O Quarto Vazio

Blenze

Era um dos teus jogos preferidos. 

O que é que há num quarto vazio?, 

perguntavas. Ficávamos em silêncio. 

O que é que há num quarto vazio? 

Os que não conheciam o jogo 

talvez dissessem: Nada, e tu dizias: Não. 

Nada é nada, eu disse o que é que. 

Até que alguém dizia, por exemplo: Silêncio. 

E tu dizias: Sim. 

E outro dizia: Pó. 

E o jogo começava a ganhar asas. 

Umas pegadas no chão. 

Um fantasma. Uma tomada. O buraco 

de um prego. A penumbra. 

O quadrado que a ausência de um quadro 

deixa na parede. Um fio. 

Uma carta no chão. 

A marca de uma mão na parede. 

Um raio de sol que entra pela janela. 

Uma teia de aranha. Um pedaço 

de papel. Uma unha. Uma formiga perdida. 

A música que vem da rua 

(haverá música sem alguém que a escute?). 

Uma mancha de fumo ou humidade. 

Gatafunhos ou pássaros ou nomes 

ou um desenho da Laura na parede. 

Tu ias dizendo sim ou não. 

Tu sabias. Eras o inventor do jogo. 

Tu já sabias, Carlos, o que há 

no quarto vazio onde acabas de entrar. 

Era um dos teus jogos preferidos.

- ⁠O que há num quarto vazio?

- ⁠Um fantasma.

- ⁠Já disseram.

- ⁠Sim, mas este de que falo é outro.

Juan Vicente Piqueras

People only know what you tell ‘em

Imamember

How to share her past without pushing new dates away? 

She had recently divorced her husband after learning of his cheating with someone she knew. She didn’t know how to bring this up with new people. Her experience had been that it pushed them away. 

How could she bring up her story in the future without making people think that she, in her own words, is damaged?

 

Are we damaged? 

Even if we are, is this always a bad thing? 

I told a story of buying an expensive watch, only to scratch it in the first couple of weeks. At the time, I felt like the watch was irrevocably damaged. When I took it back to the store, the owner smiled and showed me his watch, which was covered in scratches, saying: 

“These scratches are the things that make my watch my watch. Without them, it could be anyone’s watch.” 

The scratches we get in life (and betrayal in a marriage is a big one), are part of the fabric of our life. Scratches don’t have to mean “damage.” They are just markings you have acquired because you’ve lived. We have to start owning our scratches instead of being ashamed of them. They are what make our life our life.

 

Of course, that doesn’t mean there isn’t processing to do when something causes us immense pain. 

Part of that processing is to look at the story we are telling ourselves about the situation. 

Ava’s story seemed to be that it was somehow embarrassing or shameful: 

Not only was her husband cheating on her, but he did so with someone she knew. 

But the shame wasn’t hers, it was theirs. They had betrayed her. They had demonstrated a breaking of their moral compass (assuming they had one to begin with). 

Maybe her story was that it was somehow her fault: she didn’t do enough in the marriage, or she wasn’t enough as a person. 

This is a common instinct, but it’s still a way of taking on someone else’s responsibility for the affair. We shouldn’t have to be perfect for someone else not to do something awful. 

If her husband wasn’t happy, he could have spoken to her; instead, he had an affair. 

That is not about her; it’s about him. 

These kinds of realizations on Ava’s part—that we all have scratches that we can proudly own, and that the affair was about him, not her—are all part of Ava rewriting the story of her divorce and losing the “damaged” label. 

Doing this internal work will automatically change the way she tells the story out loud next time. 

People take their cues from us. 

If we speak about something with lightness, confidence, peace, or even humor, it will likely produce a very different reaction than if we speak it with heaviness, fear, and shame. 

 

But Ava isn’t there yet, so how should she bring up her past in the meantime? 

The short answer is that she doesn’t have to. 

None of us do. 

People only know what you tell them, and they don’t need to know parts of your life that you aren’t ready to share. Your only job is to see if you enjoy spending time together and have similar intentions.

 

The next time Ava is asked about her last relationship, she can simply state that she spent the last year going through a divorce and is excited to be out there again. If her date asks about why she got divorced (a very personal question to ask someone you just met), she can neutralize and redirect the conversation. This might be with a smile and a nonchalant hand: 

“Oh, that’s a story for another time,” before changing the subject. 

