Seeing Past The Edge
An Original Work of Non-fiction
By: David G. Yurth
All Rights Reserved
Looking For Simple, Elegant Solutions
Everything Is Information
One of the legacies of Science (big “S”) is the explicit verification that we cannot trust the validity of the information provided by either our senses or our heritage. We have become automatically accustomed to thinking of the Cosmos as made up of “things” in an exclusively material sense. This notion effects our way of thinking about all the manifestations of the physical world in and around us. We automatically think of the world in terms which are physical, down to the smallest sub-atomic components. Since this phenomenon is part of our linguistic and cultural heritage, this is hardly surprising.
Our senses tell us that our notions are true. We experience validation of our physicality in an infinite variety of ways all the time. If you step in front of a moving bus, the outcome is entirely predictable. Physical stuff is physical. In a sense, the notion that physical stuff is material to its indivisible core is so deeply engrained in us that we can scarcely envision our material world in any other way. This set of values is everywhere manifest in our language, in our mathematics, in our concepts of time and space and our personal values.
The ancient Greek philosopher Plato believed that everything in the world could be divided into what he called “atoms.” So did Galileo. His algebra and geometries were based on the fundamental notion of a single, dimensionless, massive particle, the ultimate subdivision of matter, operating in proximity to a host of other similar primary particles, in a vacuum[i]. We must not underestimate the power of this concept. The very fact that Galileo could articulate this idea, in a climate of such fundamental ignorance that he was threatened with death and excommunication for simply discussing it, suggests rare genius.
The concepts embodied in Galileo’s formulations were so cogent that Newton incorporated them into his calculus. This fundamental mathematical language has formed the basis for all scientific pursuits for 250 years. It is still so powerfully embedded in our cultural psyche that it is parroted by college physics texts to this very day. Newton’s Principia[ii] is a compelling work of such consummate genius that it continues to exert a profound effect on the way we attribute meaning to the world around us.
Rene` Descartes followed suit. In his own inimical way, he added another construct to the equation. Descartes reasoned that, in accordance with his interpretation of Holy Writ and the dictates of the Catholic Church, the Universe is comprised of two fundamentally distinct elements – “physical stuff” and “spirit stuff.”[iii] That is what he really called it. Even though he was driven to this conclusion by arbitrarily imposed political restrictions, Descartes made an enormous mental leap with the formulation of his philosophy. He reasoned that inasmuch as everything that is real [as opposed to those things that are not demonstrably real] in the material world can be described by mathematics and verified by observation, clearly the Universe must be constructed logically, sequentially, with linear relationships, much as a clockwork mechanism of infinite complexity.
By this reasoning, he concluded that the Universe and everything in it can be understood perfectly if the physical pieces can be subdivided into their primary, indivisible components. There was no room in his universe for “spirit stuff”, that which cannot be seen or is rarely experimentally verified and examined. This was largely the result of the turf deal Descartes cut with the Catholic Church. Accordingly, for 250 years the practitioners of Science have assiduously avoided and aggressively prevented each other from investigating the role of “spirit stuff” in Nature.
As a society, we have inherited this fundamentally flawed set of notions. Until very recently, the science of our day has been as devoid of “spirit stuff” as was the science of the 17th century. Only in the past few decades have scientists run headlong against the inevitable barriers created by Descartes’ unilateral dismissal of “spirit stuff” from the realm of reality and scientific investigation.
As a result of some astonishingly good science, we have become aware of a number of troubling, enigmatic phenomena which cannot be explained, validated, demonstrated nor measured by any of the tools available to conventional science. The experimental verification that these phenomena exist or operate is undeniable, but no one has yet developed a model which explains how they work. The discovery of such things as quarks and the creation of matter with measurable mass, from nothing more than photons propagated by visible light, provide a fascinating clue to what this all means.
The Discovery of Quarks
Since the discovery of the class of sub-atomic particles called quarks[iv] by Nobel Laureate Murray Gell-Mann of FermiLabs in Chicago, physicists have continued to smugly cling to the notion of a material world made up of indivisible primary particles. In some important respects, the notion of Descartes’ “clockwork mechanism” is still alive and well, even at this late date. Its side effects are manifest today in the irresistible need to describe every observable phenomenon recorded by scientists in reductionist, mechanical terms. The pursuit of the Human Genome Project perfectly typifies this approach.[v]
The discovery of quarks led to a series of major, unparalleled confrontations between advocates of Dr. Gell-Mann’s hypothesis and other Nobel nominees at such prestigious institutions as M.I.T., Princeton, and Columbia University. The argument centered around the notion that quarks can be accepted into the lexicon of sub-atomic particles, even though they specifically violate what is known as the Pauli Exclusion Principle.[vi] Dr. Rugerro Santilli led the initiative to exclude Gell-Mann’s Quarks from the lexicon of accepted sub-atomic particles and was forced to resign from MIT because of it.[vii] More importantly, because particles with measurable mass are by definition subject to gravitational forces, quarks (it was argued) ought to be excluded as a new class since they appear to operate without regard to gravitational force.
