Kundalini Splendor

Kundalini Splendor <$BlogRSDURL$>

Sunday, March 15, 2009

Theories and Parallel Universes 

I have been exploring the notion of "parallel universes," a concept which has come to the fore in recent physics (as well as science fiction). One night recently I watched a fascinating PBS presentation by Michio Kaku, who is a kind of Carl Sagan of our time. He has written Parallel Universes and The Physics of the Impossible, both of which sound very interesting. Some physicists now conclude there is evidence for the existence of several "parallel universes." These are worlds or realms which exist in the same space as our own, but we cannot see them because they occupy different dimensions. The theory is a based primarily on the fact the the proton can be in more than one place at once. (I assume this is derived from the familiar wave/particle experiment—where a proton is sent toward a barrier with two holes—and then passes through the two parallel exit holes at once, rejoining on the other side, this revealing that it is both a wave and a particle.)These leading edge scientists posit that therefore everything that exists has a twin elsewhere and thus someone exactly like you may exist in another universe, or indeed many exact duplicates of you may exist in many universes. The theory also speculates that everything that has ever happened is also repeated elsewhere exactly or with surprise variations. Each event begets new events, as well as new versions of events. All history is simultaneous. Hence there may be dinosaurs in other universes, where our own "earlier eons" are still ongoing.And, since other universes occupy the same space as our own, there may be dinosaurs in our own living rooms, but since these exist in different “dimensions” we are unaware of them.(The above summary is what I gained from the presentation. It may not be entirely accurate.)

As I reflected on this notion, I came up with some further thoughts on the matter. If the theory of parallel universes is correct, it would explain many of the seemingly unexplainable "paranormal" events in our lives as well as similar accounts from history. The following poem explores this theory as well as other ideas about theories in general, and goes on to list a few of the "paranormal" phenomena which would be explained if there were indeed alternate universes to our own. (Does Kundalini come from one of these alternative realities where, perhaps, it is the norm?)


And now there are, it seems,
theories of everything--
of love, of death, of sleep,
of winning or losing,
of the origin of stars,
or where we might have come from
so many years ago.

Dostoevsky abhorred those systems
in which the so-called rational
governs human affairs,
philosophies which ignore spirit
and human feeling,
those inner lights
which deliver us
from false assumptions,
and thus save us from betraying
others and ourselves.

Now science posits entire
universes beside and within
our own,
parallels where time, space,
the arc of enlightenment,
the dark night of the soul's eclipse
are all happening constantly, contiguously,
perhaps even in our own living space,
all undetected by our shrunken senses.
But if we cannot see it,
how can we believe?

Something shadows us,
insists on asking
what about all that nightly going
hither and thither,
ghost forms streaming out of the body,
toward the light
and back again,
skating between time present
and the lost ages
of tribal memory.
And of course, accounts
of angels, strange encounters
with curious forms, from dwarfs
to demons,
stories of those who travel timelessly
from one spot to another,
see long distance,
or appear in many places
all at the same moment,

That most celebrated man
of recent years
with his famous halo of glinting hair
gave us
theories of the stars,
the planets hung in their twirling spaces,
their dizzying rounds,
but nothing on this,
our constant dilemma,
who, in fact,
we truly are,
into what other universe our journey
takes us now.

Dorothy Walters

(picture from http://www.westegg.com/einstein/)

This page is powered by Blogger. Isn't yours?