Truth Detector

Posted by Roberta Grimes • November 13, 2021 • 28 Comments
Book News, Quantum Physics, Understanding Reality

“Everything is energy and that’s all there is to it.
Match the frequency of the reality you want,
and you cannot help but get that reality.
It can be no other way.
This is not philosophy. This is physics
– Albert Einstein (1879-1955), quotation (1948)

The above quotation from Albert Einstein shows a profound understanding of  what we now know is true. And for good measure, he also said, “Concerning matter, we have been all wrong. What we have called matter is energy, whose vibration has been so lowered as to be perceptible to the senses. There is no matter.” There is a lot of evidence now that Einstein was right, but still most working physicists would be forced to deny his words because they violate the fundamental scientific dogma of materialism. And the quotation from Einstein that ends this post explains how he was able to achieve his exalted level of understanding! He was a sufficiently revered scientist that he could investigate reality with an open mind without risking his position in the scientific community. So he did just that. And in daring to explore as far as his mind could reach, he found the same basis for reality that afterlife researchers have independently discovered.

It’s the same underlying reality, too, that the second-greatest theoretical physicist of the twentieth century also discovered. Max Planck (1858-1947) won the 1918 Nobel Prize in Physics. He was the father of quantum mechanics, and a deeply brilliant man. In 1931 Planck said, “I regard consciousness as fundamental. I regard matter as derivative from consciousness. We cannot get behind consciousness. Everything that we talk about, everything that we regard as existing, postulates consciousness.”  Then in 1944, near the end of his life, he summed up his greatest discovery, and in fact the greatest discovery of the twentieth century. He said, “As a man who has devoted his whole life to the most clear headed science, to the study of matter, I can tell you as a result of my research about atoms this much: There is no matter as such. All matter originates and exists only by virtue of a force which brings the particle of an atom to vibration and holds this most minute solar system of the atom together. We must assume behind this force the existence of a conscious and intelligent mind. This mind is the matrix of all matter.” Max Planck discovered what materialist physicists call quantum physics, which is a variant of the consciousness-based physics that underlies all of reality. He found that quantum physics underlies reality in this material universe as well, although this universe has an additional overlay of what we might call Newtonian physics that keeps our minds from messing with the reality around us while we are having these earth-experiences.

So the two greatest physicists in history both independently discovered the same physics underlying all of reality that afterlife researchers also have found! And afterlife researchers have made our discoveries using neither math nor experiments of any kind, but simply by closely studying nearly two hundred years of abundant and consistent afterlife evidence. Here is what Albert Einstein, Max Plank, Craig Hogan, and Roberta Grimes have each discovered:

  • Nothing is solid. Everything is energy. This fundamental fact of reality is inescapable at this point, and yet it is unknown beyond the scientific community.
  • The base energy is what we experience as consciousness. Your personal awareness is an aspect of the infinitely powerful potentiality that is all that independently exists, and that gives rise to everything else.

But still, the foolish and clearly erroneous fundamental scientific dogma of materialism persists! It forces scientists trying to earn a living to publish scientific papers that are essentially gibberish; it has physicists still searching pointlessly for a way to unify their two incompatible theories; and it sees the whole scientific community forced to struggle with patently absurd random theories that have been suggested by the results of their nonsensical materialist explorations. Because mainstream scientists are not allowed to consider the most important discovery made by history’s two greatest physicists, they must still ignore the base force that underlies reality. So, ultimately, their theories are going to be nonsense. Even when they make what are actually interesting and important discoveries about consciousness, the rules of their profession require that they talk about them in terms of the material brain!

So you and I are positioned to witness a most peculiar situation. The limitations of materialist science are so obvious by now, and their effects on scientific research are so devastating, that it is impossible for us to imagine that any scientific researcher with even a modicum of sense doesn’t see them! But they can’t buck the gatekeepers. The university departments and the peer-reviewed journals. Academic scientists have families to support, tuitions to fund, and a hope to eventually retire; and any research scientist who even considers investigating the primacy of consciousness will soon find himself flipping burgers for a living. At this point, the entire scientific community is reduced to the position of courtiers forced to exclaim about the beauties of the naked Emperor’s imaginary new clothes.

