The Soul in Mathematics

I feel a new energy running through my veins… speaking of what Iknow gives me back a level of confidence I haven’t felt for a long long time. I realize it was difficult to believe others would respect me, for I was having a hard time respecting myself.. knowing I was somewhere avoiding speaking my truth, allowing my fear to run me. So right after writing my second blog, I knew waht the thrid one needed to be. On dispelling the myth that science stand opposite to spirituality.

Before we can continue our exploration of what physics looks like within the paradigm of the Sacred Feminine, thereby offering new metaphors that can help us all to find more sustainable solutions, we need touncover some ‘truths’ that have been shoved down on us. For haven’t we always been told that mathematics speaks only of what is measurable and tangible? Haven’t hard facts and physics become almost synonymous? Hasn’t even reality been kidnapped by hard core scientists, waving a flag  of objectivity and materialism? To be very honest with you, science, even mathematics and physics, have incorporated the nontangible  and imaginary long ago. To be precise, it started in the year 1545 by  Geralamo Cardano and continued to be developed until Hamilton completed the foundation with his work on quaternions in 1843. But as we have seen in so many other disciplines, even when the facts are right there under your nose, if the ruling paradigm doesn’t allow you to see it, you don’t see it. So physicists have truthfully thought that science excluded anything nontangible. As the paraadigm is shifting, it becomes possible to see something else. And here I am, standing at that pinnacle in time.

So what is soul, and where do we find it in mathematics? Soul is that something that stays long after the person has gone. It is that something that lingers after the meeting is over, after the person has left the room. It is what stays, yet it is fleeting.  It is that unnamable something that photographers try to catch on their plate. So far, almost everyone agrees. You could say it is that part of someone’s presence that is untangible and cannot be pinned down to clothing, physical appearance, background or any other outer thing- but that definitely is a part of the presence. if you would meet the same person in very different circumstances, different clothes and function and style, if you would recognize them it would be because of the quivering of their soul in the manifest.

Now in the past era of patriarchy, rationalism and modernism, of course the soul too became subject to being pinned down, made abstract, needing to be defined. This led, of course, to big confusions. For instance, in Hebrew, the words for soul and breath are almost the same; neshama and neshima.  You could understand that as: it is how a person breathes, that almost unnoticable action, that somehow creates that part of someone’s presence that we cannot pin down to anything factual. It is said, that when the last breath leaves the body, it takes the soul with it. Originally, this was seen as a metaphor- and what a beautiful one! However, it became to be interpretated literally, as if the soul was the letter in the envelope that could be taken out. This has led to a whole lot of confusion, and on one side it led to the soul not being a concept people used much, rather we hear talking now about the aura or the energy field which have a function much like the soul used to have. But whatever the name we call it by, we need something that helps us relate to the unseen part of our presence. Also, eventually it gave space for science and spirituality to become pitched against each other. So, for our life’s sake and also for the sake of this enquiry, let’s go back to that older and more open sense of soul: that untangible something that somehow cannot be missed when you want to describe someone’s presence.

Now let’s go to a little history of numbers. Did they always have souls? As a layman, when you hear ‘number’ your first association is probably 1, 2, 3 4, …., right? Well, in ancient times that was indeed how numbers started out. It was assumed that when we wanted to count, we needed only to address what was whole and could be placed before us, like one apple, two apples, three apples etc. In a way, you could say this is the same approach to matter as fluffy fluffy spirituality holds to life: we look only at what is beautiful, whole and harmonious, and we assume that is all there is to life, the rest is just a mistake and a confusion of the mind. It’s not real, this view says.

Well, as in life, there came a time when mathematicians realized this was not enough to address reality. What if you’re in debt, and your debt rises? How do you express that? Zero and the negative numbers got added. It’s like someone growing up and facing the world and admitting that negativity exists in it’s own right. Like admitting darkness exists in it’s own right, with it’s powers of numinosity and fertility, and it is not only the absence of light. Introducing negative numbers means we see them as something existing in it’s own right. As something real. Mathematicians say, they move from the collection of natural numbers N to the collection of Z.

