|Posted by Mandy Ryan - DES Center Director on July 23, 2016 at 9:15 PM||comments (0)|
Change comes in its own time, and has no regard for our impatience.
|Posted by Mandy Ryan - DES Center Director on July 23, 2016 at 9:15 PM||comments (0)|
One may safely say with absolute certainty, or at the very least, beyond anything resembling doubt, the following statement:
Stating that Quantum Mechanics justifies the Magic Bullet Theory of how one of our presidents was assasinated, is in essence, asking us to believe in a fantasy. This is the most abhorrent abuse of Quantum Mechanics as I have ever seen. And I have seen a lot.
That being said, on Lightbeams and Elephants, I will demonstrate how much fantasy is indeed behind reality.
We should come to expect that anything that upholds reality, which makes it be real...this is to say, its fundamental elements, must by definition be not real.
This in no way denies reality. Quite likewise, because if nothing was real, nothing would exist, there would essentially be no one to ask the question.
All consideration of the nature of reality which denies reality, denies that such a conversation may take place, even as an illusion. For if a thing is an illusion, then it is an illusion, and exists as such. No matter how the illusion appears, if it is a thing, it is real.
Therefore, reality cannot be considered to be the only elements which may exist within the universe. This says nothing of the nature of unreal things, which are none the less, things. Only that they do not fit the criterion for being considered "Real".
This says nothing of existence, for if there are real things and unreal things, they must all be part of the same universe you and I see, feel, touch, sense....witness, experience. Even if they are nothing more than illusions.
This is important, because it may seem, that while the universe is still there when you aren't looking at it, there really is no way to say WHAT it is when you aren't looking at it.
One could say anything at all about the universe when it is not observed and not be wrong.
Not being wrong, however, is far, far worse than not being right.
As I have little fear of being wrong, much less...not even wrong...I will make the following statemtent.
When we are not looking at it, it just might be an elephant.
|Posted by Mandy Ryan - DES Center Director on May 27, 2016 at 11:30 PM||comments (0)|
The philosophy of Realism has been one of a handful of natural philosophies which have shaped and heavily influenced modern thought. Not just scientific, but also, common, everyday thinking. We hear people say "Is that real?" when encountering a beaufiful or large gemstone, and when one thinks about it, if one could point to a thing and question its reality, we must assume that at least something about it...is real. In this question, we are asking if a thing is as it appears. This is a very wide and general usage of the word "real". It is, however, not what a scientist means when they say "real".
For one, the above understanding of the word has one critical element, which causes it to be disregarded as scientific. It relies, by at least half, the subjective. For when we ask, "Is this what it seems to be, by me?", in science this question is often considered entirely invalid. The subjective viewpoint is erased from scientific reasoning. This is a powerful statement, and so we must consider the scope of what scientific branches of reasoning this is true in. For it certainly is not true in every area of science, especially those areas which study this very thing. This "subjective view". In this area, and areas related to it, there is either no science at all without the subjective view, or, the science is significantly changed by such an assumption to confirm a conflict between theory and observation. For this reason, we may only say such a thing about scientific reasoning in physical sciences, as opposed to say, animal husbandry.
Although, many modern people feel as if thier subjective views were less significant than their objective ones, or simply outright fictions. Illusions, lies, and deceptions. In this, many people feel as if half of their experience of life, is idle triviality. Less or more, depending on how objective or subjective a person might be. We all vary, and I also posit that we may also go to extremes. However, I might contend that it would be suspiciously strange if we ever found anything to be fully one, or the other. Either fully objective, or subjective.
Because they are both in our experience, and if they are in our experience, then certainly they are in our existence. If they are only in our existence, then they still exist. One may not claim that either a subjective experience, or an objective experience is invalid. They are both experiences, and they both exist. I would go so far as to say...if we ever encountered any experience which was fully one, or the other, objective or subjective, we should find that very suspicious.