I should mention at this point the leading crusader against all this scientific nonsense, whose next Seek Reality interview will be posted on November 29th. Craig Weiler is a researcher and entrepreneur who has for decades been fighting disinformation with facts. His book, Psi Wars: Ted, Wikipedia and the Battle for the Internet, is a must-read if this problem interests you. Craig is the very model of patient open-mindedness, but at this point I am finding it a great deal harder than he finds it to continue to suffer fools!

The fact is that mainstream science went off the rails a hundred years ago, when it turned itself into a belief-system. The only way it can right itself now is to renounce materialism and then turn every working scientist loose with instructions to pursue the truth wherever it may lead. To help to give those newly-liberated scientists a head start, here is a caution about some common methods of modern-day scientific inquiry that are very unlikely to work when we venture beyond this material universe:

  • Mathematics. From what we can tell, mathematical calculations are close to useless in studying the greater reality. Since consciousness there has all the power, it can make anything happen in any way at any time, so there probably are no fixed “laws of physics” to be discovered.
  • Replicable Experiments. We may eventually work out ways to experiment with a consciousness-based reality. But since the minds of the experimenters are going to affect the results of our experiments, we should assume for now that all experimental results must be considered suspect.
  • Commercial Research. We have already found that work in electronic communication that is based in a hope for earning wealth will be doomed. The genuine experimenters are the dead experts, they easily can read our motives, and they seem to be unwilling to work with anyone who is in it for material gain.

What we have learned works best when we attempt to study consciousness and the greater reality is for researchers to take a more deferential approach:

  • Distant Observation. You can learn about the greater reality the way you might study a black hole or a supernova, by staying out of the way and indirectly observing it.
  • Data Aggregation. When you can’t observe something directly without a fear that your own mind will affect your observations, the best way to study it is to collect a lot of testimony from the participants themselves. This is what the early-20th-century accounts through deep-trance mediums have done for afterlife researchers.
  • Trusted On-Site Observers. As we have come to better understand human life in the greater reality, we have encountered upper-level beings who know a great deal about where they are now, and they are eager to help us get our questions answered.

It will help, too, to have a base understanding of the greater reality already in place against which to test future scientific theories. For example, I have found that what we already know about the greater reality has worked wonderfully in testing what Christianity teaches! For the past twenty years I have been using the testimony of the dead to demolish Christian ideas as varied as judgment, hell, damnation, and the End Times prophesies. When we read the twice-translated Gospel teachings of Jesus in modern English, and we compare them with what the dead have said, what we can learn is especially amazing! It’s as if Jesus is Himself explaining and enriching our understandings. And the dead are anxious to help us in any way they can. Some of the greatest scientists of the twentieth century are still actively working today. So perhaps, when the mainstream scientific gatekeepers at last begin to get a clue, dead greats like Albert Einstein and Max Planck can give us guidance and can serve as a kind of Truth Detector for the far more sensible scientific theories that will soon be on the way?

“I want to know how God created this world.
I’m not interested in this or that phenomenon,
in the spectrum of this or that element.
I want to know His thoughts;
the rest are just details.”

– Albert Einstein (1879-1955), quotation (1925)

Roberta Grimes

Roberta Grimes is an internationally recognized expert on death and the afterlife. Learn More

Latest posts by Roberta Grimes (see all)

Subscribe to our mailing list

* indicates required

28 thoughts on “Truth Detector

  1. Just a side note to add about Einstein’s objection to quantum mechanics as shaped by Heisenberg’s Uncertainty Principle. Einstein believed that basic particles, subatomic particles such as electrons or photons, were as real as any objects we normally see with our eyes. But Heisenberg thought that as he was unable to make precise measurements of the status of such particles, he must conclude that an objective scientist had to define particles as naturally hazy statistical objects until actually observed and measured.

