Physics of Psychology

Ethically, one must be careful of what is said concerning real psychology in such an environment as this, but I would like to propose a concrete analogy between particle physics and the far more vague field of psychology. Understand that this is not about what professional psychologists understand, but rather a completely new ontology of psychology from which the entire subject of psychology can be founded (or rebuilt).

In the field of physics there are fundamentally only two concerns, although combinations are often considered separate. Those concerns are known as gravitation and electromagnetic interaction. As it turns out, gravitation is actually made of the electromagnetic interactions (as well as the often mentioned “Strong and Weak forces”). Thus in reality, there is actually only one fundamental concern that leads to all of the more complex concerns in physics. And that is the electromagnetic interaction, positive and negative charge interaction.

In physics, the electromagnetic interaction refers to positive and negative inanimate objects interacting - positive and negative particles (e.g. “electrons, positrons, protons, anti-protons”) attracting and/or repelling, creating motion or waves of charge. In psychology, we have positive and negative urges creating motion, “emotions”. The similarity and analogy between these two fields of science is what I would like to briefly discuss.

Perception of Hope and/or Threat: Emotional Charge
A mind has a perception of hope and of threat, PHT, the positive and negative evaluations of its situation. Its perception might not be at all accurate with objective reality, but the effect on the mind, the “charge”, is the same either way. And from this fundamental understanding, literally ALL psychology effects can be understood … and then of course used for whatever heinous purposes Man endeavors to enact upon himself and other creatures.

In physics, when the positive and negative electromagnetic interactions become furiously fused, “confused”, a cloud or cluster of what we call “mass” is formed. The interactions that require both space and time to occur form our physical reality of subatomic particles. And when the confusion is dense enough, the effect that we call “gravitation” occurs between the clumps or clouds of electromagnetic confusion such as to cause such “particles of mass” to migrate toward each other, forming clumps of “matter”. And the emotional mind has a similar construct deep within, “mass particles of emotion”.

It is easy to realize that there are thoughts that inspire positive or negative urges, feelings, or emotions, the notions often called “good or evil”. Analytically, such thoughts constitute a perception of hope or threat, PHT. And concerning most perceptions, both hope and threat (usefulness or danger) are fused such as to yield a neutral emotional response. A kitchen knife can be used as a threat or as a tool. By in large, the objects and situations that a mind finds itself surrounded by inspire very little emotion because both the perceived positive and negative potential are sufficiently equal. These perceptions constitute the “mass particles” of the spirit, neither good nor bad, merely what is, objects or situations. And interestingly within the mind, they gravitate together to form what “matters” to the mind.

The thought of your newborn baby and the thought of the smelly rat in the basement constitute positive and negatively charged particles of emotion within the mind. The far more prevalent less charged perceptions constitute the neutral mass particles with which the mind must deal while handling the charged issues.

And the extremely complex combination of the many charged and great many more neutral perceptions within the mind form the entirety of one’s perception of reality and dictate the entirely of one’s behavior, one’s “spirit”, one’s psychology.

There is of course, a great, great deal more detail concerning what comes of these mental subatomic charged particles (literally the “why” to every urge, dream, fantasy, or impulse that you have ever had), but a little at a time.

What does your mind entail? :evilfun: Science, biology/physiology, name the brain as the hub of the mind in the biological body. I say the brain, the central nervous system, is a relay station for the soul, our body of consciousness, where emotions are derived. The soul is the actual hub of all conscious activity which can exist apart from all the biological aspects of existence. Biological existence seems to revolve around the emotion of fear while spiritual existence revolves around the emotion of hope.

Biological existence is threat-based 24/7 which is why people rarely if ever experience the emotion of peace. Calling emotions charged is very accurate, I simply call it emotional energy. A biological existence is “not natural” to our spiritual existence, so there is a learning curve there for folks/souls once they engage the natural environment of Earth Proper.

I would argue that the brain and the five senses limit our perceptions by simplifying what gets processed from exterior/interior biological body to brain, to soul, back to brain, back to biological body.


