A Psychological Approach to the Theories of Theoretical Physicists, in Particular, to a Current Theory of The Multiverse

1) I see this article as in the spirit of Wolfgang Pauli's, The Influence of Archetypal Ideas on the Scientific Theories of Kepler (in The Interpretation of Nature and the Psyche, C. G. Jung and W. Pauli, Pantheon Books, New York, New York, 1955).

2) I am writing as a psychologist not a physicist, as an outsider to physics looking in from the outside. In this article I will imagine myself as a therapist of a very creative theoretical physicist — this is the premise underlying this article. At the beginning of the (imagined) therapy I explain to the physicist that I took physics in high school and college, got "B's" (as I remember it, I don't think I ever got a "C" in physics), and I liked and felt comfortable with parts, but only parts, of the courses I took. For example, I did not feel I had a good handle on the concepts of classical mechanics such as "force," "work," "acceleration," and "mass." And I explain to the physicist-patient that I am not going to understand much of his (or her) work if he starts telling me about it.

I would go on to say to my new (imaginary) patient that my current knowledge of physics comes from Scientific American (and some of their supplements), from watching T.V. programs about physics (such as NOVA), and from other popularized versions of physics written by physicists who write for the public. I would recognize that, if the patient is truly creative, a true genius in his field, he probably rejects all these sources and may feel the need to explain to me the essence of his theories, his real theories, not the popularized versions of them.

However, for this paper, since we are only imagining such a patient, and since I am not qualified to place a sophisticated actual theory before you, the reader, I will use a version of a current theory of physics that I have pieced together in my own fashion from the above sources.

So this article is an analysis of popularized physics rather than of cutting edge physics. [This is parallel to someone discussing the ideas of Freudians or Jungians or Behaviorists using versions of them from Psychology Today.]

Besides cutting edge physics and popularized versions of it, there are the ideas of physics that appear in the popular imagination. These include fictionalized versions (in sci-fi novels and films) as well as physics that has been reformulated to sell products. An example of the latter would be advertisements such as the following: "Sign up and we will teach you, in five easy lessons, how to leave your universe behind and jump into another, better universe — a method proved conclusively by modern physics!"

How science filters into the popular imagination and culture is a fascinating subject, but it is not the topic of this current paper. Here I want to stick with physics as I understand it, as explained to laymen such as me by physicists themselves.

3) If we stick only with the ideas of our physicist patient — either by listening to him talk or by reading his theories, even in popularized versions — it will be easy to forget he is a human. We get so tied up in the ideas of people like this that we forget they have bodies (bodies with weight and mass that require force to get them moving from a state of inertia and to accelerate them, etc.). But physicists, like everyone else, are people and have sensations and feelings (enjoy the taste of certain foods and not others; like certain sounds and colors and not others; feel financial burdens; and so on). And, like everyone else, they have their own problems, and they worry about them. When wrestling with a difficult problem, they may toss and turn at night trying to figure out a solution. The problems can be financial or inter-personal, work situation problems, or, with a creative theoretical physicist, it may well be a problem of physics.

When we have a problem, we may go to a quiet place, off by ourselves, close our eyes, drift into our imaginations, and start thinking about the problem. If a person has a financial problem — say with what to do with a precious jewel he owns that is currently in a safe in his bedroom — he might picture the jewel, picture where it is now, picture a robber coming and taking it, feel anxiety, picture the jewel in a bank vault, picture how he would get it from his room to the vault without anyone knowing, picture someone robbing the bank and breaking into the vault, think about which option is safer, think about how to decide, and so on. Before drifting off to sleep, he may decide to go to the computer in the morning and look up statistics on bank robberies and compare them with statistics of home break-in's in his neighborhood. And so on. If he's very anxious during his night-time pondering, he might jump up from his bed (if that's where he does his thinking) and go to the computer right then.

An adolescent girl who is worried about what to wear to a school dance will have a whole different set of fantasies and thoughts. But she too may try to find a safe, quiet place to think, a place in which she can drift into her own fantasy "world," a place where she can dream her dreams and come to her best decision in the heart of her hearts.

And physicists have the same worries and problems and do the same sort of thing when they have problems. They find a quiet place, alone, where they can block out the rest of the world and "get into" what is bothering them. Our imaginary patient will do the same thing.