    Heisenberg had reasoned that as he would attempt to measure both the location and momentum of an electron, as he tweaked his apparatus making use of  electromagnetic fields to observe, measure, and record his data, when he would improve one of the measures, the other would invariably lose its precision; for example, if he were to shower an electron with strong light to gain a good shadow of where it was, the energy of the light would substantially affect what had been the particle’s momentum; likewise, a highly precise measure for momentum would affect its location. Just as Roberta has outlined that our actions may affect what we observe (also well known in psychology as the Hawthorne Effect), He supposed that his measurement techniques had to interact with the particle to be observed. So he inferred that the measurement problem had not to do with the measurement technology available at that time, but instead reflected an inherent uncertainty in the status of quantum particles.  He thus concluded that quantum particles necessarily existed in a random haze, although within an extremely small physical space, at the Planck level. Bohr, his mentor, generalized this idea to declare that particles could not be considered as having a definite, real existence in Nature (e.g., a fixed location and a specific momentum), but existed in a random flux (the so called Copenhagen Interpretation of reality, which Einstein objected to, i.e., the Moon does not exist until observed, silly as that appears to common sense).

    Einstein could not prove by any technology available at the time that he was right to hold that God “would not play dice” with what existed, so physics concluded that Heisenberg and Bohr were right, and that is where it stands today.

    However, last year I realized that particle measurement technology developed in recent years had actually been observing particles as real entities, just as Einstein believed they were, but because of a dogmatism in physics just as bad as in church religion, the researchers publishing their results failed to realize that their work directly contradicted Heisenberg and Bohr. I published my findings last year in a journal on consciousness that is edited and reviewed by physicists (Journal of Consciousness Exploration and Research). In private email, two Nobel laureates in physics agree with my paper, but of course the profession at large continues to honor the fiction, less their house of cards collapse.

    1. Thanks for your article. It helps me to validate the same thought patterns about “reality” that have been percolating for many years. In a nutshell, all potential realities are realized by the attention of consciousness. Is this close to truth? Would you be willing to send a link to you writings?

      1. Michael, My article refuting the Heisenberg Uncertainty Principle is here ( ): Uncertainty Principle in Light of the “Weak” Measurement Experiments

        Jack H. Hiller


        Four recent experiments have been published that employed “weak” measurements. The techniques for inferring particle reality by observation were so delicate that the particles were not affected by the energy of observation (except in one experiment), yet the particles were found to have real existence. In this article, the author argues that the results of these contemporary experiments contradict the premise of Heisenberg’s uncertainty principle.

        A good review of my published findings and conclusions about the nature of consciousness was posted on the IANDS information website by Kevin Williams ( )

        1. Dear Jack, it is courageous of you to be doing this work, and an enjoyable retirement hobby, but I think we both realize that the scientific community will never take either of us seriously. When they are at the pathetic point of doing things like scrubbing Wikipedia in order to hold back the sea of truth awhile longer, why would they listen to any of us? Albert Einstein and Max Planck could appear together in a gigantic worldwide vision and explain the truth in simple terms, and they still would call it hogwash!

      2. My dear Michael, it is probably going to be necessary for us to abandon the materialist perspective altogether if we ever hope to really understand anything. Yes, all potential realities are realized by the attention of consciousness; but it is even more amazing than that. Apparently everything that seems real and solid to you is just a thought in your mind. And no, I don’t understand it either! Einstein called this all an illusion, and apparently he was right, but… what the heck??

        1. Roberta, the more I read here—as well as in work by others, including Michael Newton and Craig Hogan—and the more I listen to my beloved Spirit guide, the more I think we are not “in” bodies at all. The expression Arrow likes is “this experience we perceive as incarnation.” I don’t know, of course, and am not even pretending to know. It is fascinating (but baffling) to contemplate. Materialism is easy!

