Survival Physics
By Ronald D. Pearson BSc(Eng) *C.Eng.M.I.Mech.E
*Note prior to retirement and switch to physics

DR R.D. PEARSON BSc., *C.Eng.M.I. Mech.E 5 March 2003
* -Prior to retirement and switch to physics
This theory has achieved publication in Russian conference proceedings (3 & 4) of 1991 and 1993, and in the peer-reviewed journal "Frontier Perspectives" (5) in 1997. Two books by Pearson (6 & 7) provide further detail. Furthermore the theory was supported by Dr Peter Wadhams, Professor of Ocean Physics at Cambridge University, on the Jeff Rense Radio Show (8) in 2001. (more information from R.D. Pearson)

A major paradigm, accepted across all established scientific disciplines, states that mind and consciousness result from brain function alone. This means that mind must vanish at the instant of brain death, a conclusion totally at variance with the evidence. This evidence has been building for over a century and is now so firm as to effectively constitute totally convincing proof of survival. Roll (9) and Zammit (12) cover this aspect exhaustively.

The reason scientists in general go to great pains to discredit this evidence is because it conflicts with all theories physicists have so far developed. Until a major paradigm-shift in physics has occurred there can be no hope of any change of attitude. Hence it is of paramount importance that the flaws in existing physics are resolved so that it becomes extended to incorporate survival and other controversial phenomena.

This article shows how a successful search made to solve three difficulties in physics resulted in providing just such an extension. The resulting “Survival Physics” shows that, as a natural consequence of the mathematical logic, at least the sub-conscious mind is the true reality at the base of all that exists. Although the brain must die its exact copy lives on to be connected with another parallel universe. Built the same way as our own, these seem just as real as ours when the mind is in register.

This is not the only attempt at producing a theory of survival. The states of others, presented at an SPR conference on 24 April 2004, seem less advanced.

Theoretical physics has so far been unable to resolve three major difficulties. In consequence greater and greater sophistication in concepts and mathematical formalism has resulted, yet no solutions are yet within sight. Could it be that theorists are all leading each other into a blind alley so that a totally different approach is required? This article shows that when a return is made to the logic of common sense, in which only fairly elementary maths is required, a solution to all three problems appears simultaneously.

One problem concerns the big bang theory that purports to explain the creation of the universe from nothing. It is clearly flawed since it makes a major false prediction known as the “Cosmological Constant” (CC). Theorists are unable to switch off their creative explosion. To show how serious this is I quote the Nobel laureate, Steven Weinberg, (11) who wrote in “Reviews of Modern Physics” January 1989 that this “represents a veritable crisis for physics”. Even today the situation remains unchanged after the 25 years of its existence. In 1987 this author realised his own expertise was potentially able to solve the difficulty. Unfortunately the second difficulty known as “wave-particle-duality” needed simultaneous resolution.

When matter is repeatedly divided the atom is eventually reached. Then further division shows this to constitute sub-atomic particles. Quantum theory is the study of the mechanics operating at this sub-microscopic level of reality. In the 1920’s it was discovered that at this level nothing moved as it does at the visible level. In fact motion seemed governed by a plan formed by interfering waves. If two pebbles are thrown into a pond simultaneously waves spread out in rings and the rings cross into each other creating a patch of rough water.

This is the interference pattern characteristic of waves. At the quantum level, particles only appear where the wave amplitudes add up; none are seen where they cancel out. The conceptual difficulties are best illustrated by reading a book by David Deutsch (2) called, “The Fabric of Reality” (Penguin 1998). He says the only possible interpretation requires the universe to split in two every time one of these particles has a choice of two ways to go.

It involves an almost infinite set of universes existing in the same place each multiplying at an almost infinite rate! This is needed if consciousness is kept out of the solution. One of the original ideas from the 20’s, however, is called the “Copenhagen Interpretation”. This says that a particle only exists when an observer “collapses the wave function”. So this interpretation had already accepted consciousness to be involved in the creation of matter.

To me this meant that the quantum level had an unreal quality and had to be contrived by consciousness. There had to be a true reality at a deeper level having a structure able to evolve a conscious intelligence. It could not, therefore, operate on the wave mechanics of the quantum level but needed to exist to make those waves. It was more likely to operate on the classical mechanics found satisfactory for explaining how stars and planets moved: “Classical Mechanics”.
This introduced the third difficulty for which no resolution has emerged for over 70 years. Einstein’s theory called “General Relativity” (GR) is accepted as the best since it has survived almost every experimental check. Unfortunately it is incompatible with quantum theory.

