I have some questions for a particle physicist and would appreciate a link to some quality science forums that would be useful. I also wish to hear thoughts on the bellow idea I have been formulating the past few days.

Along with physics I enjoy learning about consciousness studies and the other day while reading about carrier force particles including the Higgs boson and Higgs field I layed in bed and wondered if there was any research in the area of consciousness being a similarly hard to detect field, such as the Higgs, permeating the universe or multiverse.

The Higgs field is what gives particles mass depending on the amount of interaction with the field. The more Higgs bosons that interact with a particle the greater it’s mass. Particles such as photons and gluons, carriers of the electromagnetic force, interact so little with the Higgs field they are considered mass-less. Particles such as protons and electrons have greater mass resulting from greater interaction with the Higgs field.

If there exists this hard to detect field, the Higgs field, that are as fundamental as the 4 forces for our universe existing as we know it, do you feel it’s going too far to say that the same could be for consciousness? Could consciousness not at all reside in the mind or body as many postulate but act rather as or be a field? A field that particles interact with, consciousness is carried to and attached to the particle by a boson or other type of quark thus creating the subjective experience when those particles are part of a biological unit with intelligence.

Perhaps the new-agers were accidently right for the wrong reasons when stating that even rocks have consciousness. Particles are particles so if a rock contained some that would react with the consciousness field a rock would indeed have some level of consciousness. It would just be a form and understanding of consciousness that we aren’t use to talking about.
A rock would not have a subjective experience. If we followed that logic the more mass or particles an object contained the more conscious it would be. Intelligence and brain function would have to have quite a big role in getting from this supposed basic level of consciousness to a subjective experience if any of this was possible.

Just as gravity is so weak a force it cannot be studied in places like CERN because at the subatomic level its simply so weak its almost nonexistent. At the present level of technology the graviton seems to be sentenced to a life of theoretical-ness. Sorry lil buddy. Well in our current place in technology maybe this type of work is not yet possible.

Some M theorists postulate the reason for the absurdly vast difference in the strength of gravity compared to the other forces is because it may be stretched across the multiverses, in a sense diluting it down. If the theoretical evidence in gravitational research in the coming years shows this to be probable, and we only just hypothesized and found the Higgs field in the past 40 years, would it be crazy to entertain the fact that consciousness may also be a field that stretches across the uni or multiverse.?

Many people, some in science feel consciousness may act like a radio signal and we are just the receivers. In a not so play on words this is exactly how matter gets its mass. The Higgs field is the radio signal and particles the receiver. They receive mass.

What if evolution through adaptation evolved organism’s brains to use and create the subjective experience from consciousness just as any other part of the positive contributing attributes we have evolved such as the immune system, and procreation?

Consciousness would not only increase any organism’s chances of survival, but also its likelihood of making it into a higher intelligence animal such as dolphins, and humans rather than corals or tubeworms.

In this case I can’t think of a better or more useful part of a organisms ability to adapt and survive against competition than awareness. Even the most basic level of a subjective experience in an organism would allow the basics of intentional decisions to become possible. These two things alone would give quite a bump up in the natural world.

we are here in the now is that not enough?
experience and learn.
instead we push futher and further,with want and greed.
we developed the Hadron Collider to justify where we came from and the creation of the god particle.
and if we find it?
what then.
will the secret of the universe be revealed to you and me?
millions of pounds or euros where spent on this project so scientists maybe able to answer their own questions at the risk of the innocent people.

the risks being ,in the Hadron Collider could a black hole be formed?
could time travel be discovered.
the risk to the natural order of things.

you wanna create a wormhole,do it but don,t risk anyone elses life while your trying to discover it.

First Ill state that this will be my only reply to you as to not go off topic right out of the gate.

You dont have a clue as to what your talking about.
We already found the Higgs boson aka God particle this past July.
YES, MANY of the secrets to the universe can and most likely will be revealed to humankind from the work done at CERN. THATS EXACTLY WHY IT WAS BUILT.

It was not built to make wormholes as you stated brilliantly. It bwas built to research the events of the first second of the big bang.


Any fool that still buys into that BS that the LHC could create a black hole that could cause any noticable effect beyond very fine detection let alone cause harm to th people in the region is just that. An ignorant fool. If science was so lucky as to create a black hole, which could in theory be possible but highly unlikely, its life time would exist in Plank time and be smaller than an atom.

Call it abuse of powers I dont care, if your just going to continue ramble false facts and off track this thread with this type of BS I will delete your replys. This is a science sub forum not whack job prooven false rehtoric sub forum.

I think some secrets will be revealed, but not all. That would be too easy.

There's a cool series on the ether covering this matter:

Yes, shall we stay ontopic here and leave the new age stuff and fear mongering for other sites?