4) Every one of us is interested in different things; everybody worries about different things; everybody has many problems; no one has time to get to the bottom of every problem they have; so everybody focuses on what is most interesting to them or on what feels most important to them or on what feels most pressing and urgent. This is the way it is.

Creative, cutting-edge thinkers in all fields, at least the ones I have met and spoken with, tend to be absorbed, for the most part, in problems that seem abstract to everyone but themselves and others in their fields. Non-intellectuals don't understand the problems and wouldn't care if they did. The problems that absorb the deep thinker makes them seem distant and unrelated to family members, to friends, and to almost everyone they meet or will meet or could meet. [This is true of everyone to some extent, for example, to an avid fan of the Boston Red Sox baseball team.]

And it is certainly true that the problems that intrigue and trouble creative theoretical physicists and move them to their cores are not the problems of their everyday lives, not their financial or relationship problems. Certainly they do not want to think about how their theories can be turned into patentable inventions even if this might interest their spouses. This lack of interest can even cause tension in their relationships and might be the reason why they have come into therapy in the first place. And, very often, people interested in theory are not interested in the ongoing troubling public problems we read about in the paper every day or see in the news.

I don't mean these practical affairs are of no concern to thinkers. In fact, they are, probably, just as great a concern to them as to anyone. But they don't focus on them, for some reason or other, and don't want to focus on them, and maybe can't focus on them [because of their constitutional make-up].

What do they think about? What are their problems? What are the problems of creative theoretical physicists and cosmological physicists in particular? They think about Matter and Dark Matter and Forces and Energy, about Solar Systems and Galaxies and Galaxy Clusters and about the Spaces between the Galaxies and about the Universe in general. Regarding the Universe, they think about the Birth of the Universe, the Life of the Universe, and about the End of the Universe. These issues are as deep a concern to him as the birth, life, and possible end of her child is to a mother or as the birth, life, and possible end of his company is to a businessman.

5) Lately, (and I get this from the literature mentioned at the beginning of this article), many physicists have been thinking about an idea spoken of using the words "parallel universes." The concept of "parallel universes" was introduced in 1954 by a physicist named Hugh Everett III. At first this theory, this hypothesis, this proposition — that there are parallel universes — was rejected by some of the most important physicists of the day such as Niels Bohr who Everett travelled to Copenhagen in 1959 to meet. One of Bohr's colleagues described Everett as "undescribably [sic] stupid" and Everett described the meeting as "hell ... doomed from the beginning" (from the Wikipedia article on Hugh Everett). Everett eventually left the field of theoretical physics and set up his own company (through which he became a millionaire).

But, in the 59 years or so since Everett made his concept public, alternative universes (as they are also called), have now become a legitimate field of study, in part because they may actually exist" (this according to the article we reference below, page 4). It is an interesting point, from the point of view of the analysis of such a theory, that the author of this quote implies that alternative universes could be "a legitimate field of study" in physics even if they don't exist. In other words, in more psychological words, physicists spend a lot of time thinking about things they themselves don't necessarily think of as definite, proven realities.

6) This is as good a point as any to add that the terminology of parallel or alternate universes has caught on in the popular imagination. Lay people can be heard talking about alternate or parallel universes. One intelligent man I know, who happens to be a scientist, by profession, told me he thinks that maybe we go to a parallel universe when we die.

In a very sad instance of this belief, Hugh Everett's own daughter, Liz, after he died, killed herself. In her suicide note she wrote that she killed herself to join her father in another universe. Everett's son, Mark, the leader of a Rock 'n Roll group called the Eels, wrote songs about his sister and has spoken and written about growing up with his father. In one T.V. interview he told different stories to show how emotionally removed his father was from him and his sister. Apparently Liz had tried to kill herself at least one time before. When Mark went to tell his father about it and that Liz was in the hospital, his father was sitting in his easy chair reading the newspaper. When Mark told him about the suicide attempt, his father, according to Mark, put down his newspaper, asked a few questions, and then picked it up and started reading again.

As a psychologist trying to understand the meaning of the theories of physicists (and the theories of cosmologists, in particular), this story is of interest. If there is truth in it, it seems Hugh Everett may have suffered from something like what we now call, Asperger's Disorder. If true, this doesn't necessarily mean, I think, that he had no feelings or love, no emotions for his children, but only that he was so absorbed in other matters that the life of his children was almost unreal to him. For many thinkers, ordinary life feels remote, almost unreal. There are many stories of thinkers who are so lost in thought that they fall into holes while walking, forget to eat, get lost while driving, and so on.