It was also impossible to apply it to solve the problem of the cosmological constant owing to the assumption that only motion relative to the observer existed. Now as objects are speeded up they gain energy of motion called “kinetic energy”. In relativity its value differs from one observer to another if the observers also see each other in motion. Consequently kinetic energy, according to GR, has to be regarded as illusory. To solve the problem of the CC kinetic energy had to be real. Consequently a new mechanics had to be derived. I had to be, not only compatible with quantum theory, but also had to match all the experimental checks that had elevated the status of GR to one of the two major achievements of 20’th century physics.

To provide a satisfactory alternative to GR seemed to present a formidable obstacle since this had to be derived first. However, by applying the mechanical engineers logic of common sense a satisfactory new “Exact Classical Mechanics” (ECM) soon emerged. It matched all the data just as well as did relativity theory but had the advantage of starting out quantum compatible. It was first published in Russia in 1991 (5) but can be found on the “Campaign for Philosophical Freedom” website of Michael Roll, (1) very professionally organised by Paul Read.

ECM theory had all motion referred to the local background medium, to be called the “i-ther”. So now kinetic energy could be regarded as real. To enable a paradox free theory of creation from the zero energy state of nothingness to appear it was also necessary to extend the theory to yield an, “Opposed Energy Dynamics”.

ECM theory yields Einstein’s famous equation E=mc2 by a totally different method but without reference to relativity in any way. This equation shows that matter is made out of energy. So energy is the ultimate building substance of the universe of matter. Since matter had to emerge as a construct of the i-ther, this ultimate level of reality had also be made from the same stuff.

For energy to appear from nothing it had to exist in two opposite and complementary kinds: positive and negative. We assume we are made of only positive energy defined by Newton’s laws. He said that when an object was caused to accelerate it had to be pushed by a “force of action” pointing in the same direction as the motion produced.

An object made of negative energy would move in a direction opposite this force. Although difficult to accept at first introduction, this actually involves no conceptual difficulties. If two objects both made of negative energy are imagined to collide, both have their responses reversed and so the effects cancel. Consequently if all matter were negative it would behave in exactly the same way as that we observe. Indeed it is impossible to say which dominates for our matter.

For creation to occur both kinds need to exist as a balanced mixture of minute real particles to be called “primaries”. These are the only true particles that really can exist. Then it is also possible for the positive and negative primaries to cancel each other to zero, so enabling an existing mixture to annihilate itself to become nothingness. So what would actually happen during the collision of opposites? They would certainly all be in vigorous motion, like the molecules of a gas, eternally colliding and bouncing off one another.

Opposed energy dynamics gave the answer. Another law of mechanics called the “conservation of momentum” had also to be satisfied. The momentum of an object is defined as its mass multiplied by its velocity. The sum of the momentums of all objects colliding has to be the same after the collision as it was before, as measured in any specified direction.

Instead of annihilating this condition forced both colliding primaries to gain energy of their own kind in balanced amounts. They were breeding like opposite sexes! A detailed computational study taking collision probabilities into account showed that the average energy gain would be 0.091 of incident kinetic energy if the average speed were 99% of the speed of light. The proportion rose to 0.199 as speed fell to 10% of light speed. Of course the incident kinetic energy rises rapidly as speed increases.

In consequence the i-ther would form a rapidly growing ball but its density would also increase until an unstable condition was reached. And this solved the problem of the CC!

The entire flow field now broke up into minute cells divided by watershed-like boundaries, possibly forming a regular pattern like a honeycomb. Inside each cell, flows converged to a central point and here conditions, again governed by the need to conserve momentum, favoured mutual annihilation. In the outer annulii of each cell a gas-like fluid existed forming a breeding blanket and nearly all this creation was cancelled out at the central focal points.

A minute net creation remained causing a slow growth, over aeons of time, to the vast size of the universe we see today -except for one thing: matter did not yet exist. The i-ther is only the source of matter. However, when matter eventually appeared it would go with the flow. And the flow predicted was one of accelerating expansion. Every part would be moving away from every other with both speeds and accelerations proportional to separating distance. This was predicted in 1992 and in 1998, as reported by Schwarzchild, B (10), astronomers discovered that, contrary to their expectations, the expansion was indeed accelerating. So Survival Physics has made an important prediction later confirmed by observation.

There could be almost spherical centres of annihilation (hubs) or long filamentous shapes (links) all of finite diameter and consisting of primaries in the act of mutual destruction. Hubs and links, however, would themselves form permanent structures. Many links could couple to a single hub as one of an infinite variety of geometries that could form by chance.