When in Physics two positive or two negative charged particles repell each other, what does that mean in terms of PHT? Don’t positive urges just add and lead to a more general positive attitude?

Physical distance is due to the degree of indirect affect one object has on another, how many points of space must be affected in order for the affect from one to propagate to the other. Being close means that fewer points must be affected than being far.

Mental or emotional affect is similar although the “distance” is formed from the degree of indirect affect one perception (a mental “object”) has upon another within the mind. For example, no matter what perception you have of Tom Cruise, Nicole Kidman might be an independent issue, even though they are married. But if your perception of Cruise is being affected by your perception of Kidman, then within your mind, they are “connected” or “close”.

When it comes to “charged” hopes or threats, you will find that how emotionally close objects of hope or threat are is subject to your perception of their independence from each other. And your own perception is what causes independent hopes to be close or far apart.

PHT Attraction
Emotional focus and energy comes upon a hope that addresses a perceived threat. A star is brightest in the midst of a dark sky and your attention is captured by the distinction. Equally within the mind, it is amidst danger that an avenue of hope is given focus and energy. And that star of hope is mentally “attached” to the threat that it addresses because it directly affects the threat. Similarly, given a bright hope, any threat to that hope is quickly given attention. By thus, perceptions of positive and negative are “attracted” to each other and associated in the mind. If you hope to keep your computer running well, attend to the threat of viruses. The two concerns become directly associated in your mind, especially after traumatic experience.

PHT Repulsion
Positive-to-positive or negative-to-negative separations also occur within the mind as a function of their perceived independence. As emotional focus is drawn toward one object, focus is drawn away from others. Such “focus” is what forms independent perception, objects are seen more as separate concerns, more distant. As a man focuses more on the love of his wife, he more dismisses his love for his mistress. As the telescope of his mind amplifies the image of one star to fill the aperture, the other stars fade out of sight and out of mind. The more positive each star of hope, the more emotionally independent they are to the mind. And similarly with threats as each gains focus upon itself, it is distanced from any other.

General Relativity
And also in this regard, the physics principle of General Relativity is exactly analogous. The distances and even the time perceived is a function of significance of the object (the mass density and thus gravitation) and the focus of the mind (closeness of the observer).

Emotional Distance
Measuring emotional and mental distance is a challenge. But being understood and measured properly, the Coulomb and Lorentz equations can be used to very precisely predict emotional response, although gaining detailed information of a subject usually makes that task very difficult.

So now to more directly answer your question, many stars more brighten your sky just as more electrons will more lighten your lamp. The hard part is keeping them all in focus together. Just as the many children of a single mother, each demands its own attention.

And from another thread:

With regards to PHT, does this happen, when a person denies the perception of a possible hope or a possible threat? When, for example the “optimist” doesn’t want to pay any conscious attention to anything negative – “normalcy bias”?

Remember that there are two distinct kinds of effects involved; * a gravitational migration and

  • a charge emoting.
    A gravitational migration within a mind is the accumulation of clutter and complexity concerning any subject matter such as mathematics. To the mind the perception of mathematics is a “mass particle” that grows more and more details and complexity for as long as it is exposed to mathematics related issues. That is the process of learning a topic. But the effect of charged perceptions is different.

When blinders are put on a horse, a man looks away as a woman undresses, or someone intentionally refuses to think about a subject with the wrong attitude, the mind is being insulated from the charge (the Potential-to-Affect) of the object. A great many issues in society involve intentionally not exposing others, especially children, to what is believed to be a potential to negatively affect (negative affectance). For example the act of taking a 13 year old boy to a strip club is likely to have a strong affect upon the mind of the boy thus it is illegal in most societies. Such is the effort to insulate from specific PHT and is most successfully accomplished by alternate distraction, different PHT leading toward a different direction, perhaps going to a baseball game or to the beach.