Though we have always been told that mathemtics is absolute and independent of nature, again, this is one of the greatest lies there is.  Simply looking at history contradicts it. Mathematics came forth out of wanting to deal with life. Interestingly enough, the same is said about the mind: many people think mind is something independent of reality, while there has recently been some very exciting research showing that actually language, the way we think, and therefor our mind (as how we think creates paths for the neutrons) models reality over and over. I’ll look up the reference for you, it’s some very elegant and powerful interdiscplinary research. So mind and mathematics both developed in harmony with nature and reality as we humans experience it through our senses. And just like spirituality.

Now with a mathematics that uses only the numbers you can find in Z, you don’t come very far. For what if there’s one piece of land and three sisters who inherit it? Two apple pies and five hungry brothers? Three orchards to be harvested and 11 workmen, of whom one is a child?

Again, a new type of numbers was created to deal with all of this. and nowadays mathematicians call all those numbers the fractals and the collection of all these fractals is Q. By the way, already around 1000 BCE these fractal numbers were used in Egypt.

Still, life wouldn’t fit in such a small jacket. The famous pi ( 3.14159265359…..) is an example. For it turns out, that if you take a stick, hold one end and draw a circle in the sand by turning it around, and if then you want to know the surface area, there is not one of all those numbers in Q that can describe that. Another example: if you have a square piece of land and you know the lengths of the sides, and you want to make a path from one corner to the corner diagonal across, how much stones do you need? Again, there is no number in Q that can describe that for you. So, what to do? Some smart and brave ancestors let go of their illusion that life is neat and everything always fits, and introduced a new type of numbers.  Here is pi, e, square root of 2, and all those other queer ones. Mathematics is actually very tolerant, it doesn’t say: ‘you don’t fit my expectation, I’ll just deny you’, no it says: ‘oh gosh, there’s even more to life than I thought, well let’s deal with it and get to understand it’. The collection of all of these regular and queer ones together is called the Real Numbers,  it is denoted by R, and the name lets you feel how the mathematicians were somehow hoping that now they had their hands on reality and could deal with anything. Around 600 BCE in the Vedic Sulbra Sudras the first indication that people realized this extension was needed can be found, and Pythagoras is better known for his work on this one century later, around 500BCE, focusing on the square root of 2.

So you see, the history of mathematics is the history of humankind getting to sort out all that is happening around them. But so far, there’s been no soul, and only tangible things have been studied. They tried, they really tried, if they could leave all those confusing intangible things out. If they couldn’t make sense of the world by focusing on the tangible. They might have succeeded, if they were willing not to evolve. But as they dove deeper into the factual world, they discovered what Taoists could have told them all along: they found the opposite rearing its head. It wasn’t so that not until Quantum Mechanics did mathematics discover this. It was already discovered centuries earlier, when the complex numbers with their imaginary parts were introduced.

It turned out, to deal with the full complexity of life, even as a mathematician, you needed at least a rudimentary way to include the unseen, the intangible, that what is sensed but not felt, the imaginary. Numbers from now on- we’re talking Golden Age, 16th to 19 the century- were not seen as complete unless they had a soul. In the typical way of mathematics, they invented the most simple way you could do this, and it actually brought them- us- quite far. So, they said, it’s like the real part of a number, a presence, is on the horizontal axis, and the farther out is is the bigger number, and the imaginay part, as they called it, is on the vertical axis, and the farther out the bigger the imaginary presence. Think of imaginary presence as the soul.  It’s like saying some people have big ego, small soul, other small ego, big soul, and some have little ego and little soul and some have big ego, big soul. Ok, it’s oversimplified, but the soul is in there!