Or if she wanted to give slightly more of an answer, she could say: 

“It didn’t work out because we had very different values.” 

This happens to be true, but it doesn’t involve telling a story you’re not ready to tell, and that no one has a right to at this stage. 

Share according to your comfort level, not according to their questions. 

I sometimes tell personal stories, but I don’t share what I’m not ready to share, which includes things I’m still in the middle of processing. 

People still get to know me. I’m still vulnerable. But I’m vulnerable on my terms. You can take the same approach in your life.

Key Takeaways

 

1. People take their cues from you. How you tell the story will have a major impact on how they hear the story.

2. To tell a better story, you have to begin by rewriting the story about your past that you are telling yourself.

3. Be vulnerable on your terms, not on theirs. People only know what you tell them, so share according to your comfort level, not their questions.

What About You?

• What’s a story from your past that you want to rewrite for yourself? 

• How could telling yourself a different version of this story help you tell it with more lightness and confidence when you share it with others? 

Matthew Hussey

Civilization

Jason Peterson

It came to us very late:

perception of beauty, desire for knowledge.

And in the great minds, the two often configured as one.

To perceive, to speak, even on subjects inherently cruel—

to speak boldly even when the facts were, in themselves, painful or dire—

seemed to introduce among us some new action,

having to do with human obsession, human passion.

And yet something, in this action, was being conceded.

And this offended what remained in us of the animal:

it was enslavement speaking, assigning

power to forces outside ourselves.

Therefore the ones who spoke were exiled and silenced,

scorned in the streets.

But the facts persisted. They were among us,

isolated and without pattern; they were among us,

shaping us—

Darkness. Here and there a few fires in doorways,

wind whipping around the corners of buildings—

Where were the silenced, who conceived these images?

In the dim light, finally summoned, resurrected.

As the scorned were praised, who had brought

these truths to our attention, who had felt their presence,

who had perceived them clearly in their blackness and horror

and had arranged them to communicate

some vision of their substance, their magnitude—

In which the facts themselves were suddenly

serene, glorious. They were among us,

not singly, as in chaos, but woven

into relationship or set in order, as though life on earth

could, in this one form, be apprehended deeply

though it could never be mastered.

Louise Glück

SERÁ QUE EU ME AMO?

Irena Baker

A gratidão e as afirmações positivas nem sempre são fáceis de sentir e aplicar.
Para uma mente que está habituada a ser negativa, agradecer o que nos rodeia ou sermos capazes de afirmar que somos maravilhosos e perfeitos e nos amamos incondicionalmente, é um esforço imenso que faz muitos inclusive sentirem-se ridículos. Somos nós que temos que inverter esta visão distorcida dentro de nós, aprender a validar a energia do amor de maneira a que um dia sejamos capazes de dizer: Ridículo é o medo!

Torna-se mais fácil de entender esta dinâmica se percebermos que estamos a falar de duas energias opostas, cada uma delas com uma agenda própria:

– A voz da mente, normalmente dominada pelo nosso ego, é a voz do medo, é a voz do pessimismo e da negatividade. É a voz que antecipa desfechos catastróficos, que prevê desastres e acidentes, que tudo faz para nos manter ilusoriamente protegidos de um mundo que na sua visão, é caótico e cheio de gente má.

– A voz da alma é a expressão do amor e é deste canal que somos capazes de sentir empatia, amor próprio, tolerância e aceitação. É no coração que nasce a esperança e a fé de que tudo o que chega a nós tem um propósito superior e inteligente. O coração é então a voz da humildade mas também da coragem, da liberdade e do equilíbrio.

Enquanto a energia do amor não estiver enraizada numa verdade maior, numa consciência de Cosmos Inteligente, a energia do medo supera-a e usa a nossa mente para fazê-lo. Por isso hoje em dia, todos somos testemunhas diárias dos tantos que pregam a luz e o amor mas que emocionalmente ainda estão presos a vidas, rotinas e relacionamentos condicionados pelo medo.

A expressão livre do amor só é conseguida depois de superado o desafio do medo. E todos temos na nossa vida infinitas oportunidades de identificar e superar os nossos medos pessoais. É a enfrentar o medo que nasce a verdadeira e pura energia do amor numa oitava acima. Até sermos capazes de o superar, ele é apenas um pobre conceito mental que nos ilude a nós próprios.