In fact, (and the reader may have also jumped to the following conclusion), there may have been a deep psychological meaning for Everett in the emergence of his concept of "parallel universes." In fact, we may wonder if the idea of a normal, everyday emotional life or world was so remote to Everett, that it came to him in his thinking and imagination, as an external reality, a remote external reality, cut off and parallel to the one in which he lived, a "parallel" reality or universe, as it were. Almost certainly he did not take it in this way when it emerged in his mind, and he developed the view in physics/mathematical terminology and in formulas that could be tested in the external physical world. He saw it as a possible external truth and told others about it and argued for it.

Psychologists are definitely not in a position to give an educated opinion one way or another about whether theories in physics are true or false. We have not done experiments. What we can say is that these theories stem from thoughts (are thoughts) and that these thoughts grow from and are embedded in the whole series of thoughts and images that make up the mind of the physicist. The physicist, as we have pictured him, spends much time alone. He goes deep into his thoughts and imagination in order to grapple with problems that trouble him about space and time and matter and even about the whole universe. He comes up with formulations and theories and writes them all out and, if he can arrange for funding, he gets them tested and then re-tested. If the tests are positive, he, maybe his colleagues, and maybe even the public will begin to talk as if there is the possibility that such and such is true or that such and such exists. After fifty or an hundred years, everyone might forget it is a theory and talk about it all as true, as real. But this whole process started in the mind and imagination of the theoretical physicist, the genius, sitting alone, in some quiet dark place, with time to spare.

It is the same fantasy whether it turns out to be true or false, so the fantasies that lead to the theories of physics are open to analysis just like any fantasy. These fantasies have entered the imagination of the physicist, but similar fantasies may have entered the imaginations of artists and writers and other creative types (maybe even military geniuses or geniuses in business), but each would express them in a language proper to their fields. And each individual, being unique, would express it in a unique way that may or may not be picked up by the general public. In fact, the exact same fantasies may be entering the minds and imaginations of non-professionals, independently and at the same time it enters the imagination of professionals. If so, non-professionals may resonate to the idea of the physicist, the paintings of the artist, or the business model of some business genius (like Steve Jobs). And psychologists will be watching all this and thinking what it means. Why is this particular fantasy emerging in the minds of so many people, all at the same time?

And it will appear in the fantasies of our patients. If Liz Everett (or her father, Hugh) had been our patient, and she had talked to us about parallel universes, it would have been incorrect to argue her out of it. Whether the idea is true or false is not within the abilities of a psychologist to appraise (not in the 1950's and not now). Still, I believe a skillful psychologist would have had a 50-50 chance of heading off the suicide and maybe a 20% chance, maybe in family therapy, of helping Liz move towards some sort of meaningful emotional relation with her father. If family therapy had failed, individual therapy could have helped her understand her needs for closeness and deal with it in a fruitful way that did not involve taking her own life.

As it went down, and looking back, we have no choice but to say hers was a suicide based on a delusion. It was no different from any other delusional suicide where a person kills him or herself to escape this world and to get to a better one (call it "heaven" or "a parallel universe where my dad is" or whatever). From this perspective it is frightening to look at the discussion of Liz's death currently on the Internet. The discussion, on the whole, is not on the subject of what an horrible tragedy the suicide was, what a painful misunderstanding and terrible delusion underlay it. Rather the Internet discussion is on the level of "far out ... wow! ... cool that Liz could do this kind of travel ..."

7) In this article, we have mentioned the fantasy of "parallel universes" only as background and as an example. Our main interest here is in a theory that grew out of Everett's theory of parallel universes. It is a relatively new one that, apparently, is of interest to many cosmologists at the time of the writing of this article. It is the theory of multiverses. According to Alejandro Jenkins and Gilad Perez, authors of the article, Looking for Life in the Multiverse (in Our Universe and Beyond, Scientific American, 2011e, pages 4-13), the universe, our universe, as it is expanding, [the wider cosmological assumption is that our universe started with a so-called Big Bang and has been expanding ever since] has thin or weak spots out of which other universes have popped and have started to grow, so that, now, ours is only one universe of many, and all these universes together, including ours, are what the physicists who propose these theories are calling the multiverse. Each universe in the multiverse has (or may have) different laws, and none of the individual universes influence each other or affect each other or interact with each other in any way, at any time, and they cannot. There are many independent universes each running parallel to each other.