What where these ancestors studying that they now needed something they hadn’t needed before? It was like they started asking questions the other way around. They were not only asking: if I have this and that, what does that imply. Like the question of the orchard and the reapers, or the stick and the circle. They started asking questions like: If the outcome is this, then what could I have started with? An example:  if I have Stonehenge and how it maps the rising of Sun and Moon, what would be the actual movement of Sun and Moon? Another example: the ‘old’ question would be: if my boat goes 5 knots, than what is the friction and the wave resistance? The ‘new’ question takes into account that when I go out on the water, I don’t know beforehand what my speed will be. So it would be; if the wind is 6 knots, and this is how my friction depends on speed and that is how my wave resistance depends on speed, than what speed will I go? The first question  relates to a fixed world where everyone goes around at fixed speeds, like on our highways. You just hit your gas pedal a bit harder if you want to go faster. The second one relates to a world with uncertainty, where what will actually happen will depend on many seen and hidden factors ( for, in practice, one sailor will go at a different speed then the next, even if they’re in the same boats!). The old enquiry was about: ‘this is how it is, calculate that aspect for me’, or: ‘this is how I want it, what do I need for that?’ The new enquiry is about: ‘what will happen?’

You can relate this to the famous story of Job. God and the Devil were looking down at Job. God said: ‘Job is my favourite, he is so pure whatever happens’. The Devil said: ‘he is only pleasing you because you are so generous to him. Let go of your protection for him and see what happens.’ The Devil was bringing in here the enquiry the other way around: ‘what would happen if we change the circumstances? How would Job show up?’ Well, in the case of Job, he showed up pretty awesome. No matter what hardship the Devil created for him, and no matter how absent God was, Job was honest, loyal, pure and happy. Wouldn’t you need soul to explain that? Well, mathematicians needed imaginary numbers.

It turns out complex numbers have a lot to do with the fact that everything moves in cycles. If we have only phases of good fortunes, we don’t need much soul. But to deal with good fortune and misfortune, and the one changing into the other, we need soul.

Hamilton was the one who gave the imaginary numbers their form as we know them now, in 1843. This was also the time that quantum physics was about to hit the scene. Quantum mechanics couldn’t exist without Hamilton, without imaginary numbers. So it was not true that when the wave particle duality started showing up that Taoist principles started entering physics. It is not true that nature started behaving weird once we started looking at tiny particles. Quantum behaviour also happens in the case of boat speeds, as everyone who has sailed dingies knows (‘regular’ sailing versus ‘planing’, and the sudden transition between the two).

What is true, is that mathematics expanded herself to include phenomena and ways of enquiry that are the territory of spirituality and Taoism especially: the alternating of yin and yang, light and dark, the truth that the only cetrainty we have is that everything is ever changing- and the question: who are we within that reality? So, we’re leaving the static worldview of the Greeks, and we’re entering the dynamic worldview of Taoism and the Sacred Feminine.

What is also true, is that the men one century ago who were playing with these new mathematical toys, didn’t fully understand the philospohical consequence of what they were doing. They did not see they were shifting from one paradigm to the other, from a static world to an ever changing world. They were dealing with the first signs of the new paradigm, but they were not understanding that yet, didn’t have that perspective yet- as is common in these times of transition. It is only with hindsight that we recognize those early signs.

So when these scientists then half a century later discovered that earth was ever changing and unpredictable, they did not realize this was because this was the new earth they had allowed to enter their mathematical world when they included complex numbers. They were shocked. They were horrified. And as people do at such moments, they started blaming the other. Earth was showing up really weird when studying these small particles. So, they concluded, it must have something to do with those tiny particles. It must be their fault.

With that, they created a big deal of confusion that we’re still in the middle of. Most of us think that quantum behaviour is something that has to do with small particles. No, it has to do with pushing a system to its edges, with pulling oneself up by the bootstrap, with enquiring the other way around. It has to do with soul. Quantum Physics is not a proof of soul. It is a consequence of mathematicians having included soul in their mathematics to better describe the world. Quantum physics is a consequence of soul.