The mainline conventionalists prevailed, if for no other reason than because they controlled the purse strings of those institutions and could therefore arbitrarily silence scientific heresy. But the fallout resulting from the war of academic supremacy occasioned by the discovery of quarks has yet to be fully counted. In spite of very good reasons why it ought not be added to the list, the official version of the standard model now holds that the quark is the single, primary, indivisible class of sub-atomic particles which constitute all matter, everywhere in the Cosmos. The ancient Greeks and Isaac Newton, it appeared, may have been quite right.
The Discovery of Sub-Quarks
However, in 1994, nine years after Dr. Gell-Mann and his colleagues announced their experimental verification of two of the six quarks predicted by their mathematical model, a team of 450 equally competent scientists, also working at FermiLabs and using the same linear particle accelerator facility employed by Dr. Gell-Mann, announced their discovery of matched pairs of particles which they called “sub-quarks.”[viii] In order to make certain that they had not succumbed to the Pons and Fleischmann “cold fusion” syndrome, the CDF Collaboration team worked for another four years to perfect their technique, re-evaluate their mathematical model, replicate their original test protocols and results, and confirm their data. Their discovery literally turned the apple cart of physics upside down.
Gell-Mann’s mathematical model predicted that the quark was the smallest sub-atomic particle possible. According to that model, the quark was believed to be indivisible into smaller components. Dr. Gell-Mann was awarded the Nobel Prize for Physics in 1986 because the scientific world believed he had discovered the Holy Grail of physics, the fundamental, indivisible primary unit of matter. In an article published in Physics Letters in 1998, the Fermi team announced their discovery of sub-quark pairs and accompanied their announcement with such unequivocal scientific validation that the result seemed to be unarguable.
The mathematical model used to predict the existence of the sub-quark pairs was the product of the CDF team’s collective genius. It required the work of a team of 450 mathematicians, theoretical physicists and others over a period of more than 12 years to complete the mathematical language which was used to predict their discovery. Unfortunately, as with other discoveries which have challenged accepted scientific dogma, the reaction of the main stream scientific community was to first dismiss the discovery by subjecting it to ridicule.
The establishment then attacked their methodology, discounted the validity of the mathematical model and finally, when nothing else seemed to be working, attempted to personally discredit the discoverers.[ix] Such is the state of enlightened science as it is practiced today in the West.
The Sub-Quark Scandal
Finally, when the dust settled and the discovery could not be dismissed as the work of cranks and crack pots, an attitude of profound discomfort settled onto the community of theoretical physicists. No banner headlines appeared on the front page of the New York Times nor did we hear any announcements about the discovery of sub-quarks on CNN, in spite of the fact that the attributes demonstrated by sub-quarks raise questions of the most profound significance about how the material world really works. In fact, most physicists are still quite ignorant of the discovery and even fewer appreciate its significance.
In an act of unparalleled self-interest, the American Physical Society and Gell-Mann’s supporters brought enormous pressure on the CDF team to withdraw the report of their findings. When they flatly refused to do so, the APS and their cronies prevailed on the publications which had agreed to publish the CDF paper to withdraw their offer to publish. In addition, it is reliably reported by members of the CDF team who have since resigned, that the report was finally withdrawn only because the team and FermiLabs itself were threatened with economic and professional extinction unless they complied with the demand to withdraw.
The notion that the CDF Collaboration team withdrew their findings from publication because their methodology was somehow flawed has been successfully perpetrated on an unsuspecting public by Gell-Mann’s defenders. Many of us are astonished at the unconscionable methods employed to protect the territorial imperatives of those who discovered the quark and, more importantly, to discredit one of the truly great discoveries of modern science.
