included the laws that govern the electromagnetic radiation, that was stranger in the times of Galileo. The principle of relativity updated by Einstein said that all the laws of the nature were exactly equal in all the marks of reference that moved uniformly in relation to each other and that, therefore, was no form to distinguish the absolutely uniform movement (or the rest). In summary the two angular stones of the special theory of relativity are: the principle of the certainty of the speed of the light (the experiment of Michelson-Morley) and the principle of relativity (Galileo). Said of more specific way, the special theory of relativity rests in these two postulates: (1) the speed of the light in the emptiness is the same one in all the marks of reference (for all the observers) that moves uniformly in relation with others, and (2) All the laws of the nature are the same ones in all the marks of reference that move uniformly in relation to the others. Of these two postulates, first he is the one that causes more problems. There is no way to obtain that it and the laws of transformation can simultaneously be certain. In agreement with the classic laws of transformation (and with the common sense) the speed of the light less must be the speed with which it is emitted by a luminance source more, or, the speed of the observer if this one is moving in the direction of the source or moving away of her. In agreement with the experience, the speed of the light remains constant, independently of the state of movement of the observer. The sense common and the experimental results in this case are in violent discord. Its mind of nascent said to him, to Einstein, that

since cannot be discussed what is (the experimental tests) that meant that our common sense had to be mistaken. With this decision to leave to a side the sense common and to base its new theory on the only dresses that could see that Lucia emperor (the constant speed of the light and the principle of relativity) Einstein penetrated audaciously in the stranger, in fact in the unimaginable thing. Once inside that new territory, she came to explore where until then it person had not done some. How it is possible that for all spectator the speed of the light is the same one independently of their state of movement? In order to measure the speed it is necessary to use a rule (a rigid twig) and a clock. If the speed of the light so and as is measured by an observer, who is in relative rest with a light source, is same that the measurement by an observer in relative movement with the source, must be because, of a way or another one, the measurement instruments change, of a frame from reference to another one, so that the speed of the light always seems the same one. The speed of the light seems to be constant because the rules and the clocks that we used to measure vary it of a frame from reference to another one, based on its movement. In summary, for an observer in rest a rule in movement changes its length and a clock in movement changes its rate. At the same time, for an observer traveling with a rule and a clock in movement, there is no apparent change in the length and the rate. Therefore, both observers when measuring the light obtain the result of which she is the same one and nobody can detect something nonusual in the measurement nor in the measuring instruments. This is something very similar to the case of the Michelson-Morley experiment. In agreement with Fitzgerald and Lorentz, arm of interferometer which she is facing the wind of the ether (which now we have eliminated of our theory) is shortened by the pressure of the wind of the ether. And thus the light that travels by the arm of the interferometer that faces the wind of the ether must cross a smaller distance and more time to do the one that the light that travels by the other arm. Like result, the speed of the light that moves in both arms appears like the same one. This is what describes the transformations of Lorenz. If one thinks thoroughly, the transformations of Lorentz can be used to describe contractions due to the movement just like contractions due to a fictitious ether wind. The Fitzgeralds and Lorentz imagined that the rules (rods) rigid were compressed by the pressure of the wind of the ether, but in agreement with Einstein the one is the movement in himself that causes the contraction and, in addition, the expansion of the time. There is another form to watch the subject. A speed of the constant light is exactly what would be if the rigid rules of measurement became shorter and the slowest clocks; that would be because an observer in movement would measure the light with a rule of shorter measurement (less distance than to cross for the light) and a slower clock (more time to make the trip) that a traveller in rest state. Each observer would consider his own normal and inalterable rule and its own clock like. Consequently, both observers would obtain the same result of 300,000 kilometers per second and both would feel intrigued by this fact if they followed tied the laws of the classic transformation. These were the initial fruits of the basic affirmations of Einstein (the principle of the certainty of the speed of the light and the principle of relativity): first, a sprite is contracted in the direction in the direction of its movement and it becomes shorter as its speed is increased, until, when reaching the speed of the light, disappears completely. Second, a clock in movement more slowly walks than a clock in rest and more and more continues making its march slow as

it increases the speed until, when reaching the speed of the light, lets walk completely. Those effects will only be apparent to a stationary observer, in relation to the clock and the rule in movement. They will not be apparent for the observer who travels with the rule and the clock. In order to clarify this, Einstein introduced the own and relative classification of. What we see when we observed our stationary rule and our clock, if also we are in stationary state, is its own length and its own time. What we see if we are in stationary state and observed a rule and a clock traveling at very high speeds in relation to us, is the relative length and the relative time of the rule and the clock in movement. The relative length is always smaller than the own one and the relative time is always slower than the own one. The time that one observes in its own clock is its own time and the time that is seen in the clock of a person that moves very quickly, in relation to one, is the relative time (that turns out for the observer - it does not stop the person who happens in movement - to be shorter). From the point of view of the person who happens moving in relation to the spectator, this one is moving and the situation is reversed. Let us suppose that we go on board of a spaceship in an exploration trip. We have agreed ourselves in tightening a button every fifteen minutes to send a return signal to the Earth. As the speed of our spaceship increases, our Earth observers will realize from which instead of every fifteen minutes our signals begin to arrive with intervals of seventeen minutes and after twenty-four minutes. After several days our Earth colleagues, with desperation, will be whereupon our signals arrive every two days to them. If our speed continues in increase our signals they will arrive with intervals of years. It will be able to happen that between one and another signal generations of terraqueous pass. Meanwhile, on board of the spaceship, we are totally ignorantes of which he is happening in the Earth. In which to us concerns everything is being developed according to the predicted plan and we are become bored, little by little, with the routine to have to tighten the button every fifteen minutes. When we returned to the Earth, few older years (our own time) we were whereupon, in agreement with the time of the Earth, we have been outside the Earth during centuries (its relative time). Exactly how many years or centuries have happened will depend on the high thing that are the speeds that we have obtained in our trip. This description is not of science-fiction. It is based on an affluent phenomenon known (of the physicists) call the Paradox the Binoculars, of the theory of special relativity. Part of paradox is that that of binoculars that remains in the Earth (whereas the other goes in a spaceship to make a space trip) will be older than its brother when the traveller returns to the Earth. There is many examples of own time and relative time. Let us suppose that we are in a space station observing an astronaut who is traveling by the space at a speed of 250,000 kilometers per second in relation to us. When observing we will notice it certain slowness in its movements as if one moved to slow motion. Also we will notice that everything in its spaceship seems to move in the same way. Its cigarette will last, for example, the double that ours. Of course, part of this slowness must to the fact that it is increasing, very quickly, the distance that separates it of us and, frequently who happen, the light of its spaceship takes more time in arriving at us. Nevertheless, even after discounting that time, related to the trip of the light from the spaceship to us, we will continue observing who the astronaut continues itself moving more slowly of the normal thing. But for the astronaut at issue we are those that we are moving in relation to

him, at a speed of 250,000 kilometers per second, and once he has made all the discounts necessary, he will be whereupon our movements are slower. Our cigarette lasts the double that his. This situation can be the definitive illustration of how the grass is always greener in the other side. The cigarette of each one of both men lasts the time double that the one of the other. (Unfortunately, that same one happens with the visit of each man to the dentist.) The time that we ourself we experimented and we measured is our own time. The time which we measured of the astronaut is the relative time. Its cigarette lasts twice more than ours because its time passes twice of way slower than ours. The situation is similar with regard to the lengths own and relative. From our point of view, the cigarette of the astronaut (supposing that its end is oriented in the direction in which the spaceship moves) will be shorter than our own cigarette. The other side of the currency is that the astronaut sees itself as in stationary state and its cigarette it seems normal to him. Also it sees us us as if we were traveling to 250,000 kilometers per shorter second, in relation to him, and our cigarettes and of slower combustion. The theory of Einstein has been verified of different ways and all of them verify their postulates with dreadful exactitude. The most common verifications of the phenomenon of the expansion of the time come from the physics of particles of high energy. A very slight particle, call muon, are believed in the superior part of the terrestrial atmosphere by the proton collision (a form of cosmic radiation) with molecules of the air. We know, thanks to experiments with muons created in accelerating, that the muons live a very short time. The sufficient one to never be able to arrive at the Earth from the upper atmosphere. Long before which the time passes that needs to cross that distance are disintegrated spontaneously and they are transformed into other types of particles. Nevertheless, this does not happen thus, since we detected them in abundance here, in the Earth surface. Why the muons created by the cosmic radiations live, in fact, seven times more than the created ones in a laboratory? The answer is that the muons produced by the shocks of the cosmic radiations in the air travel at a speed much greater than the created ones experimentally. At those speeds the effect of the expansion of the time is clearly appreciable. Those muons do not live more on the current from their point of view, but from our perspective seven times live more than what they would do it at smaller speeds. That is certain not only for muons but for almost all subatomic particles and is many types of them. For example, the piones, another type of subatomic particle, that move to the 80 percent of the speed of the light, on the average, and that lives 1.67 times more than the piones at slow speeds. The special theory of relativity says to us that the intrinsic time of life of those particles of high speed is not increased, but that its relative rate of time passes with greater slowness. The special theory of relativity made the calculation possible of those phenomena long before which we had the technical capacity to create them experimentally. In 1972, four of ours more exact atomic clocks available at the present time were put on board of an airplane and gave in him the return to the world. At the end of the trip it was discovered that they had been delayed slightly in relation to his resemblances that were stationary in earth with which they were synchronous before undertaking the flight? The next time that we undertake a flight we must remember that although in very small degree - our clock will walk more slowly, our body will have a greater mass and, if we go seated watching towards the flight deck, we will thin a little. The famous parabola of

the cave, of Plato, describes us to a group of people chained within a cavern in such a way that they only can see the shades that are reflected in the wall of the cavern. Those shades were the only world known for those people. A good day one of them manages to escape to the outer world, outside the cave. It was blinded in the beginning, dazzled by the sun, but when one recovered it gave account of which that one was the real world and that what previously it had taken by the authentic world was not, really, more than the projection of the shades of the authentic world on the wall of the cavern. (Unfortunately, when it returned to the cavern, next to the others that had been chained in her, and told them what it had seen outside, the others thought that he had become crazy.) In agreement with the special theory of relativity, a sprite seems to be contracted in the direction of movement as its speed is increased. Janes Terrell, another physicist, has demonstrated mathematically that this phenomenon is, only, something similar to a visual illusion and, in fact, it has one complete analogy with the projection of the real world in the wall of the cave, in the parabola of Platn.6 The figure To downwards represents a perspective from the high part of our head the superior part of a sphere. The lines connect our eyes with points located to both sides of the sphere. If we are the sufficiently remote thing of the sphere, the distance between both points is almost equal to the diameter of the sphere. The figure To has been drawn as if the sketcher had contemplated to our eyes and the sphere from upon our head. The first passage in the explanation of Terrell is to downwards draw up lines (it see the figure), from each one of both points of the sphere towards a screen located exactly underneath her. Figure B is a lateral perspective, both showing points, the lines drawn up downwards and the screen. (If the reader places the book directly in front of him, their eyes will be in the same position relative to the lines of points that the eyes drawn in figure A.) In order to understand the explanation of Terrell, we suppose that the sphere is moving with much rapidity, at speed next to the one of the light, of right to left. If the sphere moves with the sufficient rapidity interesting things happen extremely. For example, before the light coming from the point located in the left edge can have reached to the observer, the sphere is in front of placed her, blocking its trajectory, and the light not liega to our vision! The opposite happens with the right side. The sphere moves away of the way between the observer and the luminance signals originated by points that were in the part of back of the sphere. Those signals become visible for the observer, whereas the signals coming from the point that was on the brink of madness the sphere now are blocked by the own sphere in their movement towards the left. The effect of this is a deceit illusion. What we see is just like we would see if somebody had rotated the sphere around its axis! Let us see what it happens to him both to the distance between projected points to the being on the screen. It is considerably smaller than in the beginning of the experiment. The equation in the special theory of relativity (the transformations of Lorentz), that describes a contraction due to the movement, describes also those projections (this does not begin to look itself like the cavern of Plato) The fact that the sphere, when moving so quickly, intercepts the way of some of its own signals of light and aside from the way of others, causes the false effect of which the sphere is turning. That causes that the distance projected between two points nobodies in the sphere that are aligned in the direction of the movement, diminishes. Exactly as if somebody turned the sphere. While more quickly the sphere moves, faster it will seem his turn and next will

be both points projected in the screen. That is to say, that the projection is the one that is contracted. Instead of screen, we put point of view of the sphere from our frame of reference and will have the explanation of Terrell of the relativista contraction. Still has not been any analogous explanation for the expansion of the time that accompanies the clocks in movement, nor either for the increase of the mass that takes place in the sprites, but the search, relatively speaking, still is young. The special theory of relativity sample that the mass of a sprite is increased when the speed of the object is increased. Newton had not vacillated describing about folly, but the experience of Newton was limited speeds that are very small in comparison with the speed of the light. The classic physics says to us that a certain amount of force is required to increase the speed of a sprite in a guaranteed amount, for example, a meter per second. Once we know what increase of force is required to obtain the increase of the speed of that determined object in a meter per second, everything what we needed is to apply on him that amount of force. If the object has a speed of 100 meters per second and we applied to that certain amount of force its speed to him will happen to be of 101 meters per second. In agreement with the physics of Newton the same amount of force that increases the speed of 100 meters per second to 101 meters per second, would increase the speed of an object that moves to 8,000 meters per second to 8,001 meters per second. The problem is based in which the Newtonian physics is in an error. More force is needed to increase in a meter per second the speed of an object that moves to 8,000 meters per second that stops the same object moving to 100 meters per second. This must to that an object that moves more quickly, has greater kinetic energy (movement energy). The additional energy causes that it behaves as if had greater mass. A certain amount of force applied during a certain time to a single wagon will much more increase the speed of which if we applied it train to a whole to increase the speed of the whole train. It is clear that this must to that the complete train has a mass greater than the one of a single wagon. When the particles move at speeds that can be considered fast in relation to the speed of the light, its high kinetic energy causes that these behave as if they had greater mass of the one than they have at low speeds. The certain thing is that the special theory of relativity shows to us that the proof mass of a sprite increases with the speed. Since most of subatomic particles moves to different speeds, each one of them can have different relative masses. Therefore, the physicists have calculated the mass in rest of each particle. The mass in rest is the mass of the particle when it does not move. The subatomic particles, in fact, never are in rest, but therefore a uniform method is offered to compare its masses. This is necessary since when the speed of a particle comes near at the speed of the light, its relative mass depends on the rapidity whereupon it is moving. The discovery of Einstein that the clocks in movement change their rate of march takes to some spectacular revisions in the way as we see the world. It shows to us that there is no a universal time that is valid in all the universe. Only there are own times associate to different observers. The own time of each observer is different, except in case two of them are in relative rest to each other (one with the other). If the universe had a beat cardiac its rate it would depend on whom was listening to it. The special theory of relativity shows to us that two events that happen of simultaneous way in a reference frame can appear as if they happened in different times, if they are seen from another frame of reference. In order to clarify this point, Einstein used one of its

famous conceptual experiments. A conceptual experiment is a mental exercise. It has the advantage of which it does not require another instruments except for the mind, which releases it of the limitations of the laboratory experiments. Most of the physicists accepts the use of conceptual experiments like theoretically valid tool, assuming that they occur by satisfied with the idea that if the experiment could practically be carried out their results would be really such of the conceptual or mental experiment. Let us suppose that we were in a room in movement and that the room moves at uniform speed. Exactly in the center of the room there is a light bulb that sends light sparkles periodically. The room has crystal walls, so that an observer from outside can contemplate what it happens inside. At the moment in which we happened in our displacement next to an outer observer, the light produces a sparkle. The question is if there will be some difference between which we see within the room that moves (we we move with her) and what sees the observer who is outside her. In agreement with the special theory of relativity the answer is: in effect, yes, there is difference. A great difference. Within the room we see as the light expands in all directions of the same speed. Since the walls of the enclosure, I am transparent, they are equidistant of the light bulb we see that the light affects of simultaneous way the front wall (direction of movement) and the later one. The outer observer also sees the sparkle and how the light propagates in all directions of the same speed. Nevertheless, in addition to this, he sees that the room is moving. From its point of view the front wall tries to escape to the light that comes near her, whereas the later wall runs to its encounter. Consequently, after the external observer the light reaches the back wall a little before the front wall. By that it is the difference, the certain thing is that the light arrives at both walls in an issued order, but not at the same time. That is to say, that although both we observed two events such (the light affecting the front wall and the light hitting the back wall), each one of us would have a different version that to count of them. For us, within the room, both events are simultaneous. For external observer one of the events it happens the first and other later. The revolutionary discovery of Einstein was that the events that are simultaneous for an observer could happen in different times for others, depending it on its relative movements. Said otherwise: two events, one of which happens and the other before later, seen from a frame of reference of an observer, could simultaneously happen sights from the frame of reference of another observer. One of the observers will use the words before and later. The other the simultaneous word although both observers are describing two events such. In other words, before, later and simultaneous they are local terms. They do not have validity in the universe in all its amplitude, unless they are united to a certain frame of reference. What is before in a reference frame can be later in the other frame of reference and both terms will be united with the one of simultaneous in third? The mathematical formulas that translate what sees an observer in a frame of reference to which an observer see in another frame of reference, are the transformations of Lorentz. Einstein adopted the transformations of Lorentz - that are a series of equations of virtually intact way. Nobody before Einstein obtained so amazing results, with that simple type of conceptual experiment, because nobody before Einstein had boldness to postulate something as fantastic as the principle of the certainty of the speed of the light and nobody dared to it, because the principle of the certainty of the speed of the light is contradicted of complete and unequivocal way

with the common sense; specially with the common sense so and as it was represented by the classic laws of the transformation. These laws are impregnated of common sense and, at the same time, so integrated in our daily existence that to anybody, truely, was happened to him to put them in doubt. After the experiment of Michelson and Morley even produced incompatible results that were of all point with the classic laws of transformation, no other mind of nascent more than the one of Einstein it conceived the idea that the classic laws of transformation could be mistaken. To Einstein it was only happened to him to suspect that at very high speeds, much more fast that those that we can to verify with our senses, the mentioned laws were not applicable. This is not equivalent to affirm that they are incorrect. At low speeds (in comparison with the 300,000 kilometers per second of the light), the contraction and the expansion of the time are not appreciable sensorially. In that limited situation, the classic transformations are a good guide for the practical experience. After all, in automatic stairs in march really we will arrive before at its end if in addition we walked towards ahead. If we made the experiment of the room in movement with the sound, instead of with the light, will not obtain confirmation of the special theory of relativity, but of the classic laws of transformation. The principle of the certainty of the speed of the light does not exist in the sound, because its speed is not constant. It varies in agreement with the movement of the observer (oidor), so and as it dictates the common sense. The word is indeed that one here: it dictates. We lived our lives in a limited situation on low speeds, where the sonic speed (1,200 km hour approximately) seems to us fast. Therefore, our common sense is based on our experiences in this limited atmosphere. If we wished to extend our understanding beyond those limitations, is necessary to remake our conceptual constructions. That is what Einstein did, that was the first person in seeing that he was this, indeed, which was to make to give sense to certain impossible experimental results obviously, like the certainty of the speed of the light for any observer, independently of its state of rest or movement. This took to him to at first turn the certainty of the speed of light of a mystery, which, as well, lead to him to the conclusion that if the speed of the light were constant for all the observers in different states from movement, the measuring instruments used by them, in their different states from movement, had to vary then otherwise could not give similar results. With a stroke of luck, Einstein discovered that the same variants had been expressed already in the equations of the Dutch Hendrik Lorentz, so it decided to take rendered them. Finally, verifying that the clocks changed their march with the movement, dragged it to the inevitable conclusion that more now, before or later, as well as simultaneous, they were not than relative terms. Everything depended on the movement state of the observer. This conclusion is, indeed, the opposed one to the assumptions on which the Newtonian physics is based. Newton, since we did all, supposed that there was a clock that simultaneously counted the seconds that passed in all the universe. To every second of time passed in a certain corner of the universe, a second in the most separated from its ends corresponded. In agreement with Einstein this is not correct. How can somebody say when it is now in all the universe? If we want to designate that now by the concurrence of two simultaneous events, like, for example, my arrival to the consultation of my doctor and my clock that marks the three oclock, we are whereupon an observer located in another system of reference sees that one of those two events takes place before the

other, that is to say, that stops he they are not simultaneous. Newton wrote that the absolute time passed of equal way...,7 but was mistaken. There is no a unique time that passes equal for all the observers. The reality is that the absolute time does not exist. The existence of a flow of fundamental, last time, that it passed by all the physical universe, thing that all we had accepted tacitly, turned out to be only one pledges more with the supposed clothes of the emperor who this one did not wear. In this respect, Newton committed, in addition, another new error. It affirmed that space and time were two separated things, which according to Einstein is not thus absolutely. Nothing can happen in certain place without happening in a certain time, and nothing can happen in the time without it happens in a place. Most of us we think that space and time are separated things because that one is the form as we thought when making contact with experimental enemy with them. For example, we see that we have the possibility of exerting certain control on our position in the space, but that none we can control our position in the time. We cannot make nothing absolutely to stop our sliding in the time. We can choose having left completely immovable, in which case our position in the space does not change, but there is no form of which we pruned to remain immovable in the time. Aside from this, there is something is very difficult to catch, very aloof, when referring us to the concepts of space and, mainly, of time. He is something that it prevents us to be able to calculate of anticipated way, which will be our relation with them. Subjectively, the time has an evasive quality that is looked much like a stream in movement: some times it passes espumeante and anxious, when it hurries his passage when running between next borders with a narrow and little deep channel. Other times it is made slow, when the channel is wide and the little slope. In certain occasions until it seems to park and it forms great rafts in which the water causes the impression to be immovable. Also the space has a quality ubicua, which has served as base the generalized idea that solely the movement serves to separate things. The famous poem of William Blake tries to obtain a definition next to those intangible qualities: For being able to see a World in a sand grain and a Sky in a wild flower, it includes the Infinite with the palm of your hand and the Eternity in one hour. (it is not coincidence that the title of this poem is Auguries of Innocence.) The special theory of relativity is a physical theory. Its objective is to discover the mathematically calculable nature of the reality. It is not a theory of the subjective thing. Although it seems to show that the appearances of the physical reality can vary of a frame from reference to another one, is a theory of the incambiables aspects (the physicists say invariable) of the physical reality. The special theory of relativity is the first rigorously useful mathematical theory for the exploration of zones whose expression, until then, had been of the dominion of the poets. Like any other representation of the concise and sharpened reality, the theories of relativity are poetry for the mathematicians and the physicists. Nevertheless, the universal reputation of Einstein is possible that it must, to a large extent, to the shared intuition of which it had something deeply excellent that to communicate on the space and the time. And exactly what Einstein had to say era that things as well as space and time do not exist, but solely space-time. Space-time is a continuous one. A continuous one is something whose parts are so next to each other, are so arbitrarily small that the continuous one cannot be broken in them; that is to say, that these parts cannot separate of to each other. In a continuous one there are no ruptures

because one slides, passes, continuadamente. For example: a continuous unidimensional is a line drawn up in a wall. Theoretically we can say that the line is composed by a series of points, but the points are infinitely close of others. The result is that the line passes continuadamente from an end to the other. A continuous example of a bidimensional one is the wall. Account with two dimensions, length and width. Of similar way all the points of the surface are in close contact with the enemy to each other and the wall is, in himself, a continuous surface. Continuous a three-dimensional one is what commonly we called space. A pilot who flies in his airplane sails in continuous a three-dimensional one. In order to offer his position to us he not only must say his North situation to us and This, for example, but also his height. The airplane, like all the physical things, is three-dimensional, has length, width and thickness. That one is the reason for which the mathematicians call to our reality (that is also its reality) three-dimensional. In agreement with the physics of Newton, our three-dimensional reality is separated of the time and it moves forwards in a unidimensional time. The special theory of relativity does not express it thus. According to her, our reality is tetradimensional, has four dimensions. We lived, we breathed and we existed in a continuous cuatridimensional of spacetime. The Newtonian perspective of space and time is a dynamic image. The events are developed with passing of the time. The time is unidimensional and it moves (forwards). The past, the present and the future they pass in that order. The special theory of relativity, nevertheless, says to us that he is preferable and much more useful to think about terms of a static image, immovable, of space-time. That constitutes a continuous one of space-time. In this static image the events are not developed, do not pass: simply they are. If we could contemplate our reality of tetradimensional way we could see that everything what already it seems to have developed, to have happened before we in passing of the time, continues existing in toto, as if it was printed in the weave that constitutes the continuous space-time. The same it happens to which is about to to happen. We could see it everything, the past, the present and the future just by a glance. Of course, this is only one mathematical proposal (or it is not thus) There is no reason so that we worry not to be able to visualize a cuatridimensional world. The physicists cannot either do it. The only thing which it is in his hands, at the moment, is to accept that it is possible that Einstein is right, since the tests seem to indicate it thus. The message of Einstein is that space and time are related of very intimate way. For want of a better way to express it, it represented this relation calling to the time one fourth dimension to us. Fourth dimension is a translation from a language to another one. The original language is the mathematics and the second is, in this case, the Castilian. The problem is, simply, in that there is no form to express in terms of the second language which says the first language. Therefore, the concept of time as one fourth dimension is, simply, the label that we have given a relation. The relation, in this case, is existing between space and the time so and as it are expressed mathematically in the theories of relativity. The relation between space and time, discovered by Einstein, are similar to the existing relation between the sides of a triangle rectangle, discovered by the Greek Pitgoras, a contemporary of Confucius, there by the 550 to of C. A triangle rectangle is a triangle that contains a right angle. A right angle is the one that forms when two perpendicular lines are in a point. The drawing that follows is the one of a triangle rectangle. The side opposed to the right angle is called hypotenuse. This side is always the one of greater length of

the triangle rectangle. Pitgoras discovered that whenever we knew the lengths both small sides we could calculate the one of the longest side. This expressed relation mathematically is the Theorem of Pitgoras: the square of the hypotenuse is equal to the sum of the squares of the legs (the shortest sides). It is to say that a hypotenuse of a certain length can be product of different combinations from legs. Said otherwise: there are many combinations of different legs that, calculated, will give the same hypotenuse. For example, first of the legs it can be very short and the very long second. Or to the inverse one. Or something intermediate. If we replaced space by one of the legs of a triangle rectangle, time by the other leg and called interval space-time to the hypotenuse, we have a relation that is conceptually analogous to the relation between space-time with the interval space-time described in the special theory of relativity? The interval space-time between two events is an absolute one. It never varies. It can seem different from different observers in different states from movement, but he is always equal in itself, invariable. The special theory of relativity shows to us like different observers, in different marks from reference, can observe two events such and calculate the interval space-time among them. The answer that all the observers will obtain will be the same one ? An observer can be so in a state of movement that for him there is a distance and a time, in relation to two events, and another observer can be in another state of movement so that their instruments of measurement both indicate a distance and a different time between events. But the interval space-time between both does not vary. For example: the interval space-time, the absolute separation between two stars in explosion is the same one, as much if it is observed from a frame of reference that moves slowly like a planet, or from a frame of reference that moves very quickly, like a space rocket of great speed. Permtasenos to return to our experiment with the movable room of crystal walls. Even when we, those that we are in the interior of the room, see how the light affects the front wall and the back wall of simultaneous way, the outer observer will see that the light ray affects the later wall before to reach the previous one. But if we used the similar equation to the Theorem of Pitgoras, in which as much we as the outer observer replaced our respective measures of time and distance, both we will find the same interval space-time between both events. In fact this similar relation to the Theorem of Pitgoras was the discovery of one of the professors of mathematics of Einstein, Hermann Minkowski, that felt inspired by the special theory of the relativity of his more famous disciple. In 1908, Minkowski announced its opinion this way: From now on the space in himself and the time in himself, are condemned to vanish, are turned simple shades, and only one species of union between both will conserve a reality independiente.8 The mathematical explorations of Minkowski in the space and the time, were, at the same time, fascinating and revolutionary. As a result of them a simple diagram arose from space-time that showed the existing mathematical relation between the past, the present and the future. Of all the great wealth of information contained in that diagram, which more strong sensation causes is the one of which everything the past and everything the future of each individual being are and they will always be in an only point, now. And what is more: now of each individual being it is located specifically and one will never be in no other place that is not here (there where is the observer). Sixty and three years before ram Dass, in its great book Be Here Now, established the motto of its movement of conscience, Hermann

Minkowski proved that in the physical reality there is no election in the matter (folly) Unfortunately for the physicists, the accomplishment not always is the experience. However, after two thousand years of use in the East, being here now, the first passage in the meditation, received its convalidacin in Western Science by means of the rigorous mathematical confirmation of Minkowski, inspired by the special theory of relativity. The last and more famous aspect of the special theory of relativity is its revelation of which the mass is an energy form and that the energy has mass. In words of Einstein: the energy has mass and the mass represents energa.9 Although all that sounds stranger in a certain sense, in the sense that during many years we thought that the matter was different from the energy in the same way that the body is different from the mind (another form of the same theory), in another sense sounds surprising natural. The dicotoma matter-energy goes back to a very distant past, to the Old Testament. The Gnesis presents/displays us to the man like a species of ceramic creation. God took a handful from mud (matter) and blew the life (energy) in the doll. The Old Testament is a product of the western world (or to the reciprocal one). The physics is, also, a product of the western world. Nevertheless, in the East never there was too much philosophical or religious confusion (in the West these two concepts are only separated) on matter and energy. The world of the matter is a relative world and a false world. False, but not in the sense that it does not exist, but false in the sense that we do not see it as is in fact. The way as it really is cannot be explained in words, but, in an attempt to talk about to him Eastern Literature repeatedly speech of dancing energy and transitory and nonpermanent forms. This has a showy and exciting similarity with the image of the physical reality that arises from the physics of particles of high energy. Buddhist Literature does not speak to learn new things related to the reality, but to be eliminating the veils of the ignorance that exist between us and what we are already really. Perhaps to this it must the one that the absurd affirmation of which the mass is only one form of energy is unexpectedly acceptable. The formula that expresses the relation between mass and energy is the most famous formula of the world: And = mc2. The energy contained in a matter piece is equal to its mass multiplied by an extraordinarily great number, the square of the speed of the light. That means that even the smallest particle of matter has a tremendous amount of energy concentrated in her. Although Einstein did not know it at that time, finished discovering the secret of the stellar energy. The stars turn of continued way matter energy. Due to grandsima that is the conversion relation consumed energy-matter, the stars can continue burning during innumerable millenia and millenia. In the center of the star, the hydrogen atoms, the fundamental matter of the physical world, are so tight to each other, due to the enormous gravitational force of the star, that megre together giving rise to the birth of a new element, the helium. Each four hydrogen atoms become a helium atom. Nevertheless, the mass of a helium atom is not the same one of four hydrogen atoms, but slightly smaller. This small difference is emitted in form of radiating energy - light and heat -. the process to fuse slight elements in heavier others is called, naturally, fusion. The fusion of helium hydrogen causes a hydrogen explosion. In other words, an ardent star (young) is, literally, an enormous hydrogen pump in continued explosion. The formula and = mc2, is confirmed in the atomic pump. The atomic pumps and the atomic reactors obtain energy of the mass by the procedure of the fission, that is the opposed one to the fusion.