8) Before giving a psychological interpretation of the theory of multiverses, I want to try to make a guess about what these cosmologists will think of next. This may sound like arrogance, but it need not be taken in this way, and I will give an example to show that we all do this, to some degree, all the time.

Here is the example: A family of ten siblings has the difficult task of dividing up an inheritance left to them by their parents. The inheritance contains, amongst other treasures, a cache of jewelry consisting of diamonds, gold and silver, rubies, emeralds, and sapphires. Some of the sibs are wealthy, some are poor, and, regarding some, we cannot be sure. A few have emotional memory attachment to some of the jewels and want this or that piece. The rest have no interest on the level of sentiment. A few of the sibs are direct and say they want the jewels and even make minor attempts to grab a few and are prevented from this theft by the others. A few of the ten want to sell the jewels and divide up the money from the sale. One sib says he has no interest at all in the jewels or anything else in the inheritance: "I don't need anything." The ones who wind up with the pieces with memories for them say they got what they wanted and are perfectly content with what they have gotten. [I should add that this is an actual family.]

So my question to the reader is, "What dreams would you expect the ten sibs to have in the nights that led up to the divide?" It is no hard trick to guess that some, or even many, will dream of the jewels or of jewels or of a treasure or of a rich man or of a king or of something like this. And the action of at least some of the dreams, you may very well predict, will be of robbery or fighting over something or of people who are pretending to be nice but who are fighting or about animals ripping each other apart for some food or of something like this. Though there may not be a way to predict exactly what dreams there will be, we can venture reasonable guesses as to what some of them might be, and, looking back on them, afterwards, we may not be surprised at much of what we find.

The fantasy life is so rich and so organic that it is like the universe itself. It presents us with the most amazing variation of things and circumstances, most of which are completely unexpected. So we should not expect that we should be able to make an exact prediction. Maybe some could, but I wouldn't even try. Sometimes, it seems, dreams even look as if they were trying to solve a problem. Imagine, for example, the following dream from one of the ten sibs: There is a white and a green and a red flower; the flowers are about to be uprooted but a gentleman comes and prevents this and waters the flowers and then, surprisingly, uproots them himself, puts them in a pile and burns them, and the dreamer watches as they all go up in flames, and out of the flames comes a glowing phoenix. Maybe the reader will not think I am too far off in interpreting the dream as "trying to solve the problem" confronting this sib and the others. The jewels are demeaned in the dream, their importance devalued, the attachment to them is destroyed, and out of this destruction comes a rebirth (the phoenix) of something else that might be of more value. The idea being (and this thought actually occurred to the dreamer, as this was an actual dream of one of the ten) that maybe all ten are acting like kids, and they should admit their desire to grab, get over their attachment, realize human relationships are being jeopardized, split up the stash in a more rational manner, and get on with their lives.

The points, for the purpose of this article, are first, that it is not so hard, given a specific situation, to make a rough prediction of what fantasies the situation will produce, and second, that sometimes higher ideals can be embedded in a dream or fantasy even when this ideal is not present in the conscious mind.

A third point that we should not forget is that some dreams or fantasies picture things in reality that we overlook during the activities of our busy days. For example, one of the sibs dreamed that he found a yellow jewel in a tree and that he was all excited, but it turned out to be a fake. He told the dream when he woke, and there were no yellow jewels, but everyone got nervous and took the jewelry to be appraised, and it turned out the emeralds were fake. Emeralds are green and not yellow, but it isn't far fetched, I think, to say the dream was at least raising realistic doubts about the value of the jewelry.

Our topic is physics and the fantasies of physicists, and a parallel is that a physicist might have a dream that reflects his personality and the real-life situation in which he is currently embedded, and, even though it may have this personal meaning as part of his personal struggle, it may still turn out to contain a truth about the nature of the physical universe. He, as a physicist, will take his fantasy as a theory, try to put it in testable form, and will, more than likely, overlook the personal side of it; we, as psychologists, will focus on the fantasy side and try to figure out what it shows about him, about his life situation, and about possible ways out.

9) So the next question is, "Given the personality of the cosmological physicists who have come up with the multiverse theory and the situations in which they are embedded, can we predict what their next dreams (or theories) will be?"