What would have happened if these early quantum scientists had added the humble Taoist approach to their enquiries? If they had accessed the capacity trained in the Sacred Feminine traditions to be with the unknown? As it was, they did not include their own soul, and when adversary came, in the sense of reality no longer fitting into their wave particle models, they did not show soul. They just went pressing on and telling everyone nature is a fool, makes no sense, is unpredictable like a woman.

Now is the time the Sacred Feminine is rising again. We are no longer abusing women and earth for being unpredictable and not fitting into the systems men thought out. We are enquiring into ourselves, into life. Now is a wonderful moment to go back to that time in history when the complex numbers were fully introduced. Let’s understand deeper what happened there, including everything we know now, and from that viewpoint check whether the conclusions these white men with their high hats and chainwatches made, would still hold today.

Klara Adalena, priestess and Dr. in theoretical physics

Waves, Particles and the Wetsuitman

After my coming out yesterday with my view on physics within the paradigm of the Sacred Feminine, I had a restless feverish night. Fear mingled with eagerness. Why can’t I just do the work I love, priestessing? Why go and stick me neck out on a trail that might lead nowhere? Finally I realized it is in honor of the young woman I have been, and the wisdom she holds. She cut herself off from her intuition when she shut up her truth, and I write to heal that wound and free that soul.

Have you been reading this summer about the Wetsuitman? An wetsuit was found on the Dutch coast with remains of a dead body. The wetsuit was soon traced to come from Calais. But nobody had any clue who had been in that wetsuit and what had happened. Later that summer a second wetsuit was found in Norway, with bones sticking out of it. It was traced to come from the same shop, bought at the same time by the same customer. There were many things that fascinated me about the story, and one of them was that the policeman in charge warned they shouldn’t talk about the missing one as ‘the diver’. That would turn the minds of everyone involved in a certain direction, meaning they might miss important clues. Indeed, in the end it turned out there had been no diver but a refugee, but why is this relevant to physics?

Well, if you have read anything about quantum mechanics, you are sure to have come across the famous wave particle duality in one way or another. Physcists are racking their brains trying to imagine what electrons and photons look like, and the eveen smaller particles, and the point is, they are thinking in terms of waves and particles. Interestingly enough, every experiment that throws light upon this (pun intended), shows that these assumptions do not hold. When you think in terms of waves and particles, nature makes no sense. Now these phsyicists should talk to that wise policeman. What would happen if they too were humble, bowed their head and realized that thinking in terms of waves and particles is obviously leading to confusion, and they should let go of these images, open to what nature is trying to tell us? Like in the case of the wetsuitman, whole new possibilities might come into view.

Even though on the outside most physicists reel atb the idea, actually when you search around on the internet you find many many who are doing things like this. Quantum mechanics as it stands now isn’t as widely accepted as he physical community would like us to think. Sure, they use the ususal tactics of making the others look stupid, silly, not scientific, and simply not worth listening to. Sounds familiar?

In banking some smart guys have thrown the world in a huge crisis because they developed instruments that nobody understood- and we let that happen. We have seen what it has cost us. In physics, the same is happening. Classical physics is the ground for our old paradigm of rationalism, and it is close to ruining the world. BUT, we let the incredible responsibility of researching into the limitations of this model up to a small handfull of people who are not able to tell us aboyut what they’re finding in a way that the general people can understand. Again, we accept it. of course they should be held responsible and be able to tell about it in ways we can understand. But we have led ourselves to believe that it is simply too complicate for a layman. Sounds familiar?

So I am braving the load of being made rediculous and more, I eam it was 30 years ago i was in physics, I am a woman and my god, I am proflie myself as a priestess, who would have to take her seriously? Well, I for one have to take msyelf seriously.