The philosophy of Realism insists that there is a state of reality which relies nothing upon the subjective state at all. This particular subjective state is what we call, "consciousness". In this philosophy, reality has nothing to do with consciousness, but that consciousness is itself, an accident. (Well...they actually say, "a by product of"). It also goes further to say, that by definition, only the objective can be said to exist.
This is what allows a scientist to say that unicorns and faerie dust are not real. Even though both, have certainly been in most of our experiences, especially in childhood. When a scientist says a thing is "not real", he is saying that all subjective states are invalid.
If this interests you, do some studying on the philosophy of Realism, because I'm not telling the full story. But that story goes down...other rabbit holes of reason as well, but those are off topic.
I would posit, a simpler defintion of the word "real", one perhaps may not need so many mental gymnastics to tell if something is real or not real.
If it is in your experience, it is real.
If it is outside of your experience, it still is.
So too, it must be real.
Some may not like that this view of reality has no means to tell what is real or not. Every question put to it returns a "yes" answer. There is no understanding of anything beyond "Yes." In short, it says, that if it is then it exists. And I can find no logical argument in a tautology. Therefore it must be. The philosophy of Realism can only, in defence, restate itself and say "because we say so".
So when you are conscious, whatever it is that you are aware of, in any way, is your experience. So as your experience exists, it is a thing, and therefore must be real. Given discoveries made almost a century ago, incontrovertible evidence that absolutely nothing is certain in the universe. Except when it is, but these are very, very, very rare.
We may consider ourselves thankful, because the most recent theories of the universe is that we are one of many, and that ours was birthed in a moment when it's temperature had dropped to certainty. It dropped to zero. If this happened alot, that might be just a bit chaotic. In a clockwork universe, this would be the case. However, we know, but adapt slowly away from the idea that we live in a clockwork universe.
We have known that it is not... for almost a century.
What the universe is...or at least around the 3% of it we can understand (maybe), is so bizzarre that the real question is "Well then...what of THIS universe we see?"
Some scientists will tell you that this world does not exist. When as many experiments have been run which validate the bizzarre nature of reality, the funny thing is:
When we are looking at it, it is what it is. When we are not, no one can gaurantee that it is anything more than a mathematical wave function. In short, nothing may even be real at all. Not by our classical definition. Not until we look will it be what it was.
So then, one must ask, "Who is asking the question?"
"Who is asking the question?"
This is my toe.
|Posted by Mandy Ryan - DES Center Director on May 22, 2016 at 12:05 AM||comments (0)|
I've developed this meditation over the last few years, and it is instructive to the nature of giving and receiving.
A little history in its development:
It started with energy meditations I used to do while exploring torus energies. Essentially a Torus is a shape like a donut, and I would focus on energy rising up from my feet, out through my head, then expanding out around and down my body back to the feet, up again and out. This was an extremely cleansing meditation, and one I used often in my early inquiries into Manifestation.
A friend of mine, who's opinion is often contrary to my intuition, once mentioned that I might try imagining the flow of energy into the other direction, received from above, then sent down into the earth, instead of the way I was doing it. I found this jarring at first, and seemed unnatural, but after a time I found it came easier to me to flow the energy in this fashion. I also found it to be very grounding (which may be why she mentioned it) and brought me a sense of security and stability I did not have before.
One night, while we were out having coffee and conversation, I was holding a favorite stone of mine, a gift from a very dear friend, (rhodonite), and I was working with charging stones with energies. A curious idea came to me.
Why not let the energy flow both ways at once.
Needless to say, this was a very difficult thing to imagine. I did not imagine two fields of energy, because I wanted the sense of simultaneity of the two...I wanted the experience that these two opposing flows of energy were actually one and the same. It took me some time to get it going, but I was used to each individually, so I was able to get it down after about half an hour (although, only briefly). I decided to leave it for another time, when things were quieter and I wasn't holding conversations and set the stone down on the table. My contrary friend asked to see the stone, very curious, and I let her. After holding it a few moments, she looked to me and said..."It seems like the stone is breathing".