You might object that all these people are in different situations, that it is not like the ten sibs in the family: There are hundreds or even thousands of physicists all over the world, each one embedded in a different situation, each one with a different personality, all who are working on the multiverse theory. But our question is not so much about their individual personal situations which, inevitably, must all be quite different. Instead, we will be thinking of all these people, all these deep, deep thinkers, all over the world, each dreaming up the next variation of the multiverse theory, a theory on which each is thinking day and night. And, though each has a different and unique personal situation, from a wider perspective, they are all in the same situation; they are all in, and are all hyper-aware they are in, the world, the solar system, the galaxy, the cluster of galaxies, and in the whole universe or, in their minds, the multiverse.

The physicists are like the ten siblings who are all in the same family and in the same family situation. All the physicists are in the same universe at the same time. And we too, like these thousand or so physicists, whether we think about it or not, are all in the same world and the same solar system and the same universe. And the world situation, the situation of the solar system, and so on, is the situation in which we are all embedded.

10) So again, we are picturing physicists all over the world, men and women who are among the deepest thinkers in the world, all who have the thought in their minds of a multiverse, and we are asking ourselves the psychological questions, "What will they think of next?"

You will have your ideas, and I will tell a few of mine, and mine are based on reading about Hugh Everett. Hugh Everett is the model I am working from (even though I am assuming he is an extreme). Based on my reading about him and on the deep scientific thinkers I know personally, I guess that deep thinking theoretical physicists tend towards living in their own worlds, that they are more or less difficult to have emotional contact with, that they are more or less absent emotionally (not caring if you call them, never calling you), and so on. When you talk with them they talk about abstract things and not about things that are important to you. You feel you might as well be alone, reading a book written by them, as in a room talking with them. Or variations on this theme. I am probably wrong about many people of this type. If I'm wrong about all or most of them, my predictions will be way off.

And the predictions I am about to make are also based on the assumption, mentioned above, that all cosmologists are, in reality, in this world, in the environment in which we all live and know quite well. It is a different world, in a sense, than the one our grandparents and even our parents knew. It is one where the lines between separate countries and communities are breaking down (in communication because of the Internet and email; in travel because of supersonic jets; in power and energy {military and otherwise} because of nuclear power plants and nuclear weapons; in government because of organizations like the World Court and the United Nations). And this seems to be a trend, to be where it's all heading. Many are wondering if there will eventually be a world without countries, without races, without organized religions, and with instantaneous spot to spot transportation. This will be a world without inequalities of physical strength. Frighteningly, it is easy to picture a world in which everyone has access to cheap, portable, maybe wallet size nuclear weapons, so no one will dare anger anyone else, because each person will have the power to blow up thousands of us.

On the other hand, if it goes another way, it could be a world where there are fewer and fewer inequalities of other kinds. There may come a time when all people have the same access to cheap and easily accessible medical care, where everyone has plenty of good food, where everyone has what they need, where no one has to turn him or herself over to a tyrant who promises to meet their needs, because every person can easily meet his or her own needs, and so on. So it can swing either way.

Now you will say, and there is absolutely no question, that this is all a fantasy, poor sci-fi writing, but the world we live in is spawning just this type of thinking and fantasy in many people. I'm not the only one. And it is this world, in this stream of worldwide fear and hope and fantasy, in which physicists are living and thinking. In this respect, they are like all of us.

11) So here is what I predict (my hypothesis) — based on everything said so far — will be the next cosmological theories about the so-called multiverse. Very roughly, the theories will develop something like this [and please remember I'm not predicting which few, if any, of the theories will turn out to be true or which will turn out to be suggestive and useful and which will turn out to be false and dead ends]:

Right now the idea is of one unit (one universe) that is expanding and, as it expands, it "spawns" an infinite number of other units (universes), each from itself. I guess that the next phase might be the idea (the fantasy) that there is another whole separate but equal multiverse, a parallel multiverse which will lead to the idea that there are many of these parallel multiverses. And this might lead to the fantasy that each multiverse is part of a whole group or galaxy of multiverses, and these are part of clusters of galaxies of multiverses. Continuing this fantasy, this whole cluster of galaxies of multiverses is all expanding, this universe made of multiverses, but that the fate of this universe of multiverses is unclear. It may (we may imagine) go on as it is (expanding), or maybe, God forbid, it will run into another universe of multiverse. Maybe one of these will survive, but in a lesser state, or maybe they both will be destroyed, or whatever.