Attitudes are about PHT “charge”, whether positive or negative. And a great deal of society is designed specifically around such charge concerns, thus manipulating attitudes. Bland passionless knowledge or experiences form “mental mass” void of emotional charge. To prevent masses (different mental subjects) from growing closer together in the mind such that they are perceived as basically the same subject, other subjects can be introduced and associated which distract the mind from forming too many associations between the initial subjects. This is an issue of creating “mental anti-gravity”, preventing the normal gravitation between two similar or close subjects.

An example of intentional “anti-gravity” manipulation to a mind, indoctrinating normalcy bias, would be a teacher refusing to discuss the statistical inaccuracy of the weather forecasts by immediately discussing how the weather is always fickled, uncontrollable, and unpredictable then quickly changing the subject to anything far more distant. The subject of weather control is kept distant from the subject of erroneous weather forecasts by distraction toward the preferred assumption that nothing can be or is being done about the weather. The two “masses in the mind” (weather control and typical weather forecasting inaccuracy) do not gravitate toward each other as they normally would in a totally honest environment because an alternate mental mass object is introduced (the inability of Man to predict nature) distracting the issue of weather forecasting away from the issue of weather controlling. The entire topic of space alien UFOs is all about mental anti-gravity technique (aka distraction to prevent attraction).

Such mental anti-gravity manipulations are extremely common in political speeches. Speakers quite often immediately divert a conversation about a sensitive subject away from the most normal flow toward a preferred direction. And even more effective are mental “charged particle” manipulations used to strongly distract away from a sensitive subject. An example would be implying that a person is a racist or sexist when the topic was actually about the accomplishments of one’s opponent. The more charged issue of racism gets immediate distracted attention, “derailing” the train of thought that there is evidence that the opponent might be a good guy.

The film industry, television, music and news media are steeped heavily into hypnotizing the public through such mental charged particle and gravitational manipulations concerning political figures, smoking, racism, religion, sexism, globalism, and just about every aspect of life. The physics of it is all quite predictable and achieves chosen results. Unfortunately their measurements and mathematics of it all is still as lacking as their ethics, thus causing serious unneeded and often harmful side effects.

Well, I’m neither a psychologist nor a physics-expert, but having read your Affectance-Ontology, I find it interesting how you explain human behavior on the basis of those physical concepts.

You wrote there, for example: „As affect occurs between adjacent potentials, waves of affect propagate chaotically in both direction and magnitude creating an ocean of affectance noise.“

Adjacent potentials, are they like situations/perceptions of hope and/or threat, which exist independenly from each other? Which psychological effect does it have when an affect occurs between them and why does it propagate then chaotically?

If you have read my posts on Affectance Ontology, then no doubt you have read me say that AO is a true “Unified Field Theory”, UFT, and “Grand Unified Theory”, GUT. The exact same principles from AO apply to literally ALL sciences; physics, psychology, politics, economics,…

The mental analogy of the “ocean of affectance noise” is the ocean of attitudes, associations, and beliefs in the mind.

Random Propagation
Mental propagation of PHT occurs first between closely associated perceptions (aka “adjacent”). For example, having perceived a woman dressed as you believe whores to dress, your attitude and values associated with whores (your associated PHT) is likely to cause you to perceive that woman as a whore and evaluate her as such. Later, regardless of how she is dressed, the association persists. Or perhaps if you already know the woman as a whore, the way you perceive her manner of dress might cause you to perceive her dress as whorish.

Having associated perhaps 4" pumps and a short purple skirt as such whorish dress, when you see another woman wearing either of those items, you might perceive her to be a whore or close enough to evaluate her with the same attitudes (whether good or bad). The PHT values get spread from object to object depending upon how much attention was being payed to what detail at the time. That is what I meant by “random propagation”. Perhaps it was her hair style that stuck in your mind. Different people in different situations will propagate their PHT in different “directions”.

