If you have done any reading on quantum physics you know most scientists have concluded there is *more space then matter. Because of this some have even argued those things that appear solid are merely an illusion
i.e. there is nothing of substance there. It may even be simply a projection (or **hologram)
from an infinite mind.
YET, we can touch, feel, taste and smell the objects we see and
hear around us, even if there is very little actual ***matter present. If there is more space then matter what determines what we see and experience all
around us, if there is in fact far more space then substance?
There is force!
What do I mean? To use a familiar example, we are told at one level, everything is
made of atoms. Atoms in turn are made of a nucleus that consists of protons and
neutrons with electrons traveling around that nucleus at an extremely high velocity. Yet the space that exists between the nucleus and it's electrons far exceeds the size of the ****individual parts. When
you measure the size of these individual *parts they are minuscule compared to the "footprint" taken up by the
actual atom i.e. space is the
biggest part of what makes up the actual "footprint." So why do we see and experience the much larger footprint?
We know that electrons fly around the nucleus at an
incredible speed. So much so that it creates more of a clouded solid looking blur as you see on the right below...
rather than the nice little circular patterns we see in common illustrations such as immediately below.
So what we see and experience is something that appears much larger then it's individual parts.
What causes this force and what are its effects?
If you take a hammer and touch it to your face, would it hurt? It
might be cold but it certainly wouldn't hurt you if placed
against your face lightly. However what if you took this same hammer, attached
it to a long cord and spun it at a very high speed. And then some part of
you accidentally got in the path of this spinning hammer. What would be your
experience be coming in contact with the hammer in this situation verses the
former. Would this change of conditions make any difference?
A silly question, but I asked to make a point. It's the same exact
hammer, is it not? So what is the difference? Force or the velocity of the
hammer when it comes in contact with you. So it's not just the hammer you are
experiencing but the force behind it i.e. the speed/velocity at which the
hammer is spinning when it strikes you. That speed represents energy. The speed/force makes the
hammer feels much more significant (bigger, more powerful or solid) then it is if it and the cord it's spun by were merely stationary.
Now what if the hammer were held in place by some invisible (electrical/magnetic?) attraction/force/energy between it and a central object it was attracted to and
could be spun around that central point (very far from the hammer) in all directions, always maintaining
the same distance and speed from the central object, similar to how electrons
travel around a nucleus. What if it's speed was such that it created the appearance of a
somewhat round and solid object far bigger then just the hammer (like the illustration of the helium atom above). In fact the velocity was so great it actually
made this entire assemblage of parts look and feel like one large solid object and not a singular tiny object spinning around a minuscule central point/object.
This could explain why something so
small as an atom consisting of even smaller electrons spinning around a tiny nucleus is
experienced (seen and felt) not as something spinning but something solid and much larger then it's parts. And of course since the parts are so minuscule it would not have the same affect as being hit by a hammer. The electrons are simply too small and spinning at too high a rate to hurt us. But it would give the feel of something solid. Then
when you have millions of these held together by an invisible electrical
attraction/force it would appear to be an object of some kind that could be
observed, touched and held, all the while consisting of virtually no matter at all in comparison to it's footprint (what we see and experience). So when you push up against an object, such as a piece of steel you are not feeling substance primarily, you are actually feeling force.
What I am suggesting hasn't actually been proven that I am aware
of. I am simply offering a hypothesis that fits with what we already know about
atoms and also what science has recently discovered about plasma.
For an fascinating documentary ("Thunderbolt of the gods") on this click here.
Can we explain this
Which leads to a very basic question. If this theory is correct,
what energy or force could or would be at work i.e. where does the energy come
from that propels electrons around the nucleus of an atom? What we know is this force/energy is so great that when the individual parts of the atom are separated (split apart) it results in an incredible release of energy as demonstrated in an atomic bomb.
We actually have an
answer. And believe it or not it's in the most "unscientific" book of
all (according to scientists). The bible.
Col 1:15 He is the image of the invisible God, the
firstborn of all creation. 16
For by him all things were created, in heaven and on earth, visible and
invisible, whether thrones or dominions or rulers or authorities—all things
were created through him and for him. 17 And
he is before all things, and in him all things hold
together.
And also
Heb 1:2 but in these last days he has spoken to us by his Son, whom he
appointed the heir of all things, through whom also he created the world. 3 He is the radiance of the glory of God and the exact imprint of
his nature, and he upholdsG5342 the universe by the wordG4487 of his
powerG1411. After making purification for sins, he sat down at
the right hand of the Majesty on high,
Last but not least
Joh 1:1 In the beginning was the Word, and the Word
was with God, and the Word was God. 2
He was in the beginning with God. 3
All things were made through him, and without him was not any thing made that
was made.
All three of these passages tell us
Christ (the same person that became a man and walked among us
over 2000 years ago) is the Creator.
The Colossians passage tells us he is not
only the Creator but the sustainer of the universe i.e. the one that holds everything together and keeps
everything going. He is constantly standing in attention to and oversight of
the creation (...he is before all things...) and in or by his very
existence all things stay together instead of disintegrate into it's various
parts and fly off into space.
Lastly in the book of Hebrews we are told how he
does this; simply by speaking/
commanding (which produces vibration/release of energy) for it to be so. Though we too speak, giving off vibrations/energy, this is a power beyond us or our understanding i.e. we do not bring physical things into existence out of nothing merely by speaking.
Granted an electromagnetic force may be involved in holding things together, but that doesn't explain the source of it i.e. who or what creates/causes/sustains it! We must go to scripture for this explanation.
If we dig a little further into the
specific key words in these passages we get an even greater understanding.
It's not necessary to read every part of
the definitions to follow below. I have underscored, emboldened etc. what I think are the key
elements of the definition that are relevant.