Nevertheless, in the inner circle, among those whose work and insights are pushing the envelope of our understanding toward a more complete knowledge, this discovery has proven to be quite literally earth shaking. Based on the information supplied by the CDF, and a careful review of the data they have supplied, it is irrational to suggest that their discovery is anything less than unequivocal. Sub-quarks are a fact of life, whether Dr Gell-Mann or the American Physical Society like it or not.
The nature of the sub-quark [and other less well known and more estoeric sub-atomic units] has proven to be somewhat troublesome to scientific purists.[x] The sub-quark demonstrates a most peculiar behavior, both physically and mathematically. As each sub-quark matches the spin and polarity of its partner, [in much the same way as positron-electron pairs behave], it demonstrates a phased pulsing behavior which shows up on a photographic emulsion plate as a series of dashes separated by discrete spaces. As the film plates developed at FermiLabs show, the first track of a sub-quark separated from its paired partner looked like this: ______ ______ _____ ______.
When pressed to explain this phenomenon, the CDF team at first suggested a variety of possible alternatives: Perhaps the particle was so much smaller than the granular density of the film emulsion that it could not be consistently displayed. This was considered a distinct possibility and later thoroughly discounted by experimental trials. Perhaps it was so much smaller than the quarter-wave frequency used by the scanning electron microscope to capture the image that its image was incorrectly displayed. Perhaps there was something about the way the sub-quark was spinning, or was polarized at the time of impact, that distorted its magnetic field or unaccountably refracted the laser light used to capture the image of its passage across the screen.
After years of work and the introduction of significant refinements to the image capturing process, the report they published clearly demonstrates that the attributes demonstrated by the dash-space-dash-space signature of the sub-quark are the result of a fascinating set of attributes which appear to be unique to sub-quarks. This behavior has only been observed in the vacuum environment of a high-speed linear particle accelerator under carefully controlled conditions – with one notable exception.[xi]
The Importance of the Sub-Quark
First, the experimental results suggest that the dash-space-dash-space signature demonstrated by sub-quarks is probably unique to each elemental material and is not simply a sub-quark attribute in general. Researchers are still investigating whether this constitutes a kind of sub-quarkian finger print by which elemental materials could be conclusively identified as they form. If it can be verified, this would provide a result with implications reaching far beyond the domain of the current state of the art of particle physics.
Second and perhaps equally intriguing is the realization that the sub-quark film track probably demonstrates a time-domain polarization attribute of this sub-atomic unit. The sub-quark’s track looks the way it does because the particle exists and then does not exist, exists and then does not exist, in our space-time continuum. With the discovery of the sub-quark, we observe for the very first time a scientifically verified instance of multi-dimensional behavior in a measurable physical component.
The behavior of the sub-quark is uniquely profound – in the rarified environment of the particle accelerator, the sub-quark exists-disappears-exists-disappears with a consistent, repeated, predictable frequency pattern which may be distinct and mutually exclusive to each of the fundamental elements and many of their isotopes.[xii]
The questions which arise from the observation of this phenomenon are legion, but the fundamental issue which concerns us is simply this:
“What are the underlying laws which govern the behavior of the sub-quark and define its unique attributes at the point of materialization and de-materialization?”
Indeed, when we witness this event, we are brought literally to the Edge of creation. Understanding the rules which govern this phenomenon could tell us much of what we need to know about how the material world really operates.
What is the sub-quark really comprised of? It is observable, at least insofar as its existence can be traced on the surface of a film emulsion plate. It ceases to be observable with equally consistent, predictable regularity, but does not cease to exist. Indeed, it reappears as another “dash” track on the film plate, with quantum regularity. Where is it when we cannot observe it? More to the point, what is it that pulses into and out of observability in our space-time dimension with such consistent predictability? To answer this question, we are compelled to re-examine our point of reference and re-evaluate many of our pre-conceived notions about such things.
Matter Created From Light: E * MC2
In the Spring of 1997, a team consisting of more than 20 scientists from half a dozen of the finest physics labs in the United States, gathered at the Stanford Linear Accelerator facility in California. Their objective was revolutionary – they sought nothing less than to create particles of measurable mass using nothing but coherent beams of visible light.[xiii] To do so, they knew they would have to defy a fundamental tenet of main stream particle physics. The notions underlying this principle are described in Einstein’s Second Postulate of the Special Theory of Relativity, made famous by the equation E=MC2. Their work was scorned as the quintessence of scientific heresy by the organs of the physics industry. None of the mainstream scientific journals would publish their results – instead, their work was first reported by Discover Magazine. Here is what they did and why it is important.
