Surviving International Investing Shifts Part II

by | Mar 30, 2011 | Archives, SPSP

Surviving International Investing Shifts Part II – Frequency in the Range of Light.

See how to get a free digital workshop on frequency modulation below.

Frequency modulation for quantum thinking is vital because one of the biggest shifts we can gain from is the following:   Turbulence has replaced calm as the norm in our daily lives.  Rapid change now is our bellwether in the here and now.

Perhaps the change was always there and we just did not know.  More likely technology does speed up the process of change.  Maybe technology just informs us faster of the change now so everything seems faster.

Success in this new reality requires that we think and act beyond logic by fine tuning… by enhancing all of our senses and integrating them with intuition so we can survive, prosper and be comfortable and fulfilled in the volatility that has now become our daily state.

See part one this report here.

Part of the integration begins at our quantum state of reality.


I am reminded of change and reality by this lamp designed by Russian designer Dima Loginoff.  The seeds of every outer shell are dictated by another seed within… always smaller and always bigger. As above… so below.

This never ending relativity is part of quantum reality.  Since we used a lamp as our symbol to help us see definition in something that is infinite, let’s view first the quantum aspects of light and how knowing about it can help us survive and prosper in these shifts.

David Deutsche an Israeli-British physicist at the University of Oxford laid the foundations of the quantum theory of computation and made it comprehensible to the general public, notably in his book “The Fabric of Reality” which helps us understand our quantum reality though the frequencies in the range we call light. (All bolds in the excerpts are mine).

Here are excerpts from “The Fabric of Reality”:  In his popular Royal Institution lectures on science, Michael Faraday used to urge his audiences to learn about the world by considering what happens when a candle burns. I am going to consider an electric torch (or flashlight) instead. This is quite fitting, for much of the technology of an electric torch is based on Faraday’s discoveries.

Deutsche describes an experiment that shows how light is at the core of quantum physics.

His books says: Imagine an electric torch switched on in an otherwise dark room. Figure 2.1 illustrates the situation. But it is somewhat misleading: if we were observing the torch from the side we should be able to see neither it nor, of course, its light. Invisibility is one of the more straightforward properties of light. We see light only if it enters our eyes (though we usually speak of seeing the object in our line of sight that last affected that light).

FIGURE 2.1 Light from an electric torch (flashlight).


Figure 2.1 does show that the light is brightest near the torch, and gets dimmer farther away as the beam spreads out to illuminate an ever larger area. To an observer within the beam, backing steadily away from the torch, the reflector would appear ever smaller and then, when it could only be seen as a single point, ever fainter. Or would it? Can light really be spread more and more thinly without limit? The answer is no. At a distance of approximately ten thousand kilometres from the torch, its light would be too faint for the human eye to detect and the observer would see nothing. That is, a human observer would see nothing; but what about an animal with more sensitive vision? Frogs’ eyes are several times more sensitive than human eyes — just enough to make a significant difference in this experiment. If the observer were a frog, and it kept moving ever farther away from the torch, the moment at which it entirely lost sight of the torch would never come. Instead, the frog would see the torch begin to flicker. The flickers would come at irregular intervals that would become longer as the frog moved farther away. But the brightness of the individual flickers would not diminish. At a distance of one hundred million kilometres from the torch, the frog would see on average only one flicker of light per day, but that flicker would be as bright as any that it observed at any other distance.

Frogs cannot tell us what they see. So in real experiments we use photomultipliers (light detectors which are even more sensitive than frogs’ eyes), and we thin out the light by passing it through dark filters, rather than by observing it from a hundred million kilometres away. This flickering indicates that there is a limit to how thinly light can be evenly spread. Borrowing the terminology of goldsmiths, one might say  that light is not infinitely ‘malleable’. Like gold, a small amount of light can be evenly spread over a very large area, but eventually if one tries to spread it out further it  {34}  gets lumpy. Even if gold atoms could somehow be prevented from clumping together, there is a point beyond which they cannot be subdivided without ceasing to be gold. So the only way in which one can make a one-atom-thick gold sheet even thinner is to space the atoms farther apart, with empty space between them. When they are sufficiently far apart it becomes misleading to think of them as forming a continuous sheet. For example, if each gold atom were on average several centimetres from its nearest neighbour, one might pass one’s hand through the ‘sheet’ without touching any gold at all. Similarly, there is an ultimate lump or ‘atom’ of light, a photon. Each flicker seen by the frog is caused by a photon striking the retina of its eye. What happens when a beam of light gets fainter is not that the photons themselves get fainter, but that they get farther apart, with empty space between them (Figure 2.2).


