General description of principles and assumptions involved
The basic tenet of Duplication Theory is to show that as two separate structures become increasingly similar, there would come a point when there would be almost impossible to decipher which one was which. As the degrees of similarity increase then there is an accompanying increase in the potential for them to resonate or interact across time and space. They start to interact simply because they are almost one and the same, although due to reasons connected with the Uncertainty Principle, it is impossible for the two separate structures to ever be absolutely identical. This does not prevent very close approaches being made to be perfect duplication, and when such very close approaches are made then this resonance effect transferring action across time and space becomes quite pronounced. Further, the more the complex the structure, the greater is this effect.
In its shortest from Duplication Theory it can be stated as follows:
BI Equal intervals in space -similar structures- tend to duplicate themselves
through all time in one location.
B II Equal intervals in time -similar actions- tend to duplicate
themselves through all space at one time.
The first statement in BI that similar structures resonate through time is something new to modern science, and therefore prone to resistance. It at once raises problems since it does away with the notion of cause followed by effect (causality) on which modern science and philosophy are based. Nevertheless it can be described briefly in general terms as follows, just so the reader has a preview of what is to come. It is impossible for two similar structures to be perfectly identical to near quantum levels due to the operation of the Uncertainty Principle, but as close approaches are made to near perfect duplication, they will increase their potential to interact or resonate with each other across both time and space. As the two separate structures come increasingly close to becoming one and the same, even though this is not possible, they will start to interact. Furthermore, the more complex the structure, the more this tendency or potential for this resonance effect is enhanced, and one result here is that the degrees of exact repetition required to this end are diminished by increased complexity.
Another result is that if the earlier structure in time changes its form, this action will be duplicated by the later version, provided the external surrounding circumstances on relatively the same scale remain the same for both, so that there are few varying external forces to disturb such continued repetition. Such a mechanism provides a possible mechanism for perfect recall or eidetic memory, and it can also be shown how a direct corollary effect of this effect provides an alternative basis of explanation of the transmission of electromagnetic energy at one moment in time across space.
The second sentence from BII above is no more than a description of what happens when electromagnetic energy is radiated out from a source of an oscillating charged particle, which is a very familiar effect, although quite why or what causes this result, has not been explained, but rather just accepted as observed fact. Repetition of similar structures in time, or similar actions, causes the transfer of action electromagnetically: that is the second half of the theory, and acts to reinforce the first half, and I will show below in BII how this acts to reinforce the assumptions made in BI .
B I THE RESONANCE OF STRUCTURES OR SPACE INTERVALS THROUGH TIME
The action of structure duplication across time is nowhere acknowledged by established science except that there is simultaneous transfer of information between individual photons. Einstein had thought was impossible and produced a paper on the subject with Podolsky and Rosen in 1935, but this was demonstrated to be incorrect in 1964 by John Bell’s inequality theorem. This was later proved experimentally by Alain Aspect in 1982, and others later so that there is support for information travelling faster than light at quantum levels but only on the level of single photons rather than masses of them. The work of Anton Zeilinger of Vienna university and his experiments on quantum cryptography and teleportation of photons across large distances provides increasing support the instance transfer of larger quantities of information across distance. Duplication theory seeks to explain how this can occur with large numbers of components both simultaneously and at different times.
A more comprehendible and qualified version of the first much reduced sentence of the definition above is to say that similar structures will tend to resonate on through all time at one specific location in space (or one specific location relative to the rest of its surroundings in that particular scale), and the more complex the structure is, then the stronger the resonance or duplication effect will be. There is a large ‘but’ at this point, which is for this to be effectively perceptible, the similarities have to be accurate down to almost quantum levels, or the component particles of the structures have to be in the high billions. So, if this effect is to be as prevalent as is electromagnetism (second part of the theory) where certainly billions of identical electrons are instrumental, then why do not we experience it in everyday life? Why are we not instantly aware of it? The answer is that we do, and we are, everywhere, and it is so much the mainspring of the way we think that we have not been able to separate ourselves outside the process in order recognise it as such. It is the mechanism behind memory and thought itself, the mechanism which manifests itself as reason in the brain. This is an application of the theory and will be enlarged on in the relevant following section below. An analysis of the concept of structure is necessary before delving into further implications.