And I thought about this for a time, and realized, this was very much something like the sensation I felt while doing this meditation. It was tied to the expansion of my belly, the contraction of it, and while I found this interesting, I didn't think so deeply on it, but this idea helped me to imagine both directions of the flow of energy.
It was a year or so later, while meditating with the tree sculptures I made, to feel the energies of them, both newly made, and then later as the energies of the stones settled into cohesion, that I started meditating as a tree. I was not only being with the sculpture, but with the living tree itself. I don't remember exactly when the idea came to me, but it wasn't long after I started these meditations that I remembered that Tree breathes as well.
Now, when Tree breathes, it has no muscles and cavities to fill. It has no lungs as an animal would have. Tree breathes not just air, but soil and water as well. Tree breathes Sun. In essence, Tree breathes all the elements. Earth, Air, Fire, Water.
Since it has no lungs, Tree breathes in its cells, and it breathes in and out at the same time. Tree gives and receives at once, in fact, Tree sees no difference between the two. It has no In breath and out breath. it has only breath, and each breath is both the giving of itself, and receiving of the universe.
With this understanding I had found a much simpler way to imagine the two directions of the flow of energy, and unite them in a much more organic and natural way. So, this is the Tree Breath Meditation.
You may be in any position, I have two favorites, one is the Tree pose from Yoga, the other is a simple sitting cross legged, or in a chair. I use this meditation regularly, while working or making jewelry, and as it is simple, once you have it down, you can use it anywhere, at any time.
As the space for the meditation is the Breath of the Tree, it is not necessary to imagine anything in addition to this, but if you like (and sometimes I do) you may imagine yourself as Tree.
Use normal belly breath, slowly, in through the nose, fill your belly with air until you feel the breath all the way into your groin. This will bring a sensation of pressure, and if you are not used to breathing this deeply, it may seem intense and difficult. With a little practice this intensity will become pleasant instead of uncomfortable. With this pressure, though, imagine breathing out through every part of your skin. This will not be difficult, and very quickly it will feel natural and very real.
Slowly exhale, as deeply as you inhaled. Again, if you are not used to this deep exhalation, you will feel a reverse pressure, much like the pressure of the inhalation...but sucking inward. During your exhale, imagine pulling in breath through your skin. Again, this will quickly seem natural and very real to you.
In this fashion, it is very easy to see the energy flowing both ways at all times. The universe gives and you receive at once. You give, and the universe receives at once. This is a very rewarding practice, and you may find that it alters your views and relationships.
Tree has taught me a valuable lesson. There is no difference between giving and receiving. Both are always done at once. There is no loss in giving, there is no gain in receiving. There is no reason not to do both, and there is no real choosing to do either. Both are natural, both are one. I have not learned to give and receive from Tree. Tree has revealed to me that this is how it has always been.
In this, animals remember Tree as well, even though we seem to gulp in air and expel it again, in truth, we also, like tree, breathe in our cells, not our lungs. Our cells do breathe both in and out at once, all throughout our bodies. All life breathes in this way.
|Posted by Mandy Ryan - DES Center Director on May 21, 2016 at 8:00 PM||comments (0)|
The Universe is filled at every place and moment
With silly, random vibrations. From On to Off, and every strange step between. Comprised of nothing more than possibility, energy emerges. With no more form than perhaps water, energy coalesces into matter. It is nothing more than chance coincidence that you and I are.
Of this, there is no dispute.
When one realizes, that this state of existence can only have one meaning. That there is no higher purpose of existence, other than to exist. The void of possibilities yawns wide, threatening to swallow even the ego. To anilihate all beliefs. All horrors and all perceptions, all joy and all hope vanish in a puff of vapor that cannot even be described as smoke. There is not one thing in this universe that was not made from the universe, therefore no part of it more important, or any less significant than any other.
This is the enlightenment of Nihilism. This is the Transcendence of Awakening, open to all who seek it.