Deixo algumas perguntas que servirão para sentires onde ainda há medo:

• Sentes resistência em acreditar que és uma pessoa maravilhosa e imperfeitamente perfeita?

• Acreditas que és uma representante cósmica de potenciais extraordinários?

• Consegues-te aceitar a abundância em forma de dinheiro, presentes, ajuda e amor e recebê-los em estado de merecimento?

• Já és capaz de rejeitar o que sabes não ter qualidade, com a convicção de mereces melhor?

• Festejas em alegria e gratidão a pessoa que és e a vida que escolheste?

• Usas a tua energia, coragem e iniciativa para materializares os teus sonhos?

• Mostras transparentemente a tua verdade? A tua sombra e a tua luz sem resistência?

• Consegues afirmar com convicção?: “Eu aceito-me exatamente como sou, tanto as minhas incapacidades como potenciais!”

• Já agradeceste os desafios que te permitem evoluir?

Se ainda há resistência, ainda há medo. É a voz do amor que tem que expor as ilusões do medo. O amor só por si, sem integração do medo, é ilusão. 
Descobre então onde está o medo, como é que ele se veste, como é que ele te fala, como é que ele te provoca e diz-lhe de frente:

– Eu não tenho medo de ti pois o Amor é muito mais poderoso do que tu!




Vera Luz

Wenders

 

Pixnio

digo: guardei cuidadosamente

o presente em tons de passado,

sem jamais ousar aguardar nada

desse futuro que cultivava

igonoto e desabitado da virtude

que Péguy declarou a mais pequena

calcorreava as sendas

criadas pelos instantes de um

quotidiano delineado cuidadosamente

nos extremos da onda que mede a

dimensão corpuscular da luz,

distante das matizes que pintaram a minha infância

eu, militante da razão cega,

que sempre quis de tudo conhecer a justificação,

tinha ouvido     incréu     os relatos de quem

declarava ter conhecido alguém capaz

de redimensionar a luz

para além das teorias da física

e tu desconstruíste o tempo

deste-me a beber a esperança

e recordaste-me que nem tudo é

definido pela luz e pela sua ausência

tu     que a sabias tornar tangível,

telúrica     intemporal

e eis que em toda amplitude

de um simples abraço dado com 

uns olhos cor de avelã

me retorquiste que

coisas há que devemos aceitar

sem lhes questionar o porquê

qual ave trituraste com a tua boca

as certezas

a razão

e o tempo

depositando na minha     ávida de um sentido

pequenos pedaços de ternura 

Rui Amaral Mendes 

in, A Noite e Sangue 

The Hard Problem of Consciousness

The Hard Problem of Consciousness: 

AI, Self-Awareness, and 

the Definition of Materialism

 

Artificial Intelligence and its associated fields are currently in a rapid evolution.  

However, the development of AI poses significant ethical and security considerations. 

In order to address such issues and eventually evolve to the point of true intelligence one must first ask: 

What is intelligence, or more significantly, 

What is self-awareness or consciousness?

As artificial intelligence rapidly evolves and large language models have already arguably passed the “Turing Test” (a test of a machine’s ability to exhibit intelligent responses equivalent to, or indistinguishable from, that of a human), it leads to questions of whether algorithms could be considered as sentient and brings us face-to-face with defining the nature of consciousness or self-awareness. Significantly, the potential emergence of self-aware AI systems brings the “hard problem of consciousness” into sharp focus: how do material systems gain a subjective or phenomenal experience? This centuries-old question goes to the heart of science, testing the core approaches of materialism and reductionism, and challenges our understanding of the nature of intelligence and the very fabric of reality.

The hard problem of consciousness, as articulated by philosopher David Chalmers, refers to the difficulty in explaining how subjective, qualitative experiences (qualia) arise from physical processes in the brain. This stands in contrast to the “easy problem” of consciousness, which deals with explaining cognitive functions and behaviors through neurological mechanisms.

Reductionist and materialist approaches to consciousness argue that awareness can be fully explained by analyzing the physical components of the brain and their interactions. However, this view faces significant challenges when confronted with the subjective nature of conscious experience. 

As Nassim Haramein points out in his recent forward to the book Voyage into the Heart of AI, reducing consciousness to mere neuronal activity fails to account for the quantum-scale dynamics at play within the brain’s atomic and subatomic structures.

