01 Aug The Mystic and the Physicist: Neville Goddard, Richard Feynman “Creation Is Finished”
You aren’t called upon to make the things. All things already are. The whole, vast creation is already finished; I am only becoming aware of it. Any state that I can imagine can be occupied. The whole thing is finished, and all I do is adjust to it and “feel” myself there until it becomes natural. – Neville Goddard
Creation is Finished
In 1968, the mystic Neville Goddard wrote in his lecture “Faith”
As a result of this in 1941, it was 1949 that I gave a series of lectures in Milwaukee, and the head chemist at Allis-Chalmers came to my meetings. I made some statement using a term that is a scientific term, and the word was “entropy.” Well, I might have used it, not as the scientist would have used it, but I had my own concept of what the word meant and my definition of it, and I said I can change the past. If I can make something, I can unmake it. Whatever I can create, I can uncreate. Whatever I can make, I can unmake. He said: “You can’t do it. For we use entropy in our laboratory every day, and entropy means the past is unalterable; you can’t change it. If the past could be changed, I wouldn’t know what I am doing in the lab…” He said: “All day long I receive little samples of water from all over the world, because we make these huge turbines. And from Australia, New Zealand, South Africa – all over the world – they send samples, because the water passes through certain mineral deposits and carries with it whatever is in that mineral, and, so it cakes. We have to analyze that water and then bring up a solution, because we made the product.” And I said: “I don’t care what you say. I know what I’ve done. And you can undo the past. You can change it.”
“It can’t be done.”
I said: “As far as I am concerned, the whole vast world is finished. Creation is finished, and I am only becoming aware of it. Well, I need not confine myself to what my senses see and what reason allows and what wise men tell me I should accept. I can imagine a state. I can’t see it with my physical eye, but I can imagine a state, and that state imagined is. I can imagine a state that is in conflict with the facts of life. And the facts, you say, are, and they can’t be altered. I can imagine a state that would undo the fact. Well, that state exists. If I occupy that state it will undo the so-called fact you say is fixed forever.” Well, he questioned my sanity, but he was an awfully nice chap. His name was Professor Imhoff. He was the head of the department of this chemical setup. So, while he was a very wise and gentle and kind person.
I returned to New York City, and he sent me the “Scientific News Letter,” dated October the 15th, 1949, in which he said: “Now, Neville, I apologize for having said what I did. This man is far greater as a physicist than I am as a scientist. He is Professor Feynman, of Cornell University, one of the outstanding physicists of our day in speculative, theoretical physics; and this is his letter. And he wrote in this little letter, which was printed in the magazine, a story concerning the positron, a little particle that is produced in atomic disintegration. It’s like the electron, but differs in this respect. It is positive in its charge instead of being negative. Now, these are the words of Feynman, they are not mine. He says: “The positron is a wrong-way electron. It starts from where it hasn’t been, and it speeds to where it was an instant ago. It is bounced so hard its time sense is reversed, and then it returns to where it hasn’t been.” (Now, this is Feynman, this isn’t Neville.) Then he goes on to say: “When a little electron is moving speedily in space if it is bounced, it’s deflected, but continues on its course. But if it is bounced so hard, then its time sense is reversed, and it returns to where it hasn’t been.” “Now,” he said, “on the basis of this, we must now conclude that the entire concept that man held of the universe is false. We always believed that the future developed slowly out of the past. Now, with this concept which we have seen and photographed, we must now conclude that the entire space-time history of the world is laid out, and we only become aware of increasing portions of it successively.” This is 1949. That Professor, Richard Feynman, who is now at Caltech in Pasadena received the Nobel Prize last year for that paper. They held it up almost twenty years, for this is 1968 and he got it in 1967, and the paper came out in 1949.
