A Symphony of Fields
“The fight now is not to find a fundamental theory, it is to get noticed and the easiest way to do that is to get on board a bandwagon. You get this feedback loop; the people who spend longer on the bandwagon get more citations, then more funding, and the cycle repeats.”
Cosmologist, Niayesh Afshordi[1]
“To often we see only what we expect to see: our view of the world is restricted by the blinkers of our limited experience; but it need not be this way.”
Lyall Watson, Supernature
A view of the world know as scientific materialism believes that hard stuff makes up the universe. Rocks, sand, boulders, chairs, planets, stars and space dust. Stuff we can feel; hit; and stand on. Something that is there when we are not looking. A real world made of tiny particles that form together to create the physical world appearing in front of us.
Intrinsic to the worldview of scientific materialism is the notion that the entire physical universe, from the human body to the farthest galaxies, exist independently of human consciousness. There is a physical world outside of the mind that science attempts to understand.
Scientific materialism dominates our way of life. We proceed down life’s path according to the storyline that some force, often associated with the Big Bang, placed this hard, physical world in front of us. That this physical world possesses features precisely suited for life – a warming sun, air to breath, oceans, vegetation, fruits, animals, and space galore – is seldom considered, much less appreciated. All that matters in materialism is the hardened, deep belief that this physical world, and the whole of what we call Mother Nature, consists of stuff that exists outside the control of the mind.
If the materialistic worldview were true, we would expect to find self-contained, hard particles at the core of matter. Tiny ball-bearings. This was the viewpoint of the founder of materialism, the early Greek philosopher, Democritus (460 BC-370 BC), who believed that ultimate reality consisted of tiny “uncuttable” things called atoms. Following Democritus, Issac Newton (1643-1727), long considered the founder of modern physics, wrote in the 17th Century that, “it seems probable to me that God, in the beginning, formed matter in hard, impenetrable moveable particles.” Fast-forwarding to the 20th century, the Noble-prize-winning physicist Richard Feynman (1918-1988) famously said that the “most powerful assumption of all . . . is that all things are made of atoms.”
Where an ideal version of materialism would seem to favor one fundamental particle at the core of reality, today’s scientific materialism holds that the physical world consists of 17 fundamental particles (not including their anti-particles) that combine, interact, and react to form the world we see outside the window.
In materialism, this viewpoint makes sense and must be true: since materialism believes that the entire world can be reduced to material particles, it would seem essential for material particles to serve as the fountainhead of reality. This is why scientific materialists believe that the Big Bang created all the particles that make up the stars, planets and other interstellar objects in the universe; that the DNA molecule contains the code for life, and that human consciousness arose from neurons in the brain.
It may be considered ironic, however, that over 100 years ago, scientific materialism dispensed with the notion that hardened particles exist at the core of matter and is continuing to distance itself from a particle-based world. Today we have scientific materialism without a material substance. Particle physics without particles.
One of the most famous experiments in all of science is known as the two-slit experiment. In this experiment, a particle beam, such as one consisting of electrons, is fired at a metal plate with two narrow slits. (Another way to visualize the experiment is to think of an arcade game where you throw balls at a wall with two holes.) Common sense dictates that when someone shoots particles at a screen with two openings, a particle will travel through one opening or the other not go through both at the same time. Experimenters have a way of testing this conclusion. Behind the metal plate, they place a screen that records the arrival of the electrons. If these elementary particles (here electrons) were really particles, then we would expect the screen to show tiny dots localized opposite the slit the electrons went through, like someone throwing baseballs through holes in a wall at the arcade. If, however, the electrons are something other than particles, such as ephemeral waves, then we would expect to find an interference pattern – the tell-tell sign of interacting waves – on the screen.
In one of the most remarkable findings ever recorded in a scientific experiment, scientists found that when the electron beam is fired at the two-slit plate, an interference pattern forms on the screen. In other words, the experiments shows unequivocally that electrons are not what we idealize as “particles.” Instead, they are better described as “wave packets,” “wavicles,” energy bits, or “quanta.” Concepts that do not describe the atom of Democritus.