Instead of fusing small atoms transforming them into the other greater ones, the fission procedure breaks the uranium atoms, that are very great and it transforms them into smaller others. This is obtained bombing a uranium atom with an subatomic particle, a neutron. When the neutron strikes to the uranium atom this one is broken in other smaller atoms. As the mass of all these resulting atoms reunited is minor who the mass of the original uranium atom, the mass difference explodes and it is transformed into energy. This process produces, in addition, additional neutrons that fly to strike to other uranium atoms, being created new fissions, more light atoms, more energy and more neutrons. This phenomenon, as a whole, is what a chain reaction is called. An atomic pump is a uncontrolled chain reaction. A hydrogen pump (fusion) takes place by means of the detonation of an atomic pump (fission) in the middle of an amount of hydrogen. The heat of the atomic burst (instead of the heat produced by the friction caused by the gravity) fuses helium atom hydrogen atoms, producing more heat, and so on. There are no limits in the size of a potential hydrogen pump that, in addition is constructed with the most abundant element of the universe. For either or badly, one of the important discoveries the more of the special theory of relativity is that mass and energy are different forms from the same thing. Like space and time are not separated organizations. There is no qualitative difference between mass and energy, only exists mass-energy. Mathematically, this discovery means that the two laws of conservation of the mass and the energy, can be replaced by a single one, the one of conservation of mass-energy. A conservation law is, simply, the declaration of which an amount of which it wants that it is never changes, happens what happens. For example, we suppose that a conservation law existed that regulated the number of guests in a celebration. If a thing thus were certain, we would warn that whenever arrived a new guest another one left and, also, whenever one left had to go one new one. The rate of this renovation of guests could be greater or smaller and the guests could arrive and leave single or in groups, but in all circumstance, at any time, the number of guests in the celebration would have to be the same one. The law of conservation referring to the energy says that the total amount of energy in the universe always was and will always be the same one. We can turn an energy form another one (like for example mechanical energy in thermal energy by means of the friction), but the total amount of present energy in the universe never changes. Also, the law of conservation of the matter says that the total amount of matter in the universe was and will always be the same one. We can turn a matter another matter (like, for example, ice in water, or steam water), but the total amount of matter in the universe will never change. The special theory of relativity, when combining mass and energy in mass-energy, combines the law of conservation of the matter and the law of conservation of the energy to form the law of conservation of mass-energy. This law says that the amount of mass-energy in the universe always was and will always be the same one. The mass will be able to become energy vice versa and, but the total amount of mass-energy in the universe will not change. The sun, the stars and, even, the firewood that burns in our chimney, are examples of the mass that becomes energy. The physicists who study subatomic particles have familiarized of such way with the concept of interchange of mass in energy and energy in mass that, of routine way, designate the mass of particles in terms of their power content. In general terms only twelve laws of conservation exist specially, simple laws that every time are

become more important, within the field of the physics of particles of high energy, because they are derived of which the physicists create to be the definitive principles (the last dance) that govern the physical world. These principles are the symmetry laws. The symmetry laws are with enough rigor which its name indicates. Something is symmetrical if certain aspects his continue being such under variable conditions. For example: a always reflected semicircle to other half independently of by where we cut the circle. Independently of how we turn a circle half of the right always will reflect to other half. The position of the circle changes, but its symmetry remains. The Chinese have a similar concept (perhaps the same one) A part of the circle is called by them yin and the other part yang. While he is yin will be yang also. Where there is death will be birth. The concept of yin-yang, that really is one viejsima symmetry law, is another form to say that the universe is a totality that looks for the balance with same himself. The irony of the special theory of relativity, like has appeared to us until now, is that it does not take care of those aspects of the reality that are relative, but of those others that are not it. Like the one of the quantum mechanics, the impact of the theory of relativity on the physics of Newton has been demolishing. Not only because it has demonstrated that it was mistaken but, still more, when putting in the open its great limitations. The special theory of relativity and the quantum physics have to us catapult to the amplest and unimaginable zones of the reality, of which we did not have previous ideas. The suppositions of the physics of Newton correspond to the nonexistent clothes of the emperor that always we believed wore: a universal time whose to pass uniform it affected all the universe; an independent, separated and empty space. And the belief that it existed some place of the universe in calm, absolute calm and inmovilidad. The theory of relativity has demonstrated the falsification to us (the lack of utility) of each one of these suppositions. The emperor did not dress, absolutely, none of those clothes. The only movement in the physical universe always is relative to any part, aside from him. There is separation between space and no time. Mass and energy are different names for a same thing. Instead of these suppositions of the Newtonian physics, the special theory of relativity offers a new and unified physics to us. The measurements of distance and duration can vary of a frame from reference to another one, but the interval space-time between two events never changes. Whatsoever this, the special theory of relativity has a failure. One is based on a rather little common situation. The special theory of relativity is only applicable to reference marks that move uniformly in relation to the others. Unfortunately most of the movement is not constant nor ideally uniforms. On other words, the special theory of relativity is based on a idealizacin. It is limited and it requires that special situation of uniform movement. That one is the reason for which Einstein called the special or restricted theory, of relativity. The vision of Einstein was to build a valid physics for all the systems of reference, like which they move to each other with nonuniform movements (acceleration and deceleration). Its idea was to outside create a physics that could describe to all the events in any system or frame of reference, independently of which its movement in relation to any other system of reference. In 1915, Einstein was able to be successful in the profit of one complete generalization of its special theory. It called to this attainment, the general theory of relativity. GENERAL FOLLY The general theory of relativity demonstrates to us that our minds follow different rules from which governs the real

world. A rational mind is based on the impressions that receive from perspective limited his and form structures that later can accept or reject voluntarily. From this point of view, independently of how the world works, that rational mind follows the rules that autoimpuso and is to print on the real world its own impronta, its version and its concepts of which must be. And that continues thus until a mind arises from nascent that shouts: This is not correct. What had to be it is happening in the reality. I have tried time and time again to discover why it happens thus and not as it had to happen. I have forced my imagination until the limit to conserve my belief that the things thus had to be. I have arrived at a breakthrough point. No longer I have left more remedy than to admit than that supposed necessity, in which it had believed, does not come in truth of the real world, but of my own mind. This narrative paragraph is not one hiprbole poetic, is a concise description of the most important conclusion of the general theory of relativity and means whereupon it was obtained. That limited perspective is the perspective of our three-dimensional rationality and our points of view on a small part of the universe (the part in which we have been born). The things that they have to be are the ideas of geometry (the rules that govern the air lines, the circles, the triangles, etc.). The mind of nascent was the one of Albert Einstein. The belief long maintained time was that those rules governed without exception the totality of the universe. What the mind of nascent of Einstein discovered was that that is something that only is in our minds? Einstein discovered that certain geometric laws only were valid in limited regions of the space. This makes equipment since our experience is limited, physically, to small regions of the space, like our Solar System. Nevertheless, as our experience expands, we found that it is more and more difficult to apply those rules to the whole extension of the universe. Einstein was the first person whom that saw the geometric rules that they were only applicable to a part of the limited Vista universe from one perspective one (like ours), were not universal. This released to him and it allowed to see him and to consider to the universe of a way as nobody had anticipated it previously. What saw is the content of the general theory of relativity. Einstein did not take care, in way some, of the nature of our minds. Its interest was amounted in the physics. Our new idea - it wrote - is simple: to construct to a valid physics for all the systems coordenados.1 the fact that illustrating something important it did it with the form as we structured our perceptions indicates an inevitable tendency towards the combination of the physics and the sicologa. How arrived Einstein from a physical theory at a revolutionary declaration on geometry? How it could lead that to a significant point of view on our mental process? The answer to those questions is one of less the most known, but also one of registered the more important and intriguing intellectual adventures until now. Einstein left from its special theory of relativity. In spite of to have been so great successful, was not satisfied absolutely with her because it was applied uniformly only to systems of coordinates moving in relation to others. It is possible, it thought Einstein, to explain the same phenomenon seen from two different marks from reference, one of them moving uniformly and the other with movement not-uniforms, in such a way that there is a consistent explanation for the phenomenon in terms of the reference system that moves uniformly and of the other that it moves of way not-it uniforms? In other words, we can describe events that happen in a coordinate system that is moving of way not-uniforms in terms that are significant for an observer located in a system from coordinates that moves of

uniform way, or to the reciprocal one? We can create a physics that is valid for observers in both marks of reference? Yes, it discovered Einstein, it is possible for the observers located in two different marks from reference to be related of a way that is significant in terms of their own state of movement and in terms of another state of movement. In order to illustrate this, it resorted to another one of its famous mental experiments. Let us imagine an elevator in a building of an extraordinary height. The cable that maintains the elevator has broken and the elevator is falling to lead towards the ground. In the interior of the elevator there are several physicists. They have not found out that the cable is had broken and, since there are no windows in the elevator, cannot watch the outside. The question is, what devises of its situation have the observers who are in the outside of the elevator (we) and which is the one that the observers have who go in the interior of the elevator (the physicists)? Since one is a mental experiment, idealizado, we can do without the effects of the friction and the air resistance. For us the situation appears clear. The elevator is falling and as soon as it crashes against the ground all his occupants will die. While the elevator falls is accelerating its in agreement with the law of the gravity of Newton. The movement of the elevator uniform but is not accelerated, due to the field of gravitation of the Earth. We can predict many of the things that can happen in the interior of the elevator. For example: if somebody within the elevator drops a handkerchief will not happen anything, unless it will seem to float before the observers of the interior of the elevator because it will accelerate his fall towards the ground to the same rate that the elevator and those that go within him. In fact it is not that nothing floats, but that everything will be falling to the same rate, and, therefore, will be no change some in its relative positions. For a generation of physicists born and educated in the interior of the elevator, nevertheless, the things would have a quite different aspect. For them, the lazy objects to fall do not fall, simply remain quiet in the middle of the air. If somebody pushes one of those floating objects this one it will move in line straight until it encounters over one of the sides of the elevator. For the observers located in the interior of the elevator there are no operating forces on no of the objects located in the interior of the elevator. In summary: those observers will reach the conclusion that they are in a coordinate inertial system. The laws of the mechanics are perfectly valid. Their experiments always will produce coincident results with the theoretical predictions. An object in rest follows in rest. A sprite continues in movement. The sprites are only turned aside of their footpaths by forces that are proportional to the deviation degree. Each reaction has an equivalent opposite feedback. If we pushed a floating chair it will put in movement in a direction and those that we have pushed it we will go in opposite direction with a little while equal (although with one more a slower speed due to than our mass he is greater). The observers in the interior del elevator have a consistent explanation for the phenomena happened in the interior del elevator: they are in an inertial system of coordinates and they can demonstrate it using itself the laws of the mechanics. The outer observers, located outside the elevator, also have a consistent explanation for the phenomena that are happening in the interior of the elevator: the elevator is falling in a field of gravitation. Their occupants do not realize it, since they cannot to observe the outside, so there is no form of which they can detect that field while they are falling. Its system of coordinates is in state of accelerated movement, weighs

to that they think that they do not move in absolute. The bridge between those two explanations is the gravity. The elevator in fall is an edition of pocket of the coordinate inertial system. An authentic coordinate inertial system is not limited in the space nor in the time. The edition of the elevator is it as much in the space as in the time. It is limited in the space because an object that moves in line straight in its interior will not continue moving straight in line for always, but only until it encounters over one of the walls. It is limited in the time because in a while or another one the elevator will finish crashing against the ground and its existence will finish suddenly. In agreement with the special theory of relativity, in addition, is very significant the fact that the elevator is limited in size because, otherwise, would not appear to the eyes of its occupants like a co-ordinated inertial system. For example, if the physicists in the interior of the elevator drop simultaneously two balls of baseball, these will float exactly in the air where they were left and they will remain there. For the outer observer they are falling of parallel way to each other. Nevertheless, if the elevator had the size of Texas and the balls were left with a separation to each other like the distance that there is from an end to another one of Texas, the balls would not fall to each other of parallel way, but that they would converge, since each one of them would be attracted by the gravity towards the Earth center. The observer located in the interior of the gigantic elevator would realize which the balls, as anyone of the other floating objects in the elevator would be come near to each other with the course of the time as if there was a mutual attraction among them. That mutual attraction would appear like a force that affected to the objects in the interior of the elevator and, under such circumstances, the physicists in the interior of the elevator hardly could deduce that they were in an inertial system of coordinates. In summary, if he is the sufficiently small thing, a coordinate system, in fall in a field of gravitation, is the equivalent one to a coordinate inertial system. This one is the principle of the equivalence of Einstein. It is a clarifying piece of the mental skill of Einstein. Any similar thing to a inertial system of coordinates, that can be suprimido2 (they are words of Einstein) presuming the existence of a field of gravitation, hardly deserves the qualifying one of absolute (like in absolute movement or absolute rest). Whereas the observers in the interior of the elevator experience the lack of movement and the absence of the gravity, the observers in the outside of the elevator see a system co-ordinated (the elevator) in fall accelerated in a field of gravitation. Permtasenos, now, to imagine a variant to that situation. Let us suppose that we, the external observers, were in a coordinate system inertial. We already know what it happens so in a system: the same things that happen in an elevator in fall. There are no forces, not even the one of the gravity, that affects to us. Therefore, permtasenos to suppose that we floated comfortably. The objects in rest continue in rest and the sprites continue straight in line for always and any action produces an equal and opposite reaction. In our inertial system there is an elevator. Somebody has held a cord to the elevator and throws of him in the direction indicated in the drawing. Since one is a mental experiment, it does not matter how this could be carried out. The elevator is dragged by a constant force, which means that it is in a state of constant acceleration in the direction of the arrow. How would appreciate the situation the located observers outside and the located ones within the elevator? When floating outside the elevator we would experiment that our frame of reference was in absolute rest and

that is no gravity that affects it. We see as the elevator is dragged by the cord with a movement uniformly accelerated and, therefore, we can predict some things on him. Everything what is Within the elevator, if he is not firmly subject will hit the ground of the elevator quickly. If somebody within the elevator drops a handkerchief, the ground of the elevator hurries to hit the handkerchief. If somebody tries to jump on the ground, this one will go ahead quickly and is, of instantaneous way, again under its feet. The ground of the elevator will hit any thing continuously that is against its way when it accelerates his movement upwards. In the interior of the elevator, nevertheless, the appreciation of which it happens is different. For a generation of physicists, born, grown and educated within the elevator to speak of an accelerated ascending movement it is a fantasy (we remember that the elevator does not have windows). For them its coordinate system is in rest. The objects fall to the ground due to the existence of a field of gravitation, exactly in the same way that the Earth objects fall to the ground attracted by the force of the gravity. As much the observers in the outside like whom they are in the interior of the elevator, have consistent explanations for the phenomena that happen in the interior of the elevator. We, the observers who we are outside the elevator, us explained them like due to the accelerated movement of the elevator. The observers who go in their interior will explain them as a result of the presence of a field of gravitation. There is no way, absolutely, to determine who of us is right. - Delay a little while - we say - we suppose that I make a small hole in one of the walls of the elevator and make pass through him a ray of light. If the elevator is really in rest, the light ray will affect the wall opposed of the elevator to the same height of the hole exactly. Since we can see that the elevator is accelerating its upward movement, we know that the wall will move slightly upwards in the time that the light ray takes in crossing the elevator. Therefore, the light ray will affect the wall opposed in a place slightly lower than the one of the hole by which it penetrates the light ray. In effect, from the point of view of that they go in the interior of the elevator, the light ray will give the impression to curve itself downwards, instead of moving in line straight. This would have to prove to them that the elevator is in movement. This nontest absolutely nothing similar - Jim de Wit says that, naturally, is within the elevator -. the rays of light in this elevator do not travel in line straight. Why they would have to do it? We are within a field of gravitation. The light is energy and the energy has mass. The gravity attracts the mass, so a light ray that crosses the elevator in its displacement will see in the same way attracted downwards by the force of the field of gravitation that would perpendicularly make a ball of baseball sent to the trajectory of the light ray. There is no form of which we pruned to convince to of Wit that its coordinate system is in a state of accelerated movement. Everything what we pruned to say to him to prove it to it, rejects it and attributes it to the result of its field of gravitation. There is no form absolutely to distinguish between movement uniformly accelerated and a constant field of gravitation. This one is another form to express the principle of equivalence of Einstein. In limited zones the gravity is equivalent to the acceleration. We have already seen that the acceleration (in fall) through a gravitational field is the equivalent one of a coordinate system inertial. Now we see that a gravitational field is equivalent to the accelerated movement. Finally we are come near to the general theory of relativity, a valid theory for all the marks of reference, independently of its state of movement. The bridge that unites the explanations of the observers

within the elevator with the explanations of the observers who are outside is the gravity. The indication that it indicated to Einstein that the gravity was the key of its general theory as old era as the own physics. There are two classes of mass, which means that there are two forms to speak of it. First it is the mass of gravitation. The mass of gravitation of an object, speaking in general terms, is the weight of the object in a balance. Sometimes one of those objects weighs three times more than another object than has three times greater mass. The gravitational mass is the measurement of the force of the gravity that the Earth exerts on an object. The laws of Newton describe the effects of this force that varies with the distance of the mass to the Earth. Even though the Laws of Newton describe the effects of this force, do not define it. This one is the mystery of a action-to-distance (p 43). How can the invisible Earth reach and attract the other objects? The second type of mass is the inertial mass. The inertial mass is the measurement of the resistance of an object to the acceleration (or to the deceleration that is a negative acceleration). For example, more force is needed three times to move three wagons of railroad from a situation of rest to twenty kilometers per hour (positive acceleration), that the one that needs to move only an identical wagon at the same speed of twenty kilometers per hour (p 152). Of similar way when they are moving it is necessary three times more force to stop to the three wagons that stop to stop to one single one. This must to that the inertial mass of the three wagons is three times greater than the inertial mass of a simple wagon. The inertial mass and the gravitational mass are equal. This explains why a pen and a bullet of tube fall at the same speed in the emptiness. The tube bullet has a mass of gravitation hundreds of times superior to the pen (weight more), but at the same time has hundreds of times more resistance to the movement (inertial mass) that the pen. The attraction that the Earth exerts on her is hundreds of times greater, but also its tendency is hundreds of times greater to conserve its state of rest (or of movement). The result is that it falls at the same speed that the pen, although apparently would have to fall with much greater rapidity. The fact that the mass of gravitation and the mass of inertia is equal were something that was known three hundred years ago already, but the physicists thought that he was a pure coincidence. The smaller importance was not granted to him until Einstein published its general theory of relativity. The coincidence of the equivalence of the gravitational mass and the inertial mass were clave3 that lead to Einstein at the beginning of equivalence, that makes reference through equivalence between the mass of gravitation and the mass of inertia to equivalence between gravity and acceleration in themselves. Those are the facts that the famous example of the elevator clarified. The special theory of relativity makes reference al movement nonaccelerated (it uniforms).? If it is done without the acceleration, the special theory of relativity can be applied. Nevertheless, since the gravity and acceleration are equivalent, this is just like to say that the special theory of relativity is applicable when it is done without the gravity; but if there is to consider the effects of the gravity we must use the general theory of relativity. In the physical world the effects of the gravity can be let to consider in: (1) remote regions of the space very moved away of any center of gravity (matter), and (2) in very small regions of the space. The reason by which the gravity can be ignored in very small regions of the space leads to the sicodlico aspect of all the theories of Einstein. The gravity can be ignored in those very small regions of the space if they are the sufficiently small thing so that the

mountainous land of the space-time is not appreciable? The nature of the continuous space-time is similar to the one of a waved rustic landscape. The hills that in him form are caused by matter pieces (objects). While greater they are these, the continuous space-time is waved more. In the remote regions of the space, far from all matter of significant size, the continuous space-time it seems a plain. A piece of matter as large as the Earth causes a small elevation in the space-time and a matter piece as large as a star causes a relative mountain. When an object travels by the continuous space-time, it takes the simplest footpath between two points, and this trajectory is what the physicists call a geodesic one. A geodesic line not always is straight because of the nature of the land in which is the object. Let us suppose that we were in a globe from which we observed a mountain, underneath us, in whose summit there is a shining lantern. The mountain is raised gradually of the plain and its elevation is increasing until, close already of his top it rises of almost vertical way. The mountain are several villages surrounding, with footpaths that unite with others. When the ways come near to the mountain all of them begin to curve of a way or another one, to avoid having to raise unnecessarily in the mountain. Let us suppose that it is at night when we watched down from the globe. We cannot see the mountain nor the paths or ways; the only thing that we see is the lantern of the summit of the mountain and the torches that take the travellers who go by the paths. If we observed with attention we will see that the torches are turned aside of the air line when they are come near to the proximities of the lantern. Some of those trajectories are curved gracefully around the lantern to some distance of him. Others come near more to him, but while they come near more more abruptly they will curve to surround it. Before that observation it is probable that we deduce that the lantern emits certain force that repels the attempts to come near to him of the carriers of the torches. We could speculate, for example, with the idea that the lantern is excessively hot and turns out painful to come near to him. When arriving the light from the day, we see that the lantern is in the summit of a mountain and that it does not have anything to do with the movements of the carriers of the torches. These were limited, simply, to follow the way easiest to go from villages the others, that is to say, from their point of origen to their destination. This skillful example of analogy is work of Bertrand Russell. In its case, the mountain is the sun; the travellers are planets, asteroids, I commit (and the remainders of the space program); the footpaths are their orbits and the arrival of the light of the day is the appearance of the general theory of the relativity of Einstein. The key of everything is in which the objects of the Solar System do not move since they do it because certain mysterious force (the gravity) acts on them according to its distance to the sun, but due to the nature of the place through as they move. Arthur Eddington illustrated the same situation of different form. Let us suppose, suggested, that we were of a boat watching through clean waters on board and I am transparent. We can see the sand of the bottom and to the fish that swim below us. We observed and we realize of which the fish seem to be repelled by a determined point. When they come near him they turn aside either to the left or to the right but never they happen over him. Perhaps before the observation of those facts we deduce that in that point there is a repelente force that forces the fish to turn aside itself and to move away of there. Nevertheless, if we observed with greater attention, from within of the water, will see that an enormous starfish has been buried at heart creating a species of great sand mountain. The

fish that swim at heart find simpler to turn aside themselves than not to rise when they swim over the pile of sand. There is no force that forces the fish to give that return. If all that well had been observed from the first moment, we had included/understood that the fish did not make another thing that to look for the best way in its displacement. The movement of the fish was not determined by the emanated force of the mysterious place, but by the nature of the land by which it moved (the starfish of Eddington was called Albert). If we could see the geography (geometry) of the continuous space-time, would see that, like in the previous examples, he is he, in himself, and not operating forces between the objects, the reason for which the planets move of the way since they do it. , you really do not turn out possible to see the geometry of the continuous space-time because he is a continuous cuatridimensional and our sensorial experience is limited three dimensions. Therefore not even he is possible that us we represent it graphically. For example, we suppose that a world populated by bidimensional beings existed. That world would have the aspect of images in the screen of a television set. The people and the objects of that bidimensional world, would have height and width, but nonthickness. If those bidimensional figures had their own life and intelligence, its world would appear before them quite different that our world appears before us, because they could not to experience the third dimension. An air line between two of those people would seem to them a wall. They could to surround it by anyone by the ends but not to jump on her, because its physical existence would be limited two dimensions. They could not leave the surface of the screen to the three-dimensional world. They would know what is a circle, but could not imagine what is a sphere. In fact one sphere would simply seem to them a circle. If they liked the exploration, soon they would discover that its world was flat and infinite. If two of them walked separating in opposed directions, they would never more return to be. Logically, those intelligent beings would create a simple geometry. More soon or later they would generalize his experiences in abstractions to be able to maintain and to create the things that wished in their bidimensional world. They would discover, for example, that whenever three are united I sweep rigid of iron to construct a triangle, the always formed angles would add 180 degrees altogether. Sooner or later perceptivos among them the metallic bars by mental idealizaciones would replace (air lines). This would take them conclusion to the abstract that a triangle, that by definition was formed by three air lines, always contained 180 degrees. In order to continue finding out things on the triangles they would not need to really construct them. The geometry that those bidimensional beings would create is the same one that we learn of children in the school. Euclidiana geometry in honor of the Greek Euclides is called, whose ideas on the subject were so convincing that they did not need to be extended in almost two thousand years. (the content of most of used books of geometry in the Institutes of average and superior education has almost two thousand years of antiquity.) Well, now we suppose that somebody, not known for them, took those bidimensional men and it transferred them to the surface of an enormously great sphere. This would mean that instead of being perfectly flat, its physical world would be a little curved. No of them would in the beginning appreciate the difference. But, if its technology became more outpost and that allowed them to begin to travel and to communicate to long distances, they would finish making a remarkable discovery: that its geometry was not verified in its physical world. They would

discover, for example, that if constructed to a triangle the sufficiently great thing and measured their angles, these would have more than 180 degrees! This one is a phenomenon that we can imagine easily. Let us suppose a triangle, whose vertex it is the North Pole, drawn on a globe. The two lines that are intercepted there form a right angle. The equator is the base of the triangle. Obsrvese what happens: both sides of the triangle when intercepting the equator form also right angles. In agreement with euclidiana geometry, a triangle contains two right angles (180 degrees), nevertheless, this triangle contains three right angles (270 degrees). Let us remember that, in our example, the bidimensional beings had observed a triangle in which they thought that it was his bidimensional, flat world, and when measuring the angles received 270 ranks. What confusion! Once temperings the spirits would realize of which only there were two possible explanations. The first possible explanation would be that the air lines used to construct the triangle (for example, light rays) were not really straight although they seemed to be it. This could explain the excessive number of degrees in the triangle. Nevertheless, if the explanation adopted by them were this one, in that case they would have to create a responsible force so that of a way or another one it modified the air lines (like for example the gravity). The second explanation would be that its abstract geometry could not be applied to its real world. That is another form to say that, by impossible that this sounds, its universe was not euclidiano. The idea that its physical reality was not euclidiana to probably would seem them so fantastic to them (specially if in the course of two thousand years they had not had reasons to put in doubt the reality of the euclidiana geometry) that most probable is than they chose the first explanation and they began to look for forces which to consider people in charge of the distortion of the air lines? The problem, in the case of having chosen this explanation, is that they would be forced to create a responsible force whenever its physical world did not confirm the postulates of euclidiana geometry. Possibly the structure of those necessary forces would be made so complex that it would be easier to forget all that and to admit that its physical world did not follow the rules logics and irrefutables of the geometry of Euclides. Our situation is similar to the one of the bidimensional people who cannot perceive, but that they deduce they live in a three-dimensional world. We are three-dimensional beings who we cannot perceive a cuatridimensional universe, but to deduce that we are living in him. During two thousand years we have if all the physical universe, like the geometry created by old the Greeks being based on its experience with a part of him, was euclidiano. If the geometry of Euclides were universally valid it could be verified in any place of the physical world. And this assumption is false. Einstein was the first person whom that saw the universe was not subject to the rules of euclidiana geometry, although our minds, tozudamente, held fast to the idea that yes it was it. Although we cannot perceive the continuous cuatridimensional space-time directly, of which already we know by the special theory of relativity we can deduce that our universe is not euclidiano. There am another one of the mental experiments of Einstein here. Let us imagine two circles concentric, one with a radius small and other with a very long radius. Both turn around their common center as it is in the drawing. Let us imagine that we, the observers, are contemplating these revolving circles from a coordinate system inertial. To be in a coordinate system inertial means simply that our frame of reference is in rest relative front to everything, even to the

revolving circles. Drawn on both mentioned revolving circles there are other two concentric circles that are in our coordinate system. These do not turn. They have the same size that the revolving circles and the same common center, but stay immovable. Whereas we and our circles that do not turn continued immovable, we are in communication with an observer who is in one of the revolving circles. Logically tour with him. In agreement with euclidiana geometry, the relation of the radius with the circumference is always the same one in all the circles. If we measured the radius and the circumference of the small circle, for example, the relation between two measures will be the same one that existing between the radius and the circumference of the greater circle. The object of this mental experiment is to determine if this is certain or it does not stop the observers in the stationary circles (we) and the observer who is in the revolving circles. If the geometry of Euclides were valid in all the physical universe, as it assumed, the relation between the radius and the circumference would have to be the same one in all the circles that take part in the experiment. As much we as the observer who is in the circles that turn we will use the same rule to make the measurements. the same rule, means that we will give him the same rule him that we have used to make our measures, or that we will use rules that have the same length when they are in rest in the same co-ordinated system. We began. Using our rule we measured the radius of our small circle later and the circumference of our small circle. We took note from the existing relation between both. The second step consists of doing the same in the great circle. We wrote down the relation among them. Yes, that relation is the same one that we found in the small circle. We have proven that way that euclidiana geometry is valid in our coordinate system, that is a coordinate system inertial. After fact this, we offer the rule to him to the observer who is in the circles that turn. Using this rule it measures the first radius of the small circle and sees that it is same that the radius of our small circle, since our circles have been drawn up so that they superpose themselves exactly. Next he measures the circumference of his small circle. Let us remember that the movement causes that the rules are contracted in the direction in which they move. , as the circle is small the speed of the rule when it is located on the circumference, nevertheless small to make the measurement, is not sufficient to make the effect perceivable of the relativista contraction. Therefore, the observer measures the circumference of his small circle and finds that he has the same length that our small circumference. Naturally the reason or relation among them and its respective radii are the same one. The relations until now determined between the radii and the corresponding circumferences, that is to say, in our two circles and the small circle in turn, are identical. Until now everything it goes well. This is what had to happen in agreement with our books of geometry of Baccalaureate. We still have left a circle that to verify. The observer of the revolving circles measures the radius of his great circle and obtains that its length is identical to the one of the radius of our great circle. It has left to make the last measurement: the circumference of its great circle. Nevertheless, at the moment at which it places the rule on the circumference of the great circle that turns the rule is contracted! Because the radius of this circle is very many greater than the one of the small circle the speed of the circumference of the great circle that turns is considerably greater than the one of the circumference of the small circle. Since the rule has been placed in the direction in which the circumference moves

the rule is used excessive respect. When the observer uses this rule to measure the circumference of the great circle finds that the length of this circumference is greater than the one of our great circle. This must to that the rule with that we make the measurement is shorter at the moment for using it. (the contraction also affects to the rule when measuring the radius, but since we placed it of perpendicular way to the direction of movement becomes thinner, but not shorter.) This means that the relation between the radius and the circumference of the circle small and the one of the radius and the circumference of the great circle (both turning on the same point) is not the same one. Of, agreement with the geometry of Euclides this is not possible. But it is it! If we want to maintain a old fashioned attitude on the problem (before Einstein), we can say that this situation does not have anything of extraordinary. By definition, the laws of the mechanics and the geometry of Euclides are only valid in inertial systems (it is what causes that those systems are inertial). Simply we will not take in consideration those systems that are not inertial. (This one was really the position of the physicists before Albert Einstein.) But that was, exactly, which seemed to him false or erroneous to Einstein. Its intention was to create a valid physics for all the coordinate systems, since the universe abounds as much in inertial systems as not-inertial. If we want to create a physics with such universal validity, a general physics, we must consider with the same seriousness to the observers in the stationary system (inertial) like a the observer located in the revolving circles (an not-inertial system). The person located in the revolving circles right has the same one to relate the physical world to her frame of reference that we to relate it to ours. It is certain that the laws of the mechanics as well as those of euclidiana geometry are not valid in their frame of reference, but any deviation of them can be explained in terms of a field of gravitation that affects that frame of reference. And that is what it allows the theory us of Einstein: to express the laws of the physics of a way that are independent from specific coordinates space-time. The coordinates space-time (measurements) vary of a frame from reference to another one, according to the state of reference movement. The general theory of relativity allows us to universalizar the laws of the physics and to apply them to all the systems of reference. - Delay a little while - we say -. How are possible to be measured distances in a system of coordinates like the one of the revolving circles? The length of the rule varies from a place to another one in such system. While we move away more of the center, greater it will be the speed of the rule and, therefore, its contraction. This does not happen in a coordinate system inertial, that is a system in rest. Since there is speed change no in all the coordinate system inertial the rule does not modify its length. - This allows us to organize the inertial systems like a city, block to block. Since the rules do not change of length in that inertial system all the blocks constructed with the same rule will have the same length. Wherever we go we will know that if we measured ten apples we will always obtain a double distance that if we measured five apples. - In a noninertial system the speed of the system varies from a place to another one. This means that the length of the rule changes from a place to another one. If we used the same rule to draw up to the blocks or apples of all the city in a coordinate system not-inertial, some of these blocks will be greater than the others in relation to the place where they are located. - and what has of bad in it - asks to us Jim de Wit - whereas we pruned to establish our position in the coordinate system? Let us imagine a rubber plate in which we have

drawn a species of grid that seems a graph (superior drawing of page 146). It is a system of coordinates. Let us suppose that we were in the left inferior angle (we can be anywhere that we wish) and say that in the place marked with an X and the word Celebration indicates the place where a meeting is held to which it has been invited to us. In order to arrive we must there walk two squares towards right and two upwards. - Now we suppose that we stretched the rubber plate until causing that it acquires the form of the second drawing, the one of the inferior part. The same instructions (two pictures towards right and two upwards) will take us to the place of the celebration. The only difference is that, unless we are familiarized with that zone of the system of coordinates, we cannot compute the range that there are to cross to arrive at the celebration with the same simplicity that we would do it if each one of the squares had the same dimensions. In agreement with the general theory of relativity, the gravity, that is equivalent to acceleration, is what causes the distortion in the continuous spacetime, of analogous way to since we have stretched the rubber plate. There where the effects of the gravity can be despised, the continuous space-time is just as the plate before being stretched (distorted). All the lines are straight and all the clocks are synchronous. In other words, the distorted plate is not analogous to a continuous space-time in a coordinate system inertial and the special theory of relativity has application and it is verified. Nevertheless, in the universe a powerful force of gravity cannot be despised. Wherever there is a matter piece becomes deformed the continuous space-time. While greater it is the piece of greater matter is the deformation. In the mentioned example of the revolving circles, the speed change in the different parts from the coordinate system causes that the rule changes of size. Without separating this from our mind we remember that the acceleration (speed change) is equivalent to the gravity. Therefore, the changes of intensity of a gravity field produce the same contraction of the rule that the speed changes. Acceleration and gravity are two ways to say the same. This means that if a rule is subject to gravitational fields of different intensity its length changes. Of course it is impossible to travel through our Solar System, and less still by our galaxy, without finding fields gravitational of diverse intensity, which will cause that any map that we draw seems distorted as the rubber plate. The land of the continuous space-time in which our earth moves is like a steep land, wave, with a mountain (the sun) dominating its geography. In agreement with Newton the Earth it would have to move in line straight, but she has been displaced for always of his route by the force of gravitation of the sun. A balance between those two forces maintains to the Earth in orbit around the sun. In agreement with Einstein the solar orbit is simply the easiest way that the Earth takes in its trip by the spacetime, curved as it is in the proximities of the sun. You imagine the complex thing that it must be the geography of the continuous space-time that is our stellar universe with its Solar System, systems, galaxies and clusters of galaxies, all of them causing greater or smaller, curved bulks, hills, valleys and mountains in the continuous space-time. But it is possible to sail in such circumstances? Yes. Even though one is a somewhat simple example, the sailors sail in analogous circumstances. We have covered the Earth with quadrilaterals that are formed by lines of length and latitude. The size of those quadrilaterals depends on the place where they are located. While next they are to the equator greater they are. (If the thing does not seem clear to you you

contemplate a globe.) By means of that system we can designate to any point in the Earth surface designating the intersection of a line of latitude with a line of length. To know the number of quadrilaterals between the place in which we are and the place to where we want to arrive does not give the distance us to cross because the boxes are of different sizes. Nevertheless, as we know the nature our land (a sphere) we can calculate distances in him (by means of spherical trigonometry). Of similar way, once we know the properties a zone of the continuous space-time (by means of its exploration), we not only can determine our position, but also the distance (interval) between two events in the continuous spacetime? The mathematical structure of the general theory of the relativity, that Einstein created throughout ten years, allows us to do it thus exactly. The equations of the general theory of relativity are structural formulas. They describe to the structure of the changing gravitational fields (the formula of Newton describes a situation between two objects in a given time. The formulas of Einstein relate a situation here and now to a situation of immediate vicinity a little later.) Applying the results of real observations to those equations, these gives an image us of the continuous space-time in the places next to our observations. In other words, they reveal the geometry to us of the space-time in that zone. Once we know that, our situation is, in very general terms, analogous to the one of a sailor who knows that the Earth is round and, in addition, knows trigonometry spherical? There are saying, until now, that the matter distorts, or causes a curvature, of the continuous space-time in its proximities. According to the definitive vision of Einstein, that never got to prove (to demonstrate mathematically), a matter piece is a curvature of the continuous space-time! In other words, according to this definitive perspective of Einstein, things do not exist such as gravitational fields nor masses. These are simply mental creations, that they do not exist in the real world. The gravity does not exist - the gravity is the equivalent one of acceleration that is movement -. does not exist the matter - the matter is a curvature of the continuous space-time -. Not even exists the energy, since energy is equal to mass and mass is a curvature of the space-time. What we had thought that was a planet that had its own gravitational field and that moved around the sun in an orbit created by the attraction of the gravitation of this one, in fact it is a pronounced curvature of the continuous space time that looks for his simpler way through the continuous space-time in the proximity of a curvature very pronounced of that continuous space-time. It does not exist, then, nothing aside from space-time and movement and these two things are, in addition, only one same thing. There am an exquisite representation here, in completely western terms, of the most fundamental aspect of the philosophies of the taosmo and the buddhism. The physics is the study of the physical realities. If a theory is not related to the physical world, it can be mathematical pure, poetry, or simple verses, but she is not physical. The question, anyway, is: Really works the fantastic theory of Einstein? The answer is a yes, perhaps somewhat provisional one, but accepted generally. Most of the physicists agrees in which the general theory of relativity is a method valid to see phenomena great scale. Also the physicists are many who hope anxious to obtain greater tests than they confirm (or they defy) this position. Since the general theory of relativity takes care of amplest extensions of the universe, its test - of utility, not of truth (the clock still follows without power to be opened) - cannot come from observations of phenomena limited the Earth. Their verifications