Chaotic Propagation
The “chaos” comes in as PHT items of concern get inappropriately associated with objects and people. Throughout society, people begin to inappropriately judge others, make assumptions, and even get violent even though there would seem to be no rational reasoning for it. Such natural behavior is what inspires general classes, clicks, groups, and categories of people (women are historically very prone to propagate PHT). The category labels themselves become yet another presumed PHT association (aka. the “good guys” and “bad guys”; “liberal”, “conservative”, “Christian”, “Jew”,…).

With sufficient detailed information of the population (an extreme degree), such propagation can be precisely predicted, which is why “they” seek surveillance over literally ALL motion, speech, and thought. Who wins or loses an election becomes merely a matter of calculation and subtle manipulation, not prognostication. If there were no terrorists, they would have to be invented so as to justify extreme monitoring of the population.

All of this is what led to the Perception Matrix revealed in the popular film The Matrix.

Taking your example of a woman, who’s way to dress I might regard as “whorish”. If my perception of her gets influenced through media, other people or whatever, who are all telling me that the way she dresses is a fashion now, the latest trend and a “must” for all modern women who look after themselves, and I can see now lots of women dressed up like this, my whole attitude might change due to this manipulation, given that it’s easy to influence me. So my perception of something “bad” changes to a perception of something “good” (or from negative to positive). I’ve learned that a particle cannot just change it’s charge. How do you explain this change of PHT-values?

Although a valid and understandable question to ask, it poses a significant number of physics and philosophy issues to be addressed. The first of which is the philosophical issue of Theseus’ Ship - at what point of substitution do we say that it is a different ship?

To convert and electron into a positron, you would first have to remove the negativity of the electron. That would require that you obtain the technology to actually hold an electron in place while you manipulate it … not currently possible. But even with that technology provided, an electron is made of nothing but negativity. Removing all of the negativity leaves absolutely nothing, no empty shape or form to be filled, but simply nothing at all. A positron can then be either created or more simply just moved into the former electron’s position. Then you could say that you “converted” the electron to a positron. But more likely, you are going to say that you simply replaced the electron after destroying it. It is actually just a matter of semantics, as is Theseus’ Ship.

But perhaps the more relevant issue involves the sizes of the kinds of things we have been discussing.

When I used a woman as something from which a propagation of PHT might occur, I was very, very far from referring to a “subatomic particle”. The word “particle” merely refers to anything very tiny, but in the realm of physics, a “subatomic particle” is not merely tiny, but ultra, extremely tiny and more importantly, the smallest possible physical stable form. And as tiny as women might get, they very, very seriously come no where close to the smallest or simplest stable entities within the construct of perception.

The human eye can see something about 0.1 millimeters width (10^-4 meters). An atom, and all atoms are roughly the same size, is about 10^-10 meters, 0.0000000001 meters. That is a difference of about one MILLION times smaller than a human eye could see. But guess what. A proton subatomic particle is roughly 100,000 times smaller than that at about 10^15 meters. But it doesn’t end there. An electron is roughly 1000 times smaller than that at 10^18 meters - 0.000000000000000001m.

That puts the electron and positron particles at roughly one MILLION times smaller than one MILLION times smaller than anything the human eye could ever see. The human mind cannot fathom such a range of size. And such is the case when it comes to the most fundamental, nearly nonconvertible, “particles” of PHT.

A single atom is made of many subatomic particles so far distant from each other than if you could actually see one electron, you could not see the orbited nucleus that is 1000 times larger because it would be 50,000 times further away. Molecules are then formed by atoms being fairly close together yet forming molecule chains anywhere from just a couple to trillions of atoms long. And from those are formed cells that are 10,000 times larger. And from trillions of those, is formed a woman. The difference in size and complexity is unfathomable.

The point is that the normal objects of perceived value, such as that woman, are invariably extremely complex combinations of much, much smaller intuitive PHT concerns, so small as to be undetectable by the conscious mind. They exist in the realm of the “subconscious” and even “unconscious” mind and are usually referred to a “an intuitive sense”. So whether the “subatomic” form of PHT particle could be converted is seriously irrelevant because there is nothing your conscious mind could perceive that comes anywhere close to being the most fundamental impetus for PHT evaluation. And that means that pretty much anything that you can perceive can be converted from a positive to negative PHT perception or vsvrsa. Smelly ugly things can become alluring attractive things … or vsvrsa. It is all a matter of proper programming.