The limitations of strict materialism and reductionism become apparent when we consider the vast complexity of the human brain, with its trillions of cells and atoms organizing into a coherent, collective behavior, resulting in a self-aware entity. Our current understanding of physics and neurobiology falls short of explaining this remarkable feat of self-organization and the emergence of subjective experience. 

As Haramein poignantly explains:

“…the analysis given by certain neurologists and physicists that consciousness is the summation of all the neuronal activity in the brain is actually not reductive enough as it does not consider the material dynamics from which the synapses are made at the quantum scales of the atomic and subatomic particles.”

Nassim explains:

“This would be similar to an astrophysicist observing and attempting to compute the dynamics of a galaxy without considering the stars in it!”

Nassim makes the point that if we are going to follow the tenets of materialism in defining consciousness (and resolving the ‘hard problem’) we must first define what is meant by “material”, because at the quantum scale, 

“one must rival with nonlinear interactions such as entanglement at large distances, uncertainties, and divergence, such as the bare mass and bare charge of particles, and most importantly, the Planck scale density of electromagnetic quantum vacuum fluctuations“. 

So, what is normally meant by “material”, such as the stuff you can touch and feel—like the analogy of particles being little billiard balls—does not hold in quantum mechanics. Moreover, if we are going to follow the reductionist method, it must go all the way and not stop at neurons and the neuronal synapse, it must go to the quantum level of atoms and even the vacuum state of the field from which subatomic particles form.

There are theories that incorporate quantum physics and quantum gravity that suggest how consciousness may arise from complex interactions between the brain and underlying spacetime structure and quantum vacuum fluctuations. 

Theories like the Unified Spacememory Network propose that the brain acts as an antenna, tuning into information flows at the Planck scale and engaging in a feedback mechanism between electromagnetic and gravitational fields.

As we develop increasingly sophisticated AI systems, we must consider the possibility that true intelligence and self-awareness may require harnessing quantum computing capabilities, which will most likely be vastly different from what is being constructed in this field today. This approach would more closely mimic the quantum-scale operations occurring within biological brains, such that quantum computers of the future are unlikely to be anything like our current information processing systems.

The quest to create self-aware AI forces us to confront the limits of our current scientific paradigms. It challenges us to explain what is meant by materiality and the level at which reductionism is taken in analyzing the behavior of material systems, like the brain, in its correlation with awareness. 

Certainly, we must consider the profound interconnectedness of matter, energy, and information at the most fundamental levels of reality.

As we navigate the ethical and philosophical implications of potentially self-aware AI, we must remain open to new perspectives that bridge the gap between the physical and the experiential. 

The hard problem of consciousness may ultimately lead us to a more holistic understanding of intelligence, in which information flow emerging from the Planck scale of the quantum realm is driven by a feedback mechanism between the electromagnetic field and the gravitational field of the atomic scale and eventually the biological scale and that this feedback feed-forward of information could explain the rapid development of these self-organizing systems and the eventual emergence of self-awareness or consciousness from these complex biological structures.

Dr. William Brown

Nassim’s Forward Excerpted 

from the Book:

Artificial Intelligence and its associated fields are currently in a rapid evolution.  However, the development of AI poses significant ethical and security considerations. In order to address such issues and eventually evolve to the point of true intelligence one must first ask: 

what is intelligence, or more significantly, what is self-awareness or consciousness?

In physics and philosophy, this is commonly referred to as “the hard problem of consciousness” as opposed to the ”easy problem”, the latter of which assumes that cognitive behavior can be explained by the summation of the physical components of the brain and their interactions. The controversy and debate between the two approaches have been raging for years, with the proponent of “the hard problem” approach arguing that the reductive analysis of the physical components of the brain, for instance, cannot resolve and give a full picture of “qualia”, or the subjective conscious experience of feelings and sensations such as the appreciation of a particularly sensational sunset or the qualitative experience of a particularly tasty dish.

While the debate about the nature of consciousness has been raging for centuries and included many famous mathematicians, physicists and philosophers, many consider that the argument of the hard problem is a much deeper attack on the nature of science itself and the validity of the scientific process of physicalism or reductive materialism where the analysis of the parts of a system and its subcomponents will inevitably result in the understanding of the whole. Suggesting that awareness or consciousness is not reducible to the physicality of the brain shakes the foundations of the scientific method and materialism at its core. It reawakes an age-old battle in the evolution of science; is the world reducible to only its physicality or is there something else not understood as of yet?