come from astronomy. Until now the general theory of relativity it has been verified of four ways. The three first are direct and convincing. The last one, if the first observations already made are correct, could still more be fantastic that the own theory. The first verification of the general theory of relativity arrived like an unexpected advantage for the astronomers. The law of the gravity of Newton seted out to around describe the orbits of planets of the sun and it obtained it... With all of them except with Mercury! Mercury orbit around the sun so that parts of their orbit approximate more to the sun than other planets. The part of the Mercury orbit nearer the sun is called perihelion? The first verification of the general theory of the relativity of Einstein, turned out to be the explanation, as much uselessly looked for time, for the amazing problem of the Mercury perihelion. The problem with the Mercury perihelion - in fact with all its orbit - is in which it varies his position. Instead of continuously repeating his orbit around the sun in relation to a coordinate system aggregate to the sun, the perihelion of the Mercury orbit turns around the sun. The rate of rotation of the perihelion is extremely slow (complete a revolution around the sun each three million years). This already was more than sufficient to intrigue the astronomers. Before Einstein, this alteration in the Mercury orbit was attributed to the existence of a planet of our Solar System that not yet had been discovered. In the times in which Einstein published its general theory of relativity, the search of this mysterious planet was developed to forced marches. Einstein created its general theory of relativity without paying special attention to the Mercury perihelion. Nevertheless, when the general theory of relativity was applied to that problem, it demonstrated that if Mercury moved that way it were because unavoidably it had to thus do it in the joint space-time in the proximity of the sun. The other planets do not move appreciably thus because they are much more remote of the solar gravity. A goal in favor of the general theory. The second verification of the general theory of relativity was the total fulfillment of a prediction done by Einstein, that it had announced that the light rays were curved by the gravitational fields. And what is more: it predicted exactly until what extreme they were curved and suggested the accomplishment of an experiment to put his prediction on approval. What Einstein suggested was that the astronomers measured the deviation of the light of stars in the gravitational field of the sun. According to Einstein, the presence of the sun between a visible star group and the Earth caused an apparent change in the position of stars because the light that arrived to us coming from them curved when crossing the field of gravity of the sun. In order to be able to make the experiment it is necessary to photograph a star group at night, taking note from the relative position among them in his periphery and later to return to photograph the same star group during the day, when the sun is among them and the Earth. Naturally the stars only can be photographed by day in the case of a total sun eclipse by interposition of the moon. The astronomers consulted their celestial charts and discovered that the 29 of March were the ideal day to make the company. This must to that in that date the sun in its apparent trip by the firmament happens in front of an exceptionally abundant group of stars of great brilliance. By an incredible coincidence a total sun eclipse happened the 29 of March of 1919, only four years after the publication of the general theory of relativity. All the preparations necessary became to use that event to verify the new theory of Einstein. The luminance signals of a star are curved in the proximity of the sun. As we were conceited

that that stellar light travels in line straight, we suppose that the position of the star is different from which in fact is. Even though one assumed that the light traveled in line straight in the emptiness, already before Einstein made his theory public had calculated the possibility that it underwent a slight curvature. The law of the gravity of Newton was used to calculate that curvature, even though she could not explain it. The theory of Einstein predicted a deviation approximately doubles of the anticipated one by the law of Newton and, in addition, it facilitated the explanation of why it happened the phenomenon. The physicists and the astronomers waited for anxious and to unisonous the result of this confrontation between the new theory and the old one. The 1919 eclipse was photographed by two different expeditions sent to different parts from the world. Those same expeditions such photographed star groups when the sun was not among them and we. The results obtained by both groups of scientists confirmed the predictions of Einstein and not those of Newton. As of 1919 that same result has come being obtained in different eclipses. All they were them confirmed the predictions of Einstein. Second goal in favor of the general theory of relativity! The third verification is called landslide to the red one by the gravitation. Recurdese that the gravity (because he is equivalent to acceleration) not only causes that the rules are contracted, but also that the clocks march with greater slowness. A clock is something that is repeated to itself of periodic way. An atom, for example, is a type of clock, since it vibrates with certain frequency. When a substance, like for example sodium, is put to red the alive one, the wavelength of the light that it emits can suitably be measured. That wavelength says with exactitude the frequency to us of the vibrations of the atoms that form the substance. If the frequency varies, the wavelength also varies. If we want to compare the rate of a clock located here in the Earth with another clock that is influenced by very intense a gravitational field, for example the one of the sun, is no necessity to send a clock to the solar surface. The clocks (the atoms) already are in their respective positions. Einstein predicted that all periodic process that it took place in an atom in the sun, where the gravity is very intense, had to be made to a rate slightly slower than it did in the Earth. In order to prove if its prediction is certain, the only thing that we must do it is to compare the wavelength of the radiation of a certain element when he is present in the solar light and when one is here in the Earth in the laboratory. This has come doing repeated times. In each case the wavelength measured in the solar light was greater than the one of its counterpart measured in the laboratory, in the Earth. A longer wavelength means one more a lower frequency, slower. Let us take, for example, the atoms of sodium. They vibrate more slowly under the influence of a as intense field of gravity as the one of the sun that since they do it in the Earth where the gravity is much smaller. And the same it happens to them to all other atoms. This phenomenon is called landslide towards the red one by the gravity (because the wavelength involved in the experiment seems to tend towards the red end of the phantom of the visible light when the wavelengths are longer). As much number three in please the general theory of the relativity of Einstein! This landslide to the red one in the phantom, the movable perihelion of Mercury and the deviation of the stellar light is observable phenomena. Now we are going to enter a field where the theory continues still predominating and the observation is minimum. Nevertheless, it is the land, by far, most exciting and perhaps most stimulating of all the history of science. The fourth verification of the general theory of relativity

seems to be the origin of that phenomenon that is called of the black holes. In 1958, David Finkelstein published a writing in which, being based on the general theory of the relativity of Einstein, it reasoned on a phenomenon to which it called membrane of single direccin.4 Finkelstein showed that under certain conditions in which took part an extremely dense field of gravity it can happen that an invisible hole takes place in which the physical light and objects can penetrate, but from which never they can more return to escape? The following year, a graduated young person who continued studying in the University of London, heard to Finkelstein, that was giving lectures like invited professor, explain his membrane of a single direction. The idea attracted, first, its attention and, later, its imagination. That young student was Roger Penrose. When taking care of the discovery of Filkenstein he developed it until turning it the modern theory of the Black Holes.??? A black hole is a region of the space that completely appears black because the gravitation is so intense that not even the light can escape to the zones that surround it? The gravitation is despicable at laboratory level, but it is much more important when bodies of great mass are in game. Therefore, the exploration of the black holes has become joint adventure of physicists and astronomers. The astronomers speculate with the idea that a black hole could be one of many possible products of the stellar evolution. The stars do not burn indefinitely. They develop a vital cycle that begins with hydrogen and sometimes it finishes with a very dense rotatory mass and totally consumed by the combustion. The exact end item of this process depends the star as large as than it is undergoing it. In agreement with a theory, the stars that have a superior size three times or to our sun end up more transforming itself into black holes. The rest of those stars are unimaginably dense. It is possible that it only has few kilometers of diameter and, nevertheless, contains the whole mass of a star that was three times greater than the sun. A so dense mass produces a gravitational field the sufficiently intense thing to attract everything what falls in its proximities whereas at the same time does not allow that nothing, not even the light, escapes to its attraction. Surrounding these rest by stars there is a horizon event, created by the enormous gravitational field of the consumed star and extinguished. Its function is indeed the one that Finkelstein attributed to its membrane of a single direction. Any thing that enters the field of gravity of that mass quickly is dragged towards her and once it passes the horizon event never can more return. This horizon constitutes the essential characteristic of the black hole. What it happens to him to an object that happens to the other side of that horizon he is more fantastic than the most exciting science-fiction story. If the black hole is not turning, the object will be attracted directly towards its center, until a called point the singularity. There literally it will be compressed, expressed of all existence or, as the physicists would say, reduced to volume zero. In the singularity of the black hole all the laws of the physics fail totally, they collapse, and they even disappear the space and the time. It has been speculated on whereupon what falls inside a black hole it is expelled again by the other side... And the other side is another universe! If the black hole tour, an object that crosses the horizon event can fail and not go to stop to the singularity of the black hole (that in a revolving black hole has ring form and will emerge formerly and in another place in this same universe (by the holes of lombriz) or in another universe (through the bridges of Einstein-Rosen). If it is thus, the rotating black holes could be does

not go more in machines of the time. Although the black holes are almost invisible, we can try to discover the observable phenomena that they can be to them characteristic. First of them it is the great amount of electromagnetic radiation. A black hole is attracting atoms of hydrogen, cosmic particles and other many similar things. As those particles and objects go being attracted by the black hole, its speed increases and they are accelerated due to the action of its gravitational field until coming near at the speed of the light. That cause a tremendous amount of electromagnetic radiation. (All particle with load that is accelerated creates an electromagnetic radiation.) The second observable characteristic of a black hole is its effect in a visible star that moves as if it was turning around an invisible star (that is to say, as if outside half of a binary stellar system), we can really speculate with the idea that tour around an invisible star and that this invisible companion is a black hole. The search of black holes has become, naturally, in the search of those two phenomena. In 1970, the Uhuru satellite located these two manifestations in a zone. It registered a x-rays source of high energy in the constellation of the Swan, that emitted million times more energy than the sun. This source of high electromagnetic radiation energy, that happened to be well-known like X-l Swan, is closely together of a supergiant blue star. At the present time the scientists think that this blue supergiant forms a binary system with the black hole X-l Swan. When the visible star and the invisible black hole orbit to each other the blue supergiant literally is absorbed by the black hole. The material that is taken of its surface falls in the black hole at tremendous speed, emitting x-rayses. By incredible that seems to us X-l Swan, more than one hundred similar objects they have been detected in our galaxy, the Milky Route, since its existence was discovered. Although the black holes require a maximum force of our imagination, every day the tests than they indicate that are greater they really exist. If the black holes are what we speculated that they are, everything what disappears in them will reappear somewhere. In that case, it is possible that in other universes black holes exist that are sucking matter of those universes to send it to ours? One is a possibility that must be considered seriously. There are objects in our universe that seem to be reverso of the black holes. White holes are called (naturally) Those objects are quasi-stellar sources of radio, or quasars, as it is called to them briefly. Quasars is extraordinarily intense power plants. Many of them only have several times the diameter of our Solar System and, nevertheless, they emit greater amount of energy than all a galaxy of 150,000 million stars. Some astronomers think that quasars is the most distant objects never detected and nevertheless its incredible brilliance allows to see them us with all clarity. The relation between the black holes and quasars is pure speculation, but a speculation that leaves us mentally agape. Many physicists, for example, speculate that the black holes swallow the matter of a universe and they throw it to another universe, or another place and another time of the same universe. In agreement with that hypothesis the point of expulsion of a black hole is to quasar. If this hypothesis were correct, our universe is being absorbed by its numerous black holes to only reappear in other universes, whereas other universes are being dragged to their own black holes to reappear in ours and to return again to be sucked by our black holes and to reappear in other universes. That process continues and continues feeding itself on itself. Another dance without principle nor aim, infinite and without beginning. One of the deepest by-products of the general theory of relativity is the

discovery that more the gravitation force, that during as much and as much time was believed was a real and independent organization with own existence, is not than a creation of the mind. Nothing similar in the real world exists. The planets do not cross their orbits turning around the sun because the sun exerts on them an invisible gravitational force, but that follows the ways that draw up their orbits, because they are the way easiest to cross the land of the continuous space-time in which they are. The same it can be said of the folly; it is a creation of the mind. There is no a thing thus in the real world. From a determined frame of reference the black holes and the horizon event have sense. Nothing is foolish except when it is seen from another perspective, from another point of view. We called folly to which is not in agreement with the rational constructions that we have built carefully. Nevertheless, there is nothing is intrinsically valuable in those constructions. In fact, in many occasions they themselves replace by others more equipment. When that happens, which was foolish (that is to say, devoid of sense) sight from a system from old fashioned reference, sight from another frame of reference can seem sensible. And the same it happens to the inverse one. Like the measurements of space and time are relative, the concept of the folly (that is in himself also a measurement form) is relative. And we can be safe, in any case, that when we use it in certain marks of reference it acquires sense and it can have application in us IT GRASPED ME To MY IDEAS THE ZOO OF PARTICLES The fourth translation of Wu Li is grasped Me to my ideas. She is very appropriate for a physics book, since the history of science generally were the history of scientists who fought valiantly against the assault of new ideas. When clinging thus to its old ideas they did it because it was difficult to separate to them from that feeling of security that comes from a long and gratificador understanding with a certain concept of the world. The value of a physical theory depends on its utility. In this sense, it could say that the history of the physical theories is looked like the compilation of individual characteristics to give form to a personality. Most of us we respond to the impulses by which it surrounds to us mainly by means of a collection of auto answers that, sometimes, produced the results wished by us, in the childhood. Unfortunately, if the atmosphere that produces those answers changes (we grow), and the answers let adapt to those changes, these become counter-productive. To be colrico, to feel gotten depressed, to flatter, to shout or to threaten, are conduct forms, answer guidelines, that belong to last times. But we solely changed these models of conduct when we realize of which already they have stopped being productive, useful. And in those cases the change is even slow, painful. The same it can be applied to the scientific theories. Nobody, except the own Coprnico, wanted to accept the copernicana idea that the Earth turned around the sun. When talking about to the revolution beginning by the theory of Coprnico, Goethe wrote: Perhaps never a greater exigency to the humanity considered to him than that to admit that the Earth was not the center of the universe. With her, what was what it collapsed between a smoke and dust cloud; a second paradise, a world of innocence, poetry and mercy, the testimony of the senses and the convictions of a poetic and religious faith. It is not possible to be surprised of which the human beings did not have value to accept all that and they were aligned, like a single man, against similar doctrine... 1 Nor a single physicist, not even the own Planck, wanted to accept the implications and the consequences of the discoveries of Planck, since they threatened a scientific structure

(the physics of Newton), that counted with more than three hundred years. When talking about to the revolution caused by quanto, Heisenberg wrote: ... when new groups of phenomena even force to changes in the conceptual guidelines... the most eminent physicist encounters over immense difficulties. The exigency of a change in the guidelines of the thought can generate in us the sensation of which they clear to him to one the ground of underneath the feet... I believe that the difficulties in this point hardly can be exaggerated. Once the desperation has been experienced with which the science men react, intelligent and conciliadores, when a change in the guideline of its thoughts is demanded to them, he only fits being surprised of which such revolutions of science have been posibles.2 The scientific revolutions arrive to us forced by discoveries from phenomena that are not comprehensible in terms of the old theories. These are difficult to eliminate, because there are in game many things, in addition - and by above to the own theories. To yield our position privileged in the center of the universe, as Coprnico requested to us, was an enormous psychological load. To accept that the nature is irrational (governed by the chance), and this one is the essential declaration of the quantum mechanics, meant a hard blow for the intellect. In spite of it, as the new theories demonstrated their superior utility, their adversaries, although go to misfortune, did not have more remedy than to accept them. When doing thus they assured it the one that the concepts that accompanied them also were recognized. At the present time, the particle accelerating, the cameras of bubbles and the peripheral units of the computers, have given to light a new concept of the world that is so different from that it was had at the beginning of this century like the one of Coprnico was it of his predecessors. These new concepts demand the abandonment of many of the ideas to which we clung with as much ardor. In this new concept of the world the substance does not exist. The question more current than usually we do on an object is: Of what it is done This question is based on an artificial mental structure that is rather like a gallery of mirrors. If we to have left to us of foot directly between two of them and watched at one of the mirrors we see our reflected image and, exactly behind us, all a multitude of us, each one of them watching at the part of back of the head that she has in front of him. This multitudinal image extends, backwards, in everything what we can see. These reflections, all of them, are illusions. The only real thing in all this scene we are. The situation is very similar to which happens when we asked of what something is done. The answer to that question is always something to which we can apply the same question. Let us suppose, for example, that we asked, referring us to a current small stick of teeth: Of what it is done The answer, naturally, is clear: Of wood. Nevertheless, the question has taken to the hall the mirrors because now we can ask, referring us to the wood: Of what it is done A next examination reveals to us that it is done of fibers, but another question is of what the fibers are done, and so on. Like a pair of parallel mirrors, that reflect the reflected images, and that give the sensation of an infinite progression that does not take nowhere, the idea that a thing can be different from that of which is done creates a limitless progression of answers that us leaves frustrated for always in an endless search. It does not matter of what something is done - everything -, we have created an illusion that it forces to ask to us: Yes, but of what that is done The physicists are people who have come persecuting this infinite series tenaciously from questions. And what they have found he is

surprising. The wood fibers, to continue the example, are really groupings of cells. The cells, views with the necessary increase, discover to be molecule groupings. Under a greater increase, the molecules discover that they are atom groupings and, finally, the atoms, therefore it has been demonstrated, are subatomic particle groupings. In other words, matter is a series of groupings or models outside center. The search of the definitive substance of the universe finishes with the discovery that no exists. If there is a last constituent substance of the universe is the pure energy, because the subatomic particles are not done of energy but that they are energy. This is what Einstein affirmed in 1905. The subatomic interactions are, consequently, interactions of ener gy with energy. At subatomic level there is no a clear differentiation between which it is and what it happens, between the actor and the action. At subatomic level the dancer and the dance are a same thing. In agreement with the physics of particles, the world is fundamentally dancing energy; what we have come calling matter (particles), is being created and being annihilated continuously; and returned to create. This is what it happens literally when the particles interact among them and happens, speaking, leaving the anything. Where there was nothing is something suddenly and next that something returns to leave, frequently transforming itself into something different before vanishing. In the physics of particles there is no difference between emptiness or not-emptiness, or something and not-something (nothing). The world of the physics of particles is a world of chispeante energy, dancing for always with same himself in the form of its particles when igniting and when extinguishing themselves inside and outside the existence, hitting to each other, transmutando themselves and disappearing again. It concept of the world of the physics of particles is an image of chaos below the order. At fundamental level it is a confusion in which they mix creation, destruction and transformation of continued way. Over this confusion, limiting his possible forms, there is a series of conservation laws (p 164). These laws do not specify what must happen, since usually they make the laws common of the physics, but that rather determine what it cannot happen. They are permisivas laws. At subatomic level all that, absolutely everything, that is not prohibited by the conservation laws can happen in fact. (the theory of quanto describes the probabilities of the possibilities allowed by the conservation laws). As Jack Sarfatti wrote: the particles do not continue moving rigid and, nor formally majestic, following individual determined. Rather they are a hyperkinetic pandemnium of the Brothers Marx, of turning of the cane of Charlie Chaplin, something that is and it is not, that is seen and, a little while later, lets see itself. In fact, nor it is clear what is what follows a trajectory. Everything is sicodlica confusion... until orden.3 is discovered subtle The old image of the world was an image of order underneath the chaos. It was presumed that under the prolfica confusion of details that constitutes our daily experience, systematic laws existed rational and that they related to the individual to the whole. That one was the great discovery of Newton: the same laws that govern the fall of apples govern the movement of planets. Still it continues being enough truth in it, but the concept of the world of the physics of particles is essentially the opposite. The world of the physics of particles is a world without matter where what is, he is equal to which happens, and where it is developed an infinite and tumultuosa dance of creation, incessant destruction and transformation, within the frame of the probability and conservation laws. The physics of particles of high energy is the study of

subatomic particles. Usually its name is brief and the physical flame of particles. Whereas the material tools consist of an unimaginably expensive accelerating equipment and computer, the quantum theory and the one of relativity are the theoretical tools of the physics of particles. The original intention of the physics of particles is to discover the used basic brick in the construction of the universe. This had to be obtained breaking the matter in more and more small pieces until getting to obtain the possible smallest piece. The experimental result of the physics of particles has not been so simple. At the present time, most of the physicists of particles takes care in trying to give sense to their abundant findings? In principle, the physics of particles hardly could be simpler. The physicists send subatomic particles so that they hit all the possible force to each other. They use a particle to make pieces to others and to see what it is of them and what are made these rest. The particle that causes the shock calls the projectile and the particle that must be destroyed is the target. The particle accelerating more advanced (and more expensive) send both particles, the projectile and the target, so that they are in a common point called shock or point of impact. The shock point is, generally, located within an apparatus that is called a camera of bubbles. A particle with load that moves through a camera of bubbles leaves a sign similar to which it leaves a jet plane when it flies in the atmosphere. The camera of bubbles is located within a magnetic field. This causes that the particles that have positive charge curve in a direction and those that have negative load in the opposite direction. The mass of the particle can be determined by the form, more or less closed, of the curve described by the particle (the slight particles are curved more than heavy particles, with the same speed and load). A camera driven automatically by a computer takes a photography whenever a particle penetrates in the camera of bubbles. All these complicated preparations are necessary because most of particles millionth lives less than on second and are too small to be able to be observed directly? In general terms, everything what a specialized physicist knows on subatomic particles deduces it of its theories and the photographies of the plans that the particles leave in the camera of bubbles. Thousands and thousand of photographies taken in the camera of bubbles show clearly the frustrating discomfort and of the position in which are the physicists specialized in particles, in their search of elementary particles. When the projectile hits the target, both particles are destroyed in the point of the impact. In their place, nevertheless, new particles, all are created which is so elementary as original particles and, frequently, as basic as original particles! This schematic diagram shows a typical interaction to us between particles. A called particle a negative inn pi (-) hits a proton (p). As much the inn pi as the proton is destroyed and in their place two new particles are created, a neutral inn K (K) and a particle lambda (). These two particles is disintegrated spontaneously (the collision is not necessary) in two additional particles, leaving, then, four particles. Of those four particles two they are the same ones whereupon we began! As Finkelstein wrote, it is as if we took two clocks, we crushed them making hit to each other them and them wheels left flying not them and the cords, but more clocks and, some of them, as great as the original ones. As a thing can happen thus? The special theory of the relativity of Einstein gives a partial answer us. The new particles are created by the kinetic energy (movement energy) of the particle projectile, added to their own mass plus the mass of the white particle. While more quickly projectile moves to the particle, greater amount of

kinetic energy it will be had to create new particles in the point of the impact. This one is the reason for which the governments come spending more and more money to construct to particle accelerating every time greater and more powerful than can impel particles at greater speeds every time. If both particles, the projectile and the target, are accelerated until arriving at the point of impact, it will be had greater amount of kinetic energy to create new particles and to put under them study. All subatomic interaction consists of the destruction of original particles and the creation of new subatomic particles. The subatomic world is a continued dance of creation and destruction, mass that are transformed into energy and of energy that is transformed into mass? Transitory forms inside centellean and outside the existence creating a always created limited reality never and again. The mystics, as much those of the West as those of East, that they proclaim to have seen the face of God, speak in terms so similar to which any siclogo that shows interest in altered states of conscience hardly will be able to ignore this well-known bridge that unites the disciplines of the physics and the sicologa. The first question of the physics of particles is: What is what hits According to the quantum mechanics an subatomic particle is not a similar particle to a dust particle. Rather it can say that the subatomic particles are tendencies to exist (p 51) and observable correlations between macrocospic (p 86). They do not have objective existence. This means that we cannot suppose, if we are going to use the quantum theory, that the particles have an existence aside from their interactions with the measurement instruments (p 107). As Heisenberg wrote: To the light of the quantum theory... the elementary particles are not real in the sense that is it the objects of the daily life, trees or stones...4 For example, when an electron happens through a photographic plate leaves a visible track after him. This plan, observed close by and yet detail demonstrates to be a series of great points. Each one of them is a grain of silver formed by the interaction of the electron with atoms in the photographic plate. Sight to the microscope, the sign left by the particle presents/displays an aspect similar to this one. Normally it would be possible to think that an only electron, as if outside a tiny ball of baseball, happened by jumps through the surface of the photographic plate and left after himself this silver grain plan. This is an error. The quantum mechanics says to us just like the Buddhist tntricos have been coming saying for a millenium. The connection between the points (the movable object) is a product of our mind and it really is not there. In rigorous terms of the quantum mechanics the sprite - the particle with an independent existence - is a supposition that cannot be proven. According to our customary way to reason - David Bohm, a professor of physics of Birkbeck College wrote, University of London we could suppose that the plan of silver grains indicates that a real electron moves continuously in the space, following a trajectory next to the grains that have formed by means of their interaction. But according to the normal interpretation of the quantum theory he would be incorrect to suppose that that is what it really happens. Everything what we can say is that they have appeared certain grains, but we do not have to imagine that they have been produced by a real object that moves by the space of the way as usually we think that the objects move by the space. Although this idea of an object moving continuously by the space is the sufficiently good thing for an approximated theory, we will discover that exacta.5 would not have consistency in a theory very The natural hypothesis that objects like particles are real things that

follow their course in the space and the time, in agreement with causal laws, independently of which we are close for observing them or no, is repudiada by the quantum mechanics. This is specially significant because the quantum mechanics is the theory of the physics. It has successfully explained everything, from subatomic particles to the stellar phenomena. Never there was a theory with greater success. It does not have rival. Therefore, when we observed the plans left in a camera of bubbles, we remained with the question Who has done them The best answer than the physicists has obtained until now is that the particles are interactions between fields. A field, like a wave, extends on a much more ample zone that the one that occupies a particle (a particle is restricted to a point). Still more: a full field completely a given space, like for example the gravitational full Earth field all the space that surrounds it immediate to her. When two fields interact to each other they do not do it not of gradual way nor either in all the zones of contact. They do it of instantaneous way and in a single point of the space (instantaneously and locally). These instantaneous and local interactions do what we called particles. In fact, according to this theory, they are particles. The continuous creation and destruction of particles at subatomic level are the result of an interaction continued between different fields. This theory is called quantum theory of fields. Some of the basic pillars of this theory were put by the English physicist Paul Dirac. The quantum theory of fields has been much successful in the prediction of new types of particles and in the explanation of the existing ones in terms of interactions of fields. In agreement with this theory a field, separated, is associate to each type of particle. Since in 1928 three types were only known particles, the existence of three fields different was only required to explain them. The problem at the present time is that already they are known more a hundred of particles, which, in agreement with the quantum theory of fields would require the existence of more than one hundred different fields. This abundance of theoretical fields not only scares but that is somewhat embarrassing for the physicists, whose goal is to simplify the nature. Therefore, most of the physicists has decided to resign to the idea that for each type of particle a separated field exists. Whatsoever that, the quantum theory of fields continues being an important theory, not only because it is effective actually, but also because it is the first theory that founds the quantum mechanics and relativity, although is of limited way. All the theories of the physics, including the quantum theory, must satisfy the requirements with the theory of relativity in the sense that the physical laws must be independent of the state of movement of the observer. The attempts to integrate the theory of relativity with the quantum theory have failed, generally, in spite of which both theories are required and used routinely for the best understanding of the physics of particles. This mutual relation, forced, could be defined as tense but necessary. In this aspect, one of the theories that with more success it has tried to integrate them has been the quantum theory of fields, although it includes not only one relatively small range of phenomena? The quantum theory of fields is a theory ad hoc. This means that, like the famous model of the atom of Bohr with its specific orbits, is a practical but conceptually inconsistente scheme. Some of their parts do not comply to each other mathematically. It is a model of designed work using the data available to give to the physicists a departure point for the exploration of the subatomic phenomena. The reason that as much time has stayed is that it works. (Some physicists think that she is

effective too much. They fear that the pragmatic triumph of the theory prevents the development of an authentically consistent theory.) Even with those known limitations affluent, the fact is that it is a physical theory successfully and it is based on the premise of which the physical reality is essentially nonsubstantial. In agreement with only her the real thing is the fields. They and it matter are not the substance of the universe. The matter (particles) is simply a momentary manifestation of the interaction of the fields, intangible and insustanciables, and that in spite of it are the only real thing in the universe. Their interactions resemble to particles because the fields act to each other of very steep way and in extremely small regions of the space. the quantum theory of fields is, of course, one extreme contradiction in its terms. Quanto is an all indivisible one, a small part of something, whereas a field is a complete area of something. a quantum field is a juxtaposition of two irreconciliables concepts. In other words, it is a paradox. It defies to our categorical imperative of which something is this or that, but not both things. The main contribution of the quantum mechanics to the western thought, and are many, are possible that it is its impact in the artificial categories by means of which we structured our perceptions, since the osificadas structures of the perception are the prisons in which, without knowing it, we be taken are. The quantum theory declares, audaciously, that something can be this and that (a wave and a particle).? It makes no sense to ask which of these two theses is really the faithful description. Both are required to arrive at a complete understanding. In 1922, when still she was student, Werner Heisenberg asked to him his professor, Niels Bohr, that later would get to be its friend: If the internal structure of the atom is so next to the descriptive events as you say, if we really need a language to occupy to us of her, how we can have the hope to get to include/understand what is the atom Bohr vacillated for a moment before answering: I believe that we will be able to be able to do it thus. Perhaps but in the process we must stop us to learn what comprender.6 really means the word In human terms this means that the same person can be good and bad, audacious and timid. Whatsoever the expressed thing previously, the physicists of particles have necessity to analyze subatomic particles as if they were small balls of baseball that fly through the space and collide to each other. When a specialized physicist studies the plan of a particle interaction obtained in a camera of bubbles, he supposes that he was done by a small sprite and that the other tracks in the photography also were drawn up by small movable objects. In fact the interactions of the particle are analyzed in general in such terms that could be applied to the shock of billiard balls. Some particles hit (and they are annihilated in the process) and other particles of new creation escape flying of the zone of shock. In summary, the interactions of the particle are analyzed essentially in terms of masses, speeds and moments. Those are the concepts of the physics of Newton and they are applied, also, to the automobiles and the street cars. The physicists do this because they must use those concepts if they want to communicate. The only thing of which they arrange, generally, is of a black photography with white lines on her. The physicists know that: (1) in agreement with the quantum theory, the subatomic particles do not have independent existence by themselves; (2) the subatomic particles have characteristics ondulatorias and corpuscular characteristics (of particle), and (3) the subatomic particles really can be manifestations of interacting fields. Nevertheless, those white lines (more models) lead, in themselves,

to analysis in classic terms and is as well as the specialistic physicists in the study of particles analyze them. This dilemma, the dilemma to have to speak in classic terms on phenomena that cannot be described in classic concepts, is the basic paradox of the quantum mechanics. One extends by all she. It is like trying to explain a experience with LSD. We tried to use familiar concepts like departure points, but beyond that the familiar concepts do not agree with the phenomena. The alternative would be not to say anything absolutely. Heisenberg wrote: the physicists who take care of the quantum theory are forced to use a language taken from the ordinary life. We acted as if really a thing existed, like an electrical current (or a particle), because if we prohibited all the physicists who speak of electrical currents (or particles) could not continue expressing his pensamientos.7 So that the physicists speak of subatomic particles as if they were small real objects that leave their sign in a camera of bubbles and have an independent existence (objective). This decision has been extremely productive. In passing of last the forty years almost one hundred different particles have been discovered. This constitutes what Kenneth Ford calls zoo of particles? The first thing that there is to know on zoo of particles is that all the particles of the same species have the same aspect exactly. Each electron is exactly equal to other electrons. When one has been seen they have seen all. In the same way, each proton exactly has the same aspect that any other proton, and the same is applied to the neutron, and so on. The subatomic particles of the same type are absolutely indistinguishable to each other. The subatomic particles of different types, nevertheless, can be recognized by their different characteristics (properties). First of the characteristic differentials of an subatomic particle it is his mass. A proton, for example, has a mass that is 1,800 times superior to the one of an electron. (This does not mean, necessarily, that a proton is 1,800 times greater than an electron, since mass and size are not the same thing: a kilo of lead and a kilo of pens, have the same mass.) When the physicists talk about the mass of a particle, unless they indicate the opposite, are talking about the mass of the particle when he is in rest state. This mass is called mass of rest. Any other mass that is not this mass in rest, is called relativista mass. Since the mass of a particle is increased with the speed, a particle can have any number of relativistas masses. The size of the relativista mass of a particle depends on its speed. For example, to the 99 percent of the speed of the light the mass of a particle is seven times greater than when that same particle is in rest. At speeds superior to the 99 percent of the speed of light the masses of particles are increased of really spectacular way. When it continued working the previous electron accelerator of Cambridge, Massachusetts, received electrons of the small providing accelerator that gave them to the main accelerator to the 0.99986 of the speed of the light. The main accelerator, next, increased this speed until putting it in the 0.999999996 of the speed of the light. The increase of speed can seem significant, but really he is despicable. The difference between the initial speed of accelerated electrons and its end speed is same which the difference of speed between an automobile that can make a route determined in two hours and an automobile faster than can make the same route in one hour, fifty and nine nine minutes and fifty and segundos.8 Nevertheless, the mass of each electron is increased and of 60 times the mass in rest, that it had when entering the main accelerator, happens to have 11,800 times that same mass. In other words, the particle accelerating have a suitable, erroneous name

little. They do not increase the speeds of subatomic particles (this one is the definition of the acceleration) in the same measurement that does it with their mass. The particle accelerating are in fact magnifying of particles (masificadores) The masses of particles, as much in rest as in movement, are moderate in electronvoltios.? Electronvoltio does not have anything to do with the electrons, but that are a power unit. (It is the energy acquired by any particle with load unit that happens through a potential differential of a volt.) The question is based in which when measuring something in terms of electronvoltios is to measure its energy and, really, this one is the measurement that the physicists specialized in the study of particles use to measure the mass of a particle. For example, the mass in rest of an electron is 0.51 million electronvoltios (Mev) and the mass in rest of a proton is 938.2 million electronvoltios. The transformation of mass in energy and energy in mass is a so routine phenomenon between the physicists specialized in the particles, that these scientists use power units to designate the mass of a particle. The mass is only one forms particular of the energy (p 163), the energy of being. If a particle is in movement, it not only has energy of being (his mass), but that has in addition movement energy (kinetic energy). Both types of energy can be used to create new particles in a particle collision? Frequently it turns out simpler to express the mass of a particle in reference to the particle of slighter mass, the electron, instead of making reference to the number of electronvoltios that contains. This norm causes that the mass of the electron like the unit (one) and the mass of a proton is considered, for example, 1,836.12 units. Using this system, the mass of a particle says to us, immediately, how many times she is heavier than an electron. When the physicists did a relation of particles known in order their masses, of lightest to heaviest, discovered that the subatomic particles can be clarify, in general terms, in three categories: the particles of slight weight, the particles of average weight and the particles of heavy weight. Nevertheless, at the time of putting name to those categories they return to fall in the Greek, like was logical to hope. The group of particles of slight weight receives the lepton name, which in Greek means the light ones. The intermediate group, the one of particles of medium weight, is called inns, that in that same language it means those of medium size. Finally, the last group, the one of heavy particles have been baptized with the name of the bariones, that in Greek is the equivalent one of the heavy ones. For which reason the physicists do not call to those new groups light, means and heavy she is one of the questions of the physics never will have answer? Since the electron is the slighter material particle, it is a lepton. The proton is a particle of heavy weight (a barin), in spite of being lightest of particles of this group of heavy weight. Most of subatomic particles is classified this way, but not all of them, which leads us to a phenomenon of the physics of the particles that, very similar to the quantum mechanics, escape to the limits of the concept. There are some particles that cannot be located within the frame of the classification lepton-inn-barion. Some of them well are known (like the photon). Others have been found only of a theoretical way and still they have not been discovered actually (as they gravitate). All of them have in common the fact that they are particles without-mass. - A little while! - we exclaimed -. What it is a particle without mass? - a particle without mass - Jim de Wit says, that it has studied the phenomenon - is a particle that has mass zero in rest. All its energy is kinetic energy. When a photon is created, instantaneously it is put to travel at the speed of the light.

