Exploring Mysticism and Physics

I have been wondering about the properties of a ‘Bose-Einstein condensate’ in relation to a certain form of Idealism. It was a thought put into my head by Erwin Schrodinger, who speaks of the mystics as ‘particles in an ideal gas’.

It seems that the Pauli-exclusion principle usually limits the number of bosons that can occupy the same energy level. But if the bosons form an ideal condensate then they can all occupy exactly the same energy level. They would no longer interact with each other. That is, they would no longer behave as a multitude of discrete entities causally linked. They would now be in a state of quantum entanglement such that they might as well all be the same boson, a choir in perfect harmony. Or something like this. I wish I had a better grasp of the science.

There is some talk of the early universe being a condensate of such a kind. There is also a Gnostic creation story that tells of a choir of angels singing in perfect and timeless harmony, until one voice wavers, and this disturbs its neighbors, and soon there is a disharmony out of which arises the world of Maya. This sort of symmetry-breaking appears to be just the right sort of idea.

What I am wondering is whether it would be accurate to say, in some sense at least, that a truly perfect Bose-Einstein condensate could be said to be a multitude of things and a singular phenomenon at the same time. If so, then it seems very likely that an ideal condensate would be a useful idea in discussions of global consciousness. This would be a turn up.

I’m way out my depths here and wouldn’t dare discuss this on a physics forum. Still, I have a feeling this is the right way to go for a physical description of an Idealist universe. Any physicists around for a comment?

This entry was posted in Uncategorized and tagged , , . Bookmark the permalink.

4 Responses to Exploring Mysticism and Physics

  1. cabrogal says:

    I’m no physicist (unless you count my 35 year old BSc major) but I can tell you that you would need to be more careful with words like ‘singularity‘ if you want to communicate with one.

  2. PeterJ says:

    Good advice, no question about it. I did mean to use ‘singularity’ correctly, but there are so many uses of the term it’s hard to be sure if I did. Would ‘singular undifferentiated phenomenon’ do? .

    • cabrogal says:

      Sounds better.

      I was once lambasted by a cosmologist for referring to the exercise of free will within unidirectional linear causality as one of ‘singularity’, due to the derailing of determinism that would result. I’ve also called it a ‘first cause’, but as yet no theologians have jumped on me for it.

      People can be funny about their pet jargons.

      • PeterJ says:

        Yes, and it’s all too easy for outsiders to make mistakes. I think I’ll change ‘singularity’ for something less misleading. Thanks for the suggestion.

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s