Pattern, Form & Structure
First, there is an assumption that a structure has to have component particles, assuming we do not take things down to the level of string theory, but if we take consider particles down to the level of molecules, then that will suffice for the sake of example, even though the theory can be equally well applied in principle to swarms of migrating birds or insects or possibly even collections of far flung astral bodies. If a swarm of molecules in a gas cloud in random Brownian motion is considered, it will be impossible for an observer to decipher any form or order despite hours of study. But, if suddenly a number of particles where to move into a formation where they were all equal intervals apart, or harmonics of intervals maybe, then at once form and order are created and a perceivable structure capable of being recorded (duplicated) may be observed. In other words, the moment that particles take up either equal or very similar intervals in space, they become observable. A structure will then manifest itself out of the former chaos, and it is entirely due to this fact of repetition of equal or similar intervals in space. In my early twenties on a sleepless night failing to fall into sleep I considered for many restive hours why some shapes should be inherently beautiful and some not. Although I failed to resolve this large aesthetic problem to any degree, I concluded that there could be no perception of anything unless order, in the form of equal or similar intervals in space, was involved. Furthermore this did not just apply to visual effects but too all thought, activity and information taken in through the senses. Without the ability to decipher structure, form and order out of what was formerly a random mass of information, the fundamental ability of constructive and logical thought, and indeed memory, was impossible.
I was struck by the significance of this duplication process in the very notion of perception, form and order. Just why this should be, I could not tell, but it was a thought that occurred to me in my early twenties, and something that arose whenever I started to reflect on the point of existence and other similar concerns. This subject is discussed below in more detail.
The Uncertainty Principle
About a decade after I first was puzzled by this significance of form and order, I had suddenly had plenty of time with little else to do during a bout of voluntary unemployment, and I was able to ally this fixation with form, repetition and order with a simplistic interpretation of the Heisenberg’s Uncertainty Principle as follows. As is well known, Heisenberg realised that for very small and active particles, it was impossible to be sure of both the location of a single particle and its momentum (a more descriptive and meaningful term for of velocity). It was possible to be sure of one or the other but not both at the same time. Heisenberg was able to fit this observation into a mathematical formula which was to become one of the staple elements of quantum theory, but I found it easy enough to grasp in basic terms if it were viewed as a matter of scale. For instance on the astro scale we can never be sure if another star is in existence as we view it, let alone be sure of where its precise location is, simply because the light takes many years to reach us. On the scale of atoms and electrons, small particles move so fast that by the time the light from one has reached an observer, which will be astronomical relative to its dimensions, the particle will have moved on. If it were stationary, then we could be sure of its location, but no particle can ever be stationary: it always has some element of motion about it except at absolute zero which temperature can never be achieved.
There are other ways of demonstrating why and how the Uncertainty Principle operates, but this is simple enough to visualise. It can be defined even more succinctly and briefly: If a small particle is in motion, we can never be entirely sure of its location, but since all small particles are by definition always in motion, then we can never know the precise location of anything. Similarly if a structure is comprised of a large number of small particles, and since although relatively fixed, they will be in motion of some sort, if only a vibration, then we can never be exactly sure how far apart each component particle is distant from its neighbour. Even if the structure is a very precise crystalline structure, with each molecule identical distances apart, this identical quality will be flawed. The resulting implication is that no two structures can ever be identical, even though they might appear so, on a relatively gross scale.
This was a crucial point in the development of the theory. It occurred to me that although it was impossible along these lines ever to have two identical structures (either in different places, or for that matter, rather more obviously, in that same place at different times) it was certainly possible to have increasing close approaches to perfect duplication. Maybe as such a close approach was made, to perhaps very precise quantum tolerances, then might there not come into effect some sort of resonance as the two separate identities almost became one and the same, and then start to resonate across both time and space? There might be a stage when the two were so nearly exactly identical that it would be difficult to decipher which was which: the one in the present of the one in the past. It did not seem to be so unreasonable to me and no great rules of logic appeared to have been broken in the process, other than it was merely a conjecture. The problem was to consider why this might be so, and then to clothe the possibility in more reason, for if such were the case, then all sorts of anomalies to do with the passage of time might become capable of explanation.