This property of appearing only in lumps of discrete sizes is called quantization. An individual lump, such as a photon, is called a quantum (plural quanta). Quantum theory gets its name from this property, which it attributes to all measurable physical quantities — not just to things like the amount of light, or the mass of gold, which

Suppose that the light of a torch passes through two successive small holes in otherwise opaque screens, as shown in Figure 2.4, and that the emerging light falls on a third screen beyond. Our question now is this: if the experiment is repeated with ever smaller holes and with ever

FIGURE 2.4 Making a narrow beam by passing light through two successive holes.


Can the illuminated region between the second and third screens  be confined to an arbitrarily narrow cone? In goldsmiths’ terminology, we are now asking something like ‘how “ductile” is light’ — how fine a thread can it be drawn into? Gold can be drawn into threads one ten-thousandth of a millimetre thick.

It turns out that light is not as ductile as gold! Long before the holes get as small as a ten-thousandth of a millimetre, in fact even with holes as large as a millimetre or so in diameter, the light begins noticeably to rebel. Instead of passing through the holes in straight lines, it refuses to be confined and spreads out after each hole. And as it spreads, it ‘frays’. The smaller the hole is, the more the light spreads out from its straight-line path. Intricate patterns of light and shadow appear.

The book then goes onto show that a pattern like this would appear.

quantum idea

Then Deutsche continues:  If light travelled in straight lines, the pattern in Figure 2.6 would consist simply of a pair of bright bands one-fifth of a millimetre apart (too close to distinguish on this scale), with sharp edges and with the rest of the screen in shadow. But in reality the light bends in such a way as to make many bright bands and dark bands, and no sharp edges at all.

Now, what sort of shadow is cast if we cut a second, identical pair of slits in the barrier, interleaved with the existing pair, so that we have four slits at intervals of one-tenth of a millimetre? We might expect the pattern to look almost exactly like Figure 2.6.


After all, the first pair of slits, by itself, casts the shadows in Figure 2.6, and as I have just said, the second pair, by itself, would cast the same pattern, shifted about a tenth of a  millimetre to the side — in almost the same place. We even know that light beams normally pass through each other unaffected. So the two pairs of slits together should give essentially the same pattern again, though twice as bright and slightly more blurred.

In reality, though, what happens is nothing like that. The real shadow of a barrier with four straight, parallel slits is shown in Figure 2.7(a). For comparison I have repeated, below it, the illustration of the two-slit pattern (Figure 2.7(b)). Clearly, the four-slit shadow is not a combination of two slightly displaced two-slit shadows, but has a new and more complicated pattern. In this pattern there are places, such as the point marked X, which are dark on the four-slit pattern, but bright on the two-slit pattern. These places were bright when there were two slits in the barrier, but went dark when we cut a second pair of slits for the light to pass through. Opening those slits has interfered with the light that was previously arriving at X.


So, adding two more light sources darkens the point X; removing them illuminates it again. How? One might imagine two photons heading towards X and bouncing off each other like billiard balls. Either photon alone would have hit X, but the two together interfere with each other so that they both end up elsewhere. I shall show in a moment that this explanation cannot be true. Nevertheless, the basic idea of it is inescapable: something must be coming through that second pair of slits to prevent the light from the first pair from

So, whatever causes interference behaves like light.

What should we expect to happen when these experiments are performed with only one photon at a time?

But what we surely could not observe is any place on the screen, such as X, that receives photons when two slits are open, but which goes dark when two more are opened.

Yet that is exactly what we do observe. However sparse the photons are, the shadow pattern remains the same. Even when the experiment is done with one photon at a time, none of them is ever observed to arrive at X when all four slits are open. Yet we need only close two slits for the flickering at X to resume.

So, if the photons do not split into fragments, and are not being deflected by other photons, what does deflect them? When a single photon at a time is passing through the apparatus, what can be coming through the other slits to interfere with it?

Since different interference patterns appear when we cut slits at other places in the screen, provided that they are within the beam, shadow photons must be arriving all over the illuminated part of the screen whenever a tangible photon arrives. Therefore there are many more shadow photons than tangible ones. How many? Experiments cannot put an upper bound on the number, but they do set a rough lower bound. In a laboratory the largest area that we could conveniently illuminate with a laser might be about a square metre, and the smallest manageable size for the holes might be about a thousandth of a millimetre. So there are about 1012 (one trillion) possible hole-locations on the screen. Therefore there must be at least a trillion shadow photons accompanying each tangible one.

Thus we have inferred the existence of a seething, prodigiously complicated, hidden world of shadow photons.

Interference is not a special property of photons alone. Quantum theory predicts, and experiment confirms, that it occurs for every sort of particle. So there must be hosts of shadow neutrons accompanying every tangible neutron, hosts of shadow electrons.

It follows that reality is a much bigger thing than it seems, and most of it is invisible. The objects and events that we and our instruments can directly observe are the merest tip of the iceberg.