No one has ever seen a particle or a wave, in the sense as they are used in physics. They are abstractions. For many situations, these abstractions are useful. Like it’s useful to think of someone as a diver when she is actively engaged in the diving sport. But when life is showing us that these abstractions are no longer making sense, we should be ready to let go of them and open ourselves to the unknown. That’s where a shift to a more encompassive paradigm becomes possible. Thinking about wave and particles in quantum mechanics is like squeezing a grown up woman in a girl’s bodysuit. It just will never fit, no matter where you start.

Think of a tree. From a distance, like on the Google Earth pictures, they look like round balls. A phycisist would decribe that as a particle. But when you stand next to the tree, it doesn’t look like a particle at all. It has a nice strong trunk, sometimes straighta nd sometimes gnarly and often both. It has roots underground that we sense but usually only get little hints of- until the tree is blown over. It has branches and twigs and leaves and lost of space in between. When the wind blows in the leaves, we can see movement rippling through the leaves- like a wave. So when you’re standing next to the tree, you find that the concepts particle and wave are not really helpful to understand the tree and ghet a connection with it. It is missing out on a lot that is essential about the tree.

So- take a breath- it isn’t only in quantum mechanics that the concepts of waves and particles are pretty useless. It is in many many situations in our daily lives. Yes, there are situations when it is useful to think of waves or particles. For instance, when you’re sailing the North Sea, or making wave forecasts for the sailors. When you are playing billiards, that favorite game of physicists- at least, on paper, for most ahve never played. Interestingly enough, when you’re making traffic jam forecasts like we are now doing using satellite images, we don’t think of cars as particles, though you might be tempted to think that for on a still standing picture from the satliites they would like like squarish billiard balls. But then phycisists see cars as molecules in a fluid and they use wave theory and fluid mechanics to predict jams! So, in practice, even phycisist are very aware that the concepts of waves, particles and fluids are not absolute, and depending on the situation you use the model that helps you further.

Then why oh why are there all those millions of books on the wave and particle duality and hinting that we have run up against some very queer behavious of nature- instead of owning that we are using the wrong model, the wrong metaphors? The typical question when we are entering the end of a paradigm…

One man in history, already nearly a century ago, had the guts to do this. Paul Dirac, one of the founders of quantum physics. He actively warned over and over that we shouldn’t be trying to visualize these small whatevers, because that would lead us astray. He developed a powerful theory which makes no reference whatsoever to waves or particles. His theory proved very effective, in the sense it explained and predicted much of what baffled other scientists. People took over his outcomes, but didn’t listen to his warnings. I think this is where the search for a new paradigm has gone astray, and this is where I picked it up a few years ago. I was totally surprised by what I found, for it showed my life journey of becoming a priestess after leaving physics had actually prepared me to connect deeper to what Dirac wrote and to show how this leads to a new physics within the paradigm we are now heading for, the paradigm of the Sacred Feminine. It will give us all ways to understand quantum mechanics and not to leave the interpretations to a few ‘experts’. And it will show us how quantum mechanics is actually not only about tiny ‘particles’ and photons, it is about any system that is moving towards its edge- like car racing at break neck speed. Like the human race starting to fill up the whole earth. The two men in wetsuits died a sad death looking for a new life. Let us learn from them to let go of assumptions that seem so logical. Let’s follow Dirac and let go of the standard assumptions of physics and look anew at nature.

 

Einstein was Wrong – Physics within the Paradigm of the Sacred Feminine

Maybe you know that before I became a Priestess I began my life as a theoretical physicist. Today I was inspired in a  session with Wendy Leusen of INW to connect this scientific side with my priestess. As I drove home, so much inspiration flowed, feels like I am preparing for a TED talk. At the same time, I am terrified of what I have to say, for it will be overthrowing a lot of things many western intellectuals hold dear.  But I felt the time is now, we are in a shifting paradigm, we need the priestess within this lion’s den of the modern mind, if we want to save the earth and our children we cannot allow any field to stay outside of the lifting of the veils of false images and pretense. And certainly not physics, which has playes such an important role in holding the old paradigm of rationality together. So, here I plunge into dark deep waters.