It cannot be obtained that their speed is smaller (because does not have mass to which to make go more slowly), nor can either be accelerated (nothing can move at speed greater than the one of the light). Particle without mass is a terrible translation of the mathematical language to the Castilian. The physicists know exactly what they mean with the definition particle without mass. It is the name that they give to an element in a mathematical structure. What that element represents in the real world, nevertheless, no longer it is so easy to describe. In fact it is impossible because the definition of an object (like a particle) is the one of which it has mass. Buddhist the Zen has developed to a called technique kon that, jointly with the meditation, produces changes in our perception and understanding. Kon is a puzzle, a hieroglyphic to which it is not possible to be responded of ordinary way because he is paradoxical What is the sound of a pat given with a single hand he is kon of the Zen. To the students of Zen is requested to them that they think incessantly about certain kon until they manage to give with the answer. There is no an only correct answer to kon. The answer depends on the psychological state of the student. The paradoxes are something common in Buddhist Literature. The paradoxes are the places over which our rational mind encounters over its own limitations. According to the Eastern philosophy, in general, the opposed ones such as good-bad, handsome-ugly, birth-death, etc., are false distinctions. They cannot exist without the others. They are mental structures created by us. These illusions, created and maintained in themselves, are the unique cause of the paradox. To escape to the bows of the conceptual limitations is to hear the sound of a pat given with a single hand. The physics is filled with koans. For example: to represent a particle without mass. It is a coincidence that Buddhist when exploring the internal reality, for thousand years, and the physicists when exploring the external reality, a millenium later, discovered that to include/understand he requires to pass the barrier of a paradox? The second characteristic of an subatomic particle is its load. Each subatomic particle has a positive charge, negative or neutral. Its load determines how a particle in relation to and in the presence of other particles will be conducted. If a particle has a neutral load, is of all indifferent point for the other particles whatever it is the load that have these last ones. The particles with positive charge or negative, nevertheless, behave to each other of different way. The particles with positive charge or negative feel attracted by particles with opposite load and repelled by which they have the same sign. Two particles with positive charge both, find their company really repulsive and, immediately, they put among them the greater possible distance. The same it can be applied to particles with negative loads. On the other hand, a particle with negative load and another one with positive charge, feel irresistibly attracted among them and they move immediately to approach everything what they can. This dance of the attraction and the repulsion between loaded particles is called electromagnetic force. It allows that the atoms are united to each other, to form molecules, and maintain in orbit to electrons with negative load around a nucleus with positive charge. To atomic and molecular level it can say that this force is the fundamental tail that it beats to the universe. The electrical charge only appears in a limited amount. An subatomic particle can not have electrical charge (neutral) or a unit of electrical charge (either positive or negative), or in certain occasions two units of electrical charge, but anything intermediate. There is no something as well as a particle with one and fourth units of electrical charge or

with 1.7 units of electrical charge. All subatomic particle has a complete unit of electrical charge (or two complete units) or does not have load in absolute. In other words, like the energy (the discovery of Planck) the electrical charge is quantified. One appears in blocks, in complete pieces. In the case of the electrical energy all the quantos are of the same size. Why it is thus is one of the questions that have still not had answer in physics? When the load characteristic is added to the mass characteristic begins to arise (permtasenos to say it thus) the personality from a particle. An electron, for example, is the only nuclear particle with a mass in rest of million 0.51 electronvoltios and negative load. With that information a physicist specialized in the study of particles can know not only the mass of an electron but, also, how he will interact with other particles. The third characteristic of an subatomic particle is its spin (turn). The nuclear particles turn around a species of theoretical axis, as if they were one spins. It has, however, a great difference between one spins and a particle in turn: one spins can turn more quickly or more slowly, but an subatomic particle always will turn exactly at the same speed. Any electron always turns to exactly the same number of revolutions that any other electron. The spin is a fundamental characteristic of the subatomic particles to such an extent that if it is altered the particle is destroyed. That is to say, if the spin of a particle is altered, the particle at issue changes of so fundamental way that no longer it can continue being considered an electron, or a proton, or what wants that was before undergoing that alteration of its spin. sto gets to ask to us to us if it is not possible that all the different particles are simply different states from movement of any structure or fundamental substance. This one is the basic question in the physics of particles. All phenomenon in the quantum mechanics has a quantum aspect that makes discontinuous. That can be applied to the spin. It is quantified exactly just as the energy or the load. It appears in blocks and, like in the load, all are of the same size. In other words when one spins reduces its speed of turn, its rotation does not diminish of smooth and continuous way, but in a series of small jumps. These jumps are so small and are so together that it is impossible to observe them. I spin a top seems to turn more and more slowly until one stops completely, but really the process is to pulls, very abrupt. It is as if I only spin a top could turn put under a strange law that nobody reaches to include/understand: only to 100 RPM, to 90 RPM, to 80 RPM and so on, without no possible intermediate value. If our hypothetical one spins had to turn less to 100 RPM, it would have to give a jump until his next speed of turn, 90 RPM. This is analogous to the situation of subatomic particles with the exception of which (1) particular types of particles always turn at the same speed and (2) the nuclear particle spin calculates at the moment in terms angular. The angular moment depends on the mass, size and spin of the object that turns. In general the angular moment is the intensity of the rotation or, in other words, the required effort to stop the rotation. While greater it is the angular moment of a greater object will be the required effort to stop its turn. One spins does not have a great angular moment because she is small and it has little mass. A merry-go-round, in comparison, has a little while angular enormous, not because it turns with greater rapidity, but because he is much greater and it has much more mass. Now that we have understood what is the spin, it forgets everything what we have learned, except the last lines (angular moment). All particle has a little while angular fixed, defined and well-known, but there is nothing turns! If you do not understand it, you do not worry. The physicists do not

understand these words either, limit themselves to use them. (If one tries to include/understand them, they become kon). The angular moment of a nuclear particle is fixed, known and defined. But - Max Born- wrote does not have to imagine that within the matter it has something in fact is girando.9 Said of another way, the spin of an subatomic particle represents the idea of a rotation without the existence of which it even turns...10 Born had to admit that this concept is rather abstruso.11 In spite of it, the physicists use this concept because the subatomic particles behave as if they had angular and this one a little while, therefore has been determined, fixed and are defined in each case. Due to it, the spin in fact is one of the main characteristics of subatomic particles. The angular moment of an subatomic particle is based on the constant of our old Planck friend (p 66). Recurdese that the constant of Planck, to which the physicists call quanto of action, was the discovery that put in movement the quantum mechanics. Planck discovered that the energy was emitted and absorbed not of continuous way but in small packages to which it called quantos. From its initial discovery the constant of Planck, that represents the quantified nature of the emission and absorption of the energy, has made its appearance time and time again like an essential element in the understanding of the subatomic phenomena. Five years after the discovery of Planck, Einstein used its constant to explain the photoelectric effect and, later, it returned to use it to determine the heat capacity of solids, a land very moved away of the original study of Planck on the radiations of the black bodies. Bohr discovered that the angular moment of electrons when they orbit his atomic nuclei is a function of the constant of Planck; of Broglie it used the constant of Planck to calculate the wavelength of the waves of the matter, and that constant is a central element in the principle of uncertainty of Heisenberg. In spite of important that it is the constant of Planck in the land of the subatomic thing it is from all inobservable point in all the extension of the world. This is because the size of the packages with which the energy is emitted and absorbed is so small that, for us, the energy appears as if a continuous flow outside. Of similar way, because the indivisible unit of the angular moment is so small, it cannot either be observed in the world of the macrocospic thing. A spectator in a tennis match, turning itself in his seat to follow the trajectory of the ball has a little while angular that is: 1.000.000.000.000. 000.000.000.000.000.000.000 (a one followed of thirty and three zeros) (1033) greater than the one of an electron. Or in other words, a loss of cntimo in all the gross product of the United States would cause to an upheaval thousand trillions of times greater than the change of a unit of the angular moment of espectador.12 Instead of writing the real angular moment of an subatomic particle, the physicists, by the current, they indicate the spin of an subatomic particle comparing it with the turn of a photon, to which they consider as unit and they call one. This system discovers another one of the inexplicable guidelines of the subatomic phenomena. Whole particle families have the same characteristics of spin. The complete family of leptons, the slight particles have a spin of , which means that all of them have a little while angular that are of the angular moment of a proton. The same it is certain for all the family of the bariones, the family of heavy particles. The peculiar inns also have characteristic of spin. They turn in such a way that their angular moments are always or 0, 1, 2, 3, etc., in relation to the angular moment of a proton, but anything between 0 (lack of spin) and 1 (the same spin of the proton) nor between 1 and 2 (double of the angular moment of the

proton), etc., etc. The values of load, spin and other important characteristics of the particle are represented by specific numbers. These numbers are called quantum numbers. Each particle has a series of quantum numbers that identifies it like a particular type of particle. Each particle of a particular type has the same series of quantum numbers that any other particle of the same type. Each electron, for example, such has quantum numbers that any other electron. The quantum numbers of an electron, nevertheless, are different from the quantum numbers of a proton that, as well, are identical to those of any other proton. The individual particles do not have much personality. In fact, they do not have personality absolutely. When Dirac imposed the exigencies of relativity on the theory of quanto, this formalism indicated the existence of a particle of very particular positive charge. Since the only particle with wellknown positive charge in those days (1928) were the proton, Dirac and most of the other physicists supposed that the theory was responsible (mathematically) for the proton. (Its theory was even criticized to offer the erroneous mass to us of a proton). Under one more a stopped observation it becomes evident that the theory of Dirac does not describe to the proton but to a totally different particle. The new particle of Dirac was like an electron with the difference that their load and other important properties were exactly opposed to those of the electron. In 1932, Carl Anderson (who had not heard speak of the theory of Dirac) discovered in the Lime Tech? this new particle and called positron. Later, the physicists discovered that each particle had its opposite one, that was exactly equal although opposite in several main aspects. This new particle class was called antiparticles. An antiparticle, in spite of its name, is a particle. (the antiparticle of an antiparticle is another particle.) Some particles have other particles as antiparticles (for example a positive inn pi is the antiparticle of a negative inn pi, and vice versa). Few particles are their own antiparticles (like in the photon). The encounter of a particle with its antiparticle is spectacular. Wherever a particle and its antiparticle are, they eliminate one another one! When an electron is with a positron, for example, both disappear and in its place they appear two photons that, immediately, disappear of the scene at the speed of the light. The particle and the antiparticle disappear, literally, in a very small sparkle of light. And to the inverse one, particles and antiparticles they always can be created starting off of the energy and in pair. The universe is formed of both, particles and antiparticles. Our part of universe, without embargo, is done almost entirely of regular particles that are combined to form regular atoms, that to their time form regular molecules that compose regular raw material, that is of that all we are done. The physicists speculate with the idea that in other parts of the universe the antiparticles are combined in antiatoms, these in anti-molecules that form the antimatter, that is the one that would determine the anti-beings. There are anti-beings (or no anti-men) in our part of the universe, because if there were them he would do long time already who would have disappeared in a light lightning. Leptons, inns, bariones, mass, load, spin and antiparticles are several of the concepts that the physicists use to classify the subatomic phenomena, when momentarily they suppose that the subatomic particles are real objects that move in the space. These concepts are useful, but only in a limited context. This context occurs when the physicists, by own convenience, try - since we do who the dancers can exist independently of the dance. THE DANCE The dance of subatomic particles never finishes and never she is the same one. In spite of it, the physicists have found a way

to express in diagrams the parts of greater interest. The simplest drawing of any type of movement is a space map. A space map shows the situation to us of the objects in the space. The map of the following page shows the situation to us of San Francisco and Berkeley, in California. The vertical axis is the axis the north-south, as it happens in any other map, and the horizontal axis is the EastWest line. This map, in addition, shows the trajectory to us of a helicopter that travels between San Francisco and Berkeley and, a scale very increased, also shows the trajectory to us of a proton giving returned in the cyclotron from the Laboratory Lawrence Berkeley. Like all the road maps, this space map is bidimensional. It shows to the distance towards the north (the first dimension) and the distance to us towards the east (the second dimension) that separates Berkeley of San Francisco. It does not show the altitude to us of the helicopter (the third dimension) and indicates either how long requires the helicopter to make the route San FranciscoBerkeley (fourth dimension). If we wanted to show the time of that flight we would have to draw up to a map space-time. A map spacetime also shows to the position of the things in the space and its position to us in the time. The vertical axis in a map space-time is the axis of the time. The maps space-time are interpreted (read) of down above, because the passage of time is represented by the movement upwards of the axis of the time. The horizontal axis of a map space-time is the space axis that shows the movement to us of the objects in the space. The trajectory drawn up by an object in a map space-time is called universal line. For example, the map represented space-time underneath shows the same flight to us from San Francisco Berkeley. Initially, the helicopter is put in San Francisco. Its universal line is vertical because at those moments it is not moving in the space but in the time. The line To B is the universal line while the helicopter is stopped in San Francisco. When the helicopter takes off for Berkeley moves forwards as much in the time as in the space and its universal line plan in the map space-time the trajectory that goes of B to C. When the helicopter lands in Berkeley, its universal line returns to be vertical, because again it has let move in the space, but, like all the things, it is continued moving in the time (line C D). The arrows indicate the direction in that the helicopter is moving. It is possible to be moved forwards and backwards in the space, but, of course, it only can move forwards in the time. The lines of points show the lines universal of San Francisco and Berkeley, that, naturally, do not move in the space, except during earthquakes of California. The physicists use similar maps space-time to make the diagrams of the interaction of particles. We offer a diagram space-time of an electron emitting a photon. Beginning in the part he lowers an electron moves by the space with a certain speed. In a point in the space (marked by a heavy black point in the map) he emits a photon. The photon escapes at the speed of the light towards the right and the electron, with its moment affected by the emission of the photon, alters its course and it continues itself moving, more slowly, towards the left. In 1949, Richard Feynman he discovered that the maps space-time as this one has an exact correspondence with the mathematical expressions of the probabilities that represent. The discovery of Feynman was an extension of the theory of Dirac in 1928 and helped to incorporate that theory in the quantum theory of fields that already we know. Therefore to that type of diagram sometimes is called to him diagram of Feynman.? Here we offer a diagram of Feynman of destruction of a pairticula/anti-particle. An electron by the left comes near to an anti-

electron (a positron) that arrives by the right. In the point of impact (indicated in the diagram with a heavy point) both particles are annihilated mutually creating two photons that start off in opposed directions of the speed of the light. An event of this type in the subatomic world is called a event. The events are indicated in the diagrams of Feynman by heavy points. All subatomic event is marked by the destruction of initial particles and the creation of other new ones. This is certain for all the events and not only for those in which particles and antiparticles take part. With this in mind, we can watch the diagram of the previous page and again see it with a different light. Instead of saying that an electron which moves by the space emits a photon that changes the moment of the electron, we can say that an electron that moves by the space it emits a photon and it lets exist in that point. In that process a new electron is created that disappears of the scene with a new moment. There is no form to know if this interpretation is or she is not correct, because all the electrons are identical. Nevertheless, he is simpler and more consistent to suppose than the original particle it was annihilated and a new particle is created. The impossibility to distinguish to each other subatomic particles of the same type causes that this is possible. Here we offer a diagram of Feynman of the process that we discussed in page 198. A negative inn pi collides with a proton and the two particles are annihilated. Their respective energies of existence (masses) and their energies of movement create two new particles, a particle lambda and a neutral inn K. These two particles are unstable and live less than a trillionth on second before disintegrating themselves in other particles. Neutral inn K disintegrates in a positive inn pi and a negative inn pi. The particle lambda, and this one is the most interesting part, it is disintegrated in two original particles (a negative inn pi and a proton)! He is as if we made hit two automobiles of toy to each other and instead of being reduced to broken pieces they became other automobiles of toy, some of them still greater than the orignales. The subatomic particles participate in permanent way in this incessant dance of creation and destruction. In fact, the subatomic particles are this incessant dance of creation and destruction. This discovery of century XX, with all its sicodlicas implications, is not a new concept. In fact he is very similar to the form as they see his reality a great part of the Earth population, including a the Hindus. Hindu mythology is, virtually, a projection on great scale in the psychological land of microscopic the scientific discoveries. Deities Hindu, as Shiva or Vishn dances of way continuous creation and destruction of universe, whereas the Buddhist image of the wheel of the life symbolizes the infinite process of being born, dying and to appear again, that are part of the world of the form, that is empty, that is form. Let us imagine that a group of young painters has created school of a new and revolutionary art. Their paintings are so singular that they must comment them with the director of an old museum. The director watches new paintings, shakes the head with surprise and he goes to the armored camera. Some time returns later bringing several very old pictures that it places next to works of the young artists. The new art is so similar to the old art that the young painters are really surprised. The new revolutionaries, in their own time and with its own means, are redescubierto an ancient painting school. Again let us return to the diagram of Feynman of the annihilation of an electron and a positron. Let us suppose that we used the end of the arrow to indicate which is the particle (the electron) and which is the antiparticle (the positron) causing that the ends of arrows upwards

indicate particles and the arrows with the end downwards the antiparticles. This will cause that the diagram of page 216 is just as the one of this page. Naturally the time, as we experienced it, travels only in a direction, forwards. (This is, upwards in a diagram space-time). In spite of it, our simple convention can offer a way to us easy to distinguish particles of antiparticles. The lines universal that seem to move backwards in the time, would belong to antiparticles (the photons would not have arrows because they are their own antiparticles). In 1949, Feynman demonstrated that that convention was something more than an artistic instrument. It discovered that the field of a positron propagating forwards in the time is mathematically equal to the field of an electron that propagates backwards in the time. In other words, in agreement with the quantum theory of field, an antiparticle is a particle that moves backwards in the time. An antiparticle does not have why to be considered, necessarily, like a particle that moves backwards in the time, but this one is the form simplest and more symmetrical to contemplate antiparticles. Since the direction marked by the heads of the arrows distinguishes to particles of antiparticles, we can turn the original diagram of Feynman and to place it in the position wished by us and always we will follow in conditions for distinguishing particles of the others. Here we offer diverse forms of how we can turn the original diagram of Feynman. Each one of these variations is a different diagram and represents the interaction particula/anti-particle? Giving the complete return to the original diagram we can represent all possible interaction between an electron and a positron and two photons. The precision, simplicity and symmetry of the diagrams of Feynman make of them a special type of poetry. Also we presented/displayed a diagram space-time of two events. A collision between two photons (in point B) creates an even electron-positron and, therefore, an electron and a positron are annihilated mutually and created two photons (in A). (left half of this diagram, the interaction in A, is same that in the destruction electron-positron of page 218.) Normally, we would interpret these events as it follows: two photons hit in the right inferior part of the diagram producing an even electron-positron. The electron escapes towards the right, whereas the positron does towards the left, where is to another electron that has entered the diagram by the inferior part, to the left. They are annihilated mutually and they created two photons that escape in opposite directions. The interpretation of the quantum theory of fields, favourite, is much more simple. In her only there is a particle. That particle, an electron, enters the diagram of the left inferior part and it moves forwards in the time and the space until it emits two photons in A. This cause its change of direction in the time. Traveling backwards in the time, like positron, it absorbs two photons in B and it again changes his direction in the time and again one becomes an electron. In time of three particles we have only one particle here that moves of left to right and that moves, first, towards ahead in the time, later towards back in the time and, by aim, of new towards ahead in the time. This one is the static type of graphical representation space-time described in the theory of the relativity of Einstein (p 157). If we could observe everything a period of time as we observed one complete region of the space, we would see that the events do not unfold with passing of the time but that they appear to if same of complete way, like a drawing already finished on the weave of the space-time. In that image, the movements forwards and backwards in the time are not more significant that the movements forwards and backwards in the space. The illusion of which the events evolve in the time must to

our special type of perception that only allows to see us, every time, narrow strips of the total image space-time. For example, we suppose that we placed a cardboard piece in which we have practiced a crack on the diagram of page 220, so that everything what we can see of the interaction is what he is visible by the opening cut in the cardboard. If we move the cardboard piece slowly, upwards, beginning by the lowest part, our restricted vision will discover a series of events each one of them happening after the other. In first we see three particles, two photons that enter our field of vision by the right and an electron that penetrates by the left (1). Later we see as the photons hit to produce an even electronpositron, the electron saves towards the right and the positron towards the left (2). Finally we see the positron of new creation that hits the original electron to create two new photons (3). Only when we cleared the cardboard of total way (that was an artificial construction, of course) we can see the complete image. Of Broglie it wrote: In the space-time for each one of us each thing constitutes the past, the present and the future like in a block... Each observer, as he spends his time, will discover (so to speak) new strips of space-time that will appear before him like successive aspects of the material world, although in fact the set of the events that constitute the space-time exists before the knowledge that it has of ellos.1 - Delay a minute - Jim de Wit says to a specialistic particle physicist that happens next to him -. It is easy to speak of movements forwards and backwards in the time, but I never I have experimented to march backwards in the time. If the particles can travel backwards in the time, why I cannot also do it I? The answer that the physicists give the problem is really simple: There is an increasing tendency in all the next places of the universe, says the explanation, towards the disorder (this tendency is called entropy), to extend to coast of the order (negentropa). Let us suppose, for example, that we deposited a drop of black red in a clear water glass. In the beginning its presence enough is ordered, that is to say, all the molecules of the red are located in a small zone and clearly separated of clear water molecules. Nevertheless, as the time happens, the natural molecular movement does that the molecules of the black red are diluted and mixing with the clear water until they have been distributed by all the glass, giving like result a cloudy and homogenous liquid without structure nor order, only with a dark uniformity (Maxima entropy). The experience teaches to us to forwards associate the growth of the entropy with the movement of the time. If we see it films of a cloudy water glass that is become more and more clear until all the dissolved strange substance in the water is concentrated in a simple drop that floats on her, we know immediately that the film is being happened to the inverse one, that is to say, of back forwards. Naturally, this is theoretically possible, but he is something so improbable that (probably) it will never happen. In summary, the time runs in the direction of the greater probabilities, than it is the direction of the increasing entropy. The theory of the increasing disorder or increasing entropy is called the second law of the thermodynamics. One is a statistical law, this means that it will not be valid unless there are many beings in a given situation so that it can act. Speaking in general terms, the individual subatomic particles are conceived like isolated beings and of a so short life that the second law of the thermodynamics does not have application in them? ? It is valid, nevertheless, with the molecules that are relatively very complex in comparison with atomic particles; with the alive cells, that are still much more complex that the molecules,

and with the people, who are done of trillions of cells. Only at subatomic level, or of quanto, the concept of direct flow loses its meaning that we have of the time. Nevertheless, something of positive evidence in that sense is speculated on and has, whereupon the conscience, at the most fundamental levels is a quntico process. The eyes adapted to the dark, for example, can detect to an isolated photon. If this is thus, is conceivable that, extending our conscience to functions that normally are under their parameters (that is to say, of the way as yoguis controls the temperature of their body and the rate of their pulse) we pruned to become aware (experience) of those processes in himself. If at level of quanto the flow of the time does not have meaning, if the conscience is fundamentally a similar process and if we can become aware of that process within us, then he is conceivable who we pruned to experience the intemporalidad. If we can experience the most fundamental functions of ours sique and these are of quantum nature, in that case is possible that ordinary concepts from space and time, they are not applied them absolutely (as they do not seem not to have application in the dreams either). A experience of that type will be very difficult to explain of rational way (the Infinite in a sand grain and the Eternity in one hour), but will be, of course, very real. For that reason time distortion of and existence outside the time that offers gurs to us, in East, and those that travel under the effects of the LSD, in the West would not have to discard to light the information on. The subatomic particles do not remain immovable, inactive, limiting itself simply a passive subatomic particle paper. Rather it could say that they are like beehives filled with activity. An electron, for example, is constantly emitting and absorbing photons, although it cannot say that these photons are photons of whole body, but that is photons of a not seen variety which we could call sight and. They are similar in everything to authentic photons, with the emitted exception of which they do not escape by themselves to the being, but that on the contrary is reabsorbidos by the electron, almost immediately after to be emitted. Therefore it is called virtual photons to them. (Virtual it means that they are thus in effect or essence, although not in fact.) They are, we repeated, virtual photons and the only thing that it prevents that they are authentic photons and real is its steep and sudden reabsorcin by the same electron that emits them? In other words: in principle we have an electron and later we have an electron and a photon and, again, again only an electron. This situation is, of course, a violation of the law of conservation of the mass-energy, that that says to us, in effect, we cannot obtain something of anything. However, in agreement with the quantum theory of field we obtained something by anything here, although that something is so ephemeral that trillionth of second only lasts one thousands (10-15).??? ????? This one is the reason reason why this can happen, in agreement with the theory of the principle of uncertainty of Heisenberg. This principle of Heisenberg, as it were formulated originally, says that while certain we are of the position of a particle, less certain we can be of its moment, and the same to the inverse one. We can determine its position exactly, but in that case we cannot have idea of its moment. If we chose to measure its moment with exactitude, in that case we will not be able to know where it is located (p 121). Aside from this reciprocal uncertainty between position and moment, there is another reciprocal uncertainty of time and energy. While less uncertainty has on the time involved in an subatomic event, greater uncertainty will exist on the energy involved in the event, and the same to the inverse

one. Thousands a as precise measurement as one billonsma of second, leaves very to little uncertainty on the time of the emission and absorption of a virtual photon. Therefore, it must cause a great specific uncertainty on the amount of energy that takes part in the event. Due to this uncertainty, the balances maintained by the law of conservation of the mass-energy are not altered. In other words, the event happens of so fast way and happens so quickly, that the electron can accept it. He is as if the policeman that enforced the law of conservation of the mass-energy, returned the back to the violations of the law if these happen very quickly. And while more flagrant it is the violation more quickly must be made. If we facilitated the necessary energy so that a virtual photon becomes a real photon without breaking the law of conservation of the massenergy, this happens thus exactly. This one is the reason for which an excited electron emits an authentic photon. An excited electron is an electron that is at a power level superior to its fundamental state. The fundamental state of energy of an electron is its smaller level of energy when it is more close than it can be of the nucleus of an atom. The only photons that the electrons emit when they are in his fundamental state are virtual photons that they return to reabsorber thus not to immediately break the law of conservation of the mass-energy. An electron considers that the fundamental state is its home and it does not like to leave house. In fact in the only occasion that leaves its fundamental state is when literally it is expelled from him by an extra energy. In this case the first preoccupation of the electron is to return to its fundamental state (supposing that, in effect, it has not been pushed so far from the nucleus that becomes a free electron). Since the fundamental state is a state of low energy, the electron must lose its excess of energy before being able to return to that state. Therefore, when an electron is with a level of energy greater than its fundamental state, it sends in spurt his excess of energy in form of a photon. That photon thus sent is one of virtual photons of the electron that, suddenly, is with the sufficient energy to continue escaping without breaking the law of conservation of the mass-energy, and thus it does. In other words: one of virtual photons of the electron feels ascended to authentic photon. The amount of energy (the frequency) of the promoted photon depends on the excess of energy that him on a the electron to send it. (the discovery that those electrons only emit photons of certain energy and not others is what a theory of quanto does of the quantum theory.) The electrons always are surrounded by a virtual photon cluster? If two electrons come near the sufficient thing to each other so that their virtual photon cloud is superposed is possible that a virtual photon emitted by an electron is absorbed by the other electron. Next we offer a diagram of Feynman of a virtual photon that has been emitted by an electron and is absorbed by another electron. While next they are the electrons to each other, with greater facility these phenomena will happen. Of course, the process is of roundtrip and both electrons absorb virtual photons emitted by the other. That way it is as the electrons are repelled to each other. While two come near more electrons greater will be the number of virtual photons that interchange and while more vir tual photons interchange more strongly will turn aside their trajectories. The repulsive force among them is, simply, the cumulative effect of these virtual photon interchanges, the number of which it increases when they are closely together and it diminishes when they are distanced. In agreement with this theory, the action-to-distance does not exist, but simply a greater or smaller

interchange of virtual photons. This interaction (absorptions and emissions) happens in the same place, so to speak, that is to say, exactly where are located the particles that take part? The mutual repulsion of two particles of the same load, like for example two electrons, is an example of electromagnetic force. In fact, according to the quantum theory of fields, a force is the reciprocal virtual photon interchange. (the physicists please to say that the electromagnetic force is mediatizada by photons). Each particle with electrical charge emits and reabsorbe virtual photons of continuous way and or interchanges them with other particles with load. When two electrons (two negative loads) interchange virtual photons, are repelled to each other. The same it happens when two protons (positive charge) interchange virtual photons. When a proton and an electron (a positive charge and a negative load) interchange virtual photons are attracted to each other. Therefore, from the development of the quantum theory of fields, the physicists, generally, have replaced the word interaction by the word forces. An interaction happens when some thing influences some other. In this context - a reciprocal virtual photon interchange -, interaction is a more precise term that the one of force, that labels to which happens between electrons, but does not explain anything on it. This part of the quantum theory of fields (the original part of Dirac) that deals with electrons, photons and positrons, is called electrodynamic quantum. The virtual photons, even though are particles with load, would not be visible in a load of bubbles due to the extremely short thing of their life. Its existence is deduced mathematically. Therefore this extraordinary theory that the particles exert a reciprocal force by means of the interchange of other particles is, clearly, a free creation of the human mind (p 29). It does not explain how it is really the nature is simply a mental construction that it predicts with success which the nature probably is going to do next. It could have, and probably there are them, other mental constructions that can fulfill their assignment so or as this one or better (although until now the physicists they do not have been able to conceive no other). More than we can say on this theory, like on any other, is not that she is true or no, but if it is valid or no, if it works of the way that assumes must act. One assumes that the quantum theory can predict the probabilities that certain subatomic phenomena happen under certain circumstances. Even though the quantum theory of fields in its totality is not absolutely consistent, the pragmatic reality is that it gives result, works. There is a diagram of Feynman for each interaction corresponding to a mathematical formula that, indeed, predicts the probability that the interaction represented in the diagram happens? In 1935, Hideki Yukawa, a student graduated in physics, decided to apply the new theory of the virtual particle to the strong interactions. The strong interactions? they maintain united to the atomic nuclei. It must be an intense force because the protons, that jointly with neutrons form the nucleus of an atom, are repelled naturally to each other. To the being particles of the same sign (positive) the protons always try to move away most possible among them. This must to the electromagnetic force among them. In spite of it, in the interior of the nucleus of an atom those protons, that mutually are repelled not only stay in next vicinity, but that in addition tends to hold fast among them with firmness. What wants that is that it maintains subjects to those protons in a nucleus, the physicists reasoned, must be a very great force in comparison with the electromagnetic force that acts against it. Thus, then, they decided to call to that great force, naturally, strong interaction. The

name is very well applied because the strong interaction is one hundred times more powerful than the electromagnetic force. It is the greater force of all the known ones in the nature. Like the electromagnetic force is another one of the fundamental tails that they maintain stuck the nature. The electromagnetic force maintains together internally to atoms (to form molecules) and (it unites to electrons to his orbits around the nucleus). The strong interaction maintains to the nucleus united in himself. The strong interaction is, in certain way, of muscular type. Although it is the greater force of all the known ones in the nature, is the one that has the smaller field of reach of all the other forces known in the nature. For example, when a proton comes near to the nucleus of an atom begins to experience the force of electromagnetic repulsion between he himself and other protons in the interior of the nucleus. While more close the free proton arrives from protons of the nucleus, greater it will be the force of electromagnetic repulsion among them. (To a third of the original distance, for example, the force is nine times greater.) This force causes the deviation of the trajectory of the free proton, a smooth deviation if the proton is far from the nucleus and very pronounced if the proton approaches the nucleus. If we pushed the free proton until approximating it to a distance of one ten trillionth (10-13) of a centimeter of the nucleus, suddenly it is sucked in the nucleus with a force that is one hundred times more powerful than the electromagnetic force of repulsion. That distance, one ten trillionth of centimeter, is approximately the size of the proton. In other words, the proton, relatively, is not affected by the interaction hard even a distance slightly greater than its own magnitude. But if more approaches, totally it is dominated by the strong interaction. Yukawa decided to explain this great force, so powerful but of so short battle area, in virtual particle terms. The theory of Yukawa said that the strong interaction was mediatizada by virtual particles, as the electromagnetic force is mediatizada by virtual photons. According to the theory of Yukawa, just like the electromagnetic force is a virtual photon interchange, the strong interaction is the interchange of another type of virtual particle. Just like the electron never remains inactive, but that it is emitting and reabsorbiendo virtual photons of constant way, therefore the nuclei either are not inert but emitting and reabsorbiendo, of continued way, their own type of virtual particles. nuclen is a proton or a neutron. These two particles are called nucleones since both are in the nucleus of atoms. They are so similar to each other that, in general terms, a proton can be considered like a neutron with positive charge. Yukawa knew the reach that great force by the published results of diverse experiments. Supposing that the limited reach of the strong interaction was identical to the limited reach of a virtual particle emitted by nuclen in the nucleus, it calculated whichever time would need that supposed virtual particle, at speed next to the one of the light, to cross that distance and to return to nuclen. That calculation allowed him to use the relation of uncertainty between time and energy to calculate the energy (mass) of this hypothetical particle. Twelve years [ and a case of identity error ] later, the physicists discovered the hypothetical particle of Yukawa.? They called an inn. A complete family of inns, was discovered later, were the particles that interchanged nucleones to constitute the strong interaction. The first individual inn discovered by the physicists was called by these pion (an abbreviation of English pi-inn in and inn pi in Castilian). The piones appeared in three varieties: positive, neutral negative and. In other words, a proton, like an electron, is a beehive filled with