I managed to resolve the problem to a fair degree of personal satisfaction after much reflection by invoking perhaps the most speculative device in the explanation thus far, and which will no doubt cause some disapprobation. But the argument did not then seem subjectively too outrageous to me, and the implications of the results turned out to be very wide reaching, as a possible mechanism to explain eidetic memory or perfect recall. The device incorporated to do this was an argument of equivalence: might there not be an effect at play here directly equivalent to what happens in the somewhat similar circumstances when two very small particles, two protons, are pushed together to nearly occupy the same location?
Without going into a precise description of what happens inside two separate molecules of hydrogen fusing into one of helium, it is a familiar enough effect, in the form of the fusion bomb and the mechanism of the sun, to liberate large amounts of radiation energy. In general terms, if two separate protons of hydrogen are pushed hard enough together to overcome their electrostatic repulsion, then there comes a stage when they suddenly fuse together into one single molecule of helium. Because the structure of the latter is more stable than that of hydrogen, not so much energy is required to bind the helium molecule together, and some of its former mass as two separate entities is released in the form of radiation energy according to the well known formula devised by Einstein of Energy being equal to the sum of the mass times the velocity of light squared: a considerable amount. But it could be argued that the reason that two particles can never occupy the same location is just the same as why two separate structures can never be identical. it is because we can never be sure of their precise location rather than any notions that we might have of material solidity presented to us by our senses. If we cannot be sure exactly where the two protons are, then by definition they can never occupy the same space at the same time, but they can of course make increasingly close approaches to that singular state.
At this stage my use of the word singular ought to be defined. A singularity state as I define it subjectively, is something that can never be attained in nature, although close approaches may be made. I also noted that whenever a close approach was made to a singularity state, then laws of nature in their form familiar to us start to alter. Indeed, it is effectively implicit in of my definition that whenever a new singularity state is discerned, then it is unlikely to be genuinely singular if unanticipated effects fail to manifest themselves when such a close approach is made. Some may argue with my point that identical positioning can never happen, but it is for the same reasoning in fundamental terms that nothing can ever achieve light velocity, which is another singularity state. I will return later in this paper to singularity states but here is one example.
One way of understanding the unattainability of light speed is to see that such a state could not be detected by an external observer. If an object was traveling at or above light velocity no signal from it could reach the observer. As a result, I conclude that light velocity for a particle can therefore never happen. If it did actually exceed this critical figure, one could never be aware it happened, and thus, so far as we are concerned, it never can. What actually happens beyond light velocity in another continuum might well be a question for another more advanced age, but as far as we are concerned, since we cannot witness such a thing, for us it cannot happen. The same applies to the reason behind impenetrability or why two particles can never occupy the same space at the same or at different times. Such an instance would be incapable of accurate detection and therefore it cannot happen, and is a singularity state. Since this was my own subjective development of Heisenberg’s Principle, the point will be expounded in a little more detail in the following example.
The fusion of two hydrogen atoms into one of helium in the example mentioned above, and the large amounts of radiation energy liberated thereby is familiar in the form of the hydrogen bomb and the fusion process. In principle, and without describing the detail of the various stages of the process involved, the two nuclei of two separate hydrogen atoms can be pushed together in spite of their electrostatic repulsion caused by the positive charges, to a point where they suddenly fuse together into the more stable state of a single helium nucleus. The latter has less mass than the two separate entities, and this surplus mass is transformed into radiation energy according to the formula E= MC squared. Perfect penetration of one particle into the same space as another is not possible and is therefore under my definition a singularity state, but in the example here, when a close approach is made and fusion takes place, then the laws of Nature, as they were familiar more than a century ago, needed to be revised. Mass was converted into radiation as a result of this close approach, a fact which was not expected by the then scientific knowledge of the day, although late justified in theory by Einstein and others.