I will challenge Einstein- but isn’t Einstein the symbol of freeing ourselves from the narrow confines of 19the century and the strict laws of classical physics, which left no space for human imagination? Isn’t Einstein freedom personfied? I will challenge quantum mechanics- at least parts of it.  But isn’t quantum mechanics the favorite of all spiritual intellectuals, leading to free will within a universe that had become too predictable and controlled? Doesn’t quantum mechanics offer some sort of rational support to mysterious levels of connection between observer and observed? Aren’t we all so incredibly happy with relativity theory and quantum mechanics?! Now here comes Klara, me, the theoretical physicist and priestess who says she is going to burn down these lighthouses of the twentieth century- can you see why I’m afraid?  But hey, wait a second. So we’re attached to ‘our’ relativity theory and quantum mechanics. But do they truly offer us what we’re hungry for? Have they shifted us into a world more free, more connected, more whole? Have they made physics accessible to the majority of people?

My claim is I have something better still than relativity theory and then quantum mechanics as you know it. Something that offers more freedom, more connection, more wholeness. A physics where sustainability is inbuilt, and not something to be addes as an afterthought. A physics that feels natural and intuitive to men and women, professionals and laymen alike. A phsyics that can hold us as we journey into the new paradigm of the sacred feminine. I call it: sacred feminine physics.

Before I say what I have to say, let me tell you that my first course at University was relativity theory. And intuitively I knew, something is seriously off here. We are all admiring the new clothes of the Emperor- while actually he is naked. Then, I didn’t have the resources or the guts to listen to my knowing. I shut off my dream, my knowing, my intuition. It created a wound. It led to a burnout, but nobody understood what was the real cause. Everybody thought it was because the big city was too much, I let it all be and continues life with a little less soul, a little less spark. I shut off my deepest knowing about how the universe works. I shut off my deep connection to life and the mystery. I thought I could cope… and yes, while the challenge of getting a masters and then a PhD were still there, I could. But once these were in my pocket, the barrenness stared me in the face. I went to look for that mystery, that knowing, that I had set aside. For my red shoes that I had sacrificed to step in the golden cage of physics, science, and a career. So maybe that makes you understand why I need to speak now.

In search of what I had lost, I started exploring the forces of nature through wild Full Moon rituals, dancing and drumming around a fire. My whole being just yearned for that soulful connection with nature, to feel the forces of nature raging through me like sexual fire, to sense energies and be nourished by them. It led to a path of inner awakening. Not surpisingly, I was always on the lookout for universal principles, like the famous principle: As Above, So Below, As Below, So Above. As I learned  and found my inner resources, the time shifted and the paradigm of the Sacred Feminine started  her come back. So, you see, maybe now the time is ready for my message to be heard. Maybe it is not too late.

Einstein was wrong. Here you have it, straight in your face. I said it now. There is not a single experiment, not a single experiment, that proves relativity theory is right. I know, you can’t believe it. Is this physics, that epithome of nothing-is-true-unless-we-have-scientific-proof? By the time I deliver my TED talk I’ll have all the references ready. There. Is. Not. A. Single. Experiment. Proving. Relativity. Theory.

Once you have recovered from the shock, maybe a differnet voice in you surfaces.  Especially if you’re a woman. A voice that softly says; ‘I knew it. I knew it all along.’ But the system made you think you were stupid and that you had no right to assume you had anything to add. We were all admiring the new clothes of the Emperor, and my, weren’t they shiny, speaking of a freedom, a triumph of the mind, the summit of man’s mastership over nature, freeing himself from the yoke of classical physics and the tedious suffocating narrowmindedness of 19th century? The truth is, we were so HOPING Einstein was right, we didn’t need proof. We were too excited, too elated, it fit too well in the era of the turn of the century. So who would dare to say that the emperor was naked? The queen of science, physics, had allowed herself to be fooled, and who would be ready to speak that?