    2. I don’t understand why it would be so terrible if Bohr and Heisenberg were contradicted. Isn’t that what science is all about – trial and error, both of which are necessary in order to lead to discovery? If they don’t go where the evidence leads them, how do they expect to make any progress? It sounds more like an ego problem to me

      1. Funny how science institutions revere these legends to the point of being terrified that one day they will be disproven, and yet they pay no heed to what they actually thought and said. Sound familiar?

        1. Dear Mike, it is all a gigantic edifice of falsehood at this point. I don’t think there is much sentimentality about Heisenberg and Bohr, or any of them, but generations of subsequent physicists have done work that relied on the work of earlier physicists, and if one of those earlier guys is now shown to have gotten it wrong, then that throws all the subsequent work into question. The “fundamental scientific dogma of materialism” is the ultimate hot potato that they have been passing down for the past century, and nobody wants to be the poor sap who gets caught holding it and getting his fingers burned whenever the music finally stops.

      2. Lola, My analysis demonstrated that, as a consequence of the Heisenberg and Bohr mistake, quantum entanglement is also a fiction; quantum entanglement is a term for instantaneous communication across any distance however vast, what Einstein derided as “spooky action at distance.”

        When two particles are created to test for quantum entanglement (the EPR Paradox Experiment that Einstein described with two colleagues), and testing appears to confirm it, there is actually no spooky signaling between them as inferred to explain why they existed in complementary states, as required to satisfy Conservation of Energy, because they are created with their complementary states intact and maintain them until observed. My explanation is simple, fitting Occam’s razor. but the accepted explanation is magical.

        Currently, all major governments are sponsoring R&D, along with private industry, e.g., IBM and Google, to engineer quantum computers based on application of quantum entanglement. Big bucks and many careers are involved. However, there is a notorious problem of unreliability they have not been able to eliminate. The computers produce unreliable computations which they attribute to “decoherence,” a condition in which the particles working quantum entanglement are supposed to turn from the hazy statistical state, based on the Heisenberg/Bohr idea, to a definite real state. What my analysis shows is that, as intuited by Einstein, particles are always in a definite real state, so quantum computing is impossible.

        I have communicated the source of the problem to our government agency funding quantum computer R&D, to DARPA, and to our National Academy of Sciences, but of course they chose to ignore the problem I explained.

        1. If quantum computing is impossible, it would seem that they will eventually have to admit at some point that particles are always in a definite real state . Otherwise, they will be chasing their own tail. I’m kind of disappointed, as living down the street from Rensselaer Polytechnic Institute when I was a teenager, the boys from RPI talked about the “spooky action at a distance” theory all the time, and I found it fascinating. Quantum computers would generate big bucks, so I don’t think the scientists will give up easily on this one.

          1. Applying for college, I considered RPI, Carnegie Tech, and Cal Tech and chose Carnegie, for ill or good.

            All of the quantum computers are using a supercooled Josephson junction for processing, and it is reliable and super fast (Josephson was one of the Nobel Laureates I emailed my paper to). So, they seem at first to get fast calculations that give them hope for eventual success. But if they paid really close attention, none of the calculations are what would be expected from computational processing that takes no time at all, as predicted from quantum entanglement as instantaneous.

            Consider that active R&D to apply atomic fusion for power generation has been going on for 70 years ( ), and repeated failure has not stopped the search given the big prize. Well, we may eventually harness fusion, but quantum entanglement is pure fiction.

        2. Dear Jack, all the “quantum weirdness” and “spooky action at a distance” is just consciousness-based physics at work, as I know you realize. It is evidence that there is an underlying base energy that lacks space and time, and that underlies the macro-physics overlay which keeps us from mind-messing with matter.

          The truth is all so simple! It’s just that they are trying to reason from here, and not stepping back and reasoning objectively. They are looking through the wrong end of the microscope.