When no choice has any inherent import. No specific set of significances over another, the Universe has No Meaning.
And yet, it exists. And this has meaning to us.
And the gongs of awakenings ring in gentle subtleties, like water falling upon the surface of a pond. And this has meaning. It has meaning to us. And therefore, it can be certainly considered that that which exists in the universe... brings meaning to it. As we are as well, part of that existence. And if we are Concscious, then, so certainly must the universe be.
And this has meaning to us, only because we bring meaning to the universe itself.
|Posted by Mandy Ryan - DES Center Director on May 9, 2016 at 8:55 PM||comments (0)|
The Metaphysics of Energy by MoJo
Scope: Quantum Metaphysics- What follows is not to be considered scientific. Claims may be made strongly which have strong metaphysical arguments, but little or no scientific evidence. This is a discussion outside the realm of what may be said to be scientifically true, while utilizing what IS scientifically true as support for metaphysical arguments. What is scientifically true follows closely along the lines of the classical philosophies of Realism, Materialism, Determinism, Reductivism (or Reductionism), in purely objective terms. A rudimentary familiarity of these philosophies is all that is required to understand the importance of this distinction. It is the defining line between "Fair" and "Foul" when it comes to what can be considered "Scientific" reasoning, evidence or thinking. The scope of this text crosses this line, as well as looking at the line itself. The author aims to point out where that line is crossed, where we have departed from Science and wandered into Metaphysics.
This line can be blurry at times.
Between Science and Metaphysics
The Science of Energy
Every physical object with an atomic structure, from fluid (gas or liquid) to solids emit electromagnetic energy. This is to say, all physical structure, falling into the classical descriptions of the philosophies of Realism and Materialism, emit electromagnetic energy.
The force carrier of electromagnetic energy is the photon. This is to say, "Light: in its physical, particulate form." Light, at its most fundemental level of existence, according to the definitions of Materialistic Reality, is called "Photons". This is the quanta of light, at the moment of its interaction with matter, by which it may be sensed (observed). Without this interaction of light and matter, light cannot be sensed: and wherever light is sensed, it is by this interaction with mass that it can be sensed. The Kasimir experiment very elegantly demonstrates this in action. If the reader is unfamiliar with this experiment, I highly suggest you familiarize yourself with it. Light also has behaviour which is in contradiction to classical ideas of particulate (read: Material Reality) forms. This behaviour is more wave-like in its expression, and cannot be directly observed without bringing it into material existence as a photon...as an interaction between energy and matter. What we infer scientifically about this kind of behaviour of light may be summarized as follows:
Light is not particulate in nature, until it is. The conditions of this "state" requires an interaction with matter which leaves a mark, by which the nature of that state may be inferred by the mark that is left behind. This is to say: "Observing light makes it be". What we learn from these marks, the information that these marks leave behind, is that light acts according to the patterns of statistical math. And it is by statistical math which we get the language and term "Probability". Since the behaviour of light while it is unobserved is more accurately predicted according to this branch of mathematical relationships, we may safely say that light is a probability wave when it is not interacting with matter. As the interaction between light and matter IS now our definition of scientific observation, we may safely say that light becomes "real" only when it is "observed", and while it is not observed, it just might be an elephant.
While this absurdity is highly unlikely, it is not impossible, and this is significant.
What is more significant is that this "probability" can be calculated as a reasonably accurate estimate, and that no matter how unlikely it might be that light may coalesce into mass which we may recognize as an elephant, this is possible.
If the universe is infinite in any scope, in its mass or energy, in its expanse or duration, its charge or momentum, any possibility becomes inevitable. In such a universe, all possibilities must eventually occur.
Whether or not the universe is truly infinite however, may not be possible to scientifically observe.
But it may be scientifically inferred.
What we discover is that what is scientifically real, given the classical understanding of reality, is made up of something which cannot be considered "real" by this accepted definition. Through scientific understanding, however, we may infer what cannot be observed by what can be observed.
In the past, what could be scientifically observed was a matter of expertise, not possibility.