Making the experiment even more interesting is that if scientists set up the experiment to detect which hole the electrons go through, the results change: in this instance, the electrons faithfully act like particles and no longer create the interference pattern of a wave. This result suggests that whether an electron is a particle or wave depends upon how the scientist set up the experiment.
The findings of the double-slit experiment have spawned a vast literature declaring the end of a particle-based world.[2] Even some of the founders of quantum theory showed little hesitation in rejecting the foundational assumption of scientific materialism and Democritus’s metaphysics:
- “For the smallest units of matter are, in fact, not physical objects in the ordinary sense of the word; they are forms, structures or – in Plato’s sense – Ideas, which can be unambiguously spoken of only in the language of mathematics.” Werner Heisenberg (1901-1976) (Nobel Prize – Physics 1932).
- “Everything we call real is made of things that cannot be regarded as real.” Neils Bohr (1885-1962) (Nobel Prize – Physics 1922).
To recap: Scientific materialism, following Democritus, holds that all things can be reduced to particles. When materialists tested this hypothesis, they discovered a quantum world consisting not of discernible particles, but of wave equations, vacillating fields, probabilities, and uncertainties. In other words, at the heart of matter, materialists found something that is not a particle, or more precisely, something that does not fit our idea of what a particle is supposed to act like.
Modern scientists have come to recognize that to hold the viewpoint that ultimate reality consists of particles contradicts their most successful theory of the world, quantum theory. Instead, the consensus in scientific materialism is that energy fields, not particles make up ultimate reality.[3] Thus, particle physicists still believe in particles but they are no longer the fundamental reality. Instead, fields now serve that function.
So what is a field? A field “assigns a physical quantity, such as temperature or electric field strength to each part of space-time.” [4] The best example of a field is a magnetic field. Most of us are familiar with a magnetic field: a magnet puts out a force over space and either attracts or repels a metal object within the magnet’s force-field. This effect is commonly depicted by placing iron filings near a magnet. The filings will form around the magnet giving a picture of the force-field:
A magnetic field illustrates a simple, comprehensible energy field. But under modern quantum field theory, physicists have moved far beyond a magnetic field. As noted, in quantum field theory, physicists assign each of the 17 fundamental particles their own field. These 17 particles are split into two groups, 12 fermions, which make up matter, the hard-stuff of the universe, and 5 bosons, which carry energy. Fermions, in turn, are split into 6 quarks and 6 leptons. A common lepton is the electron. Quarks, though never observed, are believed to make up the more commonly known proton and neutron. The 5 bosons are photons, which carry the electromagnetic force; gluons, which carry the strong force holding nuclei together; the W and Z bosons, which mediates the weak force responsible for radioactive decay; and the recently discovered Higgs boson, which is thought to supply mass to other particles and explains the large range of particle masses.[5] As one writer observes, “a quantum field is so different from a classical one [such as a magnetic field] that even theoretical physicists admit they can barely visualize it.”[6]
Here is the problem: The picture of physical reality scientific materialism now gives us consists of a symphony of fields, oscillating, interacting and evolving. Flowing together in gentle, invisible melody, interlacing the strands of floating energy fields into something we can experience. A symphony that produces the rising glow of the morning sun, trees flowing with the wind, and all the interwoven dynamics of the physical world. And yes, we too emerge from the quivering randomness of quantum fields to form into embodied creatures.
A quantum field does not exert a simple, well-defined force, such as heat or magnetism, upon empty space. A quantum field cannot be measured by a thermometer or a Geiger counter. Instead, as Kulman writes, “a quantum field assigns abstract mathematical entities, which represent the type of measurements you could conduct, rather than the result you would obtain.” Although the mathematical construction in quantum theory reflects physical values, they “cannot be assigned to points in spacetime, only to smeared out regions.”
In other words, instead of a quantum field representing a physical quantity such as temperature or gravitational force, it yields an equation that must be solved for each point in space. As Kulman explains, in quantum field theory, “theorists replace physical values with operators, which are mathematical operations, such as differentiation or taking the square root.” Comparing the calculation of quantum field to a weather map, Kulman writes that, “you would have to go through the extra step of applying the operator to another mathematical entity known as a state vector, which represents the configuration of the system in question.”