I didn’t know it as a scientist. I knew it as a mystic. I see it. I can’t explain why; I only know everything is. The whole thing is finished, and all I have to do is to adjust to it. If I know what I want for myself or for another, I adjust to it, because the thing is. Well, if I adjust to it and it feels natural, when it feels natural, then I open my eyes upon this world that I have shut out for that purpose. As I open my eyes, I am turned around. I have actually been where reason would deny that I have been there; and then, as I open my eyes, I have been speeding with the speed of light from wherever I have assumed that I am to where physically I am. Now I am so shocked to find that I am not actually there, but I am here physically. My time sense is turned around. And now, I move across a bridge of incidents – a series of events – that compels me to move towards the fulfillment of that invisible state. And when I get there it is not invisible, it becomes visible. It throws itself on the screen of space, and the world calls that a fact. And they stand amazed at that, because that to them is real. Prior to its becoming objective, it was unreal.
Feynman (May 11, 1918 – February 15, 1988) was an American theoretical physicist, known for his work in the path integral formulation of quantum mechanics, the theory of quantum electrodynamics, the physics of the superfluidity of supercooled liquid helium, as well as his work in particle physics for which he proposed the parton model.
For contributions to the development of quantum electrodynamics, Feynman received the Nobel Prize in Physics in 1965 jointly with Julian Schwinger and Shin’ichirō Tomonaga.
Feynman in his original paper when proposing this theory wrote:
“It is as though a bombardier flying low over a road suddenly sees three roads and it is only when two of them come together and disappear again that he realizes that he has simply passed over a long switchback in a single road.” (Physical Review 76, (1949), 749.) (See below)
One Electron Universe
The one-electron universe postulate, proposed by John Wheeler in a telephone call to Richard Feynman in the spring of 1940, is the hypothesis that all electrons and positrons are actually manifestations of a single entity moving backwards and forwards in time. According to Feynman:
I received a telephone call one day at the graduate college at Princeton from Professor Wheeler, in which he said, “Feynman, I know why all electrons have the same charge and the same mass” “Why?” “Because, they are all the same electron!”
Feynman was struck by Wheeler’s insight that antiparticles could be represented by reversed world lines, and credits this to Wheeler, saying in his Nobel speech:
I did not take the idea that all the electrons were the same one from [Wheeler] as seriously as I took the observation that positrons could simply be represented as electrons going from the future to the past in a back section of their world lines. That, I stole!
Feynman later proposed this interpretation of the positron as an electron moving backward in time in his 1949 paper “The Theory of Positrons”. Yoichiro Nambu later applied it to all production and annihilation of particle-antiparticle pairs, stating that “the eventual creation and annihilation of pairs that may occur now and then is no creation or annihilation, but only a change of direction of moving particles, from past to future, or from future to past.”
Time runs left to right in this Feynman diagram of electron–positron annihilation. When interpreted to include retrocausality, the electron (marked e−) was not destroyed, instead becoming the positron (e+) and moving backward in time.
In a Forbes article, We Still Don’t Understand Why Time Only Flows Forward
“Every moment that passes finds us traveling from the past to the present and into the future, with time always flowing in the same direction. At no point does it ever appear to either stand still or reverse; the “arrow of time” always points forwards for us. But if we look at the laws of physics — from Newton to Einstein, from Maxwell to Bohr, from Dirac to Feynman — they appear to be time-symmetric. In other words, the equations that govern reality don’t have a preference for which way time flows. The solutions that describe the behavior of any system obeying the laws of physics, as we understand them, are just as valid for time flowing into the past as they are for time flowing into the future. Yet we know from experience that time only flows one way: forwards. So where does the arrow of time come from?”
The author Ethan Siegel goes on to say:
“We do understand the arrow of time from a thermodynamic perspective, and that’s an incredibly valuable and interesting piece of knowledge. But if you want to know why yesterday is in the immutable past, tomorrow will arrive in a day and the present is what you’re living right now, thermodynamics won’t give you the answer. Nobody, in fact, understands what will.”
The Theory of Positrons
R. P. FEYNMAN
Department of Physics, Cornell University, Ithaca, New York
(Received April 8, 1949)
The problem of the behavior of positrons and electrons in given external potentials, neglecting their mutual interaction, is analyzed by replacing the theory of holes by a reinterpretation of the solutions of the Dirac equation. It is possible to write down a complete solution of the problem in terms of boundary conditions on the wave function, and this solution contains automatically all the possibilities of virtual (and real) pair formation and annihilation together with the ordinary scattering processes, including the correct relative signs of the various terms.