The Equivalence of impenetrability & Structure Duplication
It occurred to me that the two instances of two particles nearly being able to occupy the same location (but not quite), and two structures nearly being identical (but not quite) were directly equivalent. They are both impossible for the same reason. It would not be illogical to describe them both as equivalent singularity states. But, and it is an exciting ‘but’, we observe in the case of hydrogen fusion that mass is converted to energy as a result of this close approach, so it might seem not unreasonable to speculate that the same effect might occur if two similar structures were identical to very near singularity state. What is more, this would presumably not only occur if two similar structures were to approach this state at the same time, so that the mass of both might start to convert to energy, but also if the two structures approached this state at different times then presumably it would be the later version in time that would be effected.
So far so good in that there were no ridiculous assumptions made thus far, other than the major flaw that in every day life we do not observe similar structures bursting into vast amounts of flame and radiation energy for no apparent reason. However, we do observe resonance in Nature, a great deal of it, and it occurred to me that resonance might be a sublimation of a potential for similar structures to evaporate, but which for some other unknown reason never went through to final completion, in much the same way that the created helium nucleus never dropped below a certain specific mass in hydrogen fusion.
The Principle of Minimum Total Potential Energy
Another fundamental principle of physics needs to be invoked in order to develop some possible justification of the theory (more accurately conjecture) thus far, and that is the Principle of Minimum Total Potential Energy. This asserts that a structure or body deforms to a position that minimises the total potential energy, with the lost potential energy being dissipated as heat (2nd Law of Thermodynamics). For instance, free protons and free electrons have a tendency to combine to form the lowest energy state of a hydrogen atom, as their most stable condition. In the case of the fusion of hydrogen molecules into helium, the latter is one of the inert gases and hydrogen is able to fuse into helium because the molecular structure of the latter was much more stable than that of the former. Thus, less inherent energy in its mass was necessary to hold the structure of helium together and some of its mass in the form of excess binding energy could be radiated off.
If this process was also to be applied instead to combinations of similar structures, then as near singular duplication was approached, it might be reasonable to assume ex hypothesi, that the same effect might be detectable, and that the two near identical structures were together more stable. If so, they would need a minuscule less amount of mass in their identical structures for them to continue to exist. In simplistic terms, the more they became the same article the less they would need two separate identities: they would become identical and indecipherable. By this argument, ultimately all the mass of one could be shed, which again we never see happen, but which is a justifiable extrapolation and should occur under perfect circumstances, albeit why such extreme circumstances do not occur will be examined later. Nevertheless, it is consistent with the basic tenet of Duplication Theory described above, that there can never be two identical structures in the universe, either at the same time or any other.
So according to this rationale, the two near identical structures have the potential to dispose of surplus mass in the form of energy, but as already mentioned surely this is never seen in Nature. We also know that the component particles of a structure never cease motion, and that therefore a structure is never fixed on the micro level. If we take the case of a specific structure at an earlier time, and then later another becomes similar to near enough singularity state, so that they start to demonstrate this potential to interact (resonate), what happens? The earlier in time, being in motion, is bound to move on a moment later to vary its structure. As a result and in order to keep the energy level of the two separate systems to a minimum, the later in time (which has its own inherent energy of particles in motion: an implication of the third law of thermodynamics) will alter its structure to emulate that of the earlier original. In short, if there are no external forces at play to disturb the second structure, it will automatically move to duplicate the action of the first structure due to the dictates of the minimum total potential energy principle, rather than evaporating part of its mass to radiation. If there was not this inherent activity in all small micro particles then there would maybe be a little more instant conversion of similar structures across time and space interacting and evaporating into radiation energy. Perhaps this is one reason why everything has to keep moving and even part of the reason why energy is neither destroyed or created (first Law of Thermodynamics).
