Paradoxul fizicii cuantice:stiinta cuantica

Am inceput cautarea conexiunii extreme dintre materie si constiinta cu aproximativ doua decade inainte, cand era Varsatorului era in plina floare si era un profesor de fizica la Universitatea de statSan Diego. In acele vremuri erau medicamente de luat, modificari in stilul de viata de facut, de protestat impotriva unui razboi si de bucurat de sexul liber. Am imbratisat toate acestea. Prin 1970 am devenit deziluzionat. Am pornit, am renuntat si m-am trezit implicat cu misticii Estici, in grupuri de inaltare a constiintei si altele care au fost etichetate New Age. In timpul anului ce l-am petrecut in Franta, ca profesor de fizica asociat la Universitatea din Paris, l-am intalnit si am studiat impreuna cu biblical profesor discipol si cabalist Carlo Suares. Am fost de asemenea profesor in vizita la Colegiul Birkbeck, din Londra, si am studiat impreuna cu fizicianul David Bohm, care avea interese similare.

Mintea mea a ajuns sa intelaga, si prin 1974 am simtit ca fizica cuantica si constiinta erau profound legate. Am ajuns sa realizez ca, creierul poate fi guvernat de legile fizicii cuantice mai degraba decat de legile biologiei sau ale neurofiziologiei. Ca rezultat, trairi precum iubirea si ura, de obicei considerate a fi date de la Dumnezeu sau incapabile de a fi intelese din punct de vedere stiintific, ar putea fi traduse prin limbajul fizicii cuantice. Singurul mister al fizicii cuantice se afla in dualitatea particule-unde descrisa de Richard Feynman, fizician ce a castigat premiul Nobel. Obiecte atomice (electroni, protoni, neutroni, fotoni si tot asa) se comporta uneori precum particule, si alteori, precum unde. Cand se comporta un obiect atomic precum o unda si cand se comporta ca o particular? Dupa multi cercetatori de fizica cuantica, raspunsul depinde daca obiectul este observat sau nu. Neobservat, obiectul atomic apare ca o unda raspandita in spatiu, dar in momentul in care este observata, unda devine un punct si se comporta ca o particula. Actiunea unei simple observatii “cauzeaza” prabusirea unei unde catre o particula.

Dar ce fel de actiune este o simpla observatie? Laureatii Nobel Eugene Wigner si Brian Josephson si multi alti fizicieni, inclusiv eu, credem ca poate fi un eveniment fundamental peste intelegerile fizicii. Noi o privin precum actiunea constiintei. Pun in discutie faptul ca dualitatea unda-particula din fizica cuantica ramane adevarata in mintea omeneasca, orchestrand comportamentul celulelor nervoase individuale in timp ce isi elibereaza mesajele chimice unele altora. Actiunea dualitatii unda-particula a electronilor, de exemplu, ar fi putea da nastere semtimentelor de singuratate, de ego si de ura.

In lumea cuantica, electronii duc o viata paradoxala. Datorita comportamentului lor de particule si datorita respingerilor lor electrice, doi electroni nu pot ocupa niciodata acelasi spatiu. Sunt destinati la singuratate. In vietile lor sub forma de unde, totusi, electronii isi cauta mereu porticulele lor opuse, pozitronii, chiar daca o astfel de intalnire ar produce distrugerea lor. Incarcatura electrica a electronilor este un plans zbuciumat pentru intoarcerea catre vid. Spera si le e teama de a-si atrage opusii, partenerii lor antimaterie, pozitronii, intr-un dans al mortii. Asemanator, iubirea si sentimentele de compasiune pot fi create de fotoni, unitati de lumina particula-unda. Ca unde, fotonii tind sa mearga impreuna, lucrand la un sfarsit comun. Laserele functioneaza pentru ca undele fotoni sunt “indragostite” unele de altele.

Dragostea si ura, succesul si esecul, violenta si pacea ar putea fi simple manifestari ale energiei, a fortelor si a obiectelor atomice care curg prin trupurile noastre, prin creiere si prin minti ca particule si unde. Ceea ce noi numim creier este comportamentul asemanator particulei a observatiilor noastre. Ceea ce noi numim minte este comportamentul asemanator undei a obiectelor atomice, invizibile si neobservate. Mintea este atunci o excrescenta a legilor de baza a fizicii cuantice impreuna cu actiunile observatorului, care cred eu ca sunt acte de constiinta.