At the Stanford Linear Accelerator facility in California, the team succeeded in creating electron-positron pairs, with measurable density and particle mass, by crashing two high-intensity laser beams of monochromatic light together in a vacuum. Their experiment was not an accident – they set out to do it deliberately and kept working at it for more than six months until they succeeded. Why is this event significant? Because the conventional model of Quantum mechanics and the Second Postulate to Einstein’s Special Theory of Relativity specifically prohibit the creation of matter with nothing more than photons, in any environment, under any circumstances.[xiv]
Nevertheless, the result speaks for itself. This part of the Special Theory, which has come to be treasured and rigorously defended as one of the unassailable bastions of modern science, appears to have been invalidated by their results. Since the results of this work cannot be denied, since it has been successfully replicated now at other particle accelerator facilities, there must be something incomplete about the way the Standard Model defines the way the world works. One of the important clues to this enigma can be found in the exhaustive work of P. Anastasovski, who has demonstrated experimentally that under certain conditions, photons of real light display measurable mass.[xv]
Information – The Common Denominator
The question we have to ask now is this:
What do sub-quarks and photons have in common? What is the common property which allows scientists to harness the dimensionless, perhaps mass-less attributes of photons of light to create matter, which manifests the same attributes as sub-quark pairs?
There is only one thing common to both at this primary scale, and that is what we call Information. The definition of information is problematical. For physicists, the definition is distinctly different than for linguists, religionists or philosophers. According to the ancient Hindu verses known as the Vedas, information in its most fundamental state is an unpaired vibration which arises from the causal background of absolute silence.[xvi]
According to M-theory [more commonly referred to as super string theory], information exists as one-dimensional strings which vibrate singly around each other in a web of increasingly complex relationships.[xvii]
Ken Wilber suggests that information is something else entirely. In his view, information can only be defined as that which enables our senses to distinguish that which is from that which is not.[xviii]
In technical terms, particularly those which apply to information theory, for our purposes information is defined as a datum. This begs the question because we are then left to determine what constitutes a datum. In digital computer language, a datum is a single unit of information combined with another such unit to constitute a unit of data. This is helpful, but still not definitive, since we have little notion in either mathematics or physics about what constitutes a single datum. This is Galileo’s dimensionless point.
Interestingly enough, there is a singular semantic similarity between the Greek word data and the Sanskrit expression which connotes its underlying linguistic predecessor. In Sanskrit, the symbol for the “R” sound, which is the data-half of the full expression “Rk,” corresponds directly with the Greek word “data.” This is of more than passing interest because it suggests that as far back as 3,500 b.c.e., the book of verses known as the Rk Veda, which describes the processes of creation and annihilation in the Cosmos, contained in its first expression the fundamental elements which correlate with our word, information.
By definition, according to the Vedas, the “R” sound connotes the beginning of the cycle of creation. Its nature is defined by its beginning as a resonant, reverberant vibrational continuity which bridges a gap of silence to pair with its polar opposite, the “K” sound, which by its very nature signals an ending. Taken together, the combination of the “R” and “K” sounds across the gap which separates them, forms a single expression which is the analog of creation. Alpha and Omega. Two mutually exclusive, previously separated, semantically distinct data arise from a background of absolute silence to create the beginning and the end in a single elegant expression.
Accordingly, for the purposes of this discussion throughout the book, I define information as the linguistic equivalent of the “R” and “K” sounds. That is, they may reasonably be considered distinct, primary data bits which can be combined according to a set of simple, elegant rules to produce a datum, a paired unit which has a beginning and an end, which contains sufficient information to convey meaning at a primary level. This is the essence of the rule of complementarity at its genesis.
For these and other reasons which will shortly become evident, we have reason to believe that at its core, everything is information[xix]. Absolutely everything. The implications of this notion are so staggering that we are still struggling to accommodate them. Rene’ Descartes was mistaken. The Universe is not a clock-work mechanism which can be arbitrarily disassembled into its constituent parts. Indeed, at every scale, the stuff of matter cannot be dissociated from the stuff of spirit. What lies at the basis of all things, without respect to time, space or distance is information.
The realization that everything is comprised of information strikes at the very heart of the scientific method. It means, among other things, that we cannot arbitrarily accept one of kind of information and ignore another without doing irreparable violence to the conclusions we draw from our investigations. It means that no single strategy for obtaining information is any more valid or reliable than any other, given that each avenue of inquiry is practiced with commensurate discipline.
