You have probably heard t
hat heaven is a higher level of frequency rather than a far away place. So you can reach to heaven by raising your own vibration so that you are at resonance with the heavenly vibration. So we experience a reality that we resonate with. If you vibrate at a low frequency level, you will experience hell etc. All this is good except for the fact that somewhere, the physics of vibrations and resonance went through the window. People turned it into a metaphor for things like 'if you feel love, joy etc, then you experience the heaven within you since love and joy etc are associated with heaven". So the heaven is reduced into a mere sentiment that only a psychologist or even a psychiatrist is interested with!
In the phrase 'higher frequency' many people are more captivated by the word 'higher' than by the word 'frequency'. That was the reason they liked the idea that heaven is up there in the sky. This meant the heaven is a 'higher' place. When we learnt that the earth rotates and that we sometimes face 'downwards', it became clear that 'up' is not any 'higher' than the 'bottomless pit 'down' there. So people invented another place for heaven that retains a notion of 'higher'. Unfortunately this eagerness to have a 'higher' place corrupted the original intent of forming a vibrational idea of heaven.
At first, analogy was drawn from radio or TV receiver. Your TV 'experiences' a station that resonates with it. This is litteral resonance and the 'heaven' vibration too must be litteral. So your TV has its own kind of vibrations that are 'sympathetic' or not to the incoming signal. If the TV was an hologram and we get connected to it like in a virtual reality, you can see that we could almost already create planes of (virtual) realities using this simple TV technology. You move from one to another by simply tunning the the TV. This highlights how easy to understand 'planes of reality' using the idea of frequency levels. Also note that in the TV, a 'good' or 'bad' channel has nothing to do with its places in the bandwidth. 'Higher vibration' does not make Aljazeera good, joyfull or truthful. 'Frequency level' is just like a 'location'. Same was the case in the original idea of heaven as 'another level of vibration'.
The theosopher went ahead to suggest a realy good idea. Quantum mechanics suggest that particles are actually waves. So the theosopher only added the idea that there are debroglie waves of all manner of frequencies and that the waves we see are of a specific band widht. Hardly does the theosopher moves beyond this before dividing into the subjective, irrelevant world, like a typical new ager. He waves a hand over science and logical underpinnings like a numbskull.
The problems with the simplistic debroglie waves analogy are many. One of them is that he is not making it clear what is the equivalence of a radio transmitter and a radio receiver. We are only seeing an equivalence of radio waves. We see objects because light bounce off the particles. The ability of the photon to bounce off an electron does not depend on its debroglie wavelength( or frequency ). It depends on its charge, spin etc. If a photon of a certain frequency approaches an electron of any debroglie wavelenght, the photo will bounce off with any frequency, provided that the electron does adjust its wavelenght in the process. Therefore we are actually able to see debroglie waves of all manner of wavelengths. We are not 'tunned' to a narrow band width as in a TV receiver.
Vibration Explanation Of Charge
Since whether or not light bounces off an electron depends on its charge rather than its debroglie wavelength (light is electromagnetic wave), we must find a way of linking charge to vibration if we are to apply the idea of resonance to explain planes of reality. Fortunately, it is very easy to do that! In fact we end up with a theory of electromagnetism that is easy to understand (maistream science cannot explain electrostatic force rationaly).
Consider two balls immersed in some fluid. Both the balls vibrate by rythimically expanding and contracting. (Like heart beat). If both the balls vibrate at synch, i.e. both expand at the same time and contract at the same time, the two balls repel each other. This is because a push transmitted by fluid is stronger than a pull. However, if one of them vibrates at 180 degrees out of synch, i.e. one is contracting when the other one is expanding, both the balls experiences an attractive force. This is because the push from one ball is canceled by the pull from the other without there being a similar cancellation from the sides of the balls that are facing away from each other.
This type of electrostatic force requires that the frequencies of the charged particles be exactly the same. If one of them vibrates at another frequency, then both balls will experience an alternation of repulsion and attraction. For the theory to explain the ekectrostatic force well, the charged particles must sharply discriminate other frequencies. This is is easily achieved if the charged particles vibrates in a series of harmonic frequencies. So one plane of reality will actually be composed of a set of harmonics that are all an interger multiple of some fundamental frequency.
This vibration in a set of harmonic frequencies is also a good idea as it then is evidenced by Heisenberg's Uncertainty Principle. Infact it gives us some insight.This is to say that I can go on to suggest that this charge vibration is the generator of the debroglie waves themselves! Mainstream theory don't have the source as in what vibrates to create the waves. Then I will use the Pilot Wave Interpratation of quantum mechanics. Specifically, the idea of sharply discriminating frequencies (hence wavelenghts, hence momentums) is very symmetrical to the idea of sharply discriminating position of the particle. We discriminate other positions by increasing the uncertainty of momentum (hence wavelengths). This is done by superimposing several waves so that they cancel themselves everywhere except where the particle is found. Similarly, we discriminate other momentums by imposing several (to and fro ) momentums to the particle. Remember that when one charge vibrate at a different frequency from the other, it begins to experiences a to and fro motion. So at a given instace, it (say particle B) experiences a force from the other particle (say particle A), that depends on how much its frequency deviated from the frequency of the particle A. Ultinately, this force varies sinosuidaly with the frequency deviation from particle A. So the frequency here begins to act exactly like a spatial location. To cancel forces at all other frequencies except the desired frequency you have only to superimpose several harmonic waves on A. Thus the manner in which we confine a particle to a certain momentum is exactly the same as the manner in which we confine it to a certain location.
All this explains why Heisenberg's Uncertainty Principle can be expressed both in the position space and in the momentum space. But more importantly, it shows that the 'frequency space' is exactly like the usual space we see in. We can confine a plane of reality sharply into a certain bandwidth and make this bandwidth as narrow as we wish (this means making that reality not to interact with other realities even that vibrate very close to it). In Heisenberg's Uncertainty Principle, we say that we can make the momentum as certain as we wish by mathematicaly doing in the momentum (frequency) space, the same thing we do in the usual space to make its position as certain as we wish.
Entry And Exit From Other Frequency Levels
A question now arises as to why things cannot simply alter their frequency levels an disappear. But consider that a similar question can be asked of the spin of subatomic particles. Why can't ekectron spin at a different rate? The particles seem to spin as though spinning is their intrinsic property! Spinning is not any different from vibration. Infact a vibration can be seen as a spin as seen from side way. That is why we talk of angels in vibrations or describe them using sine waves.
NeverthelessI can still explain why things don't seem to disappear by using conservative laws, especially the law of conservation of momentum. This law can be enforced by ensuring that every time an object e.g. a billiard ball stops moving a similar billiard ball must begin to move on the spot to carry on the momentum. We observe this as though the moving ball is stoped by the going ball that is hit.
Now consider the way debroglie relationships relate momentum of a particle to its wavelength. The law of conservation of momentum translates to the law of conservation of wavelength (hence frequency). So if it is true that for every object to increase its momentum, a similar object on the spot must reduce its momentum, then if an object increases its wavelength, a similar object must reduce its wavelength. So whenever an object disappears, a similar object appears on the spot. This swap is too fast for us to see. So we think that objects never disappear.
An analogy is made in the case of temperature. An object cannot increase its temperature without getting in contact with an already hotter object. When it does that, the hotter object must reduce its temperature. But the analogy is not perfect. The vibrating realities are not pure thermodynamic systems. They are more akin to quantum fluctuations than thermal flactuations for otherwise the vibrations would reduce with time.