De exemplu, un act de constiinta ar putea produce o schimbare in suprafata cuantica, undele comportandu-se de-a lungul membranelor subtiri ce ne acopera neuronii. Aceste unde sunt asociate cu miscarile proteinelor-porti moleculare implantate in peretii neuronilor. Observarea unei “particule” ar ”ingheta” pe moment pozitia moleculei, rezultand in aparenta gandului. O alta observatie complementara “unda” a fost cand proteinele au ramas neobservate, ceea ce ar produce schimbari in energia acestor unde, rezultand in nasterea sentimentelor. Astfel, sentimentele si gandurile demonstreaza acelasi fel de dualitate precum undele si particulele.

Intelegera modului in care creierul/mintea functioneaza s-ar putea gasi in intreg lantul si intreg arsenalul a limbajului matematic al fizicii cuantice. Probabilitatea ecuatiilor si comportamentul obiectelor atomiloce ar putea depinde in actiunile constiintei unda-in -particula.Fara astfel de actiuni, lumea si toti participantii ei ar ramane impreunate, precum niste stafii de unde cuantice, si nu ar fi absolut nimic material.

(Fred Alan Wolf)

Fizica cuantica, sufletul, constiinta multidimensionala

La nivel subatomic, particulele nu se misca pur si simplu de la punctul A la punctul B intr-un mod continuu. In schimb, aceste particule se misca in “sarituri cuantice”. Particulele salta virtual dintr-un loc in altul. Aceste procese de saritura atomica creaza toata lumina vizibila. Pentru a intelege cum functioneaza aceasta, trebuie mai intai sa intelegem cum se comporta lumina in atomi.

Fizica cuantica a demonstrat de asemenea prin experimente cu paricule sub-atomice ca anumite campuri au un fel de inteligenta si par sa fie capabile sa faca lucruri pe care campurile obisnuite nu le pot face. Un lucru foaret ciudat pe care l-au observat fizicienii este ca electronii pur si simplu dispar, intr-un nor de lumina, cand interactioneaza cu alte anumite particule. La inceput, nu am inteles de ce se intampla asta. Apoi am observat ca acesti electroni care dispar interactionau cu anti-materia. Pentru ca electronii anti-materie se miscau in opozitie fata de elctroni, cand particulele opozante se intalneau, se anihilau reciproc.

Cand am studiat anti-materia mai amanuntit, am inceput sa spunem despre anti-materie ca este precum ” o bula de sapun in vacuumul absolut al spatiului gol”.

Intrebare: Ce este acest ” vacuum absolut al spatiului gol?”

Raspuns: Ei bine, cati dintre voi ati adormit vreodata cand priveati la TV tarziu in noapte si, cand v-ati trezit, ati auzit zgomotul static sasait al ecranului TV? Acel zgomot, produs de piesele electronice din interiorul televizorului, este sunetul amplificat al acestui “vacuum de spatiu”. Multi fizicieni cuantici, inclusiv eu, credem ca intreg universul, intreaga creatie, a fost creata din ” absolut nimicnicia vacuumului spatiului”. Se pare ca acest ” vacuum al nimicniciei” este inteligent, activ, si are o constiinta. Sursa sufletului urmeaza din, si este Prezenta in, acest vacuum.

Admitand, insasi notiunea ca un lucru (”some thing”) poate fi creat din nimic (”no thing”) este un concept foarte greu de conceput pentru minte.

Eu teoretizez ca sufletul a aparut in acelasi timp in care a aparut toata materia din Univers - in momentul “Big Bang-ului” , cu 15 miliarde de ani in urma. In conformitate cu modelul nostru stiintific actual, Universul si sufletul vor continua sa existe pentru inca 20 de miliarde si miliarde de ani pana la un moment dat care este numit de oamenii de stiinta “Big Crunch”.

Intre aceste doua puncte, de la Big Bang, inceputul timpului - la Big Crunch, sfarsitul timpului - toata materia din Univers apare, se expandeaza la un punct maxim si apoi se contracta inapoi in nimic. Si in toate acestea, o inteligenta suprema, numiti-o cum vreti, ghideaza si directioneaza numeroasele activitati a tuturor in Univers - incluzand toate formele vii, intr-un mod insondabil, nevazut.