activity. It not only emits and reabsorbe virtual photons, which makes susceptible to the electromagnetic force, but that also emits and absorbs piones virtual, which makes susceptible to the strong interaction. (the particles that does not emit virtual inns, like electrons, for example, are not affected absolutely by the strong interaction.) When an electron emits a virtual photon that is absorbed by another particle, it says that the electron is interacted with the other particle. Nevertheless, when the electron emits a virtual photon later and reabsorbe, one says that the electron is interacting with same himself. The car-interaction makes of the world of subatomic particles a kaleidoscopic reality, whose authentic components are, they themselves, incessant processes of transformation. The protons, like electrons, can interact with same himself in more than a way. Simplest of the autointeracciones of the proton it is the emission and reabsorcin, within the time allowed by the principle of the uncertainty, of pion virtual. This interaction is analogous to the one of an electron when it is emitting and reabsorbiendo a virtual photon. First we have the presence of the proton and, next, a proton and pion neutral, later only it is left the proton. Next we represented a diagram of Feynman of a proton emitting and reabsorbiendo pion neutral. Because all the protons are identical, we can accept that the original proton let exist suddenly and, in the same point in the space and in the time, a new proton and his pion acquire existence of sudden way. The new proton and pion neutral, constitute a violation of the law of conservation of the mass-energy, since its joint mass is greater than the mass of the original proton. Something (pion neutral) has been created literally of the anything and quickly it disappears again (what it makes of this a virtual process). The duration of the life of the new particle is limited the time calculated by means of the principle of uncertainty of Heisenberg. The particles are based quickly, they are annihilated mutually and they created a new proton. To open and to close of eyes, figuradamente speaking, and everything has happened already. There is another form by means of which a proton can interact with same himself. Besides to emit and to reabsorber pion neutral, a proton can emit pion positive. Nevertheless, when doing it thus, the proton, momentarily, is transformed to itself into a neutron! First we have a proton, later a neutron (that already of by himself has greater mass than the original proton), plus pion positive, next appears again a proton. In other words, one of the dances that make a proton again changes it of continuous way in a neutron and in a proton. Next we offer the diagram of Feynman of this dance. Each nuclen is surrounded by a cloud of virtual piones, that nuclen emits and reabsorbe constantly. If a proton approaches the sufficient thing a neutron, so that their clouds of virtual piones are superposed, some of the virtual piones emitted by the proton are absorbed by the neutron. Next we offer a Feynman diagram of a virtual interchange of pion between a proton and a neutron. In the left part of the diagram, a proton emits pion with positive charge and, momentarily, it is transformed into a neutron. Before pion can be reabsorbido, it is captured by the neutron that is next. The capture of pion causes that the neutron car-becomes a proton. The interchange of pion positive causes that the proton becomes a neutron and that the neutron becomes proton. Nucleones both original, united to each other by this interchange, changes their respective papers. This one is the base of the interaction of Yukawa. The strong interaction, according to previous Yukawa in 1935, is a multiple interchange of virtual piones between nucleones. The number of interchanges (the intensity of

the force) increases to short distances and diminishes if these increase. Of similar way, the neutrons never remain inactive, satisfied with being what they are. As the protons and the electrons also interact constantly with same himself emitting and reabsorbiendo virtual particles. Like the protons, the neutrons, emit and reabsorben neutral piones. Next we offer a diagram of Feynman of a neutron emitting and reabsorbiendo pion neutral (?). Besides to emit pion neutral, a neutron also can emit pion negative. But when a neutron emits pion negative it transforms into a proton! First we have a neutron, later is a proton plus pion negative, next again a neutron. Next we offer a diagram of Feynman of this dance that of continuous transforms again to a neutron a proton and into a neutron. If a neutron approaches too much a then proton its respective clouds of virtual piones are superposed and some of the piones emitted by the neutron are absorbed by the proton. We offer next a diagram of Feynman of an interchange of virtual piones between a neutron and a proton. This one is another strong interaction. In left half of the diagram a neutron emits pion negative and, momentarily, it is transformed into a proton. Nevertheless, before pion negative can be reabsorbido, it is captured by a next proton that, as well, becomes a neutron. Like before, this pair of nucleones connected to each other by a virtual interchange of pion, changes their papers. There are many more strong interactions. Although the piones are the particles interchanged most frequently in the creation of the strong interaction, the other inns (like kaones, particles eta, etc.) also they are interchanged. There is no strong interaction; only a variable number of virtual particle interchanges between nucleones. In agreement with the physicists, the universe stays united by four fundamental types of tails or glues. In addition to the electromagnetic force and the strong interaction we have the weak interaction and the force of the gravitation? The gravity is the force of greater reach and maintains united Solar System, galaxies and universes. Nevertheless, at subatomic level its effect is so despicable that it is ignored completely. It is necessary to trust that the future theories therefore consider it. The weak force is less well-known of the four forces. Its existence is inferred of the time required for certain subatomic interactions. The strong interaction is of so short reach and as much power that their interactions happen very quickly, in 0,00000000000000000000001 second (10-23). Nevertheless, the physicists discovered that some other types of particle interaction by known them and that was not related to the electromagnetic force nor to the force of gravitation, they required a long time much more, about 0.0000000001 (10-10). Therefore, they deduced of this strange phenomenon that had to exist a fourth type of force. Since that fourth force, as it were known, were weaker than the electromagnetic force was called weak force. In order to their power the four forces are: The strong interaction (nuclear). The electromagnetic force. The weak interaction. The gravity. Since the strong interaction and the electromagnetic force can be explained in virtual particle terms, the physicists accept that the same it is certain for the other two forces. The particle associated with the gravity is the graviton, whose properties have been explained theoretically, but whose existence has not been confirmed. The particle associated with the weak force is the particle W, on which it has theorized much, but of that great thing has not been discovered. The reach of the strong interaction, in relation to the electromagnetic force is limited because the inns have a great mass, comparativily with photons. Let us remember that the police that forces the fulfillment of the law of conservation

of the mass-energy is arranged to make the fat Vista before the violation of that law if this one verifies with the sufficient rapidity, so that while more flagrant is the violation more quickly it must happen. The momentary creation of an inn starting off of the anything is a much more flagrant violation of the law of conservation of the mass-energy that the momentary creation of a photon starting off of the anything. Of this form, the creation and reabsorcin of an inn must happen to greater rapidity so that it stays under the protection, so to speak, of the relation of uncertainty between time and energy. Because the time of life of a virtual inn is limited, its reach also is it. The rule that governs east phenomenon says thus: When more intense it is the force, more mass it is shorter the mediating particle and his reach. In agreement with it, the reach of the electromagnetic force is infinite. This must to that the photons do not have mass of rest absolutely! - Delay a little while - Jim de Wit says, that of once it is in favor in agreement with us -. That does not have sense. A virtual photon is a reabsorbido photon that is emitted and with the necessary rapidity to avoid the violation of the law of conservation of mass-energy. In agreement? - Thus he is - a physicist responds to him, specialist in the study of the particles, that happens that way of way towards its cyclotron. - In that case, how it is possible that a particle, or any other thing, can be emitted and reabsorbida, within certain limits, like the limits imposed by the uncertainty principle and, at the same time, to have an infinite operational range? That does not have sense! Of Wit it is right to speak thus. At first sight, it seems that its observation is correct. Under one more a detailed observation, nevertheless, there is an involved subtle logic in the subject that has sense. If the limitations of the law of conservation of the massenergy are avoided by a balance of time and energy (mass) allowed by the uncertainty principle and a virtual photon does not have mass (in rest), in that case it has all along of the world, literally, to go where it feels like to him. In other words, there is no practical difference between a real photon and a virtual photon. The only difference among them is that the creation of a real photon does not break the law of conservation of the mass-energy and the creation of a virtual photon avoids that law of momentary way by the route of the principle of uncertainty of Heisenberg. This one is a good unreal example of and the chimerical thing that can sound the not-mathematical explanation of a physical theory of recognized success. The reason of this is that the physical theories, to describe of way more suitable and approximated the submissive phenomena to consideration, are divorced more and more of the daily experience (that is to say, they are become more abstract). Even though those highly abstract theories like the theory of quanto and relativity, are guessed right until a degree that causes pavor, the certain thing is that, in truth, they are free creations of the human mind. Its primary bow with the ordinary experience is not the abstract content of its formalisms, but the fact that, as is, they act and they are valid? What distinguishes to a transient state, virtual (nothing-something-nothing) of a real state (somethingsomething-something) is similar to the Buddhist distinction between reality, as it is really, and the form as current we see it. The same Feynman, for example, describes to the difference between the virtual state and the real state (of a photon), like perspective question. ... what appears like a real process from a point of view, can appear like a virtual process that it happens on a greater extension of time. For example, if we wished to study a certain real process, like the diffusion of the light, we can, if we wished it thus,

include in our analysis the source, the absorbent diffuser and the possible ones of the diffuse light. We can imagine that some did not exist photon in the beginning and that at the moment for initiating the experiment the source emits light... The light is spread and, in certain cases, absorbed... From that point of view the process is virtual, that is to say, we began without no photon and we finished without them. That way we can analyze the process by means of our formulas for the real processes, trying to break the analysis in the parts corresponding to the emission, the diffusion and absorcin.2 In agreement with the Buddhist theory, the reality is virtual by nature. What appears like real objects in her, like trees or people, really they are transitory illusions, result of a limited form of conscience. The illusion is in which some parts of a process, in all virtual one, are real things (permanent). Illumination is to feel that the things - even I - are transitory, private virtual states of a separated existence, momentary bows between illusions of the past and illusions of the future that unfold in the illusion of the process of the time. The interactions between particles are made quite complicated, when the virtual particles emit virtual particles that, as well, emit virtual particles in a decreasing sequence. Next we momentarily offer a diagram of Feynman of a virtual particle (pion negative) transforming itself into other two virtual particles more, a neutron and an antiproton. (In 1928 the theory of Dirac, also predicted the existence of the antiproton that was discovered in Berkeley in 1955.) This one is the simplest example of descendent car-interaction. In page 238 it is the diagram of the exquisite dance of a simple proton, carried out in that space of tiny time allowed by the uncertainty principle. This diagram was designed by Kenneth Ford in its book The World of Elementary Particles.? 3 Eleven particles make their transitory appearance between the time which the original proton transforms to itself into a neutron and pion and the time which it becomes a single proton again. A proton is satisfied to being a simple proton. It alternates between being a proton and pion neutral and by the other being a neutron and pion positive. A neutron never continues being a simple neutron, on the one hand, and a proton and pion negative by the other. Pion negative never is satisfied to being only simple pion negative. It on the one hand alternates between being a neutron and an antiproton, and by the other, etc., etc. In other words, all the particles exist potentially (with certain probability) like different combinations from other particles. Each combination has certain probability of happening. The quantum theory deals with the probability. The probability of each one of those combinations can be calculated with certainty. In agreement with the quantum theory, however, it is the luck the one that decisively determines which of those combinations will really happen. The quantum point of view according to which all the particles exist potentially like different combinations from other particles, has the great parallelism with a Buddhist point of view, once again. In agreement with the Flower Garlan Sutra, each part of the physical reality is constructed of all the other parts. (sutra is a written story of the doctrine of Buddha.) This subject is informed in the Flower Garland Sutra with the metaphor of the network of Indra. This one consists of a vast network of per those that hang covering the palace with gold of barks. In words of a Castilian translation: one says that in the sky of Indra there is a network to per them, placed in such a way that if one watches one it sees all the reflected others in her. In the same way, each object in the world is not simply he himself, but that it includes all the other objects and, in fact, he is all dems.4 The appearance of the physical reality, in agreement

with the maha-yana buddhism, is based on the interdependence of all the things? ? Although this book does not deal with physics and buddhism of specific way, the similarities between the two, specially in the field of the physics of particles, is so surprising and total that a student of one of these disciplines necessarily will find the lessons of the other valuable. We have arrived at this moment at the sicodlico aspect of the physics of particles. Next we offer a diagram of Feynman of an interaction of three particles. In that diagram no universal line ascends is enough the interaction nor no separates of her. The event simply happens. Literally, it happens coming from no part, without reason it pretends and apparent cause. Where there was nothing, suddenly, in a lightning of spontaneous existence there are three particles that disappear later without leaving sign. This type of diagram of Feynman is called a diagram of emptiness.? This is because the interaction happens in an emptiness. A emptiness, as normally we represented it, is a entirely empty space. The emptiness diagrams, nevertheless, demonstrate graphically that such thing does not exist. From the empty space something arrives and, later, that something disappears again in the empty space. In the land of the subatomic thing, an emptiness obvious is not empty. Then, from where comes the notion of a empty, barren and completely sterile space? It is a product our! In the real world it does not exist something as well as empty space. It is a construction metal, a idealizacin that we have finished accepting as if outside a certain thing. Emptiness and plenty are false distinctions that we have created, like the distinction between something and anything. They are abstractions of the experience that we have confused with the own experience. Perhaps we have lived as much time in our abstractions that instead of perceiving that we have extracted them of the real world we ended up thinking that they are the real world. The emptiness diagrams are well-meaning the serious product of a physical science. Nevertheless, they are also wonderful reminders of how we can, intellectually, to create our reality. It is not possible, in agreement with our usual concepts of something, that this something appears of the empty space, but to subatomic level thus it happens, and this is what they illustrate the emptiness diagrams. In other words, the empty space (or the nothing) does not exist, except like a concept in our mind sort key. Sutras essential of the Mahayana Buddhism (the type of buddhism that practices in Tibet, China and Japan) is called the Praynaparamita Sutras? (there are twelve volumes of them). The one that occupies the essential place simply calls the Sutra of the Heart and contains one of but the important ideas of the Mahayana Buddhism: ... the form is empty, the emptiness is form. Next we offer a diagram of emptiness of six different particles that interact mutually. It represents an exquisite dance of emptiness transforming itself into form and the form transforming itself into emptiness. Perhaps, as the wise people of East have written, the form is empty and the emptiness is form. In any case, the emptiness diagrams are representations of remarkable transformations of something in anything and of anything in something. These transformations happen of continuous way in the land of the subatomic thing and are limited solely by the uncertainty principle, the laws of conservation and those of probability? There are twelve laws of conservation. Some of them affect all type of subatomic interactions. There is one regulates simple that it is worth the trouble to remember: The strong interaction, is that whose interactions more are restricted by the conservation laws. For example, the great strong interactions

are limited by the twelve laws of conservation; the electromagnetic interactions are restricted by eleven of the conservation laws; and the weak interactions are only restricted by eight of the conservation laws? The gravitational interactions, those that they involve to the weakest force in the world of the subatomic thing, have still not been studied (nobody has found a graviton), but is possible that these can violate, even, a greater number of conservation laws. In spite of it, there where the conservation laws have jurisdiction, they are rules inviolable that give form to all the particle interactions. For example, the law of conservation of the mass-energy establishes that all the spontaneous particles are always disintegrated in slighter particles. The total mass of new particles is always smaller than the mass of the original particle. The difference between the mass of the original particle and the sum of the masses of new particles, becomes kinetic energy of the new particles (that escape). the ascending interactions are possible solely when the kinetic energy, added to the energy of existence (mass) of original particles is available for the creation of new particles. Two protons that collide, for example, can create a proton, a neutron and pion positive. The total mass of those new particles is greater than the mass of original protons. This is possible because it leaves from the kinetic energy of the proton projectile takes part in the creation of new particles. In addition to the mass-energy, the moment is conserved in each particle interaction. The total moment of the particles that are going to participate in the interaction must be equal at the total moment of the particles that leave the interaction. This one is the reason for which the spontaneous disintegration of a single particle produces always other two particles like minimum. A particle in rest has zero a little while. If it were disintegrated in a single new particle that soon disappeared, the moment of the new particle would exceed the moment the original particle (that is zero). Nevertheless, the moments of (like minimum) two new particles that fly in opposite directions will cancel to each other, producing a little while total equal to zero. The load is conserved in all particle interaction. If the total load of the particles that take part in the interaction is two more (for example, two protons), the total load of the particles which they leave the interaction must be equal to more two (after the positive and negative particles are annulled to an a others). The spin is also conserved, although to conserve this balance is more complicated than the one from the load. In addition to the conservation laws of the mass-energy, moment, load and spin, are the laws of conservation of the numbers of family. For example, if two heavy bariones or particles (as two protons) enter the interaction, between new resulting particles must have two bariones, like for example a neutron and a particle lambda. This same law of conservation of the bariones, jointly with the law of conservation of the mass-energy, explains why the protons are stable particles (that is to say, that are not disintegrated spontaneously). The spontaneous disintegration must be descendent, to satisfy to the conservation law of the mass-energy. The protons cannot be disintegrated of descendent way without breaking the law of conservation of the numbers of family of the barin, because the protons are the lightest bariones. If a proton were disintegrated spontaneously, it would have to do it in particles slighter than he himself, but there are particles barin no slighter than the proton. In other words, if a proton were disintegrated would be a barin less in the world. In fact this never happens. This scheme (the law of conservation of the numbers of family of the barin) is the only way found until now by

the physicists explaining the stability of the proton. A similar law, of conservation of the numbers of family of leptons, maintains the stability of electrons. There is no a particle lepton slighter than an electron. Some of the twelve laws of conservation are, really, invariancia principles. A invariancia principle is a law that says: Put under a change of circumstances, like for example the change of location of the experiment, all the laws of the physics continue being valid. The that all laws of the physics, so to speak, are the conserved amount of the invariancia principle. For example, the principle of invariancia of the investment of the time occurs. In agreement with this principle, so that a process can be developed must be reversible in the time. If a positron and an electron are annihilated create two photons, which is feasible; the photon destruction both will create a positron and an electron. The laws of conservation and the principles of invariancia are based on which the scientists call symmetries. The fact that the space is equal in all directions (is isotropic) and in all the places (homogenous) it is a symmetry example. The fact that the time is homogenous is another example. These symmetries mean, simply, that a physical experiment made in Boston this spring will give the same result that the same experiment made in Moscow, for example, in the next autumn. In other words, the physicists create, at the present time, that the most fundamental laws of the physics, the laws of conservation and the principles of invariancia, are based on those foundations of our reality which they are so basic that, through that same reason, they happen inadvertent. That not means (probably) that the physicists have not needed three centuries to realize of which a transferred object, like a telephone placed anywhere of the country, does not distort its form or size (the space is homogenous), neither are reversed and put inside what is outside (the space is isotropic), nor either age two weeks the more in a place that in another one (the time is homogenous). Everybody knows that thus it is as our physical world is constructed. Where and when it is made an subatomic experiment is not critical data. The laws of the physics do not change with time with the place nor. Nevertheless, this yes could mean that to the physicists account has had been three hundred years to occur to them that the simpler mathematical structures and beautiful they are those that are based on those as obvious conditions as modest. In general terms we can say that the theoretical physics has been divided in two schools. One of them follows the old footpath of the thought and a other new form to think. The physicists who continue in the old footpath follow their search of the elementary blocks with which the universe is constructed, in spite of the mess of the room of the mirrors (p 195). For those physicists, at the present time the firmest candidate to definitive block with which the universe is constructed is quark. Quark is a type of hypothetical particle theorized by Murray GellMann in 1964. It has been baptized with a word used in the book of James Joyce, Finnegans Wake. According to the theory, all the wellknown particles are compound of several combinations of few (twelve) different types from quarks. Until now anybody it has found quark although those are many that look for it. One is an extraordinarily aloof particle (as many particles now known were it in the past), with several very strange characteristics. In agreement with the theory, for example, one says that quark has 1/3 of unit of electrical charge. Until now a load has been discovered never that does not appear by complete units. The great hunting of quark can become very exciting in a next future; independently of which it can be discovered in the future a thing already can occur by certain: the

discovery of quark will open a new area of investigation that will look for answer the question: Of what they are done quarks As far as the physicists who follow the new footpaths of the thought, they look for so different perspective from approach from the knowledge of the subatomic phenomena that is not possible to present/display them all. Some of them think that the only thing whom real existence has it is the space and the time. According to this theory the actors, action and scene are manifestations of a fundamental cuatridimensional geometry. Others (like David Finkelstein) are exploring processes that are beyond the time, processes from which the space and the time are derived, that is the authentic weave of the experimental reality. At the moment those theories are speculative. They cannot be proven (demonstrated mathematically). The theory of Matriz-S is the attempt that until now has obtained greater success in the interminable syndrome of the search of the definitive last particle. In this theory the important thing is the dance and not them dancers. The theory of Matriz-S difference because it locates the emphasis in the interaction instead of in own particles. Matriz-S is the abbreviation of Scattering first Matrix that is of dispersion. Scattering is what it happens to him to particles when they hit to each other. A matrix is a type of mathematical table. Matriz-S is a table of probabilities (p 120). When the subatomic particles hit normally the things are several that can happen. For example, the collision of two protons can create: (1) a proton, a neutron and pion positive, (2) a proton, a particle lambda and kan positive, (3) two protons and six different piones, (4) numerous other subatomic particle combinations. Each one of those possible combinations (that they are combinations that do not break the conservation laws) happens with certain probability. In other words, some of them can happen most frequently that others. As well, the probabilities of several combinations depend on things such as, for example, the intensity of the transported initial moment to the zone of collision. In Matriz-S all these probabilities are tabuladas in such a way that we can observe or calculate the possible results of any collision, jointly with its probabilities, if we know what type of particles is those that hit and the moment that they have. Of course there are so many possible particle combinations (each one of which variety can to throw great of results), that a matrix (table) completes that it contains all the probabilities of all the possible particle combinations would be enormous and, in fact, such table has not been done. This does not imply an immediate problem, since the physicists are only interested in a small part of Matriz-S to a same time (for example, the part that talks about the collisions of two protons). These parts of total Matriz-S are called elements of Matriz-S. The greater limitation of the theory of Matriz-S is that, in the present, it only is of application to interacting heavy particles (inns and bariones) that, altogether, hadrons are denominated. Next we offer a diagram of Matriz-S of an subatomic interaction. He is very simple. The zone of collision is the circle. Particles one and two enter collision and particles 3 and 4 escape of the collision area. The diagram does not say anything of which it happens in the point of impact. It only shows what particles enter interaction and what particles escape of her. A diagram of Matriz-S is not a space-time diagram. It describes the position to us of particles neither in the space nor in the time. This is deliberate because we do not know the exact position interacting particles. We have chosen to measure its moments and, for that reason, its Position is not known to us (the principle of uncertainty of Heisenberg). Therefore, the diagrams of Matriz-S only

indicate that an interaction takes place in certain zone (within the circle). They are a purely symbolic representation of the interaction of particles. All the interactions do not only involve to two initial particles and two final particles. Next we offer other forms that can take a diagram from Matriz-S. Like it happens with the diagrams of Feynman, the diagrams of Matriz-S can be rotated. The direction of the ends of the arrows distinguishes particles of antiparticles. Next we offer a diagram of Matriz-S of a proton that hits pion negative to produce a proton and pion negative. Whenever a diagram is turned, it represents a different interaction. If we give the return to this diagram is transformed into the diagram of the destruction of an proton-antiproton, with the production of pion negative and pion positive. (pion positive is the antiparticle of pion negative in an original reaction.) Each diagram to the turned being reflects another possible interaction. This diagram can be turned four times. All the particles that can be drawn up, rotating a simple element of MatrizS, intimately are related to each other. In fact, all the particles represented in a diagram of Matriz-S (including which they are discovered when turning the diagram) are defined in terms of others. Which of them are the elementary ones, is a devoid question of importance. Since the resulting particles of an interaction, frequently, are involved in other interactions, reunited the separated elements of Matriz-S diagramticamente form a network of related interactions. Each network, like each interaction, is associate with a certain probability. And these probabilities can be calculated. In agreement with the theory of Matriz-S, the particles are intermediate states in a network of interactions. The lines of the diagram are not the lines universal of different particles. The lines in a diagram of Matriz-S of an interaction network are reaction channels by which the energy passes. A neutron, for example, is a channel of reaction. It can be formed by a proton or pion negative. If it is had more energy, nevertheless, the same channel can be created with a particle lambda and kan neutral, as well as several other diverse particle combinations. On summary, the theory of Matriz-S is based on events and not on things? ? The dancers let be separate like significant beings. In fact, those dancers not even are defined except in relative terms (of in relation to the others). In the theory of Matriz-S, the dance only exists. We have moved away to a good stretch of Newton and its proverbial apple. But in spite of it it is not necessary to forget that the apples are a real part of the apparent world. We can eat an apple and when doing it we realize of whom the apple is eating and who is being eaten, like something different and separated of the action to eat. The idea that the objects exist separated of the events is part of the epistemologic network with which we deceived our particular form of experience. This idea is to us dear because we have accepted it, without putting it in doubt, as it bases of our reality. It includes of deep way the form as we see ourselves we ourself. It is the deep root of our felt aprisionador of separation of the others and the medio.ambiente. History of thought scientific, if it is that it teaches something to us, is the madness of we grasped of so firm way to the ideas. In this land it is an echo of the Eastern wisdom that teaches to us that it is a madness to cling to something. ILLUMINATION MAS THAT BOTH What has of common the physics with the illumination? The physics and the state of illumination belong, apparently, to two different lands that are separated for always. One of them (the physics) belongs to the external world of the physical phenomena and the other (illumination) belongs to the internal world of the perceptions. Nevertheless, one more a detailed observation reveals

to us that the physics and the illumination are not so incongruous to each other as we could think. In the first place we have the fact that we only can observe the physical phenomena through our perceptions. In addition to this point, so obvious, there are other intrinsic similarities. Illumination means to separate from the bonds of the concept (ignorance veils) to perceive of direct way the inexpressible nature of the reality nondifferentiated. The notdifferentiated reality is the same reality that that says we comprised of now, who always we were part of him and we will always be part of him. The difference is in which we do not see now that in the same way as he sees the illuminated person it. As everybody knows (), the words only represent (they represent) something. That something is not real things, but simply symbols. In agreement with the philosophy of the illumination everything (each thing) is a symbol. The reality of the symbols is a false reality. And nevertheless, that one is the reality in which we lived. Even though the not-differentiated reality is inexpressible, we can speak of her (using more symbols). The physical world, as it appears to the nonilluminated one, consists of many separated parts. But these parts are not really separated. In agreement with the mystics worldwide, every moment of illumination (grace-revelation-samadhisatori) reveals that each thing - all the separated parts of the universe - is manifestations of the same totality. There is only one reality and complete and it is unified. She is one. We have already learned that stops to include/understand the quantum physics requires a modification of the ordinary concepts (like for example the idea that something cannot be wave and particle). Now we will see that the physics, perhaps, requires one more a more complete alteration of our ideological process of which we had never thought, that in fact never we will be able to get to conceive. In the same way that previously we have seen that the phenomena of quanto seem to make decisions, to know what it is happening elsewhere (p 77), now we will see like the quantum phenomena can be connected so intimately that the things that long ago we rejected as hidden, they can become current object of serious considerations between the physicists. In summary, as much in the necessity to discard the ordinary processes of the thought (and definitively, to happen beyond the thought), like in the perception of the reality like a unit, the phenomenon of the illumination and physical science they have much in common. The illumination is a state of the being. As all the existenciales states are indescriptible. It is a concept error (literally) to confuse the description of a state of being with the own state in himself. For example, we try to describe the happiness. It is impossible. We can speak on her, we can describe to the perspective and the acts that, by the current, accompany a state by happiness, but the happiness in himself cannot be described. The happiness and the description of the happiness are two different things. The happiness is a state of the being. That means that it exists in the land of the direct experience. It is the intimate perception of emotions and sensations that, indescriptibles in themselves, constitute the happiness state. The word happiness is the label or the symbol that we beat to that indescriptible state. The happiness belongs to the land of the abstractions or concepts. A state of being is a experience. The description of that state is a symbol. The symbols and the experience do not follow the same rules. The discovery that symbols and experience are not governed by the same laws have arrived at physical science under the formidable title of quantum logic. The possibility that parts different from the reality (as one of us and one motor boat) can be connected

so that our common experience is agreed with the laws of the physics has opened passage in the physics under the name of Theorem of Bell. The Theorem of Bell and the quantum logic take us corners to the most distant of the theoretical physics. Many physicists not even have heard speak of it. The Theorem of Bell and the quantum physics do not have relation to each other (current). Those that almost never proposes are interested in the other. In spite of it they have much in common. They are what he is really new in physics. Naturally the laser fusion (the atom fusion with rays of light of high energy) and the search of quark are considered generally the borders of the theoretical physics? And in a certain sense they are it. Nevertheless, there is a great difference between those projects and the Theorem of Bell and the quantum logic. The investigation of the laser fusion and the great hunting of the particle quark are attempts within the existing paradigms of the physics. But the quantum logic and the Theorem of Bell are potentially explosive, in terms of the existing marks. First, the quantum logic, takes us from return to the fields of the experience from the land of the symbols. The second, the Theorem of Bell, says to us that nothing exists that can be called separated parts. All the parts of the universe are connected previously of intimate and direct way, thing that before was only announced by the mystics and other scientifically little acceptable people. The central mathematical element in the quantum theory, the hero of history, is the wave function. The wave function is the mathematical being that allows to determine the possible results of an interaction between a observed system and the observant system us. The recognized position held by the wave function not only must to Erwin Schrdinger, its discoverer, but also to the Hungarian mathematician John Von Neumann. In 1932, Neumann published a famous mathematical analysis of the quantum theory under the title of Mathematical Foundations of the Cuntica.1 Mechanics In its book, Neumann proposes, indeed, the following question: If a wave function, a pure abstract mathematical creation, had to describe something in the real world, how he would be that something The answer that it deduces is exactly the description of a wave function that already we have explained previously (p 88). That strange animal thus described would change constantly with the passage of time. Every moment will be different from the previous moment. It will be a composition of all the possibilities of the observed system that the function describes. It will not be limited to be a mixture of possibilities, but a species of organic total, whose parts are changing of continuous way, but that despite continues being athing-in-himself. This thing-in-himself it will indefinitely continue being developed until an observation becomes (a measurement) of the observed system that the function represents. If the observed system is a photon that propagates in isolation, the undulatory function that represents that photon would contain all the possible results of the interaction of the photon with a measurement instrument, like for example a photographic plate? (For example, the possibilities contained in the wave function are that the photon is detected in the zone To of the photographic plate, that the photon is detected in zone B of the photographic plate, or that the photon is detected in zone C of the plate). Once the photon is put in movement, the function of wave associated with him will continue being developed in agreement with a causal law (the equation of wave of Schrdinger), until the photons interact with the observant system. At that moment one of the contained possibilities in the wave function reality will become and the other possibilities will stop

to exist. Simply they will disappear. The wave function, that strange animal that Von Neumann was trying to describe, colapsara; the collapse of that particular function of wave would come to mean that one of the possible results of the fotn/aparato interaction of measurement would become one (it happens) and the probabilities of each one of the other possibilities would become zero (they let continue being possible). After all a photon only can be detected in a certain place in a while determined. The wave function, in agreement with this point of view, occupies that strange average rank between idea and reality, where all the things are possible but no real one. Heisenberg relates this position to the power of Aristotle. This way to consider the subject has given form to the language, and with it to the thought, of most of the physicists, of whom they even consider that the wave function is a mathematical fiction, an abstract creation whose manipulation, in certain way, allows to obtain the probabilities of real events that a space and time happen in authentic (versus mathematician). It is not necessary to say that this interpretation has caused a great confusion and that it is so little clear today as it was it at the time of Von Neumann. For example, when colapsa exactly the wave function? (the problem of the measurement.) (Pag. 91.) It happens when the photon strikes the photographic plate? It is it when the plate is revealed? When we already watched the revealed plate? Exactly, what means that collapse of the function? Where lived the function on wave before taking place that collapse? The questions could continue thus. The concept of which the wave function can be described as a real thing is generally the point of view attributed to Neumann. Nevertheless, the description of the function of wave, the two that tries to include/understand the quantum phenomena, that Von Neumann explains in The Matematical Foundations of Quantum Mechanics. The second form to approach the problem, to which Von Neumann dedicated to much less time, is an re-examination of the language necessary to express the quantum phenomena. In the section Projections like proposals, wrote: ... the relation between the properties of a physical system, on the one hand and the projections (the wave function) by the other, makes a species possible of logical calculation. Nevertheless, in contrast to the concepts of the current logic, this system extends to the concepts of simultaneous decision (the uncertainty principle) that is characteristic of the mechanics cuntica.2 The suggestion of which the recent properties of the quantum theory can be used to construct a logical calculation that it is in contrast to the concepts of the ordinary logic is what Von Neumann considered an alternative to describe the functions of wave like real things. Nevertheless, most of the physicists has adopted one third explanation of the wave functions. They reject them and they happen to consider them constructions purely mathematical, abstract fiction that absolutely do not represent anything in the world of the reality. Unfortunately, this explanation always leaves without answer for that of then, how the wave functions can predict of so exact way probabilities that can be verified by means of the experience In fact, how can the wave functions predict something, when it defines them as something without the smaller relation with the physical reality? This one is the scientific version of the philosophical question: How can the mind influence the matter? The second way of Von Neumann to face the paradoxical puzzle of the quantum phenomena much more dragged it there of the borders of the physics. Its brief work indicates towards a fusion of the ontologa, epistemologa and sicologa that as soon as it is beginning

to emerge. In summary, the problem is in the language, said Von Neumann. In it is the germ of which it was called to being the quantum logic. When indicating the problem of the language, Von Neumann put its finger in porqu of the great difficulties that exist to respond to the question of what it is the quantum mechanics. Mechanics is the study of the movement of the quantos, but what they are the quantos? In agreement with the dictionary quanto is an amount of something. But the true question is: an amount of what? Quanto is an action piece (an action piece) The problem is that quanto can be of undulatory nature and, again, to return to be from corpuscular nature, that is indeed what it is not a wave. Still more, when quanto is of corpuscular nature (of particle) is not similar to a particle in the ordinary sense of the word. A subatomic particle is not a thing. (we cannot determine simultaneously its position and its moment.) A subatomic particle (quanto) is a series of relations, or an intermediate state. It can be broken, but from his rupture it arises a greater number of particles than the elementary ones that was in the original one ... Those that they do not feel astonished, affected, the first time that faces the quntica theory - said Niels Bohr -, it is because, with complete certainty, there are no entendido.3 The quantum theory is not difficult to explain because of its complexity. It is difficult to explain because the words that we must use to communicate its explanation are not the adapted ones to explain the phenomena of quanto. That was something very known, and very discussed, by the founders of the quantum theory. Max Born, for example, wrote the following thing: the definitive origin of the difficulty is in the fact (or philosophical principle) of which we are forced to use words of the common language when we wished to describe a phenomenon otherwise that by the logical or mathematical analysis, by an image that wakes up the imagination. The common language has grown with the daily experience and it will never be able to exceed those limits. The classic physics has been restricted to itself in the use of the concepts of this type. When analyzing the visible movements have developed two ways to represent them by means of elementary processes: particles in movement and waves. There is no another form to give a graphical description of the movements. We even must apply it to the region of the atomic process, where the classic physics derrumba.4 This one is the point of view maintained by most of the physicists: we encountered over problems when explaining the subatomic phenomena when we tried to visualize them. Therefore, it is necessary to avoid explanations in terms of language common and to restrict us to the mathematical analysis. In order to learn the physics of the subatomic phenomena, first we must learn mathematics. - No, that is not thus! - David Finkelstein says, Director of the School of Physics, the Institute of Technology of Georgia. The mathematics, like the English, are a language. They are constructed by symbols. The maximum that can be obtained of the symbols is an approximated description, but incompleta.5 a mathematical analysis of the subatomic phenomena is not better qualitatively, than any other symbolic analysis, because the symbols do not follow the same rules that the experience. They follow rules own. In summary, the problem is not in the language; the problem is the language. The difference between experience and symbol is the difference between myth and logo. Logo imitates, but never it can replace. He is a substitute of the experience. Logo is the artificial construction of died symbols, that it imitates to the experience in biunivocal form. The classic theory of the physics is an example of that biunivocal correspondence between the theory and the reality.