      3. Dear Lola, it is ALL an ego problem! (And no, they can’t go wherever the evidence leads them. Not for a very long time indeed.) By now, four generations of scientists have spent their entire careers trying to do science under the false edict of materialism, so the entire scientific community has a vast ego-based investment in what is a fundamental lie. A century’s worth of scientific inquiry is in fact useless, and it will be seen another hundred years from now to have been flat-out ridiculous. I used to think that the physicist who wins the Nobel Prize in Physics as the father/mother of a consciousness theory of everything was going to be glad to go down in history as the one who finally burst this bubble, but the longer it goes on the less I believe that. Too many careers have been wasted, and these people all have believed these lies at first or they wouldn’t have chosen scientific careers. No, all of it is just very, very sad.

    3. My dear Jack, thank you for this. It is in microcosm what has happened to all of mainstream science over the past hundred years. The foundations are all build on the shifting sand of the facts-free core premise of materialism, and the more working scientists in various fields try to contribute further ideas that also are essentially facts-free because they are based on a nonsensical premise, the more unstable it all appears for all to see. Max Planck discovered the consciousness physics which underlies all of reality, and physicists of his day tried to incorporate it into their understanding of the macro-physics that governs just this material universe. When, of course, to be understood at all, his discovery would have needed to be approached from the opposite direction! And many working physicists have some sense of that by now, although it’s unlikely that they realize the depth and range of the problem.

  2. This has been going on for 70 years? That’s amazing! I’m impressed that Josephson actually agreed with your findings, but they still are not looking into this more critically despite all the many failures they experienced?

    Also, the quote from Einstein at the beginning of this blog totally answered one of the greatest questions that I’ve had for many years. He said everything was energy (which I already knew), but he said if we match the frequency of the reality we want, it would be inevitable that the particular reality we want would manifest – that there was no other choice – it was not philosophy but physics. I wonder if you have any theories or advice on how to actually “match” the frequency of a desired reality i.e. one we would like to experience after we “die”?

    1. Dear Lola, that’s an interesting question – whether we can have any reality we want after our deaths – and the answer is that (probably within limits) apparently we can. But in order to do it, we’ve first got to fully sign out of this level, as it were, and go through the post-death process in our shared afterlife. But there are hundreds, and perhaps thousands of frequencies. And each is apparently another reality as solid as this one but not material, and probably as large as this material universe (to the extent that size means anything).

      1. By your statement ‘another reality as solid as this one but not material’ – you mean a reality that does not have the same physics as our current reality, right?

        1. Yes, my dear Ali, and thank you for reminding me that most people here wouldn’t know that!

          The “matter” in the solid-seeming greater reality is very different from the matter here. It is essentially what you might call solidified thought. As such, it is a bit like alabaster in appearance, in that it is very slightly translucent and even somewhat transparent in some lights. Although apparently if it should be soft, or even warmish, then it is. It contains no atoms or particles of any kind, and it doesn’t die or decay, so flowers and leaves seem to be what they represent but they are permanent.

          We think that once we achieve a certain level of spiritual growth, then our minds can alter that non-material matter at will, which is why the material universe has an overlay of this artificial reality, one based in a denser physics complete with atoms and so on, that our minds have more trouble messing with.

          1. I think there are many ‘of them who would like to do consciousness research, but woe to them who ask for funding for it!

  3. OMG 😳 what a wonderful conversation again Roberta, Lola and Mr Jack 😊
    Mr Hiller I just clicked onto your paper thru your link (all of this way over my head) and read your bio WOW what a career … it’s a privilege to read your comments big courtesy 👑 love to all from bonnie Scotland ❤️❤️Louise xx

    1. Thanks all for even reading what I dodder at now. Josephson’s response to getting my paper was pretty funny. He said that he already knew that Heisenberg made a mistake; as an emeritus prof, he too engages in consciousness research.

      NDE reports state that when on the other side, they were told or observed that the world is multidimensional, and one can look down, but not up. It seems to me that we cannot appreciate the nature of consciousness as we operate from our material brain, which is really constructed to permit thought while blocking its true reality, just as Roberta just mentioned.

