Why do we see hydrogen and not something else?
In order to see, in
time and space, that which is not in time and space (and
therefore, be changing, finite or divided), there is a problem. The problem
arises because the nature of that underlying existence, its changelessness, its
infinitude and its undividedness, must show through in the apparition much as,
when a rope is mistaken for a snake, the length of the rope, through what is
called the revealing power of the apparition, must show through in the snake for
which it is mistaken.
Therefore, if the underlying existence were to be seen as only a duality,
there would be nothing to prevent the undividedness from showing through the
revealing power of the apparition and bringing the two together. Similarly, if the
underlying existence were to be seen as only a plurality, there would be nothing
to prevent the undividedness from showing through and bringing the many
together. But if the underlying existence were to be seen as a duality within a
plurality, then the duality could prevent the collapse of the plurality, and the
plurality could prevent the collapse of the duality, because the one cannot be
seen without the other.
What we see in this Universe is an electrical duality within a gravitational
plurality, and the undividedness of the underlying existence shows through in the
duality as the electrical attraction between the electrons and the protons, and it
shows through in the plurality as gravity. But the demise of the duality is
prevented by the gravitational dissimilarity between the electrons and the
protons. That's Heisenberg's uncertainty principle. And the demise of the plurality
is prevented by the spin duality of the protons and the neutrons. That's Pauli's
Heisenberg's uncertainty principle does not prevent the demise of the
duality of the electron and the positron (a positive electron) because gravity is
involved in the rest energy of the positron. But it does prevent
the collapse of the
duality of the electron and the proton, in spite
of the enormous electrical
attraction between them, because the proton's
mass is gravitationally determined
whereas the electron's mass is
not As Richard Feynman has pointed out, "The
electron is purely
electrical, the proton is not."
Energy is that underlying existence showing in space and time through the
revealing power of the apparition. It shows through in space as the gravitational
and electrical energies — energies of position in space. And it shows through in
time as inertia. But, as Swami Vivekananda pointed out to Nikola Testa in1896,
these are all the same thing. That's why E = m, and why the gravitational field is
so much weaker than the electrical field. The total electrical energy must equal
the total gravitational energy, and the total mass. Ernst Mach didn't see it quite
this way. He didn't notice that the mass is the energy.
But there is still a question: Why should
the proton spin? Although the
underlying existence which we mistake
for what we see in time and space is
changeless, infinite and undivided,
we see it as changing, finite and divided, or it
wouldn't be a mistake.
We see a Universe of hydrogen divided into atoms, but
the atoms are
spaced out, and the undivided shows through as gravitational
We see the hydrogen as made of minuscule particles, but the infinitude
through as their electrical energy. And we see the protons and electrons
changing (spinning) and the changelessness shows through as their inertia. In
order to be seen in time, they have to be changing. Nothing we see in time and
space is changeless, infinite or undivided.
In this Universe we see pairs of opposites, spin-up against spin-down,
momentum to the right against momentum to the left, and plus against minus, but
the total spin goes to zero, the total momentum goes to zero, the total force goes
to zero, and the total electrical charge goes to zero. The Universe is not made of
these things; it's made out of energy, and the total energy does not go to zero. If
the total energy went to zero, the Universe would be made out of nothing; there
wouldn't be an underlying existence, and we wouldn't have the physics which we
Is all this just a guess?
If seeing, in time and space, that which is not in time and space is a
mistake, it's consoling to know that it will take the form of hydrogen falling
together by gravity to galaxies and stars.
John L. Dobson, February, 2002
4135 Judah St. San Francisco, CA, 94122 (415) 665-4054