There are undoubtedly fields of energy in three-dimensional space. One question is whether there are also mathematical equations floating out in space, waiting to be solved. But equations are not physical things. So it would seem absurd to believe that equations are hanging in the air as if we were living in a computer simulation, the products of complex mathematical equations woven into the fabric of space. (In this scenario, the question may be asked: who or what is solving the equations?)
Under the fields-first viewpoint, particles are “excitations” in the field. If particles are excitations in a field, then the field is presumably a real thing – like air – outside of human consciousness. Or, at the least, the field is as real as we are.
We are not stardust, we are ephemeral waves of energy, emerging from some mind-boggling interaction of energy fields, all born in the infinite fire of the Big Bang.
But now comes the hard question, the one in the back of our minds: how did the Big Bang – or any event occurring deep in the blackness of nothingness– manage to create 17 different fields, following mathematical formulas, that weave together to create the world we experience?
Quantum fields are thought to exist not in physical space, but in mathematical space.[7] What is mathematical space? Does it exist outside of us or is mathematical space just another word for the mathematical theories of scientists?
Because the mind of man is the only known thing in the universe that engages in mathematical theorizing, the only possible location for “mathematical space” is the mind of the scientific theorist. If this “mathematical space” is wholly outside of the scientific mind, then theorists would need to explain how a complex mathematical structure, equipped with a software-like mechanism for solving equations, was imprinted into the fabric of space. This dilemma is so otherworldly, and so suggestive of a Divine Intelligence that materialists revert to a tried and true tactic: they ignore the problem.
Further, if a field exists only in “mathematical space,” and particles are “excitations” of the field, then where do the particles exist? Must they not also exist in “mathematical space,” also known as the human mind?
Let ‘s imagine here that the mind is a glass globe. The mathematical formulation of a field exists in this globe. Through what mechanism does this intellectual theory of the mind, created within the globe, create particles outside the globe?
Let’s suppose instead that the mathematical theory of fields is modeling the appearance of particles outside the globe: then the question is where did these particles come from? If particles are “excitations of a field” then again, how does the mathematical theory within the globe create particles outside the globe?
Two questions cannot be ignored: How did a universe of nothing – no matter, no energy, no quantum fields – weave together these 17 fields that just so happen to interact in such a precise way to bring us the world outside our window. Second, what is the source of the fields?
As scientific materialists bedazzle us with descriptions of these fascinating fields, they conveniently ignore the threshold mystery of how these fields came to be.
But there is a solution to the puzzle. The problem is that materialists must change the software to their computers, re-orient their thinking, and acquire humility. They will need to stop practicing “normal science” within the materialistic paradigm and be part of a scientific revolution to change the paradigm. This may not be possible, today. But if this new approach is correct, then the only question is how long before the scientific community wakes up and takes a different perspective on things. I say this with confidence because I believe that science, in the end, points toward truth.
A Simple Solution to the Puzzle
The solution to the puzzle is the one scientific materialists reject out-of-hand, refusing to give it any serious consideration, as if the solution’s proponents are so wildly insane that materialists do not want to contaminate their clear scientific thoughts with any opposing position.
This solution is that both fields and particles are ultimately ideas in the Mind; crystalized visions. Plato was thus correct when he concluded that the physical things of this word are copies of ideal Forms existing in the mind of an Eternal Spirit. This view is correct except that the things of this world – from the smallest fundamental particle to the largest galaxy – are also ideas, or crystalized visions of the Mind.
Whenever a thought, however true, gets too far ahead of the accepted beliefs of the day, the new idea is ridiculed, belittled and trivialized.[8] This is the mind at work; a mind that wants to find comfort in knowing it is right about the world and life; that it has others to agree with it; that it has friends in high places who think the same things. Whether the belief—that the universe revolves around the Earth, an ephemeral ether permeates outer space, or all physical reality is made of tiny ball-bearings—is true is a different issue. The world is a complicated place; no one really understands it, so the mind latches on to the popular beliefs of the day.