Intrebare: Unii oameni ar putea sa se intrebe, ce este fenomenul “lumina de la capatul tunelului” care uneori apare in experiente din preajma mortii si probabil in momentul mortii deasemenea?

Raspuns: Lasati-ma sa ofer o posibilitate aici. Desi toate obiectele materiale nu pot, prin definitie, sa calatoreasca mai repede decat viteza luminii, exista dovezi ca sufletul, care este non-fizic si prin urmare nelimitat de miscari in lumea materiala, poate calatori mai repede decat viteza luminii. Aceasta calatorie este numita “viteza superluminala”.

Astfel, in momentul mortii sau in timpul unei experiente din apropierea mortii, se prea poate ca trecerea persoanei din lumea materiala - care lucreaza la viteza mai mica decat viteza luminii - intr-o lume care lucreaza mai repede decat viteza luminii, asa numita lume spirituala “superluminala”. In timpul transferului, un efect de tunneling ar putea avea loc in cam acelasi fel in care pare sa aiba loc in ceea ce astrofizicienii numesc o “gaura neagra”.

Acum, aici incepe sa devina cu adevarat interesant. La viteza superluminala a sufletului, trecem dincolo de timp si spatiu experimentandu-le in aceasta dimensiune fizica. Avem apoi fenomenul de a fi capabili sa ne miscam inainte si inapoi prin timp/spatiu. Oamenii care se intorc dintr-o moaret clinica descriu ceva asemanantor. Ceea ce acesti oameni traiesc sunt mult prea probabil ferestre in acel fel de dimensiune a realitatii timp/spatiu.

Eu nu vad sufletul si constiinta precum un epifenomen, sau produs, al materiei. Este chiar invers: vad materia ca un epifenomen al sufletului si constiintei. Lumea materiala a evoluat de la vacuumul absolut al spatiului - casa sufletului.

Dr. Fred Alan Wolf si-a dobandit doctoratul in fizica teoretica in UCLA. Continua sa scrie, tine conferinte in intreaga lume si conduce cercetari despre relatia dintre constiinta umana si fizica cuantica

SPIRITUALITATEA- DOVEDITA DE FIZICA QUANTICA

Conform teoriei continuumului spatio-temporal (descris de Minkowski si Einstein), universul fizic - structurat din lumina (energie luminoasa) este o manifestare particulara, in timp, a universului cu infinite dimensiuni. Astfel, cea de-a patra dimensiune reprezinta dimensiunea obiectelor si spatiului material vazut ca extensie in timp (ex. samanta si copacul crescut din ea sunt vazute unitar, intr-o imagine unica). Logica obisnuita binara nu se mai aplica in acest caz, (poate doar logica dinamica a contradictoriului formulata de St. Lupascu). Constientizarea unor alte dimensiuni ale realitatii este un fenomen normal si explicabil, nu este nicidecum ceva esoteric, ocult. Experientele de constiinta extinsa au ca rezultat o schimbare in nivelul de constientizare - dar nu realitatea se schimba, ci perceperea subiectiva a individului. Conform teoriei prezentate, putem nota D4 - cea de-a patra dimensiune, D5 - a cincea etc., iar cu C4 starea de constienta specifica planului patru s.a.m.d.

Pentru a descrie mai clar diferentele intre nivelurile de constienta putem face urmatoarea analogie: Observatorul uman este ca un pasager intr-un vehicul aflat in miscare, care vede lumea exterioara printr-o fereastra (fanta). Daca aceasta este ingusta, observatorul va vedea doar o parte a realitatii externe, si nu va putea face conexiuni intre succesiunile de imagini. Cu cat aceasta fereastra perceptiva e mai larga, cu atat observatorul va vedea o parte mai mare si va observa legaturile dintre ele - acum el va vedea simultan evenimente / imagini care inainte nu puteau fi percepute decat succesiv. Cu cat nivelul constientei este mai inalt cu atat largimea ferestrei perceptive temporale este mai mare. Daca in D3 doua evenimente au loc separat, in D4 ele vor fi constientizate ca avand loc simultan. In Dimensiunea4 (cvadridimensionala), chiar si cel mai neinsemnat obiect din Dimensiunea3 (tridimensionala) este vazut ca fiind strans relationat cu intregul, in acelasi timp este incarcat cu intelesuri profunde si cu calitati estetice deosebite. De exemplu, in planul tridimensional, o samanta da nastere unui copacel, care se dezvolta creste, traieste, iar dupa ani si ani se usuca si moare. Procesul dureaza poate 50 de ani in planul tridimensional, dar in planul cvadridimensional D4, intreaga sa dezvoltare este cuprinsa intr-un singur punct, care contine toti cei 50 de ani de evolutie!