Reversing the PHT charge of most concerns would be about like reversing the static charge of a Van De Graaff generator. The reverse charged particles or waves must be pumped toward the object while the formers are pumped away. Such is referred to as a “catharsis”, flooding the mind with a particular “charge”.

Maybe Mithus wants to compare that “change of PHT-values” with a decay like the following one: After about 10.25 minutes a neutron (neutral charge) decays into a proton (positive charge), an electron (negative charge) and an antineutrino (no charge).

The intent of my last post was to express that one cannot compare the perception of a human with the behavior of a subatomic particle. Although one can compare such a perception with an amount of charge that, when very stable, can be thought of as a “particle that is charged”, like a charged spec of dust, just not subatomic because subatomic particles have no substructure like a nervous system interfering with their dynamics. The mind is still built upon and sensitive to its physical biochemical substrate, the brain, thus its perceptions are never as pure as physical subatomic particles.

Beyond that, one must be careful when speaking Quantum Particle Physics Ontology. The word “particle” in quantum physics is no more than a number used to account for an amount of something otherwise unaccounted for, much like the square root of a negative number - purely imaginary.

A neutrino is an actual physical particle, much like an electron void of charge. But an “anti-neutrino” is not an actual particle at all, not really even a virtual particle. The idea of “anti-neutrino” refers to a neutrino amount of energy that is missing from the surrounding environment. But quantum theory physicists do not like to refer to anything except as a “particle”, a quanta (in their mathematics).

A proton is at a lower entropy than a neutron. It has more energy than a neutron. So for them to say that a neutron “decays” into a proton, is another misuse of the language (they seem to love doing that - semantics). When a neutron becomes a proton, it absorbs a positron worth of charge and a neutrino amount of mass. So in Quantum Physics Ontology, there is a missing amount of charge and mass from the surrounding universe. So to call out the missing amount of positive charge, the same amount of negative charge is claimed to be generated into the universe from the change, an “electron”. And to call out the amount of missing mass, a “negative-mass” particle, an anti-neutrino is claimed. Neither the electron, nor the negative-mass particle physically exist as real particles. They are merely referred to as “particles” so as to account for the amount of missing charge and mass energy. An objective in Quantum Physics is to ensure that in all things, there is a zero-sum.

It is a little dangerous to the mind to casually step in and out of different ontologies (language issues and thus logic issues arise), especially ontologies that are incomplete, such as Quantum Physics and Relativity.

Yes, but for people like me, who are not familiar with Physics, it can become difficult to translate it all into the language of Psychology. In your ontology you wrote that "there is a limit to the rate of adding affects/influences, when affects merge in such a way as to require more than an infinite change rate, a maximum change rate point, MCR point, forms and as the participating affects continue to attempt adding at the same location, any additional followup propagating affects must wait for time to pass. - “Inertia”.

I understand that this is the precondition for the forming of a particle, or, in other words, “the mass particle of the spirit”. What equals this MCR point in Psychology, which causes a delay of further influences? I imagine something like a sensory overload, which has an inhibiting effect to the receptivity of the mind, so that the mind has to filter out useful from useless information, in order to form an understanding.
But that might be completely wrong. Sorry, if I confuse this all.

I agree, because I also think that “perceptions are never as pure as physical subatomic particles”, that it is not possible or at least quite difficult and also quite useless to compare the “perception of a human with the behavior of a subatomic particle”. But the point Mithus made could be the change from “positive” to “negative” and vice versa, from “neutral” to “positive” or “neagtive” and vice versa, regardless whether subatomic particles behave in the same way or not, and if they do, then the comparison is useful, and if they do not do, then the comparison is useless.

Quantum Physics and Relativity are not complete, yes.