Perhaps the bigger "verses" will not bang into each other after all but merge and create another verse. Maybe there will be a whole family of verses based on different physical principles, and they will attract and/or repel each other. Maybe there are rogue verses that destroy or degrade everything they touch or "loving" universes that give energy to every verse they touch. Maybe these groups of verses, which tend to conflict with each other, will do the opposite: They will begin to touch each other, and the boundaries between them will break and the verses within them will meet and begin to enhance each other and increase the energy of the whole system (instead of sapping from it and leeching from it and draining it and running it down).

And I predict that, say within fifty or an hundred years, the fantasies will take another step and have the verses (that is all the universes of multiverses) capable of feelings. There verses that there are angry and hurt each other; these are the destructive verses. Then there are loving verses that feel peace and harmony and spread harmony to other verses.

Then it will become clear (I predict) that every verse has both anger and love in it, every verse is both good and bad. And also verses will be thought of as having consciousness and even of thinking, and there will be much discussion of how this is possible and where consciousness lies and what it is. Maybe it will be thought to be centered in some far off galaxy or possibly on some small insignificant planet, or whatever.

And it will be theorized that the verses are capable of imagining other verses (verses within verses within verses within verses) and that each verse is capable of testing to see if this is all inside the imagination of the verse or if it really exists outside it.

And the verses will be seen as capable of remembering and thinking ahead and seeing reality and testing reality and of being scared for their futures and of wondering if something they don't expect and can't predict, no matter how smart and alert they are, will hit them from out of no where, and maybe, the fantasy continues, they will all have to learn to get along and stop and change, so the whole thing doesn't explode (instead of finding some still undiscovered state of harmony and peace). Or maybe the whole thing will and has to explode and start over again ... and again ... and again. And so on.

The reader will see that I am seeing the theories of physicists, looked at in their form of fantasy instead of theory, as metaphors. They are metaphors for the current state of the world in which we all are living and are, like many fantasies, the grappling with the problems we face and the groping towards solutions. The world we live in is very different from the world in which our ancestors groped. Boundaries are breaking down, people will be forced to see things from the points of views of others, and so on. And our physics, I believe, will reflect the changes in the world in which the physicists are embedded.

12) In the last section I gave my personal fantasy of how cosmological theory will look in fifty or an hundred years. Like all theories from physics (and from non-physicists) some theories will turn out to be true or to be landmarks on the road to truth, but most will turn out to be false byways and will be forgotten like last year's dreams.

It will, certainly, not go the way I have guessed it will go. It may go off on a wholly different line. Or physicists may lose interest in cosmology altogether. It will be remembered that my guesses are predicated on the picture of a group of people worried about the state of the world, a state in which humans, mostly because of the work of theoretical physicists, can blow the world up or, on the other hand, move towards working together to a new advanced state beneficial to all (and there are many other possibilities).

And I picture these people — worried like everyone, optimistic like everyone — but, because they are thinkers, they are cut off from other people. They are lost in their thoughts and imagination and have a lot of trouble actually "connecting" to those around them. But now, in their theories, on a theoretical level, they are beginning to figure out that there are other people who are just like them, that we are all in it together, that they (the physicists themselves) can be good guys (and gals) or bad guys (and gals) and that what they do and those around them do can effect themselves, the others around them, those at different places and in different times way into the future, and the whole world and even, possibly, the whole solar system.

In short, the theories of theoretical physicists will, I predict, begin to reflect the actual world in which they (and we) live and the needs of all of us to get along and how the actions of one person at the other end of the world can affect me and mine. We have to listen to our sons and daughters and neighbors, come out of our own minds and points of view for good chunks of time and do something useful for others. We have to pay attention to the needs of others if, for no other reason than because, for the first time, the needs of others across the seas and lands are our own needs in the sense that, if they don't get what they need, they have, or within fifty or an hundred years, they will have the power to make our lives miserable — their misery is our misery.

And the physicists are right in seeing it as a universal problem, a big one, not a matter of my bank account or of who will win the ball game tomorrow night, but they have to bring the power of their minds into the moment to deal with their real bank accounts and their child's ball game (and who wins it and how the child played) which is, from the angle of psychology, a whole universe. To psychology, each person is an universe but only one of many interlocking and interacting universes.

So, we now send our imaginary physicist patient, back out into his life. And as with all patients, we hope we helped and were helped in the interchange.