Kind regards,

The Traveler

I'm no physicist so can't speak on the topic. However, I watched the following documentary earlier this year and it is of exceptional quality for the lay person. Enjoy.

but but but: if nobody here talked about neuroscience because they weren't neuroscientists, or psychology because they weren't psychologists, or chemistry because they weren't chemists, then how boring would this place be?!

but yeah that said, i agree that this is a really complex area of inquiry that is hard to even form a coherent and 'solid' thought about, much less actually talk about. But i really enjoyed the OP and many parts did resonate with my own thoughts and experiences though. I think the idea that consciousness is a field that permeates everything is an interesting idea echoed not only in many ancient traditions but also in people like stuart hermoff's work and others. as many have said before, our neural architecture might be more like a violin, and our sense of self is the sound. it might 'tune in' to consciousness..it could be that the brain is more like a telescope or lens that focuses, amplifies, or twists the underylying field into myriad forms

with all of this seperate neural activity underylying our experience it is very very odd that we have a (most of the time!) unified sense of self unless there is some sort of field phenomenon going on here

anyways anyone interested in that area will probably find this thread on Hameroff's work very interesting, which is a good description of a very complicated idea that can be difficult to wrap ones head around: https://www.dmt-nexus.me...aspx?g=posts&t=39103

ok thanks,all notes taken.
but just on a sidenote....
majority of fools thought the earth was flat.and those that where outspoken in there beleive where hunted and persucuted.

so we are gonna spend xxxx milion of dollors,pounds euros...whilste the world is in crisis to find out how the universe was created.

all to collide two two particles together?
and it will accomplish what?

no disrepect dudes,just can,t get my head round it.

The following was part of my OP but I edited it out for length. I feel the same way at times but Physics is just to darn interesting for me to not at ñleast try.

My question relates to the Higgs field as well as Higgs boson recently found completing the standard model. When you’re not a scientist it’s quite hard to find information and books at just the right level. Reading particle and quantum physics literature can be frustrating. It’s either too dumb down, using examples and analogies, that to be honest, end up being a confusing distraction to a truer understanding of the subject or far too advanced.
Books on sciences such as biology and evolution can hurt your brain with the sheer amount of facts and information, but at least the topics chosen to be discussed or explained to a non biologist is feasible, where in Physics this isn’t the case. There seems to be such vast amount of background knowledge needed for a more complete understanding of the current topics in physics today which for me is my Achilles heal. Sometimes I must use a dictionary and Google 5 or more times to get through one page.




U.C.- thanks mate for the link Dr. Hameroff and Penrose seem to be leading the research in this new science. Ive heard him speak once and have read a few of his papers on consciousness. His current focus is whether or not microtublues are either the reciever or residence of consciousness I believe.

It would seem that this is a hard subject to study for sure and hats off to those that are doing it! To me the exciting thing is the possibility of particle physics entering the playing field and solving the puzzle.

My favorite quote I think Maxx Plank once said when chemistry was new emerging scientific rage in the turn of the century.
"There is physics while everything else is stamp collecting"

I feel you would understand what he meant by this. Its quite true.every hard science eventually regress to particle physics.

You do realize your working against your case with this example right? EXACTLY....thats why science wishes to not just rest on popular beliefs and religous dogmas but seeks facts and evidence by observation and experments to provide a deeper understanding of our world. Your example used is that we should be like the fools who knew the world was flat and persecute those that wish to understand further.

Correct. We sure are and its considered the single most important science experment ever in our history of a species.

Its furthering our understanding of physics by a factor of 10 at least. There has never been a more rapidly productive time in science as is going on right at this moment.

Understanding how we are anything at all is the ultimate question a species could answer. I guess thats not really big news to you but the implications of a species that someday solved the ultimate puzzle is to others. And they just happen to be the most intelligent humans on our planet.


This I will agree with you 100%. So since you cant understrand it....its just a waste of time huh? WOW. How egocentric of a perspective is this?

Of coarse they dont KNOW the outcome! If they did why build the LHC?

Now seriously...are you done? Im not replying to get into a debate im replying to show you how narrow minded and utterly ignorant your statments are so you will stop. If you have no interest in science thats great, many dont but dont enter a science conversation with your stoner sounding..."Ahhh, dude I just cant get my head around it, this is stupid", attitude. It makes you appear quite foolish.

Its also ironic as hell your user name is StillSeeking.

your quite right.

i know nothing.

i,m sorry.

..on the Topic of the Higgs-Field..
where this takes us in part to is the concept of 'fields'..
i assume the Higgs filed to be a 'Scalar Field' (.i.e a function that gives us a single value of some variable for every point in space, as opposed to a 'vector filed'
..from a technical paper on field theory:
[http://web.mit.edu/8.02t/www/802TEAL3D/visualizations/coursenotes/modules/guide01.pdf]
the brief point i'm making is that this brings us to String Theory..
.

Yes, the Higgs field is a Scalar field.