It also suggests that information derived from external, empirical experimental processes cannot completely describe reality-as-it-is any more than information derived from purely introspective consciousness-based practices. Indeed, both kinds of information are required in order for a fully robust description of the Cosmos to be possible at all. The rules of complementarity demand that it be so.
Any scientist or religionist worthy of the name will tell you that this is problematical. How do we integrate information obtained via the disciplined application of scientific methodology, which is empirically quantifiable and replicable, with experiential information which cannot be measured, validated or replicated on demand by any known conventional methods?
To be more precise, what standards of validity are equally applicable to the work accomplished by Murray Gell-Mann[xx] and Charles Leadbeater and Annie Besant?[xxi] How is it that super string [M] theory and the verses of the ancient verses known as the Vedas[xxii] describe the processes of creation and annihilation, with equal symmetry and precision, in terms which are precisely equivalent?
Super string [M] theory, despite its obvious shortcomings, provides a model which is used to describe the processes associated with the creation and destruction of all forms of matter and energy. Its principles and axioms are defined by the most rigorous of mathematical disciplines.[xxiii] There is an ill-concealed skeleton in the closet of physics:
“As they are currently formulated, general relativity and quantum mechanics cannot both be right.”
Each is exceedingly accurate in its field: general relativity explains the behavior of the universe at large scales, while quantum mechanics describes the behavior of subatomic particles. Yet the theories collide horribly under extreme conditions such as black holes or times close to the big bang. Brian Greene, a specialist in quantum field theory, believes that the two pillars of physics can be reconciled in superstring theory, a theory of everything.
Yet we discover that the structure, harmonic resonances and constructions of the ancient Hindu text known as the Vedas define exactly the same dynamics as super string theory. The Vedas were constructed as the result of disciplined introspection, metaphysics in its highest and best sense. This is a phenomenon which we are finding replicated in other areas long thought to be the exclusive domain of science.
What this idea suggests is that if we know where and how to focus our research, and if we are willing to accommodate valid information wherever it is to be found, we may yet find a simple, elegant common denominator, a unifying set of dynamics common to the most fundamental inner workings of all things. Our quest is to identify and describe that set of unifying principles in a whole new way. To the extent we succeed in achieving this long sought-after goal, we will have ascended to an entirely new vantage point from which to view the Cosmos.
No one is suggesting the transition will be easy or simple. If we are to succeed, we will have to take on a host of daunting dragons – cultural inertia, the territorial imperative, institutional resistance, the profit motive, New Age nuttiness, evolutional positioning in the Great Chain of Being…in their lairs, face to face. Some of our most cherished cultural, scientific and religious beliefs may perish as a result of our findings. It is likely that we will be forced to re-learn and re-think much of what we have long assumed we already knew. This is as it should be.
[i] Santilli, R. The Physics of New Clean Energies and Fuels According to Hadronic Mechanics, Journal of New Energy Vol. 4, No. 1, (Summer 1999) ISSN: 1086-8259; see also R.Santilli, Ethical Probe on Einstein’s Followers in the USA: An Insider’s View [Il Grande Grido – A Cry in the Wilderness], Alpha Publishing, 1984. This work contains an exhaustive review of the assumptions Galileo relied on to construct his geometrical equations.
[ii] Newton, I. The Principia: Mathematical Principles of Natural Philosophy, a new translation by Bernard Cohen, Julia Budenz and Anne Whitman, (July 1999) Univ. California Press. ISBN 0520088166.
[iii] Descartes, R. Principles of Philosophy, Part I, principle 26, in Philosophical Works, translated by Haldene and Ross (Cambridge, Mass: Harvard University Press, 1911).
[iv] Gell-Mann, M. The Quark and the Jaguar: Adventures in the Simple and the Complex. Reprint edition (October 1995), W.H. Freeman & Co. ISBN 07 16727250
[v] Bishop, J.E., and Waldholz, M. Genome:The Story of Our Astonishing Attempt to Map All the Genomes in the Human Body (1990) Touchstone/ Simon & Schuster. NY. ISBN: 0-671-67094-8; see also Shapiro, R., The Human Blueprint: The Race to Unlock the Secrets of Our Genetic Script (1991) St. Martin’s Press, NY. ISBN: 0-312-05873-X.
[vi] Gribbin, J., and Davies, P. The Matter Myth: Dramatic Discoveries That Challenge our Understanding of Physical Reality (1992) Simon & Schuster, NY. ISBN: 0-671-72840-7.