In this solution, the “negative energy states” appear in a form which may be pictured (as by Stiickelberg) in space-time as waves traveling away from the external potential backwards in time. Experimentally, such a wave corresponds to a positron approaching the potential and annihilating the electron. A particle moving forward in time (electron) in a potential may be scattered forward in time (ordinary scattering) or backward (pair annihilation). When moving backward (positron) it may be scattered backward in time (positron scattering) or forward (pair production). For such a particle the amplitude for transition from an initial to a final state is analyzed to any order in the potential by considering it to undergo a sequence of such scatterings.
The amplitude for a process involving many such particles is the product of the transition amplitudes for each particle. The exclusion principle requires that antisymmetric combinations of amplitudes be chosen for those complete processes which differ only by exchange of particles. It seems that a consistent interpretation is only possible if the exclusion principle is adopted. The exclusion principle need not be taken into account in intermediate states. Vacuum problems do not arise for charges which do not interact with one another, but these are analyzed nevertheless in anticipation of application to quantum electrodynamics.
The results are also expressed in momentum-energy variables. Equivalence to the second quantization theory of holes is proved in an appendix.
This is the first of a set of papers dealing with the solution of problems in quantum electrodynamics. The main principle is to deal directly with the solutions to the Hamiltonian differential equations rather than with these equations themselves. Here we treat simply the motion of electrons and positrons in given external potentials. In a second paper we consider the interactions of these particles, that is, quantum electrodynamics.
The problem of charges in a fixed potential is usually treated by the method of second quantization of the electron field, using the ideas of the theory of holes. Instead we show that by a suitable choice and inter- pretation of the solutions of Dirac’s equation the prob- lem may be equally well treated in a manner which is fundamentally no more complicated than Schrodinger’s method of dealing with one or more particles. The various creation and annihilation operators in the conventional electron field view are required because the number of particles is not conserved, i.e., pairs may be created or destroyed. On the other hand charge is conserved which suggests that if we follow the charge, not the particle, the results can be simplified.
In the approximation of classical relativistic theory the creation of an electron pair (electron A, positron B) might be represented by the start of two world lines from the point of creation, 1. The world lines of the positron will then continue until it annihilates another electron, C, at a world point 2. Between the times ti and t2 there are then three world lines, before and after only one. However, the world lines of C, B, and A together form one continuous line albeit the “positron part” B of this continuous line is directed backwards in time. Following the charge rather than the particles corresponds to considering this continuous world line as a whole rather than breaking it up into its pieces. It is as though a bombardier flying low over a road suddenly sees three roads and it is only when two of them come together and disappear again that he realizes that he has simply passed over a long switchback in a single road.
This over-all space-time point of view leads to considerable simplification in many problems. One can take into account at the same time processes which ordinarily would have to be considered separately. For example, when considering the scattering of an electron by a potential one automatically takes into account the effects of virtual pair productions. The same equation, Dirac’s, which describes the deflection of the world line of an electron in a field, can also describe the deflection (and in just as simple a manneri when it is large enough to reverse the time-sense of the world line, and thereby correspond to pair annihilation. Quantum mechanically the direction of the world lines is replaced by the direction of propagation of waves.
This view is quite different from that of the Hamiltonian method which considers the future as developing continuously from out of the past. Here we imagine the entire space-time history laid out, and that we just become aware of increasing portions of it successively. In a scattering problem this over-all view of the complete scattering process is similar to the S-matrix viewpoint of Heisenberg. The temporal order of events during the scattering, which is analyzed in such detail by the Hamiltonian differential equation, is irrelevant. The relation of these viewpoints will be discussed much more fully in the introduction to the second paper, in which the more complicated interactions are analyzed.
The development stemmed from the idea that in non-relativistic quantum mechanics the amplitude for a given process can be considered as the sum of an amplitude for each space-time path available.1 In view of the fact that in classical physics positrons could be viewed as electrons proceeding along world lines toward the past (reference 7) the attempt was made to remove, in the relativistic case, the restriction that the paths must proceed always in one direction in time. It was discovered that the results could be even more easily understood from a more familiar physical viewpoint, that of scattered waves. This viewpoint is the one used in this paper. After the equations were worked out physically the proof of the equivalence to the second quantization theory was found.”