From this perspective, the materialistic quest becomes a detour on the way to truth, where scientists assume the independent reality of the physical world to see how far this assumption takes them. We are now at the point – one not quite fully appreciated by materialists – where we can safely conclude that this assumption is not true: an unbreakable connection exists between mind and matter. In fact, they are the same thing. Science will find that the ultimate product of the Mind is not the ephemeral images of dreams, but hardened stuff we call matter.
So both scientific materialism and the view advocated here conclude that the universe emerges from a field. Materialism believes there are 17 mathematical fields residing in mathematical space from which all things emerge. The view here is that there is one field, a mind field, from which all things emerge. We have undeniable evidence of the existence of minds, and we know that an individual mind, in dreams and hallucinations, can conjure a real seeming world from nothing. The mind field, in essence, combines the dreaming power of all humanity. This is the Brahman of the Upanishads, Aldous Huxley’s divine mind, Carl Jung’s collective consciousness, the Dreamtime of Australian aborigines, Plato’s Demiurge, Hegel’s Absolute, Berkeley’s (and Sir James Jean’s) Eternal Spirit, and the God of the Bible.
In contrast, scientific materialists have never answered the question of where their fields come from other than by simply assuming they do.
That is the choice confronting us today: either we go along with the notion that it is ok to simply assume a mathematically designed universe was created from empty space, or we accept the wisdom of the ages and finally acknowledge we are the products not of a Big Bang but of a Big Mind.
The transition from a materialistic, or naïve realist perspective, to this modern idealist perspective can be made simply by substituting one term in science’s equations: instead of energy being conceived as given, as part of the fabric of external space, sourced in a distant Big Bang, energy is instead mind-energy, sourced in an internal substratum, a base of reality, also called the Mind. Underlying reality is not some mysterious residual energy still streaming from the Big Bang, but a vibrant power, and the greatest miracle imaginable – a power from nothing.
This miracle is present whether you adopt the Big Bang, a Biblical creation, or the grand dream of God. That something exists at all should place us in a perpetual state of awe and gratitude, also known as the religious experience. What I have done here is to show that the dream of God motif makes the Book of Genesis poetically true; materialism, by attributing the creation of Mother Nature to external, impersonal forces, separates God from its own creation and from our brothers and sisters. This is the disaster of materialism and why we must overcome it.
[
[1] Quoted in D. Cousins, ‘We’ll die before we find the answer’: Crisis at the heart of physics, New Scientist (Jan. 19, 2019).
[2] See, for example, P. Davies, The Matter Myth; B. Rosenblum & F. Kuttner, Quantum Enigma; C. Tart, The End of Materialism; F. Capra, The Tao of Physics;
[3] K. Hartnett, The Mystery at the Heart of Physics that only Math Can Solve, Quanta Magazine, (June 10, 2021). “Particles are not objects that are there forever. It’s a dance of fields.” (quoting David Tong, physicist at University of Cambridge.).
[4] M. Kuhlmann, Physicists Debate Whether the Wrold is Made of Particles or Fields – or Something Else Entirely, Scientific American (Aug. 1, 2013).
[5] https://home.cern/science/physics/higgs-boson/what Notably lacking from this list of particles, and a vivid sign of the shortcomings of materialistic science, is that there is no particle for gravity, though physicists have a name for one should they ever find it: the graviton. We undoubtedly know that a gravitational field exists since we experience one every day. Nevertheless, because of a fundamental contradiction between gravitational theory and quantum theory, there is no quantum field theory for gravity. The source of the conflict is that General Relativity holds that everything is continuous and smooth and future events can be predicted based on knowing the state of past events. Quantum theory, in contrast, holds that energy comes in discrete quant and only probabilities can be predicted.
[6] Kulman.
[7] “Quantum fields don’t exist in physical space (3-D space). They don’t even exist in 4 dimensional spacetime. They exist in a different kind of mathematical dimension called “field space.” Quantum Fields Don’t Exist, Medium
[8] German philosopher, Arthur Schopenhauer, famously remarked that “All truth passes through three stages: First, it is ridiculed; Second, it is violently opposed; and Third, it is accepted as self-evident.”