When I had developed the first part of the definition (BI) to this stage without having made (in my view) too many unrealistic assumptions, here was at least a palimpsest of a system for eidetic memory or perfect recall under trance. According to the theory it seemed possible that a certain sequence of thoughts in one individual’s brain might possibly be perfectly duplicated at a later time in the same person, given an accurate enough trigger to instigate a flow from a certain specific moment. There were many difficulties of detail yet to be resolved, but the principle of the system seemed viable, and so a great deal of reading about components of the brain had to be undertaken.
Holographic Function of the Brain
A striking fact about the brain is that it is the most complex system of micro circuitry that has ever been encountered. Its nerve ends or synapses continually fire at astonishing rates to connect up huge networks of the neurons of which the brain has 10 thousand million (10 to the power of 9): a very large figure. A number of neuroscientists, led by the work of the late Karl Pribram, consider there are good grounds for some holographic function in the way the brain operates, and I received encouragement from him in 1979 on an early paper I sent him, to meet him some years later. On his research work it seems very likely that for visual images at least, the highly complex patterns set up by the electrochemical currents between the synapses would have to create some interference patterns. If these were adequately ordered, as thought, memory and vision would have to be, they would be capable of creating holograms that could be interpreted as sight. How this hologram, which I term a holocept, is viewed cannot at this stage of the explanation be answered, although a very simple solution will be offered later in the text. But at this stage, it does not matter: it is enough to consider that stimuli from the senses come into the brain to be processed into highly structured patterns of firing neurons and synapses. If it is assumed that if there is perfect recall of a certain thought sequence, then what happened in the brain was that the original structure of firing synapses was duplicated at a later time in high degrees of accuracy through this resonance effect. It seems reasonable to assume that this concept of the holocept applies across the board to thought in general, and not just sight, although the latter is the strongest of experiences and easiest to invoke. The notion of the holocept is highly conjectural and will be revisited later.
Although it seems there is no definitive proof for the existence of perfect or eidetic recall, there is certainly much evidence that it happens, especially under trance conditions, when tranches of earlier existence can be recalled and effectively lived through again. Assuming this to be so, here then is an example of a structure being duplicated through time, in a great deal of accurate detail, possibly even down to a molecular level, and certainly involving great complexity. If the resonance effect was additive then as a structure became more regularly complex with increasing repetition of space intervals, as it certainly is with time intervals (EM radiation) then the tendency to transfer action through time should also increase. The interconnected nerve cells of the brain represent the most complex system imaginable and should therefore be an excellent candidate for demonstration of such an effect.
The freedom of motion of a second later structure would have to be very well lubricated indeed and not disturbed in any way by external forces. With respect to eidetic memory, this seems to appear naturally most often in children before adolescence, when their minds have not yet been too cluttered with too many inculcated behaviour patterns, and prejudicial beliefs. As already mentioned, most subjects under hypnotic trance appear to be capable of regression to relive in perfect detail episodes of their earlier life.
Trance state & Randomicity
The nerve cells in the brain never stop firing: obviously all the functions of the body have to be continued and regulated for the body to remain alive, but if under trance instructions to exclude all external stimuli from the senses and to relax the mind completely to think of nothing (almost impossible to do when conscious) then it is reasonable to consider that those brain cells that contain conscious thought have synapses firing randomly. If somehow, into this random system of electrochemical currents a single thought structure is imposed, which closely duplicates an earlier observation of the external world, then there will be an increasing potential, however small, for the later thought structure to have the potential to convert an infinitesimal fraction of its rest mass to energy. This seems to be a workable explanation for total recall, which raises the question perhaps it could be developed into every day working memory.
It is conjectured that ordinary conscious memory must work along the lines of an abbreviated form of total recall, a sort of synopsis, with just those parts retained that might be useful for increasing an individual’s chances of survival (further considered in a section below). To those who conjecture or are convinced that extra sensory perception (ESP) and the subject of the paranormal exist, then it ought to occur to them that any mechanism allowing a resonance through both time and space must also contain a basis of possible explanation for fringe phenomena such as telepathy, precognition, psychokinesis, and clairvoyance, as well as a few more familiar other phenomena such as coincidence, crowd behaviour, religious ritual and theories of the universal unconscious. Some of these excluding the paranormal are considered briefly below in section C.
