Human beings have always wondered what is at the foundation of reality, often forming two seemingly opposing camps. Scientists look to theory, experiment, and mathematics to discover answers, while the spiritual community looks to consciousness and the soul. Yet, if we follow either path far enough, they begin to converge.
This two-part post attempts to bridge the gap between science and spirituality by exploring the most prominent approaches to the question of what constitutes the essential nature of reality. Given the ambitious nature of this undertaking, my approach is, by necessity, tightly focused.
In Part 1, we will examine the universe through two scientific lenses: down into the quantum realm and up into the far reaches of the cosmos. One direction leads to the zero-point field and the other to the Big Bang. While key aspects of these two scientific theories of the nature of reality have been verified to impressive levels of mathematical accuracy, deep anomalies persist, suggesting to some scientists that they have not yet reached the absolute foundation of the material world.
In Part 2, which will post next month, we will explore alternative frameworks proposed by physicists, philosophers, and mystics. By moving beyond strict analytics to more philosophic, esoteric, and mystical paradigms, we will look at various arguments that consciousness underlies the physical world. However, as we will see, if consciousness is the most essential aspect of reality, it is nothing like the human mind. It is less like a field of awareness and more like a field of pure “agency.” Everything happens through it, although no one knows what it is.
As different as these two approaches seem, they reveal that our direction of travel doesn’t matter. Whether we look outward or inward, upward or downward, the moment we break past the rigid boundaries of materialism, we arrive at the same destination: an invisible, all-pervasive, fundamental field. Whether the ground state of reality is a matrix of quantum fields or a singular field of primordial agency, tracing its outlines makes for an extraordinary journey. So, let’s go. . .
The Journey Downward and Inward: Into the Heart of Matter
In the material realm, physicists generally seek answers by breaking things down—descending deeper into the fabric of matter and peeling back layers from molecules, to atoms, to subatomic particles, and, finally, to quarks. When they go deep enough, matter disappears entirely. At the most fundamental quantum levels, solid objects dissolve into mathematical probabilities and fluctuating vacuum energy. But abstract probabilities are not solid objects, and a vacuum is supposed to be empty. Leaving math aside, quantum mechanics, through the Heisenberg Uncertainty principle, tells us that space cannot ever be totally empty or devoid of energy. And that’s exactly what scientists found.
What they discovered was a matrix of fields that exists even when space is stripped of all matter and cooled to its absolute lowest state of energy. They call this background matrix the zero-point field (ZPF). And indeed, it is teeming with energy. To understand its theoretical magnitude, physicists once calculated that if you apply standard quantum equations to a single cubic centimeter of empty space—about the size of a sugar cube—it should contain more raw energy than all the stars in the known universe. While astronomical observations show that the actual measurable energy is vastly smaller, this mathematical paradox proves that the vacuum is far from empty.
The “zero-point field” is a term of description for a collection of seventeen fundamental fields in their lowest possible energy states. Each field is associated with a specific fundamental particle of matter or force. There are matter fields, such as various quark fields, the electron field, and the muon field. And there are fields of force, such as the photon field, which is associated with electromagnetism; and the gluon field, which is associated with the strong nuclear force. According to current theory, these fields are the primary reality of our universe.
Yet, because these fundamental fields are not material, they can be hard to wrap your head around. We will look at only one major factor that is important to our understanding of them: These fields do not exist in space; they are intrinsic properties of space itself. Imagine space as an ocean of invisible fluid. Picture each field as an invisible, fluid-like grid extending infinitely in every direction, where every point within it has its own distinct measurement. If you dip a thermometer into any spot in that ocean, you get a unique reading for that specific point, whether it’s the measurement of current speed, water pressure, or water temperature.
So then, where do particles come from? Particles are localized perturbations—essentially excitations, like a concentrated ripple or a wave packet—in this metaphorical ocean of the seventeen fundamental quantum fields. When a region of a field vibrates with a specific, minimum amount of energy, that localized packet of vibrating energy is what physicists conceive of as a particle.
As an example of the dynamic nature of these fields, while a proton is considered a single particle, actually it is a highly localized interplay between quark fields and gluon fields. What does this mean in terms of “reality”? Let’s use ourselves as an example. Protons, neutrons, and electrons are at the core of all elements and chemicals in the material world. Each of us is a massive bundle of these particles: they make up everything we call a “body.” Yet because these particles are just field excitations, we can say that “in reality,” our physical bodies are made entirely of the interlocking dance of quantum fields.
A consequence of how these fields interact is that once particles are created together, they can become deeply linked in a way that transcends distance. Physicists use the terms “entanglement” and “non-locality” to describe this phenomenon, where a measurement made on one particle instantly correlates with its partner, even if they are on opposite sides of the universe. At this quantum level, individual parts of the universe reveal an underlying interconnectedness.