Einstein argued that no physical theory could be considered completes as much in all the elements of the real world did not have one defined counterpart in the theory. The theory of the relativity of Einstein is the last one of the great classic theories (although it is a part of the new physics), because one-to-one is structured so that it corresponds, in relation, with the phenomena. What Einstein affirmed, indeed, was that a physical theory was not complete if did not maintain this biunivocal correspondence with the phenomena. Whatever it is the meaning assigned to the complete term, the following requirement seems to be of all necessary point for a complete theory: each one of the elements of the physical reality must have a counterpart in the theory fsica.6 The quantum theory does not maintain this correspondence of one-to-one between the theory and the reality (it cannot predict events at individual level, only probabilities). In agreement with the quantum theory, the individual events are fortuitous occurrences. There are no theoretical elements in the quantum theory that they correspond with each individual event that really happens. Therefore, the quantum theory, in agreement with the ideas of Einstein, is incomplete. That one was one of the to begin with basic points for the famous Bohr-Einstein debate. The myth indicates towards the experience but it does not replace the experience. Myth is the opposed thing to intellectuality. The songs of ceremony in the primitive rituals (as in a soccer match) they are good myth examples. They equip to the experience with values, originality and vitality, but they do not replace it. Speaking theologically, logo is the original sin, eating of the fruit of the tree of the wisdom, the expulsion of the Garden of the Edn. Speaking historically, logo is the development of the literary revolution, the birth of the written tradition starting off of the oral tradition. From any point of view logo (literally) it is dead letter. Knowledge is a courteous word for a dead but not buried imagination. This affirmation makes reference to the logo. Our problem, according to Finkelstein, is that we cannot include/understand the subatomic phenomena, or any other type of experience, by means of the exclusive use of the symbols. And as it observed Heisenberg: the concepts that initially formed by means of the abstraction of particular situations or complicated experiences acquire life propia.1 (the cursiva is ours.) This to lose itself in the interaction of the symbols he is something analogous to confuse the shades in the wall of the cave with the existing real world outside her (that is to say, with the direct experience), the answer adapted to this complicated situation is to try at the same time to study the subatomic phenomena like a experience in general, but with the language of the myth, instead of with a language of the logo, that is of the knowledge. Finkelstein expresses it this way: If it is tried to consider to quanto like a point, a tiny speck of something, one it remains catched. Models of the classic logic are forming. And the point of Maxima importance is in which a classic representation of quanto does not exist. We must learn to live and to govern us by the experience. Question: How communicates the experience? Answer: One does not communicate. But when explaining how the quantos become and how they are moderate, poseerla.8 is allowed the others According to Finkelstein, a myth language, a language that flying ant to the experience, but which does not try to replace it nor to mold our perception, it is the authentic language of the physics. This is thus because not only the language that we used to also communicate our daily experience but the mathematician follows a certain series of rules (the classic logic). The experience in himself is not put under those rules. The

experience follows a series of much more permisivas rules (logical quantum). The quantum logic not only is much more exciting and interesting that the classic logic, but that in addition is more real. One is not based on the form as we imagined the things, but on the form as we experienced them. When we tried to describe the experiences with the classic logic (and that it is what we have come doing since we learned to write) we placed a series of blinds, so to speak, that not only restrict our field of vision but that they distort it. Those blinds are the series of rules known like classic logic. These rules well are defined. They are very simple. The only problem is in which they do not correspond with the experience. The most important difference between the rules of the classic logic and the rules of the quantum logic involves the distributiva law. This law says that To and B or C it is just like To and B, or and C. In other words, to say I throw a currency and leaves face or cross means just like if I say: Shot the currency and leaves face, or Shot the currency and leaves cross. The distributiva law, that is one of the foundations of the classic logic, is not applicable to the quantum logic. This one is one of the most important aspects although less understood of the work of Neumann. In 1936, Von Neumann and his colleague Garret Birkhoff they published a writing that put the foundations of the logic cuntica.9 In its publication, in order to refute the distributiva law, they used a familiar phenomenon (for the physicists). When doing thus they demonstrated it mathematically that it is impossible to describe the experience (including the subatomic phenomena) with the classic logic, because the real world follows rules different. The rules that the experience follows are the calls of the quantum logic. Those that follows the symbols they are those that is denominated of the classic logic. Finkelstein uses a version of the example of Birkhoff and Von Neumann to deny the distributiva law. The demonstration of Finkelstein only requires three plastic pieces. These three plastic pieces are contained in on which it goes united to the later cover of this book. Squense of on and examnense.? Obsrvese that transparent and is dyed with a similar color to the one of the sun glasses. In fact, pieces of this same material, although of greater thickness, are those that are used for the sun glasses. They are very effective in the reduction of the brightness and the glare due to his peculiar characteristics. One says of them that they are polarized and the sun glasses that use them they call glasses polaroid. The polarizadores are a special type of light filters. They are done generally with plates of stretched plastic material in which all the molecules have been extended and stretched in the same direction. Views under increase the molecules have a similar aspect to this one: These long molecules, extended, are responsible for the polarization of the light that happens through them. The polarization of the light can be understood with greater facility like an undulatory phenomenon. The light waves coming from an ordinary source, like for example the sun, emanate of diverse form, verticals, horizontals and in intermediate positions of all type. This not only means that the light radiates from a source in all directions, but also that, in any ray of light, some of the light waves is vertical, others are horizontal, some diagonals, and so on. For a light wave a polarizador is like a fence. The one that the wave can cross the fence or does not depend on which it is aligned suitably with the fence or no. If the polarizador is placed vertically only they will be able to pass the light waves vertical. All the light waves that happen through a vertical polarizador align vertically. This light is called polarized light vertically. If the polarizador is aligned horizontally

only the horizontal light it can cross it. All the light waves that happen through a horizontal polarizador align of horizontal way. This light is called polarized light horizontally. Independently of how the polarizador is aligned, all the light waves that happen through him align in the same sense. The arrows in the polarizadores indicate the direction in that it passes the light through them and when doing it therefore is polarized (this one is the reason by which the molecules in the plastic plate are extended). Tmese one of the polarizadores and mantngase with the ends of the arrows indicating upwards (or downwards). The light that happens through that polarizador will be polarized vertically. Now another polarizador tmese and mantngase behind the first polarizador with its arrow also indicating upwards (or downwards). All the light that happens through the first polarizador also happens through the second polarizador. Now we rotate one of the polarizadores of the vertical to the horizontal, When it is rotated that polarizador, ntese that the light is every smaller time than happens through the pair of polarizadores. When one of the polarizadores is vertical and the other horizontal the pair does not let pass no light. In the figure, the first polarizador eliminates all the light waves except which they are polarized horizontally, but these are eliminated by the second polarizador, that lets pass vertically only to the polarized light. The result is that it does not pass any light through the second polarizador. It does not have the smaller importance than the first polarizador is vertical and the second polarizador is horizontal or vice versa. The order of the filters does not influence absolutely. In both cases it does not pass anything of light through the pair. Whenever both polarizadores they are oriented forming right angle to each other, block all the light. It does not matter how the pair of polarizadores turns, unitarily, whenever they stay in right angle among them. In that case it will never pass no ray of light. Conserving this in the mind we happen to the third filter. Let us locate the third filter so that it polarizes the light diagonally and we place it in front of polarizadores both, the horizontal and the vertical. It does not happen anything. If both first filters (the vertical polarizador and the horizontal polarizador) block all the light, adding a third filter, logically, in good little can change the situation. Of similar way, if we did not place the polarizador diagonal to the other side of the combination happens nothing either. Through the filters it absolutely does not pass any light wave. Now we arrived at the interesting part. Let us place the polarizador diagonal between the horizontal polarizador and the vertical. The light happens through the three filters when these are placed in this order! In other words, a combination of a vertical polarizador and one horizontal mean for the light waves a barrier as it would be it a wood plate. If a polarizador diagonal is placed behind or in front of the combination it does not happen anything and the phenomenon is not affected. Nevertheless, if a polarizador diagonal between the vertical polarizador and the horizontal is placed, the light happens through the three. The polarizador diagonal, located in the center takes off and the light disappears again, blocked by the polarizadores vertical and horizontal. The diagram of the situation is the following one: How can happen thus a thing? In agreement with the quantum mechanics, the light polarized diagonally is not a mixture of the polarized light horizontally and the polarized light vertically. We cannot say, simply, that the horizontal components of the light polarized diagonally pass through the horizontal polarizador and the vertical components of the light polarized diagonally through the vertical polarizador. In agreement with the quantum mechanics, the

light polarized diagonally is a different thing, in itself. How it can one different same thing-in-himself cross three filters and not cross two of them? If we considered to the light like a corpuscular phenomenon (of particle), the paradox becomes more graph. Literally, how can be unfolded a photon to make happen later it through a horizontal polarizador component and through a vertical polarizador component? (By definition this is not possible.) This paradox is located in the central point of which it distinguishes to the quantum logic of the classic logic. Its cause is our mental process, that follows the rules of the classic logic. Our intellect says to us that what we are seeing is impossible (in both cases each one of photons would have to be polarized). Nevertheless, whenever we inserted a polarizador diagonal, between a horizontal polarizador and one vertical, we see the light where before there was no it. Our eyes ignore the fact that what we are seeing is impossible. This must that the experience does not follow the rules of the classic logic, but the rules of the quantum logic. This experiment with the light polarized diagonally reflects the true nature of the experience. Our process of symbolic thought imposes the inescapable election this or the other to us. It always faces this or the other to us or a combination of both. It says to us that the polarized light is polarized vertically or is polarized horizontally or is a combination of polarized light vertically and horizontally. These are the rules of the classic logic, the rules of the symbols. In the land of the experience nothing is this or the other. It always has, at least, one more an alternative. And generally a limitless number of other alternatives. In relation to the quantum theory, Finkelstein expressed it this way: In the game waves do not take part. The equation that governs east game is a wave equation, but it is not which waves exist that go of a side for another one. (This one is one of the obstacles of the quantum mechanics.) Either there are no particles that move. The only thing that moves are the quantos, third alternativa.10 To be less abstract, we suppose that we have two figures of chess, a bishop and a laborer, for example. If these two macrocospic pieces of chess followed the same rules that the quantum phenomena, we could not to say that there is no another election that to play the bishop or the laborer. Between both extreme bishop and laborer alfen exists a called creature. alfen is not average bishop and average laborer that have stuck together. alfen is one different thing-in-himself, with own organization, that cannot be separated in its components of bishop and their components of laborer, just like a puppy that are average mastn and average German shepherd cannot be separated in its components mastn and their components German shepherd. Between the ends bishop and laborer it has more of a type of alfen. alfen that we have described is average part bishop and the other average laborer. Another type of alfen can have a third of bishop and two thirds of laborer. And still we can find another one alfen that it is three quarters of laborer and a quarter of bishop. In fact in each proportionality between the parts of both component there is different alfen. This alfen is what the physicists call a coherent superposition. A superposition is a thing (or several) added to another one. One doubles exhibition, the curse of the photographers neglected, is a superposition of a photography on another one. But a coherent superposition is not simply the superposition of a thing on another one. A coherent superposition is thing-in-himself-same a so different one from its components as these are it to each other. The light polarized diagonally is a coherent superposition of polarized light and light vertically polarized horizontally. The

coherent superpositions are very abundant in physics. In fact the superpositions are the heart of the mathematics of the quantum mechanics. The wave functions are coherent superpositions. All experiment of the quantum mechanics has a observed system and each observed system has a function of associated wave to him. The function of wave of a certain observed system (as for example a photon) is the coherent superposition of all the possible results of an interaction between the observed system and the system of measurement (like for example a photographic plate). The evolution in the time of this coherent superposition of possibilities is written by the equation of wave of Schrdinger. having used this equation, we can calculate the form of that thing-in-himself-same one, that coherent superposition of possibilities to which we called function of wave of a certain moment. Knowing that, we can calculate the probability of each possibility contained in the function of wave in a certain time. This offers a probability function to us, that it is not just like a wave function but that it is calculated starting off of a wave function. Of form very summarized, these are the mathematics of the quantum physics. In other words, in the mathematical formulations of the quantum theory nothing is this or that without anything in the middle. The students graduated in physics learn the mathematical technique to superpose to each this on each that in such a way that the result is not the original this either nor original that, but a thing entirely new call a coherent superposition of both. In agreement with Finkelstein, one of the greater conceptual difficulties of the quantum mechanics is the false idea that those functions of wave (coherent superpositions) are real things that are developed, collapse, etc., etc. On the other hand the idea that the coherent superpositions are pure abstractions that do not represent anything of which we found in our daily lives is incorrect. They reflect the nature of the experience. How reflects the experience the coherent superpositions? The pure experience never is restricted simply to two possibilities. Our conceptualizacin of a given situation can create the illusion of which each dilemma has only two extreme exits, but this illusion must to our supposition of which the experience is put under the same rules that the symbols. In the world of the symbols each thing is always this or that. In the world of the experience there are more alternatives available. For example, we consider the judge whom she has to judge in court its own son. The law allows two verdicts him: He is guilty or he is innocent. For the judge, nevertheless, there is another possible verdict: He is my son. The fact that taking part in cases is prohibited to the judges in which they have personal interest is a tacit admission of which the experience is not limited the categorical alternatives of culpability or innocence (or good or bad, ugly ladys man or, etc.). In the land of the symbols the election only is that clear. During the Lebanese civil war, according to it is counted, a North American who visited the country was stopped by a group of masked gunmen. A mistaken word could to him have cost the life. - Are Christian or Muslim you? - they asked to him. - I am tourist - it responded to them. The form since we make the questions, frequently limits very falsely our answers. In this case, the fear of the visitor by its own life broke those false limits. Of similar way, the form as we thought our thoughts, limits a perspective of this or that. The experience in himself never so is limited. Always there is an alternative between each this and each that. The recognition of this quality of experience is an integral part of the quantum logic. The physicists participate in a special type of dance that is us strange to most from us. Making the rounds

around them during some time is like penetrating in another culture. Within that culture each declaration is subject to the challenge: Prubelo When it is said to him to a friend: I am this morning wonderfully, we did not hope that it says to us: Test that is thus Nevertheless, when a physicist says: the experience is not subject to the same rules that the symbols, a choir of voices causes that says Test that is thus Whereas it cannot to do it, it will make precede to his observations of in my opinion.... The physicists are not too much interested in opinions. Unfortunately, this in many occasions makes extraordinarily narrow of mind. And if one is not arranged to follow their rate will not accept to dance with one. Its dance requires a test of each affirmation. A test is not a verification of which the affirmation is true (that that one is the form as it is the world in fact). A scientific test is a mathematical demonstration of which the affirmation at issue is logically consistent. In the field of the pure mathematics, an affirmation does not have importance with respect to the experience absolutely. Nevertheless, if it arrives accompanied from a autoconsistente test, it is accepted, but if it is not thus it is rejected. The same it is valid in reference to the physics, unless physical science demands, in addition, that the affirmation is related to the physical reality. All this is applied to the relation between the truth of a scientific affirmation and the nature of the reality. a scientific truth does not have anything to do with how it is really the reality. A scientific theory is certain if he is autoconsistente and it correlates the experience correctly (it predicts events). In summary, when a scientist says that a theory is certain means that in effect it correlates the experience correctly and, therefore, is useful. If we replaced the certain word, true, whenever we find it by the useful word, the physics will appear in its own perspective. Birkhoff and Von Neumann created a test that the experience breaks the laws of the classic logic. The test, of course, strongly is bound to the experience. On individual one is based on which it happens and what it happens with several combinations of polarized light. Finkelstein slightly used a version modified of the original test of Birkhoff and Von Neumann to express the quantum logic. The first passage of this test consists of experimenting diagonally with all the possible combinations of polarized, horizontally, vertical light and. Of other words, the first step consisted of doing what we already have done: to discover what type of light happens through what type of polarizadores. Horizontal Obsrvese that the light happens through two vertical polarizadores, two polarizadores, two polarizadores diagonals, a polarizador diagonal and one horizontal, a polarizador diagonal and a vertical polarizador. All these combinations are called allowed transitions, because they allow the passage of the light. Of similar way, it obsrvese that the light does not pass through a horizontal polarizador and one vertical, nor with no other combination of polarizadores oriented to each other in right angle. These combinations are called prohibited transitions, because the light never happens. The second passage of the test is to make a table of this information, that Table of Transition is called. A transition table has east aspect The row of letters of the left part is emissions. An emission is exactly that that says the word, and in this case an emission of a light wave emitted by a light bulb. The sign) to the right of a letter indicates an emission. For example H) means polarized light horizontally, emitted by a horizontal polarizador. The row of letters in the superior part is the admissions. An admission is the reception of an emission. The sign) to the left of a letter indicates an admission. For example)H horizontally

means a polarized light that has arrived at the pupil of the eye. The zeros with a line that crosses them, indicate process zero. Process zero means that instead of making the experiment we have decided to go us to the cinema. Process zero indicates absolutely that there is no emission. Letter I means to process identity. The process identity is a filter that lets pass everything. In other words, sign I says to us what type of polarized light happens to traverse, we say for example, of an open window: in fact any type of light. In the table two types of polarized light diagonalmeme are included to make it more complete. The D represents light polarized diagonally towards the right and the D light polarized diagonally towards the left (or to the inverse one). In order to use the transition table, we chose the type of emission in which we were interested and we followed it through the table. For example, an emission of polarized light horizontally, H, will happen through another horizontal polarizador, so one will be placed in the picture of the column of polarized admission. The polarized light horizontally passes also through a polarizador inclined diagonal to the left)D, through a polarizador diagonal inclined to the right)D, and through an open window I. A A has been placed in each appropriate picture. Advirtase that the pictures in which the row of the polarized emission Horizontally intersections to the column of admission of polarized light vertically are in target. This must to that the polarized light horizontally does not happen through a vertical polarizador. The pictures in target show the prohibited transitions. All the pictures of process zero are in target because in them nothing happens, since we do not make the experiment. All pictures I are noticeable To because all type of light, polarized or no, happens through an open window. The third passage of the test consists of making a simple diagram of the information contained in the transition table. The made diagram starting off of this table of particular transition has east aspect: This type of diagram is called reticular. The mathematicians use them to show how the events or elements are ordered. The diagrams are similar to the genealogical trees that we constructed when we investigated the origins of our family. The superior elements contain to the inferior elements. The lines show who is connected with whom and through whom. A reticular diagram is not exactly a genealogical tree, but it offers the same type to us of inclusivo ordering. At heart it is process zero, since it represents the absolute lack of emissions of all type. At second level are the several states of polarization. The elements at this level are called simple (singlets) and they talk about the declaration simpler than we can do on the polarization of a light wave. This light horizontally is polarized, is the maximum that we can say on the polarization state, even starting off of which that does not clarify to us nothing else. It is a maximal but incomplete description, an inherent limitation to the use of the language. The second level contains the doublets (doublet). In this case the diagram only contains a doublet. The doublets include/understand the following level of description, incomplete maximal but, that we can do on the polarization of light in this simple experiment. The diagrams that represent more complex phenomena can have a greater number of levels - tripletes, cuadrupletes, etc. -. This diagram is simplest of them but it demonstrates to us, graphically, the nature of the quantum logic. In the first place, it obsrvese that doublet I, contains four simple ones. This is characteristic of the quantum logic, but a contradiction with the classic logic where each doublet (by definition) only contains two simple ones, neither the more nor the less. The diagrams are graphical demonstrations of the

quantum postulates of which at least always there is another alternative between this and that. In this case two alternatives (D and ?). imagine There are many more alternatives available than they are not represented in this diagram. For example, the light represented in this diagram by symbol D, diagonally is polarized to 45 degrees, but it also to 46 degrees, 47 degrees, 48.5 degrees could be, etc. And all those states of polarization can be including in doublet I. As much in the classic logic as in the quantum logic a simple one it is represented by a point. In the classic logic one imagines a doublet with two points. In the quantum logic, nevertheless, a doublet imagines by a line that unites to two points. And all the points of the line, and not only both points that define it, are including in the doublet. Now we return to the distributiva law: To, equal B or Cs to A and B, or and C (the true intention to make a table of transition was to construct a diagram with object to use it to deny the distributiva law.) The mathematicians use these diagrams to determine what elements in them are connected and how. For example, to see as two elements of the diagram are connected by the word and, he sgase the lines that lead downwards from the elements at issue to a point where both elements are. If we are interested in H and D, we downwards followed the lines that leave of H and D and we will find whereupon they are united in the point . Therefore the diagram says to us that equal H and D to . If we are interested in I and H we downwards followed the lines from the highest point where both find. For example if we are interested in H or V, we upwards followed the lines from H and of V and see that they are in I. Of this form the diagram says that equal H or V to us to I. In the same way, leg to find D or I we upwards followed the lines until the common point more stop, than it is I. Thus, then, the diagram says that equal D or I to us to I. The rule is simple: and it tends downwards; or upwards. Descindase by the diagram to find and, ascindase by him to find or. Now we enter the test in himself. It is much more simple that the preliminary explanations. The distributiva law says that To, and equal B or C to A and B, or and C. In order to see if this is certain in the experience or it is not it, we simply insert some of our present states of polarization in the formula and solve using it the method of the diagram. For example, the distributiva law says that the polarized light horizontally and the polarized light vertically or the light polarized diagonally are equal to the polarized light horizontally and the polarized light vertically, or the polarized light horizontally and the light polarized diagonally. Using the abbreviations that already we used this it could be expressed: H, and equal D or V to H and D, or H and V. Let us return to the diagram and we examine, first, the left part of the postulate. Looking for solution D or V, we upwards followed the lines of the diagram from D and V to finding its point common more stop (or one looks for upwards). We see that they are in I. Therefore, the diagram says that equal D or V to us to I. Replacing I by original D or V, we have to the left of postulate H and I. Following the lines that leave of H and I, downwards in the diagram (and it looks for downwards) we were that its point under intercession is H more. For that reason the diagram says that equal H and I to us to H. In summary: H, and equal D or V to H and D, or H and V. equal H and I to H and D, or H and V. H equal H and D, or H and V. Let us solve the right part of the postulate of the same form. Solving H and D we downwards followed the lines of the diagram from H and D until its lower common point. We see that they are in . Therefore, the diagram says that H and equal D

to us to . Replacing by H and D we remained with , or H and V in the right part of the declaration. In order to solve H and V we downwards follow the lines of the diagram from H and V to its lower common point. They are crossed in . Of this form, the diagram says to us that equal H and V to . Replacing H and V by , we alongside were with or straight of the original postulate. As much the diagram as the common sense says that or to us equal to , In summary: equal H to H and D, or H and V. equal H to , or H and V. equal H to or equal .H to . But H is not equal to H is polarized light horizontally and is the experiment absence... an absolute lack of emission. The distributiva law is not valid! Here we have again the test of Birkhoff and Von Neumann. It is important because, in spite of being so simple, it ends an illusion of millenia: the illusion of which the symbols and the experience follow the same laws. With the exception of the mathematical symbols that represent the conjunctions and and or, this is the form as the physicists write it: The theory of Finkelstein is a theory of a process. The quantum logic is a part of her. In agreement with its theory, the basic unit of the universe is an event, or a process. These events are united of certain way (allowed transitions) to form networks. The networks, as well, are united to form other greater networks. Above in the scale of the organization they are the coherent superpositions of different networks (separated and own things that are not this network either nor that network, but organizations in themselves). The basic events of the theory of Finkelstein do not exist in the space and the time. They are previous to the space and time. In agreement with Finkelstein, space, time, mass and energy are secondary qualities that are derived from the basic events of the universe. In fact, the last writing of Finkelstein takes by title: Beneath Time? This audacious theory separates radically from the conventional physics and the conventional thought. The mathematics of the theory of Finkelstein, that they have the name of quantum topology, are really simple, compared with the complicated mathematics of the quantum theory and the theory of relativity. The quantum topology is still incomplete (lack of test). Like many theories are than possible more that it is never completed. Nevertheless, unlike other theories, it contains the potential to change of radical way our conceptual frame. The discovery of Von Neumann that our process of thought (the land of the symbols) projects restrictions ilusorias in the real world, is in essence the same discovery that took to Einstein to the general theory of relativity. Einstein proved the falsification of the universalidad of euclidiana geometry. Until the formulation of the general theory of relativity, euclidiana geometry had been accepted, without discussion some, like universal the main structure del. Birkhoff and Von Neumann denied the universalidad of the classic logic. Until now, the classic logic had come being accepted, without being put in judgment fabric, like the natural reflection of the nature of the reality. In these discoveries a powerful potential knowledge lies. A knowledge of the now unsuspected powers until of the mind giving form to the reality, instead of happening on the contrary that the reality is the one that conforms our mind. This sense the philosophy of the physics is becoming something indistinguishable of the philosophy of the buddhism, that is the philosophy of the illumination. THE AIM OF SCIENCE A vital aspect of the illumination state is the experience of a unit that prevails in everything. This and that no longer are separated organizations. They are forms different from the same thing. Everything is a manifestation. It is not

possible to respond to the question: a manifestation of what, so that this what is something that is beyond the words, the form, further on, even, of the space and the time. Everything is a manifestation of which it is. What is, is. Beyond these words it is the experience: the experience of what it is. The forms by means of which that that one is pronounced to itself are all and each one of perfect them. We are manifestation of which he is. Everything absolutely is a manifestation of which it is. Each thing and each being are exactly and perfectly what they are. A Buddhist tibetano of century XIV, Longchenpa, wrote: Since everything is not more than an appearance, perfect by being what is, without relation some with good or the bad thing, with the acceptance or the rejection, one feels desires to loosen one carcajada.1 We could say: God in its Sky, that everything goes well in the world, unless in agreement with the points of view of the illumination the world could not be of another form. It is not either and not or. It is, simply what it is. What means perfectly what is. It could not be another thing. He is perfect. I am perfect. I am exactly and perfectly what I am. You are perfect. You are exactly and perfectly what you are. If you are a happy person, that is what you are perfectly: a happy person. If you are a displeased person, that is what you are perfectly; an unfortunate person. If you are a changing person, that is what you are perfectly: a person whom she changes. What is, is. There is nothing is not what is. There is no thing that is not what is. Everything is what is. We are part of which he is. In fact we are what is. If in this scheme we replaced the people by atomic particles, we will have a good approach to the knowledge of the conceptual dynamics of the physics of particles. He exists, in addition, another sense which east aspect of unit has entered the physics. The pioneers of the quantum physics noticed a stranger informative connection between the quantum phenomena. Until not long ago that peculiarity he lacked all theoretical importance. Was considered it like an accidental characteristic that would arrive to be explained when the theory was developed. In 1964, J. S. Bell, a physicist of the European Organization for Investigacion Nuclear (CERN), with seat in Switzerland, focused its interest in that strange characteristic of the connection between the subnuclear phenomena, until making of it the central center of the physics of the future. Doctor Bell published a mathematical demonstration that happened to be well-known under the name of Theorem of Bell, who was reviewed and improved throughout ten years of work until being in their present form. And this present form is spectacular, to use a smooth expression. The Theorem of Bell is a mathematical construction and, like so, it is indecipherable for the nonmathematical ones. Their implications, nevertheless, can affect, deeply, our basic concepts of the world. Some physicists are convinced that it is the more important isolated work in all the history of the physics. One of the implications that can be deduced of the Theorem of Bell is that, at a deep and fundamental level, the separated parts of the universe are connected of intimate and direct way. In summary, the Theorem of Bell and the experience of the illumination of the unit are very compatible. The unexplained connections of the quantum phenomena are of several forms. First of them already it has been study object here: the experiment of the double crack (p 75). When the two openings of this experiment are open, the light waves when happening through them interfere to each other to form alternative guidelines of light and the dark in a screen. When single one of the cracks is open, the light waves that happen through them illuminate the screen of normal form. How can a simple isolated photon, in this

experiment, knowledge if it can go or not to a zone of the screen that it has to be dark when both openings are open? The photon multitude, of which that simple isolated photon comprises, distributes itself of a certain form if one of the openings and another one is only open, totally different, when they are it both. The question is: Let us suppose that a simple isolated photon happens through one of the two cracks, how it knows if the other hole open or is closed? Of a way or another one it knows it, since it alters his behavior. An interference model always forms when we never opened the two openings and when one of them is only open. Another experiment exists on this apparent connection of the quantum phenomena that still cause greater perplexity. Let us suppose that we have what the physicists call a system of two particles of spin zero. This wants that the spin of each one of particles annuls to the one of the other. If one of those particles has an ascending spin, the other has it descendent. If the first particle has a spin to the left, the other will have it to the right. It does not concern the direction of particles, their spins always equal and will be opposed. Now we suppose that we separated those two particles in such a way that their spins are not affected (for example electrically). One of particles saves in a direction and the other in opposite direction. The spin of an subatomic particle can be oriented by a magnetic field. For example, if an electron beam with oriented spin of fortuitous way happens through a special type of magnetic field (call apparatus of Stern-Gerlach), the magnetic field divides to the beam in two beams of equal size each one. In one of those beams the electrons have a spin upwards and in the other beam all the electrons have spin downwards. If only an electron passs by that magnetic field will leave outside with a spin upwards or a spin downwards. (We can design the experiment so that the possibilities are of 50 %) (it see the drawing of the following page). If we reoriented the magnetic field (changing its axis) we can give all; the electrons a spin towards the right or to the left instead of upwards or down. If single an electron passs by the magnetic field when this one is oriented thus, will leave him with a spin towards the right or the left (the same possibilities in both senses). Now we suppose that, after there are separated our original system of two particles, we sent to one of particles through the magnetic field: this will upwards give to a spin or a spin him downwards. In this case we say that the particle leaves upwards with a spin. This means that we know that the other particle has a spin downwards. We do not have to measure the other particle since we know that its spin equal and is opposed its binocular. The experiment has east graphical aspect; The original system of two particles with spin zero is in the center. One of particles enters the zone and there it happens through the apparatus of Stern-Gerlach. In this case, that instrument gives to the particle a spin upwards. Knowing that, we know, also, that the other particle that has entered zone B has a spin downwards. Albert Einstein, Boris Podolsky and Nathan Rosen devised this experiment more ago than forty years. At the present time, this version of the experiment of Einstein-Podolsky-Rosen (using spin states) has been repeated by David Bohm, a physicist of the University of London. This version is used to illustrate the effect of Einstein-PodolskyRosen. (the original writing dealed with positions and moments.) In 1935, Einstein, Podolsky and Rosen published their ideas on this experiment in a titled thesis Dog Quantum-Mechanical Description of Physical Reality be Considered Complete??2 At that time Bohr, Heisenberg and the other defenders of the Interpretation of Copenhagen of the Quantum Mechanics (p 56) affirmed that the

theory of quanto was a complete theory, although it did not offer an image of the separated world of our observations in him. (and still they continue it affirming). The message that Einstein, Podolsky and Rosen wanted to make arrive at their colleagues was that the quantum theory was not a complete theory, because it did not describe some important aspects of the reality that are physically real although they are not observed. But the message that believed to understand their colleagues was quite different: that the particles, in the theoretical experiment of Einstein-Podolsky-Rosen, were connected of a way that extended to our usual ideas on the causality. For example if the axis of the Stern-Gerlach instrument, in our hypothetical experiment, outside changed to cause that the particles moved to the right or the left, instead of upwards or downwards, the experiment would have east aspect: The particle in the zone To would have a spin towards the right instead of upwards. This would mean that the particle of zone B would have spin fairy the left instead of downwards. Its spin always equal and would be opposed to the one of its twin particle. Let us suppose that we changed the axis of the instrument of Stern-Gerlach while the particles move. Of a way or another one the particle that travels in zone B knows that its binocular in the area To is turning towards the right instead of doing it upwards and changes also its spin towards the left instead of following downwards with spin. In other words: what we do in zone A (to change the axis of the magnetic field) it affects to which it happens in zone B. This strange phenomenon is known like Effect EPR (Einstein-Podolsky-Rosen). The theoretical experiment of Einstein, Podolsky and Rosen is the Box of Pandora of the modern physics. Of accidental way it illustrates an inexplicable connection between particles located in two different places. The particle in zone B seems to know, of instantaneous form, the type of rotation that has the particle in zone A.? This relation or connection, allows the experimenter who is in a place (zone A) modifying the state of a system located in another place (zone B). It is somewhat uncomfortable, it observed Erwin Schrdinger, when talking about to the phenomenon, that the quantum theory allows that a system is directed or lead to one or another type of state, voluntarily of which it makes the experiment, even without having access to l.3 Immediately, the physicists realized that this so peculiar special situation creates a critical question: How two algos can communicate so quickly In agreement with the current ideas in physics, the information is taken from a place to another one by a signal. Without a carrier there is no communication. For example, the most current form of communication is to speak. The information that we transmitted speaking is transported (in an expensive conversation to face) by the sound waves, that have a limited speed (about 1,200 kilometers to the hour). Therefore, the time that takes to me in getting a information that is to me being transmitted by my interlocutor depends on the distance to that this one is of me. The signal of faster communication is the electromagnetic wave, that has the same speed that a light wave or a radio waves, all of them travel to about three hundred thousand kilometers per second. Almost all the physicists accept that nothing in the universe can move at a speed greater than the one of the light. The extraordinary speed of the light causes that the communication by means of the luminous signals seems instantaneous. I create to see as somebody moves the head at the exact moment at which it does. But the truth is that the communication by means of luminous signals is not instantaneous. The time that needs my information by means of luminous signals in

arriving at its adressee depends on the distance that separates to us. In most of the cases the time of displacement he is so short that hardly it can be measured. Nevertheless a radio signal needs several seconds in arriving from the Earth at the moon and return. Now we suppose that the zone To and zone B are very remote. A luminous signal would take certain amount of time in moving from the zone To a zone B. If both zones are so separated to each other that there is no sufficient time so that a luminous signal establishes connection between an event that is happening (in A with an event which it is happening in B), is no form - in agreement with the usual ideas of the physics - which the event in B knows the event that happens in zone A. The physicists call to a this space separation. (an event is separated with a space separation of another one if there is no sufficient time so that a luminous signal connects them to each other). The communication between remote objects one of others by a space separation is a challenge to one of the accepted assumptions more of the physics. Although they are separated space, the state of the particle in zone B depends on which the experimenter in the zone To decides to observe (of the way as he orders the magnetic field). In other words, the Einstein-PodolskyRosen effect sample that the information can be communicated at superluminance speeds (faster than the one of the light), contrary to which it is accepted in the physics. If the two particles in the theoretical experiment of Einstein-Podolsky-Rosen are connected as it is by a signal, this signal moves at speed superior to the one of the light. It is possible that Einstein, Podolsky and Rosen have created the first scientific example of superluminance connection. But the own Einstein denied this conclusion. It argued that it is not possible that the position which we choose for a measuring instrument located in a certain place can affect what happens in any other part. In his autobiography, written eleven years after the joint work of Einstein, Podolsky and Rosen was published, it wrote: ... a supposition that I create we must maintain with firmness: existing the real situation in fact in the S2 system (the particle in zone B) is independent of which we do with the S1 system (the particle in zone A), that is space separated of anterior.4 In fact this opinion is the principle of local causes, that says space that what happens in a zone does not depend on subject variables to the control of an experimenter located in a distant zone, separated. The principle of the local causes is of common sense. The results of an experiment in a distant and separated place space of us would not have to depend on which we decide to do or to let do here. (Except in cases like the one of a mother that has a fright of alarm at the same moment that her daughter suffers an accident of automobile to many kilometers of distance - and other resemblances -, the world of the macrocospic thing seems to be fact of local phenomena.) Since the phenomena are local by nature, it exposed Einstein, the quantum theory has a serious failure. In agreement with the quantum theory, changing the measuring instrument in the zone the wave function changes that it describes to the particle in zone B, but (in agreement with Einstein) it does not change existing the real situation in fact in the S2 system (that) is independent of which it takes control of the S1 system... Therefore, the same situation in fact in zone B has two functions of wave, one by each position of the instrument of measurement in zone A. This is a failure, since it is impossible that two types different from wave function can be coordinated with the same situation in fact of S2.5 But there is another way to contemplate the situation: since the real situation in fact in zone B is independent of which it becomes in the zone To, it

must exist, simultaneously in zone B a defined spin upwards or downwards and a spin defined towards the right or the left, so that all the results take place that we can obtain by means of the change of direction of the apparatus of Stern-Gerlach in the area To, vertical or horizontally. The quantum theory cannot to so describe a state in area B and, therefore, it is an incomplete theory? Nevertheless, Einstein finishes its conclusions with an incredible section: one Only can escape to this conclusion (that the quantum theory is incomplete) being conceited that the measurements of S1 (very telepathically) change the real situation of S2 or denying situations of real independence, like such, in things that are space separated to each other. To me, both alternatives entirely seem to me inaceptables.6 But if those alternatives were unacceptable for Einstein, at the present time they are being taken in consideration by other physicists. Few physicists create in the telepathy, but some think that really independent situations do not exist, at a deep and fundamental level, between things that interacted in the past but which they are separated space to each other, or that changing the instrument of measurement in the zone To changes the real situation in fact in zone B. And this leads us to the Theorem of Bell, The Theorem of Bell is a mathematical test. What it proves it is that if the statistical predictions of the quantum theory are correct, in such case some of the ideas (based on the common sense) that we have on the world are a deep error. The Theorem of Bell does not demonstrate clearly how our ideas on the world based on the common sense are inadequate. There are numerous possibilities. Each one of them has a champion between the reduced number of physicists who are familiarized with the Theorem of Bell. It does not matter as of the implications of the Theorem of Bell she is our favourite, of a way either another one, or of by himself, the Theorem of Bell takes us conclusion to the inescapable that if the statistical predictions of the quantum theory are guessed right, in such case our ideas on the world, cradles in the common sense, are deeply deficient. This is a really dramatic conclusion, because the statistical predictions of the quantum mechanics always are guessed right. The quantum mechanics is the theory. It has explained it everything, from subatomic particles to the transistors and the stellar energy. It has never failed. It does not have rival who can compete with her. In the decade of 1920-1930 the quantum physicists realized of which our ideas based on which we called common sense turned out inadequate to describe the subatomic phenomena. The Theorem of Bell test that is it also for the events of the macrocospic world, the events of our daily world! As Henry Stapp wrote: the important thing of the Theorem of Bell is that it took the dilemma raised by the quantum phenomena, with all clarity, to the land of the macrocospic phenomena... sample that our daily ideas on the world are deeply deficient, by a cause or another one, even at level of macroscpico.7 The Theorem of Bell has been reformulated of different ways since Bell published the original version in 1964. It does not matter as it is formulated, always projects the irrational aspects of the subatomic phenomena in the dominion of the macrocospic thing. It says that they are not only the events in the field of very small those that behave of a way extremely different from our points of view on the world based on the common sense, but that it the same happens with the events in the world of the freeways and the sport cars. Also they escape here to the point of view of the common sense. This incredible declaration cannot be rejected like a fantasy, because it is based on the tremendous one and verified exactitude of the own quantum theory. The Theorem of