B II RESONANCE OF TIME OR ACTION DUPLICATION THROUGH SPACE.
To repeat the second part of the theory’s definition, it is:
Equal intervals in time -similar actions- tend to duplicate themselves through
all space at one time.
This brief definition implies that electromagnetic action radiated out from a source of oscillating charged particles (electrons) does not require photons or particles of any sort to be transmitted across space, so that there is no physical exchange particle or even a physical wave as such. Rather it is the repetition of the identical actions of billions of similar particles at source which causes a potential for these oscillations to be duplicated whenever any similar free particle is encountered at a later time across space. But since this front of potential moves out at light velocity (a wave front if you like) it is effectively the same as saying this duplication of action is created everywhere else at the same moment relatively speaking, so this fits with the definition: ‘at one time’. Further the greater the degree of duplication, then the stronger the radiative effect of the action will be: in other words, as the frequency of the AC source increases so will more action be transferred across space and this is what is borne out by experiment and observation of EM waves in practice.
Equal intervals in time can only be created by the repetition of similar events and about the simplest regular event imaginable that I can visualise is that of a single electron passing a point in space and then decelerating back until it passes it again in the opposite direction, and so on and so forth. If the degree of acceleration and deceleration and the distances travelled are the same in every case then the degree of duplication of action will be increased. If huge large numbers of electrons, identical to the point of indecipherability in dimension and charge are involved, all duplicating the actions of each other as they will be in a source of alternating current, then here is perfect embodiment of what is required by the subject at issue. What cannot be denied is that it produces a similar effect on all other free electrons at the same time everywhere in space. Two hundred years ago we might have thought this was an astonishing and singular hypothesis but now it is taken as a basic given of existence. The reason why it should happen is all I am querying here, and not its existence, as it is necessary for its corollary effect to be able to reinforce and justify the not yet accepted effect of structure resonating through time.
A more precise example of the required duplication of billions of identical events is the creation of laser light by placing the gas particles of a laser medium, such as argon, in an excited quantum state from an external energy source. When an electron surrounding a proton jumps from an excited energy level to one at a lower level, this is an instantaneous event which creates a photon emitted at light velocity. This creation of laser light is effected by the duplication of billions of identical such actions at the source, and it is crucial that each such action will be almost indecipherable one from another.
The reason why this is so and why the element of duplication is instrumental in the creation of photons, or more accurately stated, why action and/or information is transferred across space as simultaneously as the limiting speed of light allows, is directly equivalent to the hypothesis in I above. By this line of reasoning, with approaches to near singularity states, in this case the repetition of near identical actions (intervals in time), we might except to experience some unusual phenomena to be brought about by such a close approach with trillions of identical components. But this is exactly what was observed a few hundred years ago as a phenomenal and inexplicable effect in the way that energy or action was transferred at light speed across all space. Before Maxwell rationalised and quantified in his formula the way in which EM radiation was transferred, such an effect was hardly credible. The reason why this transfer is not simultaneous but limited by the speed of light was not explained then and is still not yet today. Duplication Theory has a moderately simple solution for this result which will be expounded later on, but there can be no doubt that Electromagnetic radiation and induction exist, although there are still many questions remaining to be fully resolved of how this can be rationalised within both Quantum theory and General relativity. Current explanations for the mechanism of EM action are not entirely satisfactory, especially those requiring it to be time symmetric, leaving some enquirers the feeling that something is missing (See Dirac, Feynman, Einstein and others). The other surprising support for the theory is that Propositions 1 and 2 also turn out to be exact corollaries of each other in the most reduced form of definition: the words time and space are interchangeable as can be seen below.
“Equal intervals in time tend to duplicate themselves through all space at the same time. Equal intervals in space tend to duplicate themselves though all time in the same space”.
Quite what the significance of this equivalence might be I hesitate to comment at this stage except that if something appears remarkably simple seen in a new light then that would indicate there might be some other deeper answer to a problem than that already provided by the standard accepted belief patterns.