In the present, however, what cannot be scientifically observed is now a matter of possibility, not expertise.
This is called the "Heisenberg Uncertainty Principle".
This border between scientific observation and inference is so sharp, that the finest of laser light cannot cut so accurately. Beyond this border we are no longer talking about scientific observation, but of scientific inference. This goes beyond empirical data. Empirical data must be gathered by making observations. We are now talking about how Matter and Energy behave when we aren't looking. So by definition, Empirical Data cannot be gathered. Once we go beyond scientific observation, we are already over the line between science and metaphysics. Which is to say we can only guess. The accuracy of this"guess" itself is sharper than anything we can actually observe.
And we can demonstrate it, reliably, with a resolution never before known by man.
We measure this with an equation known as the "Shchrodinger Wave Function."
The calculation of this equation becomes increasingly difficult with each additional element. This is to say; "The more particles you include in this calculation, the greater the complexity of its calculation increases." The complexity of this calculation increases so greatly that "Exponential" would be an understatement, and the Schrodinger Wave Function cannot currently be calculated with more than a few such particles.
The gap between calculating what a particle may do in the presence of a few other particles, and what a particle may do in the presence of laboratory equipment designed to leave the marks which make our observation of those particles...
Is an abyss.
And yet it still works.
Quantum Theory, Quantum Field Theory, Quantum Electrodynamics, Bohmian Mechanics, String and M Theory, Holographic Universe Theory have all crossed the line of what was once considered scientifically real, pushing us past this line and forced us to accept that there is STILL more in the universe than is included in our philosophy.
We are Horatio.
So this is the story of light, the force carrier for the Electromagnetic Force. The electromagnetic force at its fundamental level is defined by specific relationships between energy, matter and spacetime. While the relationship between the first two, and the last is difficult to define apart from abstract reason and mathematics, there exists, nonetheless a relationship between Mass/Energy and Spacetime. The Electromagnetic Force is a million, billion, billion, billion, billion times more powerful than gravity, however. This overwhelming discrepancy between electromagnetic forces (relationships between mass and energy), and gravitational forces (relationships between energy/mass and spacetime) allows us to disregard the effects of the curving of spacetime to simplify this relationship. While the following relationships almost entirely ignore the effects of gravity, we may do this in a coarse description of the Electromagnetic Force. This does not happen without the cost of accuracy, and a paradox springs up eventually, but only when a sufficient force of gravity (enough mass) is squeezed down to the very tiny distances and durations where the Electromagnetic force is dominant. As this commonly takes a Black Hole to occur, we only need to remember that disregarding the effects of gravitational forces upon electromagnetic interactions only becomes a problem in extreme circumstances.
At all other times we may make the following three assumptions.
1) A photon (light) moves from point A to point B
2) An electron (mass) moves from point A to point B
3) A photon is absorbed by an electron, which increases its energy state, and then later the electron releases the photon, dropping back into a lower energy state.
These interactions between energy and mass is the quantum interaction of electromagnetic forces. By quantum, we mean that energy, mass, and momentum all occur in discrete packages which are themselves not further reducable to smaller packages. These "packets" of energy, mass or momentum cannot occur in fractional values. This is a proven observation worked over by centuries of argument and experimentation before it was demonstrated by Albert Einstien as the "Photo-Electric Effect". Einstien won the Nobel Prize for this demonstration, and this contribution to our understanding is often regarded more important than his subsequent Special and General Theories of Relativity, for which he is more famous for.
So, we have regarded what is scientiifically considered "real", and forayed quite a bit beyond this line into what is merely possible. The line itself, however, is only drawn within our minds, and crossing over this line is only a matter of departing from the limitations of Scientific Reasoning. We are now in Metaphysical discussion of energy, and telling the story of the nature of its discovery. Before we had the expertise to detect that mass, energy and momentum were quantized, we assumed that it was instead a contuiumm.Which is to say, we assumed energy, momentum, space and time expressed themselves as Analog in nature, and not integral (only occuring in integer values, without fractional or irrational parts). It is for this reason that Pi is calculated to so many decimals that we can calculate the circumference and area of the observable universe with far more precision than it can be measured in. This was the age of classical physics, classical reason, and it was in this age in which the definition of what is considered science, and what is not was forged.