Bell is based on the correlation between prepared particles, similar to the pair of particles of the theoretical experiment of EinsteinPodolsky-Rosen. Let us imagine, for example, a gas that emits light when it is excited electrically (we think about a neon announcement). The atoms of the excited gas to the being they emit photons in pairs. The photons in each one of these pairs escape in opposite directions. Except in the difference of displacement direction, the photons in each pair are completely equal, twin. If one of them is polarized vertically, the other also is it. If one of photons of the pair is polarized horizontally, the same it happens to him to the other; but independently of the angle of polarization, both photons in each pair are polarized in the same plane. Therefore, if we know the state polarization of one of those photons, automatically we will know the state polarization of the other. The situation is similar to the one of the theoretical experiment of Einstein-Podolsky-Rosen, with the exception of which now we are discussing states of polarization instead of spin states. We can verify that both photons, in each pair, are polarized in the same plane sending them through polarizadores. Next we offer a graphical scheme of this simple procedure (conceptual). A light source in the center of the drawing emits a pair of fotones. To both sides of the light source individual polarizadores in the trajectory of emitted photons have been placed. Behind the polarizadores, there are fotomultiplicadores tubes that emit chasquido (or equivalent an electronic inaudible) whenever they detect a photon. Whenever the fotomultiplicador tube located in the zone To emits a signal, the tube located in zone B does the same. This must to that both photons, in each pair of photons emitted, always are polarized in the same plane that both polarizadores polarizadores and in our experiment are aligned in the same direction (in this case vertically). Here one is not to apply no theory, but simply to count the signals of the tubes. We know, and we can verify it, that when two polarizadores are aligned in the same direction, los located fotomultiplicadores tubes after them exactly give the same number of sonic or electronic signals. The signals in the zone To are correlated with those of zone B, In this case that correlation is one. Whenever one of the tubes sounds, the other also does. Now we suppose that we oriented one of the polarizadores to 90 degrees in relation to the other. Next we offer a graphical representation of this device. One of the polarizadores follows aligned vertically, but the other polarizador has been placed horizontally. The light waves that Happen through a vertical polarizador are stopped by a horizontal polarizador, and vice versa. Therefore, when the polarizadores are aligned forming right angle to each other, a signal in the zone To never will come accompanied from a signal in zone B. In this occasion the correlation is zero. Whenever one of the tubes produces a signal, the other tube will always remain in silence and without acting. Correlations between the signals in the zone To and the signals in zone B for each possible combination of the polarizadores located between these two ends also exist. Those statistical correlations can be anticipated by the quantum theory. For each given respective situation of the polarizadores, a certain number of signals in a zone will take place that will be accompanied by another certain number of signals in the other zone. Bell discovered that whatever was the positions of the polarizadores to each other, the signals in the zone To too much hard had a correlation with the number of signals in zone B like so that that outside builds of the chance. He had to exist a relation: both zones had to be connected of a way or another one. But, on the other hand, if that relation existed, that connection, then

the principle of the local causes (that that says what it happens in a zone it does not depend on the subject variables to the control of an experimenter in a located zone at a distance space) is an illusion! In summary, the Theorem of Bell demonstrated that the principle of the local causes, by reasonable that to us seems, is mathematically incompatible with the acceptance of which the statistical predictions of the quantum theory are valid (at least valid in this experiment and the experiment of Einstein-Podolsky-Rosen).? The correlations used by Bell were predictions of the quantum theory calculated, but not verified. In 1964, this experiment continued being a hypothetical construction. In 1972, in the Laboratory of Lawrence Berkeley, John Clauser and Stuart Freedman they made practically the experiment to confirm or to reject those predicciones.8 and found that the statistical predictions on which Bell based their theorem were correct. The Theorem of Bell not only suggests the world is very different from which it seems, but that it demands it thus. This is something that cannot be put in doubt. What happens is very exciting. The physicists have proven rationally who our rational ideas on the world in which we lived are deeply deficient. Although the experiment of Clauser-Freedman confirms that the statistical predictions of the quantum mechanics on which Bell constructed their theorem were correct, did not prove that those strong correlations were the result of a superluminance communication. (the position of the polarizadores in front of the fotomultplicadores tubes in the experiment of Clauser-Freedman stays fixes during a time that is long yes compares to him with time of displacement of the pair of photons. The component photons of a pair are separated space once they are moving, but the measurement processes that will detect them in the zone To and in zone B are not, space separated.) As we will see later, the superluminance communication is not the only possible explanation of the experiment of ClauserFreedman. In fact, in 1972, the explanation based on the superluminance communication underwent a great blow. It was impossible. In agreement with relativity, the communication morefast-that-Ia-light, is a folly, because the communication requires a signal that goes from a place to another one and the signals cannot be transferred from a place to another one at a speed greater than the one of the light? In summary, the particles in the theoretical experiment of EPR and the practitioner made by Clauser-Freedman seem to be connected of some way, although, in agreement with the laws of the physics, they cannot be it (if really they are space separated) because the only way in which they could communicate would be by means of the shipment and reception of signals. In 1975 so, a called physicist Jack Sarfatti made a proposal obvious that nobody before had thought about her. What Sarfatti proposed was that if what is is (the results of the experiment of ClauserFreedman), in that case the laws of the physics had to be incorrect or inadequate. Concretely, Sarfatti said that the laws of the physics were inadequate to describe that phenomenon. This phenomenon, according to Sarfatti, was that the particles in the theoretical experiment of EPR and the practitioner of Clauser-Freedman were separated space and were connected, but were not connected by signals! They were connected intimately and immediately of a form that extended to the space and the time. Sarfatti called to its theory of the superluminance transference of negentropa (information) without signals. (Negentropa is another term to designate order) (p 222). Into 1905, Einstein transformed the mystery of the certainty of the speed of the light in the postulate of the certainty of the speed of the light and with it it obtained a rich harvest of theoretical

results (among them the special theory of relativity) (p 143). Sarfatti, into 1975, transformed the puzzle of the superluminance communication in the postulate of the superluminance communication and also it collected a rich harvest of theoretical results, as we see next. In agreement with the theory of Sarfatti, each one of the jumps of quanto is a superluminance space transference of negentropa. There is transport of no energy in that transference. Nothing moves of the zone To a zone B. and, nevertheless, there is an instantaneous change in the quality (in the coherent structure) of the energy in both zones, To and B.? The communication concept more-fast-that-the-light between two events which they cannot be connected by a signal (this one is the definition of space), is a so radical deviation that the current physics as it were it the special theory of the relativity of Einstein of the physics accepted in 1905. Nevertheless, it has certain logical consistency with the classic thought of the physics. In fact it can be derived from the indivisibilidad of action of quanto of Planck, that is as well the basic element of the quantum theory. The authentic indivisibilidad of action of quanto of Planck (p 63) implies that the jumps of quanto between different states in a quantum system must be discreet. If we carried out a measurement in a observed system that propagates in isolation between a region of preparation and a region of measurement (p 84), one of the possibilities in the wave function that represents the observed system is made and the other possibilities of the wave function vanish (p 88). The observed system will be observed, then, like in a state or another one. In other words: a system of quanto does not happen through a continuous series of intermediate states in any of the observable changes. Since in general a state is a model of information extended by the space, it is deduced that a discreet change of state implies an instantaneous variation of the information model that defines the wave function. In other words: if the only way to communicate were by means of signals limited the speed of the light, at the most, the transition between stationary states could not be discreet (that is to say, discontinuous). It must have a continuous series of intermediate states corresponding to the different stages in the signal * gives propagation. Therefore, the indivisibilidad of the action of quanto, of Planck, leads, with logical consistency to the idea of messages without signal. Independently, Stapp reached the same conclusion. In his writing It plows Superluminal Connections Necessary? it reached the conclusion that they could be it: the phenomena of quanto offer tests prime facie that the information circulates of ways that are not in agreement with the classic ideas. For that reason the idea that that information is transferred superluminance, is not, a priori, irrazonable... Everything what we know on the nature is agreed with the idea that the fundamental processes of the nature are located outside the space-time, although generate events that can be located, located, in the spacetime. The theorem of this writing supports that form to see the nature, when demonstrating that the superluminance transference of information is necessary, except for if consider certain alternatives... that they seem less reasonable. Of course, the opinion of Bohr seems to lead to the rejection of the other possibilities and, of we can here deduce that the superluminance transference of information is necesaria.9 Alan Aspect, physicist of the Institute of Optics of the University of Paris, in Orsay, France, is preparing an experiment that, by coincidence, will be a crucial test of the theory of Sarfatti on the communication more-fast-that-thelight without signals. In effect: Aspect wants to make the

experiment of Clauser-Freedman, but the most important difference is going to be that the state of polarization of the measuring instruments will change while the pair of photons is moving. Changing the positions of the polarizadores while the pair of photons is flying, it is from all point impossible for one of photons of the pair to know, by means of ordinary signals that they propagate within the space-time, which happens to him to his companion. The experiment of Aspect will serve to verify the theoretical conclusion of Bohm (that this one expressed in terms of spin state) of which, some way, the particle in the zone B knew, in same moment in which that was happening, that the state of its companion located in the zone To, of which he was separated space, had changed and consequently, and in agreement with her, also the particle in B changed. In relation to the theory of Sarfatti, which will be able to demonstrate the experiment of Aspect, in the best one of the cases it is the existence of a superluminance channel. This must to that the experiment of Aspect, so and as is designed, uses only the complementariness of the particle in its process of determination of results. In view of it, Sarfatti proposes the substitution of the fotomultiplicadores of Aspect, that are particle detectors, by the double-crack systems that have microscopes of Heisenberg in each crack? A double-crack system is a detector of waves (p 75). A microscope of Heisenberg is a particle detector (p 121). If a microscope of Heisenberg in each crack in a double-crack experiment is placed we will be able to determine through which of them it has passed a photon. The use of the system of double-crack jointly with the microscopes of Heisenberg (particle detectors) in each one of the cracks offers the opportunity to us to choose between using a way to detect waves and other to detect particles. When we ignite the microscopes of Heisenberg, we have a system of particle detection. When we disconnected them we have a system of detection of waves. It is, indeed, this possibility of choosing between two mutually incompatible experimental contexts (waves and particles), which will allow us to codify a message in the superluminance channel. If we connected the microscopes of Heisenberg and one of them it detects a photon that happens through one of the cracks in a double-crack experiment, destroys the interference model (for that photon). If our detectors were absolutely effective, that is to say, without failure some, would detect each isolated photon that it passed through a crack or another one and there would not be interference models absolutely. But generally there are so no effective detectors. And what is more: those detectors would not be usable for our intention like detectors of the state of being of a particle. This type of detectors can detect photons with a degree of probability variable, but controlable, and thus they do it. Actually, nevertheless, if we placed a hypothetical microscope of Heisenberg (particle detector) that the present expressed state of being in each one of the cracks, the model of interference in its totality would not be destroyed, but that it would alter it in variable degrees. The alteration degree would be subject to the direct control of the experimenter. In other words, using those particle detectors we could consciously modulate the model of interference in each terminal of a dual system of double-crack like the proposed one by Sarfatti. The theory of Sarfatti, cradle in the Theorem of Bell and the effect EPR, declares that the interference model that we see in one of the terminals of one of those systems of double-crack inseparablely is bound with the interference model that we see in the other terminal of a way that is over the spacetime. Therefore, a modulation of the model of interference in one of

the terminals of the system would cause a similar modulation in the other terminal of the system, although there is no transporting signal of energy-moment that connects processes both. That is what Sarfatti calls a synchronism of phase the not-premises in intrvalo space.? ? If the experiment of Aspect reflects the same solid correlations anticipated by the quantum mechanics and confirmed by the experiment of Clauser-Freedman, that will mean a sentence of death for the theory of Sarfatti of the superluminance transference of information without signal. (This is science in its greater degree. The possibility of putting under on approval the theories is what separates the science of metaphysics.) On the contrary, if experiment of Aspect confirms persistence of that powerful correlation between both photons component of pair of photons anticipated by quantum theory and confirmed by experiment of Clauser-Freedman, even when the position of the polarization of the measuring instruments is altered while the photons are moving, in that case the theory of Sarfatti of the communication more-fast-that-the-light without signals will happen to be one of the main candidates to explain the phenomenon. If the theory of Sarfatti of the superluminance communication without signals proves its validity to correlate experiences correctly, a most important revolution as much in the western thought as in physical science will have taken place. In other words, the expe riment of Aspect can get to become the experiment of MichelsonMorley that will introduce to us completely in the post-einsteiniana era. Henry Stapp, in a work sponsored by the North American administration for the investigation and the development of the energy, wrote in 1975: the Theorem of Bell is the deepest discovery of ciencia.10 The Theorem of Bell demonstrates that, either the statistical predictions of the quantum theory are false or is it the principle of the causes. It does not only say which of both is the false one, but that one of both must be it. When ClauserFreedman confirmed that the statistical predictions of the quantum theory were correct, the surprising conclusion was inevitable: The principle of the local causes must be false! If the principle of the local causes fails and, consequently, the world is not what it seems to be, which is the true nature, real, of our world? There are several possibilities that are excluded mutually. The first possibility, that already we have reasoned, is that in spite of the appearances in opposite, really there are no separated parts in our world (in dialecto of the physics the location fails). In this case, the idea that the events are independent events is an illusion. This it will be the case for all the separated parts that have interacted reciprocally at any time of the past. When separated parts interact reciprocally, they (its functions of wave) correlate themselves (by means of the interchange of conventional signals) (forces). Unless that interrelation is altered by other external forces, the wave functions that represent those separated things remain in correlation for always? ? In which one talks about those separated parts, which an experimenter does in one of those zones will have an intrinsic effect on the results of an experiment that takes place in a distant zone, space, separated. That possibility requires a communication more-fast-that-the-light, of a different type, that the conventional physics cannot explain. In this image, which happens here intimately is bound, of immediate way, with which it happens in any other part of the universe, and so on, and this happens, simply, because the separated parts of the universe, are not separated parts. As David Bohm wrote: the parts seem to be in immediate connection, in which its dynamic relation depends in

irreducible way of the state of the total system (and, of course, of the state of the most extensive systems in which they are contained, extending in principle and definitively by the universal whole number). With this, one feels taken to a new notion of a nonbroken whole that denies the classic idea that it believed in the possibility of establishing an analysis of the world in his existing parts separated and independently... 11 In agreement with the quantum mechanics, the events at individual level are determined by the chance, the chance (p 83). We know that the spontaneous disintegration of kan positive will produce a antimuon and a neutrino in 63 % of the cases; pion positive and pion neutral in 21 % of the cases; two positive piones and pion negative in 5.5 % of the cases; a neutrino and pion neutral and a positron in 4.8 %; in 3.4 % of the cases it will produce a antimuon, a neutrino and pion neutral, etc., etc. Nevertheless, the quantum theory cannot predict which of these disintegrations will produce such or such result. The events at individual level in agreement with the theory of the quantum mechanics are completely accidental. Said of another form: the wave function that describes the spontaneous disintegration of kan, contains all those possible results. When one of those potentialities becomes in fact, all the others are invalidan. Although the probability of each one of those potential events can be calculated, which really happens at the moment of the disintegration is chance question. Theorem of Bell, nevertheless, implies that, whatever is the disintegration reaction that happens in a while certain, is not chance question. Like all the others, it depends on which is happening in another place? In the words of Stapp: ... The transformation of potentialities in realities cannot be deduced on the base of the locally obtained information. If the ideas in use are accepted on the way as it propagates the information by the space and the time, the Theorem of Bell demonstrates that the macrocospic answers cannot be independent of distant causes. The problem is not solved, and not even it is alleviated, saying that the answer is determined by the pure chance. The Theorem of Bell proves, indeed, who the determination of the answer at macrocospic level must be free-del-chance, at least until the point to very allow to some type of dependency of this answer with the cause lejana.12 The superluminance dependency of quanto seems to be, at least superficially, a possible explanation for certain types of psychic phenomena. The telepathy, for example, in many occasions causes the impression to us to still act instantaneously, if not more express. The psychic phenomena have been despised by the physicists from the days of Newton. In fact are many the physicists who not even think that they exist? In this sense the Theorem of Bell could be the Trojan horse in the strength of the physicists, in the first place because test that the quantum theory requires connections that seem to remember the telepathic communication and, second, because it offers the mathematical frame within as the serious physicists (all the physicists are serious) can be found to themselves discussing some types of phenomena that, ironically, they themselves do not think that they exist. The failure of the principle of the local causes does not mean, necessarily, that the superluminance connections exist in fact. For example: the principle of the local causes - what it happens in a zone does not depend on subject variables to the control of an experimenter who is in a separated and distant zone (space)) - is based on two tacit hypotheses that they are so obvious that it is easy to happen without paying attention to them. First: the principle of the local causes estimates that we have election at the time of deciding how

we are going to carry out our experiments. Let us imagine that we are making the experiment with photons of Clauser-Freedman. We have in front of us a switch who determines the relative position in which we are going to place the polarizadores. If we lowered to the switch the polarizadores they orient forming right angle. Supngase that we decided to move the switch upwards, with which the polarizadores are aligned in a same relative position. Normally, we think that we could downwards have moved the switch and, that way, to align the polarizadores in right angle if we had wanted to do it thus. In other words, we suppose that we had freedom in the beginning to decide of the experiment how to place the switch, if upwards or downwards. The principle of the local causes supposes (... variable put under the control of an experimenter...) that we have and we can exert a free will in the determination of the way as we are going to make our experiment. Second, and this is still more easy that it happens inadvertent, the principle of the local causes supposes that if we had made our experiment of way different from which we have done it in fact, we had obtained certain results. These two suppositions - that we can choose how to make our experiment, and that each one of our elections, those that we did not choose, it produces, or could have produced, certain results even is what Stapp calls contrafactual determinism. In the case that we are explaining, the fact is that we decided to make our experiment with the switch upwards. We suppose, consequently, that contrary to this fact (of contrafactual way), we could it have made with the switch in the inferior position. When making the experiment with the switch upwards we obtain some certain results (a certain number of signals in each zone). Therefore we suppose that if we had chosen to make the experiment with the switch downwards also we had obtained certain results. (it is not necessary that we can to calculate which had been those results.) By rare that it can seem, and as we have occasion to see, some physical theories do not suppose that what had happened if... produces certain results. Since the Theorem of Bell demonstrates that, accepting the validity of the quantum theory, the principle of the local causes is not correct; and if we do not want to accept that the existence of the superluminance connections (the location incapacity) is the reason of the failure of the principle of the local causes, we are ourselves forced to face to us the possibility that all our suppositions on the contrafactual determinism are incorrect (the contrafactual determinism fails). Since the contrafactual determinism has two parts, two forms exist in which can fail. The first possibility is that the free will is an illusion (it fails the contrafactualidad). Perhaps it does not exist that what had happened if.... Perhaps only it can be what is. At that case we ended at the superdeterminism, that is a determinism that is beyond the ordinary determinism. The ordinary determinism says that so soon the initial situation in a system has settled down, the future of the system it is established since it must be developed in agreement with the inexorable laws of cause and effect. This type of determinism was the base of the idea of the Great Machine applied to the universe (p 43). In agreement with that point of view if the initial situation of a system changes, the future of the system it changes also. In agreement with the superdeterminism, not even the initial situation of the universe could be changed. Any thing is not only impossible to be another thing that what is, but that is impossible that the situation of the universe could have been another one of which was. It does not concern what we are making certain in a while, which wants that we do is the only thing that we could be doing then. That

superdeterminist model of the reality could be the Buddhist point of view of the reality, although, for a Buddhist point of view, the principle is not very good. The concept of free will is based on the supposition of which I exist aside from the universe where I exercise my free will. According to the buddhism, the separation between the ego and the rest of the universe are false. Therefore, if I am the universe, on what I can exert my free will? The free will is an illusion of the ego. The contrafactual determinism fails if the contained determinist supposition in him fails. In that case we have a possibility of choosing the way how to carry out our experiment, but what had happened if... it does not lead us to any certain result. The alternative is exactly as strange as it sounds. It is, indeed what it is deduced of the Interpretation of Multiple Worlds of the Quantum Mechanics (p 98). In agreement with the theory of Multiple Worlds whenever an election is made in the universe, between an event possible and other, the world is divided in different branches. In our hypothetical experiment we decided to place the switch in the position arrives; when doing it therefore the experiment gave a certain result us (a certain number of signals in each zone). In agreement with the theory of the Multiple Worlds, in the moment in which we located the switch in the position arrives, the universe was divided in two branches. In the one of them experiment it was being made with the switch On guard arrives. In the other branch the experiment was being made with the switch in the position down. Who makes the experiment in the second branch? We do it! There is a different edition from us in each one of the different branches from the universe. Each edition of us is convinced that our branch of the universe is entirely all the reality. The experiment in the second branch of the universe, the experiment in which the switch is in the position down, also produces a certain result (a certain number of signals in each zone). Nevertheless, the result takes place in another branch of the universe, not in ours. Therefore, in which one talks about us, to whom we are in this branch of the universe, which had happened if..., really happened and really it produces determined results, but in a branch of the universe that is, for always, beyond our experience of the reality? Next to offer a diagram to us of the implications logics of the Theorem of Bell. It has been constructed in agreement with some changes of informal impressions of the Group of Fundamental Physics in the Laboratory of Lawrence Berkeley, under the direction and the patronage of doctor Elizabeth Rauscher. These changes of impressions, as well, were based on the works of Henry Stapp. Summarizing, the Theorem of Bell demonstrates, like was exposed in 1964, who or the statistical predictions of the quantum theory are false, or the principle of the local pauses is false. In 1972, Clauser and Freedman made an experiment in Berkeley that proved the validity of the remarkable statistical predictions of the quantum theory. Therefore the principle of the local causes must be false. The principle of the local causes says that what it happens in an area does not depend space on subject variables to the control of an experimenter located in a separated zone. If this explanation is correct, in that case we lived in a universe the not-premises (the location fails) that are characterized apparently by superluminance connections (faster than the light) between separated parts. Nevertheless, there are other forms of failure for the principle of the local causes. This principle is based on two tacit assumptions. First of them it is that we have the capacity to determine our own actions, that is to say, who we have free will? The second tacit assumption is that when we chose a form to make the things, instead of choosing another one,

the one that could have happened if... it had gotten to produce certain results. These two united assumptions are what Stapp calls contrafactual determinism. The first assumption (contrafactualidad) fails when it leads us to a superdeterminism that annuls the idea of alternative possibilities. According to this type of determinism it is not possible that the world never could have been another one of which is. If second supposed (determinism) it fails, we finished in the theory of the Multiple Worlds, in which the world is being divided of continuous way in separated and inaccessible branches to each other, each one of which contains different editions from such actors at the same time making different acts in different scenes that, of some way, are located in the same site. It is possible that there are other forms to include/understand the failure of the principle of the local causes, but the same fact that it must fail means that the world, of some way, is deeply different from the ideas that we have on him. (Perhaps, in fact, we are living in a cavern in the dark). In the diagram, the option is not possible no model is the Interterpretacion of Copenhagen of the quantum Mechanics (p 56). In 1927, the most remarkable group of physicists of history decided that he could happen that not even it was possible to construct a reality model, that is to say, to explain the form as they are the things really, between frames. In spite of the tide of knowledge that it has invaded to us in the course of thirty years, the Group of Fundamental Physics, like the physicists reunited in Copenhagen half century before they, were forced to recognize that perhaps it was not possible to construct a model of the reality. This recognition is more than the admission of the limitations of this one or that theory. It is a recognition that is breaking through in the West of which the knowledge in himself is limited. In other words, it is the recognition of the difference between knowledge and wisdom? Classic science begins with the assumption of the existence of separated parts that, as a whole, constitute the physical reality. From this principle, science has come worrying to know how these separated parts are related to each other. The great work of Newton demonstrates that the Earth, the moon and the planets are governed by the same laws that govern the fall of apples. The French mathematician Discardings discovered a way to represent, by means of drawings, the relations between different measures from time and distance. This procedure, analytical geometry, is a wonderful instrument to give organization to an abundant number of data distributed in a significant model. It apparently reunites the results of experiences without relation to each other in a rational frame of own concepts, like, for example, the laws of the movement. The departure point of this process is a mental attitude that, initially, perceives the physical world as fragmented and sees the different experiences like events without logical relation among them. Newtonian science is the effort in search of the relations between preexisting separated parts. The quantum mechanics is based on the opposite epistemologic assumption. That one is the reason of the deep existing differences between the physics of Newton and the quantum theory. Most fundamental of these differences it is the fact that the quantum mechanics is based on observations (measurements). Without those measurements the mechanics would be dumb. The quantum mechanics does not say anything to us on which it happens between those measurements. In words of Heisenberg: the term event is restricted observaciones.13 This is very important since it constitutes a philosophy of science different from all the previous one. For example: of ordinary usually we say that we detected an electron in

the point To and later in point B, but strictly speaking this it is incorrect. In agreement with the quantum mechanics an electron does not exist that moves of the point To a unique point B. the existing thing are the measurements made in the point To and in point B. The quantum theory closely is not only bound to the philosophy, but also - and this comes more and more doing pretends to the theories of the perception. Already at a time so relatively early as year 1935, Von Neumann Exactly explored this relation in his Theory of the Measurement (, when collapses the function of wave associated to a particle? When the particle hits the photographic plate? When the photographic plate is revealed? When the rays of light of the revealed plate arrive at our retina? When the nervous impulse of the retina arrives at the brain) (p 91). The principle of complementariness of Bohr (p 104) also talks about to the outstanding existing relation between the physics and the conscience. The election that the experimenter makes of the type of experiment make determines which of the aspects, mutually excluding, of the same phenomenon (wave or particle), will finish pronouncing itself. In the same way, the principle of uncertainty of Heisenberg (p 120) demonstrates that we cannot observe a phenomenon without modifying it. The physical properties of the external world are interlaced with our perceptions, not only of psychological, but also ontolgica way. The second more fundamental difference between the physics of Newton and the quantum theory is that first it predicts events whereas the quantum mechanics predicts the probability of the events. In agreement with the quantum mechanics the only determineable relation between events is of statistical nature, is to say probability question. David Bohm, professor of Physics of the Birkbeck College, the University of London, proposes that the quantum physics, in fact, is based on the perception of a new order. In agreement with Bohm, We must cause that the physics gives a total turn. Instead of beginning with the parts and demonstrating how they act jointly (cartesian order) we began with todo.14 The theory of Bohm is compatible with the Theorem of Bell, who implies that the apparently separated parts of the universe can be intimately connected at a deep and fundamental level. Bohm affirms that the most fundamental level is an all inseparable one that it is, in its own words, that-that-is. All the things, even the space and the time and the matter, are forms of that-that-is. An order exists that Integra in the authentic process of the universe, but this order by the sight, is not easily apparent. Let us imagine, for example, a great hollow cylinder within as another smaller cylinder is placed. The space between both cylinders is full with a clear and viscous liquid, as the glycerin (this apparatus exists in fact). Now we suppose that we deposited a small drop of red in the surface of the glycerin. Due to the nature of the glycerin, the red remains intact, as a black spot defined good that floats in a clear liquid. If we began to turn one of the cylinders, for example in direction like which they follow the small hands of a clock, the red spot extends in opposite direction drawing up a line that is become more and more thin until disappearing completely. The red spot is integrated completely in the glycerin, apparently dissolved in her, there but it continues being. If we rotate the cylinder in opposite direction the drop of red it reappears. First it appears a very thin line that it is become more and more heavy until being concentrated in a single point. If once the drop has returned to concentrate itself we continue turning the cylinder in the same direction, it happens the same, but to the inverse one. We can repeat this process so many times as we wish. Whenever we do it,

the red spot is transformed into a more and more thin line until finishing disappearing completely in the glycerin; in order to reappear, again, when the movement of the glycerin for of opposite sign. If a complete revolution is needed the cylinder so that the drop of red disappears completely, a complete revolution of the cylinder in opposite direction - will make it reappear in its original form and position. The number of returns that is needed to cause that the drop disappears - or reappears - is what Bohm calls the implied order. Let us suppose that we deposited a drop of red in the surface of the glycerin, we turned the cylinder, in the direction that follows the small hands of a clock, until the drop disappears (in this case a revolution); we added one second drop of red in the glycerin, continued rotating the cylinder in the same direction until the second drop disappears (another revolution more) and, later, we added one third drop of red and we give to the cylinder one more a revolution him until the third drop has disappeared. We have three integrated drops of red in the glycerin. No of them is visible, but we know where one of them is located each in the implied order. When we turned the cylinder in the opposed direction, a drop of red (third) will appear after a revolution; another drop of red (second) will reappear after a new complete revolution, and another drop of red (first) will make its appearance after a new revolution. This it is the order explained, or unfolded. In the explained world (unfolded) the three drops of red do not seem to be related to each other, but we know that they are it in the implied order. If we considered to the drops of red of this experiment like particles, we have the hypothesis of Bohm on the apparent lack of relation between the subatomic phenomena. the particles can appear in different places and, nevertheless, be connected, related, in the implied order. In words of Bohm: the particles can be discontinuous in the space (the explained order), but continuous in the order implicado.15 the matter is a form of the implied order in the same way that an eddy is a form of the water, that is not reducible more to particles pequeas.16 Like the matter or any other thing, the particles are forms of the implied order. If this is difficult to catch it is because our mind demands to know what is the implied order, the order implied of what The implied order is the order implied of that-that-is. Nevertheless, that-that-it is, it is the implied order. This point of view on the world is so different from that we are customary to use that, as Bohm indicates, the description is totally incompatible with which we want decir.17 and this is thus because our thought is based on an old form of Greek thought. In agreement with this form to think, To only be it is. Consequently, Us, is not. This way to think gives an instrument us practical to act in the world but it does not describe what it happens. In fact Us also is. As much Being as Us is that-that-is. Everything, even the emptiness, is that-that-is. There is nothing is not that-that-is. This form to contemplate the reality makes arise the question from the conscienciacin of the observer. Our minds demand to know, What is the implied order , the order implied of what, because our culture has taught to us to perceive, only, the explained order (the cartesian point of view). For us the things are intrnsicamente separated. The physics of Bohm requires, in agreement with its words, a new instrument of thought. But that new instrument, so and as would be needed to understand the physics of Bohm, would change of radical way the conscience of the observer, reorienting it towards a perception of the whole of which all the things are a form. A perception of that type, nevertheless, would not cause an incapacity to see the explained order. The physics of Bohm contains