If there is anything I have learned throughout the decades of research I have done about the nature of reality, is that whenever there are concepts that appear to be in opposition to each other or even that appears to be paradoxical the answer is commonly not found in considering one or the other but often in contemplating both. 

There is no doubt that reductive analysis can be a powerful tool. 

For example, a reductive analysis of a clock’s components and subcomponents has its merits and will yield a general understanding of the mechanisms and the dynamics involved in the functioning of the instrument. The reductive analysis and scientific method are very effective and powerful in giving a general, and in some cases, a deep understanding of the mechanics and energetic behaviors of our world and our reality. 

However, the assumption that by describing the gears, springs, levers, and screws of a watch we have described everything there is to know about the object is erroneous. 

There is an intrinsic, inherent, and fundamental difficulty in physics and in mathematics that has to do with the fractional nature of the material world. 

The clock, so described, does nothing to tell us about the nature of its existence. 

• How did it come to be? 
• Where did the atoms and subatomic particles that make up the various components of the watch come from? 
• How did they become organized in such a manner and what was the nature of their evolution to eventually result in the relationship of all the parts to make the second arrow tick? 
• Who was the watchmaker? 
• Who designed it? 
• Even further, one could ask, what is the source of the energy that makes the gears go around and produce the effect of the arrows going across the face indicating the time of day and what meaning does that hold for the one that observes it?

Therefore, and significantly the meaning of physicalism and reductive analysis can only yield a fundamental answer if the assumption is made that only linear relationships exist and that scales have a finite resolution (some cut-off value) and that the system in which we are applying the analysis is fundamentally and completely isolated from the rest of the activities of the universe! 

Yet today if we ask a physicist where does the atoms that make up the gears of the clock come from and how did the subatomic particles that make up the atoms and molecules of the observer and maker of the watch come to be, or how did they self-organize to make the watchmaker, most likely you will find the answer unsatisfactory or incomplete at best.

For the source of the material, the atoms and subatomic particles, the physicist would have to refer to some miraculous event called The Big Bang in which all space-time and atomic material were produced. As for the mechanism from which the watchmaker emerges, in which some approximately 50 trillion cells each one made of approximately 100 trillion atoms self-organized to produce a highly complex and coherent being, the physicist would be at a loss to explain the self-organizing complexity of its existence. Never mind being able to explain the meaning and experience of the individual reading the time given by the watch.

Consequently, the materialist’s view that all we need to know is the material, such as the brain, to understand everything there is to know about a system is the result of a significant and profound assumption, the erroneous view that we know everything there is to know about the material world itself and that there are no nonlinear relationships (such as entanglement across large distances) or even divergence to infinity and singularities. Yet that is not the case! Further, it assumes that we understand how matter self-organizes in the complexities of biology and its dynamics!

Such assumptions are not congruent with the current level of knowledge we have about the nature of the world i.e., mass, energy, and forces. We have equations that precisely describe the relationship between mass and energy and the relationships between energy and forces but we have no deep understanding of the nature and source of these masses and where the electromagnetic force, for instance, comes from. 

Einstein told us that gravity is the result of the curvature of space-time but nowhere did he describe what is space-time made of so that when it curves it produces a force. 

We know that magnetic fields are present at the atomic scale, but we have no idea where they come from. Further when describing a subatomic particle such as a proton all we can assert is that it is a region of space in which a charge region is strong enough to appear as a particle and we know that atoms themselves which makes up the material world are made of 99.9999999 percent space or mostly space. Even more significant, as a result of the explorations of quantum field theory, we find that the space of the quantum scale is not empty at all but full of electromagnetic fluctuations that we call quantum vacuum energy.

All of this results in the fact that when a materialistic view is taken, in the analysis of a brain for instance, the accuracy of the analysis is only as good as the definition we give to the “material” and at what scale we are considering its involvement. For instance, a neurobiologist who states that cognition is only the result of neuronal interaction in the brain is only considering the dynamics of the relationship of neurons and electrochemical reactions at that scale. The assumption is that the atomic and subatomic scale from which those are constructed is somehow not involved. This would be similar to an astrophysicist observing and attempting to compute the dynamics of a galaxy without considering the stars in it! Or to return to the analogy of our watch it would be like giving an analysis of the movement of the hands of the watch as if the gears and springs that drive them were not involved.