It is worth reinforcing a fine point about the ZPF: It is not a separate underlying field within which the other fields coexist. It is simply a description of the overall state of the seventeen known fundamental fields when they are at their absolute lowest possible energy. Collectively, these seventeen fields are the underlying fabric of the known universe—the current bottom layer of reality. At least for now. . . Physicists have not yet been able to fully unite the gravitational field (the curvature of space-time itself) into this quantum framework. They believe there must be a deeper reality that unifies gravity with these seventeen fields—a more essential master field. Hence, their ongoing search for a Unified Field Theory, which they believe will contribute to their ultimate goal—what is colloquially called the Theory of Everything.
We will take one more quick science journey to prepare us for our exploration in next month’s post: the likelihood that at the heart of reality is a “field of all fields.”
The Journey Upward or Outward: To the Edge of Time and Space
Let us take a brief flight up into the cosmos to make a singular point: going up and outwards takes us down and backwards.
While quantum physicists dive downward and inward, cosmologists look upward and outward toward the furthest edges of the known universe. Yet, traveling out in space is famously a journey back in time. By studying the most distant objects, which also are the oldest, astrophysicists discovered a cosmological clock. They could wind it backward from these ancient cosmic formations to see how they evolved. Tracing that development back to its beginning revealed the moment of creation of the universe in the Big Bang some 13.8 billion years ago—and led them straight into the lap of mystery. How did a universe of such exquisite “suchness” spring from nothingness? From where did space and time arise? And how? How did matter initially form? Through patience and diligence, they have managed to at least partially answer three of those questions. It’s the first one—how something came from nothing—that remains stubbornly troublesome, stuck thoroughly in the realm of the theoretical.
In classical cosmology, we are told everything happened in a Big Bang, when time began: nothing became something. In a trillionth of a trillionth of a trillionth of a second, this something expanded in a process called “inflation,” and the hot, soupy universe became filled with particles. In a more modern view, inflation happened first—empty space (or whatever you want to call what came before “space”) underwent a hyper-fast expansion that caused the Big Bang, leading to the creation of particles and, after 13.8 billion years, the universe we see today.
What came before this beginning, and even what initiated it, are not really questions for science, at least not how it currently stands. When asked, most scientists’ answers are of the shrug-the-shoulder kind: “We don’t know and can’t know, because it makes no logical sense to ask what came before space and time.” So, most physicists and cosmologists move on—although not all of them, as we will examine in Part 2. Let us stay with what cosmologists do know about the universe, at least as their theories and experiments show. The current model explains the process of how our universe came into being, yet it contains a profound anomaly suggesting the theory cannot be complete; something more fundamental must be included to truly explain cosmological “reality.”
Once inflation halted and that initial hyper-fast burst of expansion settled, the cosmic soup cooled, and the constituents of matter began to form. The universe then began its long evolutionary journey, resulting in the complexity and grandeur of the cosmos as we know it today. But something about that evolution defies the belief of many cosmologists and physicists: The universe is fine-tuned to an astonishing degree. If the core parameters of our cosmos were adjusted by even a fraction, the universe—and life as we know it—simply wouldn’t exist. For many people in both the scientific and spiritual camps, the mathematical improbability of this level of fine-tuning happening by chance not only defies belief but demands explanation. For them, cosmological evolution alone cannot be the whole story.
Where the Macro Meets the Micro
Most mainstream scientific models remain rigidly materialistic, and many scientists prefer to stay firmly within those bounds. We can leave them to their comfort zone. Instead, in next month’s post, we will venture to the frontiers of knowledge with a growing cadre of scientists and philosophers who dare to explore the mystery. It’s a lot more fun, vastly more interesting, and likely where the traditionalists will eventually be dragged—perhaps kicking and screaming.
As we have seen in this post, when we go far enough down into the quantum realm or far enough out in the cosmos, the familiar laws for a mechanical, material universe dissolve. Ultimately, we enter the domain of philosophers. In standard Quantum Field Theory, it makes no sense to ask if there is something underneath or giving rise to the zero-point field. Yet, there are theorists who do ask, proposing frameworks like String Theory or Quantum Gravity. Similarly, for mainstream cosmologists, it makes no sense to ask what came before the Big Bang, because it gave birth to space and time itself; and before that point, all mathematical equations completely break down. But cosmologists of a more philosophical bent have formulated such theories anyway, with most proposing a multiverse (a hypothetical collection of separate but coexisting universes) or a cyclic universe (the continuous expansion, collapse, and rebirth of a single universe). Examples of such theories are Eternal Inflation and the “Big Bounce” of Loop Quantum Cosmology, respectively. Ultimately, however, even these theories may not be enough. For now, it is philosophy, not science, that takes us beyond materialistic boundaries to questions about an absolute foundation to existence—a true First Cause.
In Part 2, we will explore some of the alternative theories gaining the most serious traction inside and outside academia. The majority posit some kind of underlying consciousness field. After reading them, you can draw your own conclusions about which ones hold the most promise and which ones are likely to lead to a dead end. But I can tell you definitively right now: No theory leads to an easy answer. What is fundamental to reality remains exactly what Winston Churchill famously described in a completely different context: “a riddle, wrapped in a mystery, inside an enigma.”