a parallel element of relativity to the one of the theories of Einstein. The nature implied or explained of the order depends on the perspective of the observer. The problem is in which our present point of view is limited the perspective of the explained order. From the perspective of the implied order the apparently separated elements of the explained order intimately are related. The terms intimately related elements and even imply a concept of cartesian separation that does not exist. At the fundamental level of that-that-it is, the separated elements that are intimately related in the implied order are the implied order. The necessity of a new instrument of thought with which to base the understanding of the physics of Bohm is possible that is not a as great obstacle as at first sight could seem. One of those instruments exists already based on the whole. And they exist, in addition, a number of sicologas very elaborated, product of two thousand years of practice and introspection, whose only intention is the development of similar mental instrument. Those psychologies are what commonly we called Eastern Religions. These religions differ to each other from considerable way. It would be a tremendous error to consider that the hinduismo and the buddhism, for example, are equal, although among them exists a similarity greater than the one of anyone of them with a western religion. Nevertheless, all the Eastern religions (psychologies) are compatible of fundamental way with the physics and the philosophy of Bohm. All of them are based on the experience of a pure reality and indiferenciada that is that-that-it is. While it would turn out ingenuous to exaggerate the similarities between the Eastern physics of Bohm and philosophies, he would be stupid to ignore them. Let us consider for example the following phrases: The word reality is derived from the roots thing (head of cattle) and to think (I reviewed). Reality, therefore, means all that about which it is possible to be thought. This is not that-thatis. No idea can catch the truth in the sense of that-that-is. The definitive perception does not have its origin in the brain nor in any other material structure, although a material structure is necessary so that it is pronounced. The subtle mechanism of knowledge to arrive at the truth is not originated in the brain. A similarity between thought and matter exists. All the matter, even we ourself, is determined by the information. The information is what determines space and time. Starting off of his content there would not be form, absolutely, to know if those declarations were done by professor Bohm or a Buddhist tibetano. In fact these phrases have been extracted of different parts from two lessons of physics given by professor Bohm in Berkeley, in April of 1977. First of the lessons it was given to the students of physics of that university; second, in the Laboratory Lawrence Berkeley to a group of professional physicists. Most of those phrases has been taken from the second lesson, is to say the dedicated one to advanced physicists. It turns out ironic to see that while the theories of Bohm are received with certain skepticism by most of the professional physicists, found a recibimiento positive, immediately, between the thousands of people of our culture who him have returned the backs to science in their search of the definitive nature of the reality. If the physics of Bohm, or another resemblance, got to become most outstanding of the future branches of the physics, the dances of the East and the West could be mixed in an exquisite harmony. He would not be surprising that between the subjets of the physics in century XXI included the transcendental meditation. * * * The function of the Eastern religions (sicologas) is to allow that the mind escapes to the limits of the symbolic thing. In agreement with this point of view, all

the things are symbols, not them words and the concepts, but the people and the things. Beyond the borders of the symbolic thing it is what is, pure conscience: the experience of the similarity of the reality. Nevertheless, the Eastern religions even resort to the use of the symbols to escape to the land of the symbolic thing. Some disciplines use the symbols more frequently than others, but all they use in a form or another one. Therefore, arises the question from, if the pure knowledge is considered different from the content of the knowledge, how it makes specific the content of the knowledge affects the accomplishment of the pure knowledge? What types of content impel to the mind to follow ahead? What is what it allows him to activate his capacity of car-fullness to extend itself to itself? It is very difficult to respond to these questions. The answer only can be a point of view. And a point of view always is limited in itself. To include/understand something it is to resign to the other ways to conceive it. This is another form to say that the mind acts in limitation forms. Whatsoever, it exists, that yes, a relation between the content of the knowledge and the ability of the mind to extend itself to itself. Reality is what we took by the way. What we took by the way is that in which we create. Our beliefs are based on our perceptions. What we perceived depends on which we tried to see. What we tried to see depends on which we thought. What we thought depends on which we perceived. What we perceived determines what we create. What we create determines to his to see, which we took by truth. And what we took by truth it is our reality. The central approach of this process, initially in all the cases, is What we thought. We can say, at least, that the fidelity to an opening symbol (Christ, Buddha, Krishna, the infinite diversity of the nature, etc.) it seems to open our mind and that an open mind is, frequently, the first passage in the process of the illumination. gestalt psychological of the physics comes radically in the last tending century towards forms of extreme franqueza. In the middle of century XIX, the mechanics of Newton was in its zenith. It seemed not to exist nor a single phenomenon that could not be explained in terms of mechanical models. All the mechanical models were put under principles established of old. The director of the Department of Physics of Harvard tried to discourage to that they wanted to prolong his studies, being based on which, in his opinion, the important things were very few that they were by resolver.13 In a speech directed to the Royal Institution, in 1900, Lord Kelvin expressed its ideas that only they were left two clouds in the sky of the physics: the problem of the radiation of the black bodies and the experiment of Michelson-Morley.19 there was no doubt, said Kelvin, that soon they would be clarified. It was mistaken. The two clouds of Kelvin indicated the aim of the era that began with Galileo and Newton. The problem of the radiation of the black bodies lead to Planck to the discovery of quanto of action. In the thirty following years the totality of the Newtonian physics happened to be a case specially limited of the theory of quanto that it was in the heat of evolution. The experiment of Michelson-Morley left in the shade the famous theories of the relativity of Einstein. In 1927, the foundations of the new physics, the quantum mechanics and relativity, were in the heat of apogee. In contrast to the time of Kelvin, the fidelity of the physicists at the present time has become a symbol of extreme franqueza. In 1975, Isidor Rabi, Nobel prize and director emeritus of the Department of Physics in the University of Colombia, wrote: I do not believe that the physics never has aim. I think that the newness of the nature is so, that its variety will be infinite, and nonsingle in the changing forms, but in the depth of the

concepts and the newness of the ideas... 20 Stapp would write, also, in 1971: ... The humanity will be able indefinitely to continue its search to discover new important truths... 21 what we thought of the present physicists it is that the physics of the nature, like the human experience in himself, is infinitely diverse. The Eastern religions do not have anything to say on physics, but much on the human experience. In Hindu mythology, Kali, the Divine Mother, is the symbol of the infinite diversity of the experience. Kali represents all the physical plane. It is the drama, the tragedy, the humor and the pain of the life. He is the brother, the father, the sister, the mother, the lover and the friend. He is the enemy, the monster, the beast and the gross one. It is the sun and the ocean. It is the grass and the dew. It is our sense of accomplishment and our sense that we are doing something that is worth the trouble. Our emotion by the new discoveries is an adornment in the bracelet of the goddess. Our sense of the importance is the bell in its ankle. This mother of the Earth, total and seducer, terrible and wonderful, always has something to offer. The Hindus know the impossibility to seduce it or to conquer it and the uselessness to love it or to hate it. Consequently they do the only thing that can: to honor it. In a determined story, Kali, the Divine Mother, is Situated, the wife of God. Ram is God. Ram, Sita and Laksaman, the brother of ram, walk by one narrow footpath in the jungle. The way is so narrow that most of the Laksaman time only can see Situated, that walks between him and ram But, suddenly, the way tour in such a way that Laksaman can see its God brother. This vigorous metaphor has application to the drama of the physics, today in the heat of development. Although most of the physicists has little patience (professional) for the metaphors, the own physics has become a great metaphor. The physics of century XX is the history of a trip from the intellectual overcast sky to the intellectual franqueza, in spite of the preservative nature of prubamelo of the physicists. The acceptance of which the discoveries of the physics never will have aim has taken to the physicists, as well as to which they have followed close by the history of the physics, to an extremely fertile plain. That acceptance invites to the intellect to follow forwards, in spite of the great risk that this means for its hegemony. The Teachers of Wu Li know that the physicists are doing something more than to discover the infinite diversity of the nature. They are dancing with Kali, the Divine Mother of Hindu mythology. * * * The buddhism is both things: philosophy and practice. The Buddhist philosophy is rich and deep. The Buddhist practice is called Tantra, Tantra means, in snscrito, to weave. On Tantra it can be said not much. It is necessary to do it. The Buddhist philosophy reached its development summit in century II. Since then nobody has been able to improve it much. The distinction between Buddhist philosophy and Tantra well clear and is defined. The Buddhist philosophy can be intelectualizada. The Tantra, no. The Buddhist philosophy is a creation of the rational mind. Tantra extends the rationality. The deepest thinkers of the India civilization discovered that the words and the concepts only could take them until there. Beyond that point only it is left the exercise of a practice whose experience is indescribable. This does not prevent them to be retinando the practice progressively until turning it a series of extremely effective and sophisticated techniques, but it prevents to describe the experiences them that those techniques produce. The practice of the Tantra does not mean the end of the rational thought, but the integration of the thought based on the symbols, in ampler phantoms of knowledge. The development of the buddhism in India

demonstrates that a deep and penetrating intellectual investigation in the definitive nature of the reality can culminate in - or at least preparing the scene for a quantum jump beyond the rationality. In fact, at an individual level, this he is one of the ways that lead to the illumination. The tibetano buddhism calls the Footpath without Form, or the Practice of the Mind. The Footpath without Form prescribes the people to him who have intellectual temperament. Physical science is following a footpath similar. The development of the physics in century XX already had transformed the conscience of which with her they are related. The study of the complementariness (page 104), the principle of uncertainty (page 120), the quantum theory of fields (pg the 200) and Interpretation of Copenhagen of the quantum mechanics (p 56) produce intimate knowledge of the very similar nature of the reality to the produced ones by the study of the philosophy. The deepest physicists of this century have come making more and more conscious that they are facing the indescribable thing. Max Planck, the father of the quantum mechanics, wrote: science... means a conduct without rest, a development in continuous progress towards an objective that the poetic intuition can catch, but that the intellect never will get to understand by completo.22 We are coming near to the aim of science. But the aim of the science does not have why to mean the aim of a conduct without rest and a development in continuous progress of physical and more comprehensive and more useful theories. (the illuminated physicists also remember their cipher codes.) The aim of science means the arrival of the Western civilization, in its own time and by its own way, to the highest dimensions of the human experience. Professor G. F. Chew, Director of the Department of Physics in Berkeley, talking about to the theory of the physics of particles observed: Our present fight with the superior physics could, for that reason, being only an advance payment of a new form of human intellectual conduct, that not only is outside the physics, but that not even can be described like cientfica.23 We did not need to make a pilgrimage to India or Tibet. There is much to study there, but here, in house, in the most inconceivable places, between the accelerating of particles and the computers, it is arising our own Footpath without Form. To the Huang, the Teacher of Tai Chi that created the metaphor of Wu Li, wrote in certain occasion: ... always, later or more early, we arrived at an impasse when hablamos.24 Also it could have said that, later or more early, always we put ourselves to give returns in circle when we spoke, since to turn in circle it is a species of impasse. We were seated in a small cabin in Esalen, already very entered the night, when my recent friend David Finkelstein spoke to us smoothly: I believe that it takes to error calling to us particles to the beings that participate in the primary events of the theory (topology of quanto), because they do not move in the space nor in the time. They do not take mass, they do not have load nor they have energy, in the current sense of the word. QUESTION: Then what is what causes the events to that level? ANSWER: Who are the dancers and who the dance? They do not have other attributes more than the dance. QUESTION: What is they? ANSWER: The things that dance, the dancers. God mine! We have returned to the title of the book! 25 NOTES EPGRAFES 1, Albert Einstein and Leopold Infeld, The Bvolution of Physics, New York, Simn and Schuster, 1938, pg. 27. 2, Werner Heisenberg, Physics and Philosophy, Harper Torchbooks, New York, Harper and Row, 1958, pg. 168. 3, Erwin Schrdinger, Sciencie and Humanism, Cambridge, England, Cambrid GE University Press, 1951, pgs. 7-8. A GREAT WEEK IN the GREAT

SOUTH 1, To the Chung-liang Huang, Embrace Tiger, Return to Mountain, Moab (Utah), Real People Press, 1973, pg. 1. 2, Albert Einstein and Leopold Infield, The Evolution of Physics, New York, Simn and Schuster, 1938, pg. 31. 3, Isidor Rabbi, ProfilesPhysicist, I, The New Yorker Magazine, 13, October of 1975. To EINSTEIN IT DOES NOT LIKE 1, Albert Einstein and Leopold Infeld, The Evolution of Physics, New York, Simn and Schuster, 1938, pg. 31. 2, Ibid., pg. 152. 3, Werner Heisenberg, Across the Frontiers, New York, Harper and Row, 1974, pg. 114. 4, Isaac Newton, Philosophiae Naturalis Principia Mathematica (trad. Andrew Motte), reprinted in Sir Isaac Newtons Mathematical Principies of Natural Philosophy and His System of the World (trad. reviewed of Florian Cajori), Berkeley, University of Californian Press, 1964, pg. 547. 5, Proceedings of the Royal Society of London, vol. 54, 1893, pg. 381, which of R. Bentley talks about to the Correspondence, vol. I, pg. 70. There is also an explanation on the action-to-distance of Clerk Maxwell, in Nature, volume VII, 1872, pg. 325. 6, Joseph Weizenbaum, Computer Power and Human Reason, San Francisco, Freeman, 1976. 7, Niels Bohr, Atomic Theory and Human Knowledge, New York, John Wiley, 1958, pg. 62. 8, J. To Wheeler, K. S. Thorne and C. Misner, Gravitation, San Francisco, Freoman, pg. 1213. 9, Carl G. Jung, Collected Works, vol. 9 (Bollingen Series), XX, Princeton, Princeton University Press, 1955, pg. 175. 10, Carl G. Jung and Wolfgang Pauli, The Interpretation of Nature and the Psyche (Bollingen Series, LI), Princeton, Princeton University Press, 1955, pg. 175. 11, Albert Einstein, On Physical Reality, Franklin Institute Journal, 221, 1936, pgs. 349 and sigs. 12. Henry Strapp, The Copenhaguen Interpretation and the Nature of Space-Time, American Journal of Physics, 40, 1972. 13. Robert Ornstein, ed., The Nature of Human Consciousness, New York, Viking, 1974, pgs. 61149. ALIVE BEINGS? 1, Vctor Guillemin, The Story of Quantum Mechanics, New York, Scribners, 1968, pgs. 50-51. 2, Max Planck, The Philosophy of Physics, New York, Norton, 1936, pg. 59. 3, Henry Stapp, Plows Superluminal Connections Necessary, Nuovo Cimento, 40B, 1977, pg. 191. 4, Evan H. Walker, The Nature of Consciousness, Mathematical Biosciences, 7, 1970, pgs. 175-176. 5, Werner Heisenberg, Physics and Philosophy, New York, Harper and Row, page 41. WHAT 1, Max Born and Albert Einstein HAPPEN, The Born-Einstein Letters, New York, Walker and Company, 1971, pg. 91. (the literal text of this declaration varies enough of translation to translation. This one is the popular version attributed to Einstein.) 2, Henry Stapp, S-Matrix Interpretation of Quantum Theory, Physical Re-view, D3, 1971, 1.303. 3, Ibid., pg. 3. 4, Ibid., pg. IV. 5, Werner Heisenberg, Physics and Philosophy, Harper Torchbooks, New York, Harper and Row, 1958, pg. 41. 6, Henry Stapp, Mind Matter and Quantum Mechanics, without publishing. 7, Hugh Everett III, Relative State, Formulation of Quantum Mechanics, Reviews of Physics Modem, voL 29, nm. 3, 1957, pgs. 454-462. The PAPER Of I 1, Niels Bohr, Atomic Theory and the Descrption of Nature, Cambridge, England, Cambridge University Press, 1934, pg. 53. 2, Werner Heisenberg, Physics and Philosophy, Harper Torchbooks, New York, Harper and Row, 1958, pg. 42. 3, Werner Heisenberg, Across the Frontiers, New York, Harper and Row, 1974, pg. 75. 4, Erwin Schrdinger, Image of Matter, in On Physics Modem, with W. Heisenberg, M. Born and P. Auger, New York, Clarkson Potter, 1961, pg. 50. 5, Max Born, Athomic Physics, New York, Hafner, 1957, pg. 95. 6, Ibid., pg. 96. 7, Ibid., pg. 102. 8, Werner Heisenberg, Physics and Beyondf New York, Harper and Row, 1971, pg. 76. 9, Niels Bohr, Atomic Theory and Human Knowledge,

New York, John Wiley, 1958, pg. 60. 10, Born, op. cit., pg. 97. 11, Heisenberg, Physics and Philosophy, op. cit., pg. 58. NASCENT MIND OF 1, Shunryu Suzuki, Zen Mind, Beginners Mind, New York, Weatherhill, 1970, pgs. 13-14. 2, Henry Miller, Reflections on Writing, in Wisdom of the Heart, Norfolk, Connecticut, New Directions Press, 1941 (reprinted in The Creative Process, by B. Ghiselin, ed.), Berkeley, University of Californian Press, 1954, pg. 186. 3, Press conference in the KQED Television, San Francisco, California, 3 December of 1965. 4, Werner Heisenberg, Physics and Philosophy, Harper Torchbooks, Harper and Row, 1958, pg. 33. SPECIAL FOLLY 1, Albert Einstein, Aether und Relativittstheorie, 1920, trad. W. Perret and G. B. Jerffey, Side Lights on Relativity, London, Methuen, 1922 (reprinted in Physical Thought from the Presocratics to the Quantum Physicits, by Shmuel Sambursky, New York, Press Goad, 1975, pg. 497). 2, Ibid., pg. 497. 3, Ibid., pg. 97. 4, Albert Einstein, Die Grundlage der Allgemeinen Relativittstheorie, 1916, trad. W. Perret and G. B. Jeffery, Side Light on Relativity, London, Methuen, 1922 (reprinted in Physical Tought from the Presocratics to the Quantum Physicists, by Shmuel Samburksky, New York, Press Goad, 1975, pg. 491). 5, Einstein, Aether und Relativitatstheorie, op cit., pg. 496. 6, J. Terrell, Physical Review, 116, 1950, 1.041. 7, Isaac Newton, Philosophiae Principia Mathematica (trad. Andrew Motte), reprinted in Sir Isaac Newtons Mathematical Principies of Natural Philoso phy and His System of the World (trad. reviewed by Florian Cajori), Berkeley, University of Californian Press, 1946, pg. 6. 8. Of Space and Time and directed to 80.a Meeting of Specialists German in Natural Sciences and Physics, Colony, Germany, 21 of September of 1908 (reprinted in The Principies of Relativity, by A. Lorentz, To Einstein, H. Mnkowski and H. Weyle, New York, Dover, 1952, pg. 75). 9, Albert Einstein and Leopold Infeld, The Evolution of Physics, New York, Simon and Schuster, 1961, pg. 197. GENERAL FOLLY 1, Albert Einstein and Leopold Infeld, The Evolution of Physics, New York, Simon and Schuster, 1961, pg. 197. 2, Jbid., pg. 219. 3, Ibid., pgs. 33-34. 4, David Finkelstein, Past-Future Asymetry of the Gravitational Field of to Point Particle, Physical Review, 110, 1958, 965. The ZOO OF PARTICLES 1, Goethe, Theory of Colours, part II (Historical), IV, 8 (trad. C. L. Eastlake, London, 1841; reprinted by M. I. T. Press, Cambridge, Massachusetts, 1970). 2, Werner Heisenberg, Across the Frontiers, New York, Harper and Row, 1974, pg. 162. 3, Jack Sarfatti, manuscript without publishing. 4, Werner Heisenberg, On Modern Physics, New York, Clarkson Potter, 1961, pg. 13. 5, David Bohm, Causality and Chance in Physics Modem, Filadelfia, University of Pennsylvania Press, 1957, pg. 90. 6, Werner Heisenberg, Physics and Beyond, New York, Harper and Row, 1971, pg. 41. 7, Werner Heisenberg ET al., On Modern Physics, op. cit., pg. 34. 8, Vctor Guillemin, The Story of Quantum Mechanics, New York, Scribners, 1968, pg. 135. 9, Max Born, The Restless Univer, New York, Dover, 1951, pg. 206. 10, Ibid., pg. 206. 11, Ibid., pg. 206. 12, Kenneth Ford, The World of Elementary Particles, New York. Blaisdell, 1965, pgs. 45-46. The DANCE 1, Louis de Broglie, To General Survey of the Scientific Work of Albert Einstein, in Albert Einstein, Philosopher-Scientist, vol. 1, Paul Schilpp (ed.), Harper Torchbooks, New York, Harper and Row, 1949, pg. 114. 2, Richard Feynman, Mathematical Formulation of the Quantum Theory of Electromagnetic Interaction, in Julian Schwinger (ed.), Selected Papers on Quantum Electrodynamics (Appendix B), New York, Dover, 1958, pg. 272. 3, Kenneth Ford, The World of Elementary Particles, New York, Blaisdell, 1963, pg. 208 and covered. 4, Sir Charles Eliot,

Japanese Buddhism, New York, Noble Barnes and, 1969, pgs. 109110. MAS THAT BOTH 1, John Von Neumann, The Mathematical Foundations of Quantum Mechanics (trad. Robert T. Beyer), Princeton, Princeton University Press, 1955. 2, Ibid., pg. 253. 3, Werner Heisenberg, Physics and Beyond, New York, Harper and Row, 1971, pg. 206. 4, Max Born, Atomic Physics, New York, Hafner, 1957, pg. 97. 5. Transcribed of magnetic tapes recorded in the Conference on Physics and Conscience, South, Californian Big, January 1976. 6, Albert Einstein, Boris Podolsky and Nathan Rosen, Dog Quantum-Mechanical Description of Physical Reality Be Considerad Completes, in Physical Re-view, 47, 1935, pgs. 777 and following ones. 7, Werner Heisenberg, Across the Frontiers, New York, Harper and Row, 1974 pg. 72. 8, Recorded magnetic tapes in Esalen, op. cit. 9, Garret Birkhoff and John Von Neumann, The Logic of Quantum Mechanics, Annals of Mathematics, vol. 37, 1936. 10, Recorded magnetic tapes in Esalen, op. cit. The AIM OF SCIENCE 1, Longchenpa, Natural The Freedom of Mind, trad. Herbert Guenter, Crys-such Mirror, vol. 4, 1975, pg. 125. 2, Albert Einstein, Boris Podolsky and Nathan Rosen, Dog Quantum-Mechanics Description of Physical Reality Be Considered Complete, Physical Review, 47, 1935, pgs. 777 and sigs. 3, Erwin Schrdinger, Discussions of Probability Relations between Separated Systems, Proceedings of the Cambridge Philosophical Society, 31, 1935, pages 555-562. 4, Albert Einstein, Autobiographical Notes, in Paul Schilpp (ed.) Albert Einstein, Philosopher-Scientist, Harper and Row, 1949, pg. 85. 5, Ibid., pg. 87. 6, Ibid., pg. 85. 7, Henri Stapp: S-Matrix interpretation of Quantum Theory, Physical Review, 1971, pgs. 1.303 and sigs. 8, Stuart Freedman and John Clauser, Experimental Test of Local Hidden Varia ble Theories, Physical Review Letters, 28, 1972, pgs. 938 and sigs. 9, Henry Stapp, Plows Superluminal Connections Necessary, Nuovo Cimento, 40B, 1977, 191. 10, Henry Stapp, Bells Theorem and World Process, Il nuovo Cimento, 29B, 1975, 271. 11. David Bohm and B. Hiley, On the Intuitive Understanding of No-locality ace Implied by Quantum Theory (reprinted by the Birkbeck College, University of London, 1974). 12, Henry Stapp, S-Matrix Interpretation, op. cit. 13. Werner Heisenberg, Physic and Philosophy, Harper, Torchbooks. New York, Harper and Row, 1958, pg. 52. 14, Pronounced speech the 6 of April, 1977, in the University of California, Berkeley. 15. Pronounced speech the 6 of April, 1977, in the University of California, Berkeley. 16. Pronounced speech the 6 of April 1977 in the University of California, Berkeley. 17. Pronounced speech the 6 of April 1977 in the University of California, Berkeley. 18. Vctor Guillemin, The Story of Qiiantum Mechanics, New York, Scribners 1968, pg. 19. 19, Lord Kelvin (Sir William Thompson , Nineteenth Century Clouds to over the Dynamical Theory of Heat and Light , Philosophical Magazne, 2, 1901, 140. 20. Isidor Rabi, Profiles - Physicist, II, The New York Magazine, 20 of October of 1975. 21. Henry Stapp, The Copenhagen Interpretation and the Nature of Space-Time, American Journal of Physics, 40, 1972, 1.098. 22. Max Planck, The Philosophy of Physics, New York, Norton, pg. 83. 23. This appointment was made in the Fundamental Group Physics, Lawrence Berkeley Laboratory, 21 of November 1975 (in the course of an informal interchange of impressions) by doctor F. Capra, colleague of doctor Chew. 24. To the Chung-liang Huang, Embrace Tiger, Return to Mountain, Moab, Utah, Real People Press, 1973, pg. 14. 25. Transcribed of tapes recorded in the Conference de Esalen on Physics and Conciousness, South, Californian Big, January 1976. BIBLIOGRAPHY Barnett, L., The Univer and Dr Einstein, New

York, Harper and Row 1948. Birkhoff, G., and Von Neumann, J., The Logic of Quantum Mechanics, Annals or} Mathematics, vol. 37, nm. 4, October 1936. Bohm, D., and Hiley, B., On the Intuitive Understanding of Nonlocality ace Implied by Quantum Theory (reimpresin, Birkbeck College, University of London, 1974). Bohr, N., Atomic Theory and the Description of Nature, Cambridge, England, Cambridge University Press, 1934. Bohr, N., Atomic Theory and Human Knowledge, New York, John Wiley, 1958. Born, M., Atomic Physic, New York, Hafner, 1957. Born, M., The Restless Univer, New York, Dover, 1951. Born, M., and Einstein, To, The BornEinstein Letters (trad. Irene Born), New York, Walker and Company, 1971. Capra, F., Chronology of the Development of Quantum Mechanics, manuscript without publishing prepared by Dr J. Sarfatti, for the Physics/Conciousness Research Group. Capra, F., The Tao of Physics, Berkeley, Shambala, 1975. Of Broglie, L., To General Survey of the Scientif Work of Albert Einstein, in Schilpp, P. (ed.) Albert Einstein Philosopher-Scientist, vol. 1, New York, Harper and Row, 1949, pg. 114. Of Witt, and Graham, N., The Many Worlds Interpretations of Quantum Mechanics, Princeton, Princeton University Press. Eddington, To, The Mathematical Theory of Relativty, Cambridge, England, Cambridge University Press, 1923. Eddington, To, Space, Time and Gravitation, Cambridge, England, Cambridge University Press, 1920. Einstein, To, Aether und Relativittstheorie, 1920 (trad. Perret, W., and Jef-fery, G., Side Lights on Relativity, London, Methuen, 1922). Einstein, To, Autobiographical Notes in Schilpp, P. (ed.) Albert Einstein, Philosopher-Scientist, vol. 1, New one York, Harper and Row, 1959, pg. 1 and following. Einstein, To, Die Grundlage der Allgemeinen Relativittstheorie, 1916 (trad. Perret, W., and Jeffrey, G., Side Lights on Relativity, London, Methuen, 1922). Einstein, To, On Physical Reality, Franklin Institute Journal, 221, 1936, pgs. 349 and following ones. Einstein, To, and Infield, L., The Evolution of Physics, New York, Simon Schus-ter, 1961. Einstein, A.; Podolsky, B., and Rosen, Nathan, Dog Quantum-Mechanical Descrip-tion of Physical Reality Be Considered Complete , Physical Review, 47, 1935, page 777. Eliot, C., Japanese Buddhism, New York, Noble Barnes and, 1969. Feynman, R., Mathematical Formulation of the Quantum Theory of Electromagnetc Interaction, in Schwinger, J. (ed), Selected Papers of Quantum Electrodynamics, New York, Dover, 1958, pgs. 272 and sigs. Finkelstein, D., Beneath Time, manuscript without publishing. Finkelstein, D., Past-Future Asymmetrie of the Gravitational Field of to Poin Par-ticle, Physical Review, 110, 1958, 965. Ford, K., The World of Elementary Particles, New York, Blaisdell, 1963. Freedman, S., and Clauser, J., Experimental Test of Local Variable Hidden Theo-ries, Physical Review Letters, 28, 1972, 938. Goethe, Theory of Colours (trad. Eastlake, C. L.), London, 1840: reprinted by M. I. T. Press, Cambridge, Massachussetts, the United States. Guillemin, V., The Story of Quantum Mechanics, New York, Scribners, 1968. Hafele, J., and Keating, R., Science, vol. 177, 1972. Hawking, S. W., Singularities in the Geometry of Space-Time, Adams Prize, University of Cambridge, 1966. Heisenberg, W., Across the Frontiers, New York, Harper and Row, 1974. Heisenberg, W., Physics and Beyond, New York, Harper and Row, 1971. Heisenberg, W., Physics and Philosophy, New York, Harper and Row, 1958. Heisenberg, W., ET al., On Modern Physics, New York, Clarkson Potter, 1961. Herbert, N., Dwell than Both: To key to Quantum Logic , manuscript without publishing (can be obtained in the C-Life Insttute, Box, 261, Boulder Creek, California, 95006). Herbert, N., Thru the looking Glass:

Alics Analysis of Quantum Logic , manuscript without publishing (can be obtained in the C-Life Institute, Box 261, Boulder Creek, California, 95006). Herbert, N., Where do Parts Come From, manuscript without publishing (it can be obtained in the same direction that the previous one). Huang, To, Embrace Tiger, Return to Mountain, Moab, Utah, Real People Press, 1969. Jung, G. Collected Works, vol. 9 (Bollingen Series XX), Princeton, Princeton Uni-versity Press, 1969. Jung, C., and Pauli, W., The Interpretaron of Nature and the Psyche (Bollingen Series LI), Princeton, Princeton University Press, 1955. Kelvin, Lord (Sir William Thompson), NineteenthCentury Clouds to over the Dyna-mical Theory of Heat and Light, Philosophical Magazine, 2, 1901, 1-40. Longchenpa, Natural The Freedom of Mind, trad. Guenther, H., in Crystal Mirror, vol. 4, 1975, pg. 125. Lorentz, To, ET al., The Principie of Relativity, New York, Dover, 1952. Mler, H., Reflections on Writing, Wisdom of the Heart, Norfolk, Conn., New Directions, 1941. Reprinted in Ghiselind (ed.), The Creative Process, Berkeley, University of Californian Press, 1954. Murchie, G., Music of the Spheres, vols. 1 and 2, New York, Dover, 1961. Newton, I., Philosophiae Naturalis Principia Mathematica (trad. Andrew Motte), reprinted in Sir Isaac Newtons Mathematical Principies of Natural Philosophy and His System of the World (reviewed edition Florian Cajori), Berkeley, University of Californian Press, 1946. Oppenheimer, J. R., and Snyder, H., On Continual Gravitational Contraction, Physical Review, 56, 1939, 455-459. Ornstein, R. (ed.), The Nature of Human Consciousness, New York, Viking, 1974. Penrose, R., Gravitational Collapse and Space-Time Singularities, Physical Review Letters, 14, 1965, 57-59. Planck, M., The Philosophy of Physics, New York, Norton, 1936, Rabi, I., Profiles-Physicists, II, The Newyorker Magazine, 20 of October 1975. Russell, B., The ABC of Relativity, London, George Alien and Unwin, 1958. Sambursky, S., Physical Thougt from the Presocratics to the Quantum Physicists, New York, Goad, 1975. Sarfatti, J., for The CASE Superluminal Information Transfer, M. I. T. Technology Review, vol. 79, nm. 5, 1977, pgs. 3 and sigs. Sarfatti, J., Mind, Matter and Einstein, manuscript without publishing. Sarfatti, J., The Physical Roots I heard Consciousness, in Mishlove, J. The Roots of Consciousness, New York, Random House, 1975, pgs. 279 and sigs. Sarfatti, J., Repy to Bohm-Hiley, Psychoenergetic Systems, London, Gordon and Breach, vol. 2, 1976, pgs. 1-8. Schilpp, P., Albert Einstein Philosopher-Scientist, New York, Harper and Row, 1949. Schrdinger, And, Discussion Probability Relations Between Separated Systems, Proceedings of the Cambridge Philosophical Society, vol. 31, 1935. Schrdinger, And, Image of Matter, in Heisenberg, W., On Modern Physics, New York, Clarkson Potter, 1961, pgs. 50 and sigs. Shamos, M. (ed.), Great Experiments in Physics, New York, Holt-Dryden, 1959. Stapp, H., Plow Superluminal Connections Necessary, Nuovo Cimento, 40B, 1977, 191. Stapp, H., Bells Theorem and World Process, Nuovo Cimento, 29B, 1975, 270. Stapp, H., The Copenhaguen Interpretation and the Nature of Space-Time. American Journal of Physics, 40, 1972, 1.098. Stapp, H., S-Matrix Interpretation of Quantum Theory, Physical Review, D3, 1971, 1.303. Stapp, H., Theory of Reality, Foundations of Physics, 7, 1977, 133. Suziki, S., Zen Mind, Beginners Mind, New York, Weatherhill, 1970. Targ, R., and Putthoff, H., Mind-Reach, New York, Delacorte Press, 1977. Taylor, J., Black Holes: The End of the Univer, New York, Random House, 1973. Terrell, J., Physical Review, 116, 1959, 1.041. Von Neumann, J., The Mathematical Foundations I heard Quantum Mechanics (trad. Beyer), R. Princeton University Press, Princeton,

1955. Walker, And, The Nature of Consciousness, Mathematical Biosdences, 7, 1970. Weisskopf, V., Physics in the Twentieth Century, Cambridge, Massachusetts, MIT Press. Weizenbaum, J., Computer Power and Human Reason, San Francisco, Freeman, 1976. Witten (ed.), Gravitation: To Introduction to Current Research, New York, Wiley, 1962. Wheeler, J., ET al., Gravitation, San Francisco, Freeman, 1973.