Teoria dimensionalitatii este sustinuta si de cercetatorul Roland Fischer: “Pe masura ce ne miscam de la eu (”I”) spre Sine (”Self”), noi lasam in urma constructele materiale ale spatiului-timp fizic si treptat patrundem in zona spatiului interior atemporal, cu infinite dimensiuni”. Roger Penrose ne indeamna sa credem chiar ca dincolo de teoria continuumului spatio-temporal poate exista o alta teorie, mai profunda, in care sa fie mai explicit demersul de intelegere a mecanismelor Universului. In opinia lui, toate fenomenele fizicii au loc in cadrul determinat de continuumul spatio-temporal. Dar este posibila gasirea unei alte teorii care sa descrie natura mai precis decat actuala teorie, insa pentru care cadrul spatiului timp sa nu mai fie potrivit. “Nu trebuie sa ne inchidem mintile in fata unei asemenea posibilitati, ci trebuie totodata sa pastram vie in minte extrema vastitate a domeniului pentru care actuala viziune nu este decat o aproximare”.

Conform fizicii cuantice, realitatea este alcatuita dintr-un numar infinit de universuri care coexista simultan. Legaturile dintre dimensiuni se realizeaza prin intermediul unor “singularitati ale spatiului-timp”, “gauri negre” in vecinatatea carora legile fizicii sunt drastic modificate. Aceste gauri negre reprezinta punctele de trecere dintr-un univers in altul, considera J.A. Wheeler; printr-o astfel de “deformare” a spatiului-timp, constiinta poate patrunde din planul tridimensional in planul cvadridimensional s.a.m.d.

In apropierea acestor puncte de legatura dintre planurile universului spatiul si timpul sufera modificari observabile. Daca luam doua etaloane de lungime identica, iar pe unul il asezam in apropierea “gaurii negre”, atunci el se va lungi semnificativ; de asemenea intr-o gaura neagra timpul curge diferit fata de exteriorul ei, facand posibile diverse fenomene care pot parea ciudate. Un om care aflat intr-o gaura neagra va vedea cum in jur totul se misca mai rapid! Astfel de experimente au fost realizate inca din secolul trecut pentru verificarea teoriei relativitatii generalizate a lui Einstein, care la vremea aparitiei parea de necrezut.

Noua fizica precizeaza ca de fapt nu este necesara o calatorie in spatiu cu viteza luminii, intrucat exista pretutindeni mini-gauri negre care pot fi “accesate” prin transformari ale campului constiintei, locuri in care spatiul vibreaza cu viteza luminii! Totul depinde de capacitatea de a utiliza constient forta fundamentala care sta la baza Universului (si ale carei manifestari sunt cele patru tipuri de forte elementare).

In conceptia lui Roger Penrose, structurile fundamentale ale spatiu-timpului sunt “conurile de lumina”. Ele reprezinta de fapt miscarea luminii incepand dintr-un punct, dar pe o axa care include si timpul, de la trecut spre viitor. Propagarea luminii fiind atat in spatiul tridimensional, cat si in dimensiunea temporala, forma geometrica care aproximeaza intrucatva aceasta extindere a luminii este un con. In relativitatea generalizata, aceste conuri de lumina se intalnesc peste tot, astfel ca fiecare particula are propriul sau “con de lumina”, orientat de la trecut spre viitor.

Un fenomen neobisnuit, sugerat de fizicianul David Deutsch este posibilitatea ca intr-un camp gravitational intens, spatiul-timp sa se curbeze, iar viitorul unei particule sa devina trecutul alteia, astfel putand lua nastere universuri inchise, ciclice. In aceste universuri, “cauzalitatea o ia razna, viitorul si trecutul se intrepatrund, iar influentele cauzale nu mai pot fi definite” (Penrose).