[vii] Santilli, R., Il Grande Grido [A Cry in the Wilderness], ibid.
[viii] “Inclusive Jet Cross Section in pbar p Collisions at sqrt s = 1.8TeV,” F. Abe et al., The CDF Collaboration, FERMILAB-PUB-96/020-E. Submitted to Phys. Rev. Lett. January 24, 1996 — Abstract, Paper
[ix] Prime examples of this behavior can be found in the treatment by mainstream scientists of such revolutionary, newly discovered phenomena as Cold Fusion, High Density Charge Clusters and over-unity energy generating systems.
[x] FERMILAB MEDIA ADVISORY 2/7/96, CDF Results Raise Questions on Quark Structure. An article to appear in the February 9 issue of Science describes results contained in a paper submitted to Physical Review Letters by the 450-member Collider Detector collaboration at Fermilab. The CDF paper reports results that appear to be at odds with predictions based on the current theory of the fundamental structure of matter. The paper, submitted January 21, reports the collaboration’s measurement of the probability that the fundamental constituents of matter will be deflected, or will “scatter,” when very high energy protons collide with antiprotons, according to CDF spokesmen William Carithers and Giorgio Bellettini.
[xi] Phillips, S., “The Extrasensory Perception of Quarks,” loc. cit.
[xii] If further experimentation can validate these preliminary results, this discovery by itself could be used to fundamentally alter the foundations of the materials sciences across the board. Even more importantly, when we have developed the ability to discriminate the identity of physical materials at this level with consistent specificity, it will become technologically feasible to transport matter non-locally in the form of discrete information packets, ala Star Trek. See D. Bouwmeester, J.W. Pan, K Mattle, M. Eibl, H. Weinfurter, A. Zellinger, Experimental Quantum Teleportation, Nature vol. 390, 11 December 1997.
[xiii] Tatterson K.G. “Boom! From Light Comes Matter. Photonics Spectra, November 1997, page 31.
[xiv] In 1996, Anastasovski experimentally verified that under certain carefully controlled conditions, photons of real light can be shown conclusively to demonstrate properties of measurable mass. This heretical idea is explained in Anastasovski’s extraordinary book. See P. Anastasovski, Quantum Mass Theory Compatible With Quantum Field Theory, Nova Science Publishers, Inc. (1995) ISBN: 1-56072-157-X.
[xv] Anastasovski P.K.,. Benson T.M., Quantum Mass Theory Compatible With Quantum Field Theory, Nova Science Publishers, Inc. (1995) ISBN: 1.56072-157-X.
[xvii] Greene, B., The Elegant Universe, loc.cit.
[xviii] Wilber, K., A Unified Theory of Everything: An Integral Vision for Business, Politics, Science, and Spirituality (2000) Shambala Press, Boston. ISBN: I-57062-724-X.
[xix] Kafatos, M., Nadeau, R., The Conscious Universe,) Springer-Verlag New York, Inc (1990. See also Alred Korzybsky, Science and Sanity: an Introduction to Non-Aristotelian Systems and General Semantics (1995) 5th Edition, Institute of General Semantics. See also J. Campbell, Grammatical Man: Information, Entropy, Language and Life, Simon & Schuster, New York (1982)
[xx] Gell-Mann, M. The Quark and the Jaguar: Adventures in the Simple and the Complex. Reprint edition (October 1995), W.H. Freeman & Co. ISBN 07 16727250.
[xxi] Phillips, S.M. Extra-Sensory Perception of Quarks, The Theosophical Publishing House, Wheaton, Illinois, USA (1980). ISBN 0-8356-0227-3. See also, Besant A., Leadbeater, C.W. Occult Chemistry, 2d. ed., edited by A.P. Sennitt, Theosophical Publishing House, London, England (1919).
[xxii] Doniger W. (editor), Wyatt, T., O’Flaherty W.D. (editor), The Rig Veda: An Anthology: One Hundred Eight Hymns, Selected, Translated and Annotated (classic). Viking Press, (March 1982) ISBN 01-40444025.
[xxiii] Greene, B. The Elegant Universe: Superstrings, Hidden Dimensions, and the Quest for the Ultimate Theory (2000) Vintage Books. ISBN: 0-375-70811-1. For a definitive description of the controversies and short comings of super string theory, see Erwin Lazlo, “Whispering Pond” and Santilli, Book III JNE Aug 99.