If we did not forge it in this fashion, I suspect that we may have never discovered that it was not so. The drive for greater and greater precision of measurement and observation, based on the assumption that the resolution of the universe itself was in some way infinite in detail, at least in concerns with measurements of Space and Time, we may not have developed the expertise to detect that this was not entirely the case.
While we have no direct evidence that space and time are NOT infinitely divisible, every expression of distance and time that has any "Real" meaning, must be done including descriptons of Mass, Energy, or Momentum.
And all three of these expressions of Spacetime are themselves quantized.
And where they are not quantized, we cannot directly look without quantizing them.
Observation remains not only the border between what can be called "real" and what cannot, it is very deeply implied that it may be the mechanism by which potentia becomes an expression which CAN be called real.
This, however has not been proven, due to difficulties in solving the Shrodinger Wave Function equation in a system which could be said to include an observer. This is only an interpretation of the data we can directly measure. It is not inferred, only interpreted.
This is called the "Copenhagen Interpretation" of Quantum Mechanics.
What we can say definitively about the nature of this interaction between energy and mass, which we call the "Electromagnetic Force" is thus:
Electromagnetic Forces are a relationship between matter and energy, in which energy becomes one with mass, raising the vibration of its energy until which time it releases this energy again, and returns to its previous energy state. This is the moment both mass and energy are "Real", and at no other time may they be considered "real" as they cannot be observed apart from this interaction.
As either energy and mass are observed, it is always observed as a particle of integral value, never fractional or irrational.
Any method of measurement of any one property of mass or energy obscures the measurement of any other property of the same mass or energy, and this is in relationship to the accuracy of the measurement.
In short, the more accurately you know one property, the less you can know about another.
This is not a limitation of expertise. This is a limitation of principle.
The state of particles while they are not being observed may not be directly determined, but inferred by the nature of the information it leaves behind when it is observed. Both the interaction of matter and energy and the leaving behind of information about the nature of this interaction are required before the particle can be said to have been observed. The "Delayed Choice Quantum Eraser" experiment demonstrates this, that both interaction and data must occur, for when interaction occurs, but data is obscured, the particulate nature of energy and mass vanishes, and it acts once again more as a wave of probability, according to the mathematics of statistics, than that of a particle.
Even when the particle is observed, and that this point its state is "known" (or manifest), it still does so in a statistical fashion, being more often in states which are more likely, and less often in states which are less likely. This behavior has been determined by repeated experiments which match observations over time. The probabilities rule the eventualities, but are never seen as probabilistic in any single measurement. While the activity of any specific particle cannot be repeatably and reliably accurately predicted, the probability of states is may be in CAN be predicted, and the resolution of this prediction is very precise.
It is because of this behavior, found in both energy and matter, that we speak of "Particle-Wave Duality", as if it is both, even though it is never actually both at the same time. This nature of existence is experimentally verifiable, and yet defies entirely any classical logical evaluation.
It is not a wave.
It is not a particle.
It isn't NOT a wave.
It isn't NOT a particle.
It is not a particle AND a wave.
It is not a particle OR a wave.
There are no more classical logical descriptions left. Yet this state is clearly observed and retested. With the above in mind, quantum reasoning requires us to expand logical reasoning to include something which is apart from all other reasoning. We call this "Superposition". Superposition follows the logical structure of the above statement. Not only does Superposition challenge logical reason, it challenges also our intuition about the nature of the world around us, for no matter how often one speaks of probabilities, uncertainties and observers, cheese remains very happily being cheese. And it is cheese because of these interactions. Reliably so.