Ne-liniaritatea timpului este confirmata si de cercetatori renumiti precum Daniel Dennett si Marcel Kinsbourne. Intr-un articol publicat in jurnalul american “Behavioral and Brain Sciences” (nr.15/1992), acestia subliniaza ca modificarile majore in perceptia subiectiva a timpului se pot produce prin schimbari in structura constiintei observatorului. Ei confirma astfel ca timpul nu trebui sa curga neaparat cu aceeasi “viteza” sau in aceeasi directie (trecut - prezent -viitor), timpul fiind strict dependent de constiinta observatorului.

VINDECATI-VA PRIN LUMINA CONSTIINTEI PROPRII !

Rethinking quantic ...particles...illusion vs truth

The Higgs Boson Particle Isn't a Particle - Why the Search for Subatomic Particles is an Illusion

(NaturalNews) Physicists are a great bunch of folks. They're bright and imaginative, but just like professionals in any other field of science, when educated under the same organized system of beliefs they have the ability to cluster together and share some rather remarkable delusions.

The latest delusion is the search for the so-called Higgs Boson Particle. It's a multi-billion dollar effort that has taken decades to pursue in the U.S. using the Fermilab particle accelerator. Soon, the search for the "Higgs," as it's known, will be largely taken over by the new Large Hadron Collider powering up in Switzerland in the summer of 2009.

Sounds cool, huh? But there's a problem with all this: Higgs Boson isn't a particle!

Outdated Newtonian thinking still dominates modern physics
Far too many western physicists remain steadfastly dedicated to the Newtonian idea that the world is made of ever-smaller spheres of matter that bounce off each other like balls in a pinball machine. The atom, in fact, was once thought to be the smallest unit of matter (that's what "atomic" means, of course). But before long, physicists began wondering "What are atoms made of?" So they invented a comical model of particle physics that they use to explain how atoms are made up of protons, neutrons and electrons.

Here's a typical explanation of this model of matter from the world of conventional physics:

Matter is made of molecules; molecules of atoms; atoms of a cloud of electrons about one-hundred-millionth of a centimeter and a nucleus about one-hundred-thousandth the size of the electron cloud. The nucleus is made of protons and neutrons. Each proton (or neutron) has about two thousand times the mass of an electron.

That's a handy explanation for kindergarteners and the scientifically illiterate, but it has a fatal flaw: There are no such things as physical electron particles, either!

Huh? Did I just say there's no such "thing" as an electron? Yep, I did. What I mean by that remark is that there's no such thing as a single, isolated, self-contained electron spinning around the nucleus like a tiny marble. As is well noted in the field of quantum physics a so-called "electron" is really just a cloud of probabilities in which the illusory appearance of an electron-like particle might be teased out of the fabric of reality under the right experimental circumstances, but no such discrete object can be said to truly "exist" in the physical world.

Still, many western scientists cling to the particle theory on practically everything: Subatomic physics, biochemistry and even water. In the world of water, for example, while we're told by scientists that water molecules are self-contained units of H2O, the truth is that water molecules are constantly transforming, releasing and creating new bonds in a sort of wet molecular square dancing jamboree. Thus, if you look at a cup of water, you're not simply observing a very large number of discrete water molecules that keep to their own business; you're watching the constant exchange and reconfiguration of molecules that openly share not just elemental particles but also information at many levels.

The self-contained H2O molecule explanation is simpler for everybody to grasp, though, which is why it's still taught everywhere today. The universe is simpler if you think it's entirely made up of tiny particles rather than intertwined fields of possibility that span multiple dimensions and propagate information encoded in mysterious energy fields.

Introducing the "God particle"
Most physicists are sticking to their Higgs Boson particle delusion, though. This mysterious "particle" is what gives mass to electrons, they say, and it works in such mysterious ways that they've actually named it the "God particle."

For the non-scientists reading this, that's the way western scientists fudge their theories to try to fit the observation numbers they've come up with. First, they create a mathematical theory that attempts to explain all the matter in the universe (most of which they can't even detect, but the stuff they can detect is believed to be made up of ever-smaller discrete particles). Then, when experimental observation doesn't fit their equations, they magically invent a mystical "God particle" that takes care of all the corrections, instantly proving their theories to be correct!

The same thing goes on in western medicine, of course, when researchers decide before the clinical trial that a candidate pharmaceutical is really, really effective at treating some disease. When the experiment turns up numbers they don't like, they simply invent "God numbers" and throw them into the data set to massage out whatever result they want. Convenient, isn't it? It even has the ring of high-brow science, but underneath all the academia, it's still just a bunch of people fudging the equations to get the results they want. It does make for a lot of entertaining science papers published in the physics journals, though, none of which are willing to entertain new ideas that don't fit their established (delusionary) models of the subatomic world.