It took me nearly 40 years. And don’t worry, I won’t send you back to the cage of determinism and classical physics. I will introduce you to a physics that is natural, intuitive, and who knows, it might be true. I haven’t been able to prove it yet, but I do have suggestions for experiments that might prove it and that don’t need millions or billions of dollars. It speaks not only of freedom, but of the greater freedom that is born from surrender. It speaks of mutual interactions between all parts of the system, as nothing is ever totally separated from anything else. It speaks of soul and heart and connection and yes, it includes classical physics. It is an expansion of that theory.

Classical physics describes only a small portion of what we see happening around us. I know, another shock here. You’ve always been told classical physics is valid for the world we know, and only when we go to speeds close to the velocity of light, or to particles so small as electrons and protons, only then do we need to expand on classical physics. Bullshit. Sorry, I don’t use words like that easily, but this is really the greatest lie you have ever been told, greater than that of Santa Claus. And what’s more, anyone who has folowed a few years of physics at university or college can tell you. Think of a pendulum, that all favorite example of physics. A pendulum is like a little ball on a long string, like in the old fahioned standing clocks. Classical mechanics is only true when the movement away from centre is small. Remember when you were swining as a kid? A swing is a pendulum. Classcial mechanics speaks only about that dull part, where you stay close to centre. It has very little to say about that part where it gets exciting, where you feel yourself freefalling, and the eyes of your mother would start getting really worried. Physicists call this part ‘nonlinear mechanics’, and in truth, they have no real understanding of it, no holding of what is actually happening here. I know because nonlinear dynamics was part of my PhD. I don’t think my TED talk will have the space to explain all this, maybe a book will have to follow.

But what I want you to get, is that when we get to the edge of a system, when we don’t play it safe, classical mechanics doesn’t really hold. Think of a tennisplayer. When you play like those gentlemen at the end of the nineteenth century did, who by the way invented both tennis and quantum mechanics, tennis is slow and polite and the ball makes nice predictable curves. But nowadays, the sport has totally changed, the rackets are made of newer materials, spin has not become a little effect but the core of the game, and the balls fly at lightning speed over the court. When you play this way, or even when you watch it on tv, you feel your adrenaline pumping. You feel you are watching people pushing it to the edge. And whenever that is happening, quantum mechanics comes into effect.

This is a wider quantum mechanics, one that follows the foundation as described so powerfully by Dirac, but that will not the narrow model of quantum mechanics that most physicists have today.

I offer you a physics that is very intuitive to anyone who has made the journey from mind to beingness. A physics that holds our modern world where we all operate close to our edge 90% of the time, whether in sports, at the office or juggling roles at home. The feminine paradigm that has always been there and is finally finding root on bigger scale, speaks of a spirituality rooted in the body, in connection, in mutuality and in a wisdom that works in your day to day life. Thirty years ago, no one believed that a spirituality like that could overthrow the elegance of Buddhism, the power of Christianity, the luring of Hinduism. It did. Managers, politicians, secretaries, everyone is using principles of the embodied spirituality of the sacred feminine.

Within this setting, I tell you, less than thirty years from now the paradigm of sacred feminine physics will have replaced the paradigm of classical physics. Wonders are then not relegated to tiny particles and physicists labs, they bare again part of our daily life. Not only will the observer of high energetic collision programs at CERN influence his outcomes, mutual interaction will be at the core of how we see and hold life, ourselves and each other. Sutainability is not a dime thrown in after the work is finished, it is built in in the metaphors we use to understand life happening around us.

So, let me know how this touches you, and if you would vote for my TED talk. I will need much inspiration and support as I find ways to bring those notes and insights of mine to the world. If you have ideas on how to support me, let me know. Einstein was wrong. Quantum Mechanics is even more true than we ever dreamed. Let’s make the world whole again.

Dr. Klara Adalena, priestess and theoretical physicist