In this reliable observation, we come to realize that the border between what is scientific and what is metaphysical only exists in our perception. It is useful that this border exists so, but only with the understanding that nature itself regards no such bias at all, and is simply as it is, no matter how we think of it. Once we begin speaking of "observation", no matter how we define it, it becomes difficult to disregard the role of Consciousness as fundamental to reality, rather than being a by-product or benefit of it. When we do this, however, so far as the author can tell, we have left scientific reasoning behind and must begin to speak of things in metaphysical terms, rather than in the terms of physical science.
Within this context, we may say that Matter is Energy, and Energy is a potentia of Probability. It is also reasonable to state that the universe exists because it can, and for no other reason. One may say that if a thing is possible, we have no reason to question its existence once it has been observed, no matter how unlikely its possibility may be.
In a universe of any infinite quantity, we can say that any probability, no matter how small, would instead be a near certainty. It would still be possible for it not to exist even in an infinite expanse. If we could verify that something which was possible in an infinite universe did not ever actually occur, it would certainly be stranger than if it had.
So far we have only discussed Quantum Theory and Quantum Electrodynamics, and focused solely upon details pertaining to Electromagnetism. The author does not discuss the "Force" of Gravity in detail because General Relativity describes Gravity not as a force, but as the geography of Spacetime. It should be noted that General Relativity and Quantum Mechanics tend to erupt nonsense whenever one tries to incorporate one into the other. This is also why detailed discussions about Black Holes are absent from this text, because despite the fact that they do exist, describing what they exist as is a challenge at best. Also absent are discussions about Quantum Chronodynamics, which is the study of the Strong Force, which is also an energy. The Strong Force, or Strong Nuclear Force, is a billion, billion, billion times more powerful than the Electromagnetic force. This is the force which binds quarks into the stable forms which we call Protons and Nuetrons. These also exist as Quanta, and the above quantum behavior still applies, but in even stranger ways than I can describe. The author does mention these forces now for one reason: To illustrate another scientifically known tendency of energy.
The stronger the force, the more limited its distance of effect is.
The weaker a force, the more expansive its distance of effect is.
This relationship between forces allows Gravitational forces to influence its environment to a significant degree at distances beyond the degree that the Electromagnetic Force has dissipated its power. Over longer distances, Gravity can be felt without being drowned out by the vastly more powerful Electromagnetic force. Planets can be held in orbit around stars. Moons around Planets, and you firmly to the ground because of this.
Likewise the Electromagnetic Force may influence its environment at distances in which the Strong Nuclear Force has become negligible. For this reason, Chemistry, Biology, Life, Structure, and Heat can happen, despite the enormously more powerful Strong Nuclear Force.
I invite you to research any of the above topics. To give the topic fair treatment involves the writing of many more books than I have read. A great deal has been glossed over, or left unsaid only because there is so much detail and so much to say. To this end I suggest the Hitchiker's Guide to the Galaxy Trilogy (in four parts, upon which a fifth was added, along with the Addendum titled "Dirk Gently's Holistic Detective Agency"). This is the short version, and upon my most recent reading, I certainly cannot say that it isn't true. Douglas Addams is a genius. For more serious treatment of the subject, Brian Green and Richard Feynman are both excellent authors who give fair treatment to the subject. Brian Green also has a remarkable way of describing the very same theories in subsequent books in ways which are enlightening and different from his previous work. A new book by Brian Green is fully a new book, even if you are familiar with his treatment on the same topics in previous books. Brian Green is always worth reading. Richard Feynman's contributions have been argued to be on par with even Einstien's. His description of Quantum Electrodynamics is both easy to follow with no prior knowledge, and rich in deep implications of the nature of the universe. Richard Feynman is always worth another read. If you follow this advice, after two books, you will recognize the next book you should read because of the name of its title.
This concludes the first part of this topic, The Science of Energy. In Part 2, we will discuss the Metaphysics of Energy, and what we commonly mean when we refer to Energy on a Metaphysical understanding, and why this understanding is different than a Scientific one.