This structure formed a source of power that could only manifest as waves: so explaining why the quantum level has to operate on wave mechanics. The waves need intelligent organisation, however, but arrangements of hubs and links could be imagined that looked very like the artificial neural networks that scientists, such as Hinton(3) have shown to have memory and learning capability. The speculative part of the emerging theory had to assume that in the fullness of time a neural network would evolve and that further evolution would lead to the emergence of the conscious intelligence needed for wave organisation.

This meant that at least the sub-conscious mind had to exist as an i-theric structure. It would need to contrive matter by the clever organisation of real quantum waves. A sub atomic particle would be formed by the repeated focusing of waves at points chosen at random but confined to regions of constructive wave interference patterns. In this way a satisfying interpretation for the enigma of wave-particle-duality emerged.

A particle, such as an electron, would no longer be regarded as a single object travelling along the curved paths caused by the action of electric and magnetic forces. Instead electrons would be sequences of wave focusing events joined end to end in time but not in position. These positions would be chosen mathematically so that, as observed by scientists, electrons would only now appear to be acted upon by a real force of electromagnetism. The other three forces of nature could be similarly interpreted. Hence our universe now appears as a semi-virtual reality. It is built from real energies but these are intelligently organised.

Each i-theric mind would have to be separated from the universal sub-conscious by some form of information filter-barrier programmed into the i-ther, so that it could interact with other minds in meaningful ways. This could explain why at least one matter system had to be organised to provide a temporary housing in which such interaction could occur.

Then on the demise of that housing another based on different laws of physics was provided so that development of individual minds could continue. The i-ther could build several interpenetrating universes all occupying the same space but tuned to different quantum wave frequencies. Then the i-theric mind could tune into just one at a time. If the brain has its own consciousness then a copy is carried in the i-ther.

In this way a theory emerged, that had survival as its core feature. It had appeared from the simultaneous solution of the three major difficulties of physics. With this model the entire spectrum of the so-called “paranormal” can be given an explanation as potentially real effects including mediumshiop, telepathy, psychokinesis, healing, apports, OOB’s, NDE’s and prediction.

Most can be found on the Campaign for Philosophical Freedom website:

  1. Gives an article published by “Frontier Perspectives” Spring Summer 1997 Pearson: Consciousness as a Sub-Quantum Phenomenon gives maths of An Exact Classical Mechanics This covers many other aspects mostly concerning the evidence for survival.

  2. Deutsch, David: The Fabric of Reality : Penguin Books 1998

  3. Hinton, Geoffrey E.: How Neural Networks Learn from Experience Scientific American special Issue “Mind and Brain” September 1992

  4. Keen, Montague: Ellison, Arthur: Fontana, David (of the Society for Psychical Research UK): The Scole Report (More valuable evidence)

  5. Pearson, Ronald D.: Alternative to Relativity including Quantum Gravitation: Second International Conference on Problems in Space and Time: St. Petersburg, (Sept. 1991) pp 278-292.

  6. Pearson, Ronald D.: "Quantum Gravitation and the Structured Ether"Sir Isaac Newton Conference. St. Petersburg (March 1993) pp 39-55 Petrovskaja Academy of Sciences & Arts Chairman. Local Organising Committee: Dr. Michael Varin: Pulkovskoye Road 65-9-1 St. Petersburg 196140, Russia. FAX: (7) (812) 291-81-35. Phone: Alexandre Alekseev: office:(7) (812) 291-36-73, Home:(7) (812) 173-55-69 E-Mail:

  7. Pearson, Ronald D.: Origin of Mind [Dec.1992]: -A popularisation plus Technical Appendix (Maths of Opposed Energy Dynamics) 72 pages: (110 grams) direct from Michael Roll.

  8. Pearson, R. D.: Consciousness as a Sub-Quantum Phenomenon Frontier Perpectives, Spring/ Summer 1997, Vol.6,No.2 pp70-78 (See 1) website

  9. Roll, Michael: A Rational Scientific Explanation for So-Called Psychic Phenomena: The Paranormal Review October 2004 pp 21-23 Proc.Soc. of Psychical Research Vol.58, Part 220 (1999)

  10. Schwarzchild, B.: Very distant Supernova Suggest that the Cosmic Expansion is Speeding Up: Physics Today, Vol.51(6) pp.17-19

  11. Weinberg, Stephen: The Cosmological Constant Problem Reviews of Modern Physics, Vol.61 (1) Jan 1989


We are grateful to Victor Zammit for giving us the permission to take all this information from his website:

April 2005

 You are visiting our website:  Wrld       To reach our homepage click here please.