For similar reasons, we might think of calling the shadow particles, collectively, a parallel universe, for they too are affected by tangible particles only through interference phenomena. But we can do better than that. For it turns out that shadow particles are partitioned among themselves in exactly the same way as the universe of tangible particles is partitioned from them. In other words, they do not form a single, homogeneous parallel universe vastly larger than the tangible one, but rather a huge number of parallel universes, each similar in composition to the tangible one, and each obeying the same laws of physics, but differing in that the particles are in different positions in each universe.

A remark about terminology. The word ‘universe’ has traditionally been used to mean ‘the whole of physical reality’. In that sense there can be at most one universe. We could stick to that definition, and say that the entity we have been accustomed to calling ‘the universe’ — namely, all the directly perceptible matter and energy around us, and the surrounding space — is not the whole universe after all, but only a small portion of it. Then we should have to invent a new name for that small, tangible portion. A new word, multiverse, has been coined to denote physical reality as a whole.

Thus we have reached the conclusion of the chain of reasoning that begins with strangely shaped shadows and ends with parallel universes.

The quantum theory of parallel universes is not the problem, it is the solution. It is not some troublesome, optional interpretation emerging from arcane theoretical considerations. It is the explanation — the only one that is tenable — of a remarkable and counter-intuitive reality.

Many of those Davids are at this moment writing these very words. Some are putting it better.  Others have gone for a cup of tea.

Desutsche goes on to explain how every aspect of our universe is impacted by trillions of shadow universes and that our universe is a shadow universe to trillions of universes.

Imagine… we are… every fiber of our being… and all we see and sense is composed of… and connected to… and in touch with… everything in our universe… and trillions more!

Here is my theory on how we can use this knowledge to fine tune our thinking and integrate it with our intuition:

Our beta works in four wave forms… beta, alpha, theta and delta.

The beta waves tap into the local news.  This is the part of our being that takes care of the here and now…the space around us.  These brain waves dominate our logical thinking.

Our alpha waves connect us to the regional news…a much deeper and broader area of intelligence too vast for our prefrontal logical brain to compute on its own. When we tap into alpha we get intuitive creative flashes we could never just think up logically.

Theta connect brain waves connect with the global news…an even deeper vaster level of intelligence and finally we reach delta.

Delta waves are our connection to the universal news right down to our quantum state and perhaps trillions of shadow universes. These are the brain waves that allow us to dream and do multi things in varied places combining the past and future all at the same time!

This is an intelligence so vast that we cannot even imagine it.  This is yota-yota yotabytes of data… compared to our brains that process at 64K.   We must be in a dream state where the physical boundaries strip away. bIn delta we can be in two places at once, know all things and even fly… yet stil be in the ground at the same time… full potentiality.

When we allow these waves to interconnect freely with our logic and have a way to gear the data down into usable form, we gain unimaginable intellect.  Many would say we are in a super state or when processing information in this way we could describe ourselves as being “in the zone”.

In such a state, our mental and physical beings improve.  Inner improvements… greater flexibility… more intelligence… broader perspective… these are keys for surviving and gaining from shifts in international investing and business.


We have added frequency modulation workshops in all our courses that teach how to use silence, music and play to get into the zone.  These workshops help delegates enhance productivity and creativity.

The concepts gained show delegates how to create their own program of greater wisdom and help them build new skills at work in study and play. One benefit is that delegates gain tools to quickly become better at any subject.

For example one delegate at a Spanish course found that what she learned also helped her study better. She worote:

“Hi Gary & Merri, You two are the BEST!!! Your Seminar was fantastic! I am so excited. I had procrastinated fulfilling my continuing education for my Broker’s License and then just before my surgeries, I realized my expiration date isn’t Nov. 12th – it is Sept 12th. Well, as you can see prior to taking your course I had only completed 3 units of the required 45 units. I thought I would take your course and then complete my remaining 42 units over the next 2 weeks. However, I took one class exam on Saturday night, August 27th. I didn’t even take the cellophane off the required Course manuals until after I saw the two of you today less than 5 hours ago! I used your techniques and completed 39 units of continuing education today. I have now completed all 45 units. All of my test scores were in the 90.6-96% range. My course exam information is listed below. I just wanted to let you know how valuable your course was to me. Thanks again!”

Our courses always have interesting people.  Our last course had doctors, dentists, business people, personal trainers, teachers, an award winning journalist who was the New York Times art director and even a Pilates teacher who had trained with Joe Pilates the founder of the Pilates technique.

To make it easier to learn about frequency modulation, we have recorded our “Frequency Modulation Workshop”.

You can download the audio recording of this workshop for $99.    Save $99 I’ll email you right away the audio recording of $99 Frequency Modulation Workshop FREE when you enroll in any of the three courses or tours below.

May 9-10, 2011 Ecuador Shamanic Minga Tour. Details here.

May – September or November 2011 Super Thinking Plus Spanish.

We hope to see you at an upcoming course.

Excerpts above from The Parallel Universes of David Deutsch

See more about Russian designer Dima Loginoff’s Fedora Lamp