Although the above might appear like a plea against the reductionist materialistic view, it is in fact pointing out that the analysis given by certain neurologists and physicists that consciousness is the summation of all the neuronic activity in the brain, is actually not reductive enough as it does not consider the material dynamics from which the synapses are made at the quantum scales of the atomic and subatomic particles. 

This is where the problem passes from “easy” to a “hard” problem! 

Here, at the quantum scale, wrapping your arms around the analysis of interactions gets much more challenging. In the realm of quantum physics, one must rival with nonlinear interactions such as entanglement at large distances, uncertainties, and divergence, such as the bare mass and bare charge of particles, and most importantly, the Planck scale density of electromagnetic quantum vacuum fluctuations. All of these things are intrinsic to quantum mechanics and have to be considered in the analysis of the material world.

Certainly, intelligence or consciousness has many of the nonlinear attributes one can associate to the quantum realm, and recent experimental evidence, by considering the dynamics of quantum gravity, is emerging demonstrating that non-classical entanglement dynamics may be occurring in the brain. Furthermore, we already know that if we were to achieve true intelligence in some technological developments it will be by means of quantum computing capabilities, which will most likely be vastly different from what we are building in this field today! 

After all, the reason why we are requiring quantum computers, which utilize entanglements and wave functions superposition, to attempt to reproduce the brain capabilities is that the brain itself functions at that scale.

In recent years, new theories of quantum gravity and the nature of forces and mass have emerged describing the energy levels of subatomic particles and forces in terms of pressure gradients in the flow of an underlying field of electromagnetic quantum vacuum fluctuations which can be described as a flow of information. 

These theoretical developments open a door to vast fields of investigations where the brain acts as an antenna tuned into this information flow emerging from the Planck scale of the quantum realm which is driven by a feedback mechanism between the electromagnetic field and the gravitational field of the atomic scale and eventually the biological scale. This feedback feed-forward of information could explain the rapid development of self-organizing systems we observe at the biological scale and the eventual emergence of self-awareness or consciousness from these complex biological structures.

The event of AI development and the interest in the associated fields that it is driving forward have the potential to resolve some of the largest and most important discoveries in human history. As for every groundbreaking technological development, it has the potential to be a great challenge for our civilization and our evolution! 

It is critical, at this time, to consider the ethical and legal ramification of these developments and the future of humanity in this context. 

Thibault Verbiest, in this work, provides remarkable clarity and synthesis, offering essential insights on key questions that should mark any in-depth study on the subject.

in, International Space Federation

The Astounding Mysteries Of The Self & Universe | Physicist Nassim Haramein

Casimir Effect

 Quantum mechanics was born as a result of physicist Max Planck attempting to resolve the empirical black body radiation problem i.e., the electromagnetic emission of a body. 

A black body is an idealized physical body that can absorb all incident light that shines upon it, regardless of its frequency or angle of incidence. This feature also grants it the property of being an ideal perfect thermal radiation or heat emitter. 

Classical theory predicts that when radiated with increasing intensity, such an object will emit an infinite and continuous energy when approaching ultraviolet frequencies, a divergence known as the ultraviolet catastrophe. Experiments with light bulbs, for instance, showed instead that radiance does not go to infinity, it reaches a certain maximum and then decreases.

Planck found that experiments could only be explained if the energy had values which are multiples of an elementary unit hf (where f is the frequency and h is a constant), which opposed the classical assumption of a smooth curve for which emitted energy can have any continuous value. This energy quantization in integers of hf marked the birth of quantum mechanics and introduced one of its fundamental constants, the Planck constant h. 

The resulting Planck's law showed that even at zero Kelvin, oscillations still occur, resulting in what Planck coined zero point energy (ZPE)— or quantum vacuum fluctuations— corresponding to the ground state energy.

The ZPE is responsible for fundamental phenomena of quantum mechanics such as Spontaneous Emission, Lamb Shift, and Casimir Effect. 

Hendrik Casimir predicted that two mirrors in vacuum experience a force that pushes the plates together due to the cavity between the plates eliminating a percentage of the vacuum fluctuations modes between producing an energy gradient resulting in a force. 

This was confirmed experimentally in 1997, and more recently the dynamical Casimir effect and the Casimir torque have allowed direct evidence of the vacuum fluctuations, leaving no doubt of their existence. 

Not only are ZPE responsible for critical quantum effects, they are at the base of the origin of mass and the Nature of Gravity.

Nassim Haramein