Where is Richard Feynman when you really need the guy, anyway? Feynman was one physicist who wasn't afraid to go after the establishment (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Richar... )

Does Yoda know more about physics than the physicists?
I'm sure I'll receive plenty of flak about this story from atomic physicists who will say I should stick to health and stop commenting about physics. I'm not a physicist, after all, but I am made of the stuff these people are trying to describe, and physicists don't have a monopoly on conjecture about the nature of reality we all share, after all.

I'm also an experienced observer of the arrogance of western scientists and their cult-like dedication to particle explanations for the natural world. What western scientists don't like, I've learned, is mysterious energetic interactions among their delicate particles. They detest the idea of energy fields (beyond the fundamental four, of course), and instantly cringe at the mention of homeopathy, acupuncture, precognition, or mind-over-matter theories. In their quest to eradicate these mysterious energy fields from their theories, they desperately try to explain the entire universe as a series of tiny particles that operate independently, where atoms are actually microscopic perpetual motion pinball machines that somehow keep orbiting forever... or at least as long as it takes to fire a physics professor who has tenure.

I have news for these folks: All these particles are merely the visible echoes of the energy fields that make up the fabric of reality. In much the same way that a tumor is NOT cancer (it's merely the physical manifestation of a cellular communication problem in the body), all these gluons, muons, quarks and other particles are just momentary ripples of matter that spill over into our observable universe and then are gone in a flash.

The really courageous, high-level physicists already get this. They're the ones talking about superstring theory in eleven dimensions and all that. They know the Higgs Boson particle, when it's found, will actually turn out to be a multi-dimensional field of some sort and not a particle at all.

By the way, Yoda already found the Higgs Boson particle. His explanation of "The Force" is a near-perfect description of Higgs Boson. As Yoda says in The Empire Strikes Back:

"My ally is the Force, and a powerful ally it is. Life breeds it, makes it grow. Its energy surrounds us and binds us. Luminous beings are we, not this crude matter. You must feel the force around you, here between you, me, the tree, the rock, everywhere, yes, even between land and ship."

Did I just quote a muppet as an authority on subatomic physics? Sure did. That's because with all their high-flying scientific superiority, too many of today's particle-hunting physicists still don't know as much about the nature of the universe as a character from a fictional fantasy film.

The dead universe vs. the living universe
Why am I so harsh on these folks? The difference in view on this is a very big deal. The conventional physics point of view, you see, pretends that all units of matter in the universe are isolated and self-contained. Interactions between discrete objects are limited to a few basic field "forces" they admit to, but don't even understand: The strong nuclear force, weak nuclear force, electromagnetism and gravity, none of which are truly understood by anybody.

Describing something with formulas doesn't mean you "understand" it; it just means you can roughly model its behavior with numbers, and even then, most of those numbers don't hold up in the real world. I've never even met a scientist who can describe where the energy comes from that powers a common magnet. They literally have no answer for it other than circular logic and physics babble. A magnet is magnetic because it's magnetic, essentially. And in that total lack of understanding, physics looks a whole lot like a mathematical branch of superstition.

On the other side of the fence (where I sit), everything in the universe is connected. The nature of reality is holographic, where the whole of reality is reflected in each and every piece of it. Energy fields are ubiquitous, and they permeate our bodies and our minds. Consciousness is sacred, and free will exists. Our own thoughts and intentions are broadcast into the universe where they have a real and measurable effect on events.

Sound bizarre? It's no less strange than a refrigerator magnet, which summons a mysterious force from the ether and uses it to cling to a slippery surface, day after day, year after year, using an unexplained force that persists, even without any apparent cause.

These are the two camps of modern physics: The particle-worshippers in search of the Higgs Boson particle who believe all things in the universe are isolated from each other, and the energy-field embracers who believe all things are connected and particles are just the fleeting shadows of underlying energies.

The particle-worshippers are largely athiests and determinists who do not believe in free will or the existence of a human soul. To them, death is a finality. Their religion is founded in make-believe particles, which is why they named Higgs Boson their "God particle." To them, finding the God particle is akin to meeting their Maker.