Key words in Col 1:17 And he is before all things, and in him all things hold together.
Before: G4253 πρό pro pro
A primary preposition; “fore”, that
is, in front of, prior (figuratively superior) to.
In compounds it retains the same significations: - above, ago, before, or ever.
In compounds it retains the same significations.
Total KJV occurrences: 46
Hold together:
G4921 συνιστάω /συνιστάνω /συνίστημι - sunistaō /sunistanō /sunistēmi
Thayer Definition:
1) to place together, to set in the same place,
to bring or band together
1a) to stand with (or near) (Christ is ever with but distinct from creation (i.e. he is both imminent and transcendent)
2) to set one with another
2a) by way of presenting or introducing him
2b) to comprehend
3) to put together by way of composition or
combination, to teach by combining and comparing
3a) to show, prove, establish, exhibit
4) to put together, unite parts into one whole
4a) to be composed of, consist
Part of Speech: verb
A Related Word by Thayer’s/Strong’s Number: from G4862 and G2476 (including
its collat. forms)
Citing in TDNT: 7:896, 1120
Key words in Heb 1:3 He is the radiance of the glory of God and the exact imprint of his nature, and he upholdsG5342 the universe by the wordG4487 of his powerG1411.
Upholds: G5342 φέρω pherō̄
Thayer Definition:
1)
to carry
1a)
to carry some burden
1a1)
to bear with one’s self
1b)
to move by bearing; move or, to be conveyed or borne, with the suggestion
of force or speed
1b1)
of persons borne in a ship over the sea
1b2)
of a gust of wind, to rush
1b3)
of the mind, to be moved inwardly, prompted
1c)
to bear up, i.e. uphold (keep from falling)
1c1)
of Christ, the preserver of the universe
2)
to bear, i.e. endure, to endure the rigour of a thing, to bear patiently one’s
conduct, or spare one (abstain from punishing or destroying)
3)
to bring, bring to, bring forward
3a)
to move to, apply
3b)
to bring in by announcing, to announce
3c)
to bear, i.e. bring forth, produce; to bring forward in a speech
3d)
to lead, conduct
Part of Speech: verb
A Related Word
by Thayer’s/Strong’s Number: a primary verb (for which other and apparently not cognate ones
are used in certain tenses only, namely, oio; and enegko
Citing in TDNT: 9:56, 1252
Word: G4487 ῥῆμα rhēma
Thayer Definition:
1) that
which is or has been uttered by the living voice, thing
spoken, word
1a)
any sound (vibration) produced by the voice and having definite meaning (i.e. not random or arbitrary, but with specific meaning and purpose)
1b)
speech, discourse
1b1)
what one has said
1c)
a series of words joined together into a sentence (a declaration of one’s mind
made in words)
1c1)
an utterance
1c2)
a saying of any sort as a message, a narrative
1c2a)
concerning some occurrence
2)
subject matter of speech, thing spoken of
2a)
so far forth as it is a matter of narration
2b)
so far as it is a matter of command
2c)
a matter of dispute, case at law
Part of Speech: noun neuter
A Related Word
by Thayer’s/Strong’s Number: from G4483
Citing in TDNT: 4:69, 505
Power: G1411 δύναμις dunamis
Thayer Definition:
1)
strength power, ability
1a) inherent (vs
delegated) power, power residing in a thing by virtue
of its nature, or which a person or thing exerts and puts forth
1b)
power for performing miracles
1c)
moral power and excellence of soul
1d)
the power and influence which belong to riches and wealth
1e)
power and resources arising from numbers
1f)
power consisting in or resting upon armies, forces, hosts
Part of Speech: noun feminine
A Related Word
by Thayer’s/Strong’s Number: from G1410
Citing in TDNT: 2:284, 186
The bottom line is we don't need mass to
see and experience the material world, we need force, power etc. The "solidness" we experience when touching or engaging the material world may actually be due to force not mass. Which matches
exactly with what we are told in scripture.
And the observed creation is indeed real, not simply a
projection in the ultimate sense i.e. there really is material (even though in
far lesser amounts then the non-material parts) moving at a high
velocity which gives it it's "solidness" i.e. it allows us to
experience it as solid, not as space or according to the space vs the mass we
know it to be. The vast majority of what we see isn't space, in the sense of a
vacuum, it is due to energy, force (dark matter?); unseen for sure, but very real (has real and measurable effect), nevertheless.
_____________________________________________________________________
*The estimate is
only 0.0000000000000000000042 percent of the universe consists of actual matter. Do a web search on this number and you will find plenty of sources that site this stat.
However scientists are now saying there is something in all that emptiness/space, we just can't see it. They call this "dark matter" because we see evidence of its influence/effect even though we see nothing i.e. no observable matter but highly charged electromagnetic plasma.
For a fascinating documentary ("Thunderbolt of the gods") on how scientists may be incorrect in their materialistic/gravitational view of the universe click here.
**This is what is proposed by a
fascinating book titled "The Holographic Universe" I
recommend it though I don't totally agree with it. What I do
agree with is it demonstrates through the science of quantum physics, clear proof of some kind of an infinite cause/source/order/being (what this book calls "implicate order") behind all
that we see and experience.
***By matter we simply mean anything that we can touch and see. This is distinguished from "dark matter" (which is actually not matter at all) we can not see or touch, hence the name "dark" (though we can see it's effects/influence on matter)
****We are told that if an atom were about the size of a baseball stadium, the nucleus would be the size of a pea in the very center with the even smaller individual electrons being at the outer parameter of the stadium circling the stadium at such a high rate and in so many directions (though always held in place at the same distance), the stadium would appear to be in a shell like enclosure.