The human brain is a network a “web” of interconnected modules. Charge physics are it’s “electricity” but we can’t discern a computer’s future behavior based on it’s simple voltage. The logic and code systems are at play here.

What could or should the analogy of the sensory be?


The S.S. as the S.S. [/tab]
It is very plausible to have an hierarchical structure of several realms, so that it is not always possible to compare them with each other. An example is the brain: this biological (neurological) organ has no analogy in physics, because physics as such (as well as chemistry as such) does not belong to that organic realm. The level of the organic realm is higher than the inorganic realm, although the inorganic realm determines the organic realm. This means in the case of the brain example that the brain does not only exist of parts of the organic realm, cells for example, but also of parts of the inorganic realm, molecules and atoms for example.

So when it comes to the inorganic realm, it is difficult to find an analogy to the brain as a part of the organic realm. If you said that “the sun is the ‘brain’ of the solar system (or the planetary system)”, then this would be “true” only in a metaphorical sense. But if you said that “the brain (or the heart) is the ‘sun’ of the organism”, then this would be “true” not only in a metaphorical but also in a more ontological, a more real sense.

And if it is difficult to find an analogy to the organic realm in the inorganic realm, then it is even more difficult to find an analogy to the psycho-/sociological realm, not only because of the fact that you have to find an analogy to the psycho-/sociological realm in both the inorganic realm and the organic realm.

The biological organ has analogy to physics, it’s just that the physics you have been taught (rigid bodies) does not apply here. Rigid body is a simplification of physics (simplified physics) useful to simulations. Actual physics is fluid body physics, all things (even light) uses fluid body physics and so does the brain.

However, the brain is more complicated than that, it is a logic center with various logic modes and operations…Logic modes are associated with physical conditions (such as flow of electricty in ON state and no flow in OFF state.) However to simplify it to one single On/Off state as implied in the OP is an oversimplification.

^^^^ That’s no analogy!

This seems to have veered off course. Let me speak of a fantasy universe made strictly of PHT, just to get some bearing here.

A PHT Universe
Supposed for a moment that there is only mind void of any physical reality at all. Every mind is guided by its Perception of Hopes and Threats, PHT. Such PHT would actually be the fundamental substance of that universe just as waves of positive and negative electromagnetic radiation is in the physical universe. Wave’s of PHT would randomly and chaotically radiate throughout that universe, creating “PHT Affectance” (def: the fundamental stuff that had affect). That PHT Affectance would be infinitely divisible because there is no more fundamental substrate. All existence would be defined by where the most infinitesimal PHT Affectance was.

The end effect of such a universe would be that “subatomic particles” of Perception of Hope and Threat would collect into tiny little fuzzy balls, just like physical subatomic particle do. Those particles would necessarily form into three categories:
[list]Perception of Hope particles (PHT positrons, protons),
Perception of Threat particles (PHT electrons), and
the combined Perceived Neutral particles (PHT neutrinos, neutrons).[/list:u]

And from those subatomic particles PHT atoms would form. And from those PHT atoms, PHT molecules would form. And eventually up the line, PHT living beings would form, being far too great and sophisticated to be aware of their subatomic nature yet capable of manipulating tremendously complex structures of Perceived of Hope and Threat throughout their world. The analogy to physical existence would be perfect.

Now, back to reality
Although throughout history, many have believed such to be the real universe, it is not. Perception of Hope and Threat requires a physical substrate. And due to that substrate, PHT is not actually infinitely divisible nor capable of forming tiny little fuzzy balls of pure 100% PHT particles. Instead, the physical universe provides for a PHT substrate, much like the hardware of a computer provides a substrate for its software.

And just as software in a computer has its own priorities and behaviors, mind and PHT has its own relatively independent behavior which inherently mimics (“is analogous to”) that of larger scale physical affectance.

Even though PHT cannot form true subatomic particles, it still has to ability to propagate in waves and “charge” larger scale items within the mind, similar to balloons gaining a static electric charge.