The energy-field embracers believe in free will, human consciousness and typically some form of life after death (reincarnation or otherwise). They believe that intention is a powerful force in the universe and that thought can travel faster than the speed of light. Interestingly, recent research in the field of quantum mechanics has already confirmed the ability of the universe to move information from one point to another faster than the speed of light (a phenomenon that conventional physicists insist is impossible).

Luminous beings are we, not this crude matter, says Yoda. But modern-day particle physicists are still hunting for crude matter. They're looking for the wrong thing, and that's why all the supercolliders in the world will never reveal the answers they're looking for!

The nature of the universe is far more holistic and enlightened than most modern-day scientists can even dare to imagine. They can document the particle decay tracks of every collision of every proton from now to eternity and still not understand the simple truths about the true nature of our universe.

A practicing Buddhist monk knows more about the nature of reality than a conventional subatomic physicist, and he didn't have to spend ten billion dollars in order to catch a glimpse of enlightenment.

Remember this quote from Confucius: "The hardest thing of all is to find a black cat in a dark room, especially if there is no cat."

If you really want to realize just how ignorant modern-day physicists are about the natural of the universe, just realize that even according to their own research, they can't even detect 96% of the stuff the universe is made of! That's because 96% of the universe is made of so-called "dark matter" or "dark energy," which are really just terms that mean "we have no freaking idea what's out there!"

Why we should support more funding for the sciences
It doesn't mean they should be looking, of course. If we're 96% ignorant about the stuff in the universe right now, the only way to map new territory is to keep exploring. And with that thought, I want to be really clear that I strongly support increases in funding for science research in America, and I strongly disagree with the Bush Administration's cuts of science funding. Under the Bush Administration, America invested in war, not science, and we've lost our footing on the science front. The age of America leading the sciences is now history, and that's shameful.

Basic education in mathematics and the sciences has plummeted to an all-time low in America, and in public schools, those interested in science at all are considered unpopular geeks. In the 1950's, science was cool; today it's considered nerdy. That's a shame, too, because science really is cool, and we live in a strange society, indeed, when being socially popular in school requires you to act like a dumbsh!t in front of your peers.

But as much as I support increases in science funding, I simultaneously believe scientists have got to get past their Newtonian mindset and start expanding the areas of politically-correct investigation. Too many realms of possible scientific investigation are censored these days, including the study of medicinal herbs, alternative cancer cures or even scientists who dare mention the phrase "intelligent design" in questioning Darwinian evolution as a valid explanation for the origin of the species. That's a whole different article, of course, and I'm not saying natural selection doesn't work -- clearly it does -- but for scientists to proclaim that Darwinian evolution explains the ORIGIN of all life is stunningly obtuse.

When it comes to the origin of life in our universe, conventional scientists are just as clueless about it as they are about magnets: Nobody really knows. The best-noted scientists like Dawkins actually say that aliens may have brought us to life!

It's actually a plausible theory, by the way. But then who brought the aliens to life? I'll cover this in another article about evolution vs. intelligent design, but I just wanted to point this out to show you that when it comes to offering real answers for the way things work in the universe, conventional physicists are as clueless as anybody -- they just have cooler formulas for describing all the things they still don't really understand. If you want to see an example of this, read up on the Casimir Effect (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Casimi...).

I like physicists. I've known several, and they're cool people. The really good ones are asking great questions way beyond anything I've touched on in this article. They're investigating the nature of consciousness, the holographic nature of the universe, quantum tunneling effects, the multiverse, superstring theories and all kinds of other wickedly cool areas of adventure. But sadly, they are up against a stubborn cabal of conventional, old school physicists who cling to their particle theories and their "dead" universe models that exclude the existence of anything worth living for.

You see, advanced physicists are battling against conventional physicists in the same way that naturopaths are fighting against Big Pharma and the FDA: NEW ideas are always a threat to OLD ideas (and the snobs who cling to them). Like many areas of scientific inquiry, physics only advances as quickly as the tenured guardians of the status quo retire or die. It is a strange branch of inquiry indeed when advances in understanding are dependent upon the deaths of its most notable individuals.

Humans are stubborn folk, of course. We tend to believe the stories we tell ourselves, and the older most people get, the more difficult it is for them to listen to different stories. But as stubborn as people are, the universe is more stubborn still. And its secrets, I dare say, are beyond the capacity of any single human being to fully grasp; especially if they remain limited by the soulless language of mathematics.

Mike Adams