Do you mean classic string theory or its matured siblings like M theory? Plese correct me if I am wrong but i was under the understanding that the postulated explanation of graity's weakness was not until M theory. Either way please elaborate more and share your knowledge.
Thank you much.

olympus mon wrote:
..i wish i was more knowledgeable in this area..! i'm still trying to fully comprehend M-Theory, but, AFAIK, most current String Theorists work with variations of M-Theory, meaning a universe of 10 (or 11) dimensions, only 3 or 4 currently 'visible' by currently known observational methods..the geometry on a mathematically precise level of such 'imbedded' dimensions are the Calabi-Yau Manifolds (see Inner space: String theory & the universes' hidden dimensions - Yau Shing-Tung) ..but yes, this is an explantation of where much of that theoretical gravitational field lies..the thing about Scalar Fields, Gravity and the Zero-Point Energy (Vacuum Potential) is that, while seemingly 'weak' on a more micro-scale, as they permeate 'everywhere' they are in effect 'strong' universally..e.g. the Zero-Point energy, while the lowest value ever measured, drives the inflation/expansion of the whole universe..

like consciousness may be, such things are all pervasive, yet not 'material' as such, though entirely implicated in and driving the physical 'reality'..
.

Great read, OP and replies.


I was hesitant to post, as I don't really have that much to add beyond my nearly fanatical interest in this subject as of late.

My hope is to see our understanding of the measurable, physical world increase to the point where it can account for the incredible experiences of perception, thought, cognition, awareness, internal worlds, etc. It seems that any description of the way things are that lies outside of physics is easily ridiculed as lofty mysticism w/o a basis, and I can understand that. Why is it that if everything else is measurable, conscious experience isnt'?

My sort of secret hope is that if the physical world is the foundation for consciousness and most mainstream scientists seem to suggest ( though can't yet prove), that this substrate is not the activity of the brain itself. I would like very much for the conscious experience to be a pervasive component of the universe/multiverse, and I have yet to hear compelling evidence why this would not be so.. Hopefully research into the Higgs field can begin to shed light.

Heres a thought experiment: The big bang happens -> energy expands -> matter forms, cools and condenses -> habitable plantes -> life -> more advanced life w/ conscious experiences.

The end result is the same stuff as the beginning, rearranged and just further down the line. Hydrogen gas becomes people. If this is true, and it is also true that I am conscious, then doesn't this warrant investigation into the possibility that the potential for conscious experience exists in the most basic components of the universe (the newly discovered energy fields?)

This question is so very out there...


In my opinion consciousness displays itself in the wavefunction collapse. One probability is chosen out of many possibilities. That is the act of consciousness. But then, all the probabilities are also creations of consciousness.


As far as atman aka human sentience goes (which is conflated with 'consciousness' aka brahman) you do not need to delve into anything mystical or esoteric actually. Atman is the sum total of the neural interactions. The science that would eventually lead to a full description if possible is known as 'bioinformatics'.

All the atman really does is transfer information back and forth and manipulate it. Brahman on the other hand is beyond physical law, see Godel's incompleteness theorems.


Anthropocentricism has a myriad disguises. It parades itself as materialism ('consciousness only is apparent in man and all else appears inanimate, therefore man is god over everything', it parades itself as nihilism ('I cannot see a purpose to myself therefore there is no purpose to the entire universe', it parades itself as all sorts. But Brahman is absolutely untouchable and concentration on Brahman will show you that there is something that man shall submit to, willingly or unwillingly.

Speed up a glacier or continental drift and see if it doesn't look alive. Sentience is an appearance that arises when you find the right time scale to observe things in. The birth and death of a biological lifeform is just as the birth and death of a wave in the ocean - not metaphorically, not "dude that's so Zen", literally. A day in the life of a tree is a lot longer than a day in the life of a hummingbird.

This is the outcome of a boundaryless universe; to accept that the same equations are responsible for the matter content of any arbitrary block of spacetime irrespective of the block chosen.

It's Brahman all the way. Unified field

^..what's Shakti, then, out of interest..? movement vs. potential?

The thing is these frameworks are very different. One concept in the Eastern framework could refer to aspects of hundreds of individual Western concepts.

Shakti has so many analogues. Well keeping it quantum, it would be something like a probability current I guess. If Brahman is energy then Shakti is the inherently perfect flow of thermodynamics.

..the flow..cool!

I appreciate everyone's ideas here. I dont look at consciousness as spiritual, supernatural or mystical. Not in the slightest its a part of the human experience we don't fully understand and is just now being studied by good leading experts in their various scientific fields.

This reminds me of, God of the gaps argument. That being anywhere where human knowledge falls short, just insert a God or mysticism into the gap. Walla complete! But it's not complete, its still a mystery and not any more understood.

The above quote also contradicts itself. If Brahman is beyond physical laws it most certainly must be considered mystical and esoteric aka, supernatural. So yes, one must delve out of science and into mysticism if anything is beyond physics and natural laws.

Although I like the analogies given here about Braman and Atman as well as what they represent, they really are just different labels of consciousness and neuro activity in the context used here.