      Consider that our existence as consciousness is eternal, and so our explorations though our eternal journey will be unfathomable and forever creative. I believe that God created us so we all may share this journey with “Him.”

      Speaking of doddering, here is a bit of doggerel on point:

      Told reasons not spoken

      Crushed by the news of children slaughtered
      witnessing innocent animals bruised to die
      before butchered,
      and pleading to be told Why

      Provoked to despair
      over many years
      from scenes so unfair
      so falling into the pit of tears

      Why is such our lowly fate
      miseries raining with no reason told
      such awful destinies as if from hate
      forced from timid to shouting bold — Why

      Listening hard to be told
      listening even harder
      growing old
      to learn why such murder

      But ears would never hear
      however hard they listen
      however much in despair
      why such evil appears to glisten

      Tell us why we must die
      tell us why life’s so hard
      And finally was told why
      directly in mind by our Bard

      Not in my ears told
      but in mind so bold
      about illusion causing fear
      and pain from growing old

      All hurts mere provocation
      fleeting across time
      but illumining by comparison
      the whole world’s beauty eternally sublime

      1. Oh my dear Jack, do you really mind growing old? I rather like it! I don’t actually feel much older either physically or mentally, but at this point I’m one day closer to going home. And meanwhile, I kind of feel more reckless and much freer about actually telling the truth! We can do that now, as we couldn’t do it at forty. I frankly love it 🙂

    2. My dear Louise, you always make me smile! We all send big hugs to you in beautiful Scotland, from more or less everywhere else 🙂

  4. That quote from Einstein intrigues me. It is actually possible to attain certain realities we seek in this life through mental power. I cannot explain how or why the process works but one of the main ingredients includes faith in the outcome as illustrated in many of the healings performed by Jesus. Others include persistance and a practice known as creative visualization.

    1. Dear Tom, you make a wonderful point! Jesus flat-out said that it was the minds of the people He healed that had effected their own healings. Their minds believed that He had the power to heal them, so when He said, “Be healed!” their minds believed that the healing had happened, and effected that transformation. And when He was in His home village, among people who knew Him as a local kid, they mostly couldn’t believe that He was able to heal and therefore His efforts at healing people mostly failed.

      He told us that we can do literally anything that we are certain we can do, beyond any doubt: the moving-mountains thing. Our minds are so powerful!

  5. I love that final quote from Einstein, Roberta. He was more of a mystic than most people realize. Too bad more scientists don’t take a bit of that mystical bent and realize that by understanding more about big C Consciousness, we can understand more about our own seemingly separate consciousnesses, and more about the true nature of this so- called reality upon which our eternal minds are currently focused, since it is all part of the same continuum. Hopefully someday scientists will have more freedom to follow that course without fear of repurcussions, and science will make huge strides. Didn’t the genius Tesla predict that? I hear he’s trying to help advance things from the other side now.

    1. My dear Scott, at this point all the scientific resistance to accepting the primacy of consciousness is almost entirely fear-based. It seems to have begun with a fear of inadvertently finding the Christian God, which was of course all silliness. If there is a Christian God, then let’s find Him ASAP! Let’s just follow the truth! But no, a century ago there was a struggle for primacy still going on between science and religion. That detour away from open-mindedness and into dogma was a gigantic mistake, and after a century they have wasted so much money on nonsensical theories and fruitless, pointless research! So now they fear the gigantic loss of face to come one day if/when the public that respects them so much now learns the truth and realizes that for more than a century the scientific emperor has been buck-nekkid. Nobody wants to be part of bringing down the whole scientific house! They would rather serve out their careers, keeping quiet. Maybe do some broader-minded research when they retire.

      It would all be very sad, if it were not such a monstrous ongoing evil to keep most people in fear of death even as late as today!

      And yes, the word is that Nikola Tesla, our lovely friend Albert Einstein, and some of the other most legendary scientists are now working from that end to help to bring the truth to the world….

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *